Showing posts with label Presidential Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential Politics. Show all posts

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Image & The Joe Biden Pick


IMAGE & THE JOE BIDEN PICK

Sure, Joe Biden brings a great deal to an Obama-Biden ticket. Biden brings all those years of working in D.C., extensive knowledge about foreign affairs, and a long record of working with respected colleagues and dreaded trolls from the dark side of the moon. But let’s face it, folks: Uncle Joe also brings his big mouth, which, at times, suffers from chronic, verbal diarrhea. Also Uncle Joe, as much as I like the guy and agree with the choice, brings some mess-ups from yore that will probably resurface for a cycle or two in the media smear machine.

The most important element, though, that Biden brings to the ticket involves image dynamics. The elder, grey-haired Biden helps to neutralize those skeptics (and thought-disordered folks) that think Senator Obama is too young or too inexperienced for the job. Moreover, the rather lively, you-talk-too-much-and-sometimes-you-never-shut-up Joe serves as an effective contrast to Senator McCain who frequently comes off as tired, as slow-moving, as tripping over his tele-prompted words, and, quite frankly, as old. And by no means do I mean disrespect to Senator McCain who has heroically served our country with distinction. This is why I suspect that the ever dapper, the ever sexy locks, porn-star-named Mitt Romney will do image justice to a McCain ticket.

The fact of the matter is that far too many Americans are NOT willing to educate themselves. They avoid learning policy differences, how to vote in their best interests, and what matters most to their futures and the future of their country. The medium is the massage, after all. Image dictates a lot more than meets the eye, and in this presidential race image might even matter more.

And The Winner of the Dem. Veepstakes Is...



Barack Obama has chosen Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. They are set to appear today (Saturday Aug. 23) at 3 PM EDT at a rally in Springfield, Ill. where Obama began his campaign 19 months ago.

Discuss...

Friday, August 22, 2008

American Prayer





As those of us who have been glued to presidential primary news, especially blogs such as this one, Obama has had several music videos made endorsing his campaign.

Released this week is the latest and, in my opinion, the most moving one. It is a song featuring lyrics by Brit Dave Stewart (of Eurythmics fame). It features many other singers and actors, and also has clips of MLK, Jr's powerful and moving speeches.

The video is approximately five minutes long and is in black and white (there is no need to adjust your set). Click here to get to the link and watch the music video which also includes Stewart's reasoning behind the song and other tidbits.

P.S.: Before the McCain supporters start in again about how Obama is a celebrity, yada yada, etc. and so on, I do want to point out that at least Barack did not whore himself out like McCain did in this clip from the blockbuster Wedding Crashers. Either McCain doesn't know the meaning of the word celebrity or Alzheimer's has already set in on the ol' fella.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Back in the USSR?


Growing up, I received advice from my father. You know, the usual what to do if I ever had mechanical problems on the long drive between my college town of Orono and home, how to throw pitches other than the the typical three thrown by most softball pitchers and how to read opposing batters, be respectful of elders, be polite, and other things.

One thing that I remember him talking about has come to the forefront in light of Russia's recent invasion of its neighbor Georgia. When I was in elementary school, the Cold War was still ablaze and my father, while not working directly for the government or a branch of the military, worked for General Dynamics/Electric Boat Division in Groton. Because of his job and his age (my dad is part of the "bomb shelter" generation), he was interested in and kept abreast of the political situations between our country and allies and the Soviets and their allies. During this time, our school routinely had "evacuation drills" in case of nuclear attack. (If you are not familiar with SE Connecticut, please note that within a 20-mile radius, there are two nuclear power plants, the largest submarine builder in the world (Electric Boat), Dow Chemical, Pfizer Pharmaceutical, a Coast Guard Academy, a US Navy submarine school, Sonalysts (they make state-of-the-art sonar equipment and many other things, and a Hess gas/oil storage facility to name a few important things.)

After one of these drills, I asked my dad about these drills. He rattled off the list above, we talked about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and, weirdly, he quoted Nostradamus. This last item perplexed me as my dad, while educated, is a "man's man" and did not talk about things like predictions and "what may be", like horoscopes and fortune telling. He told me that Nostradamus basically predicted that our country's biggest enemy and problem would be "the bear from the north". Naturally, I am paraphrasing for brevity, but you get the picture.

This "prediction" has come up many times over the years and, most recently, came up this week as Russia invade and fired upon the country of Georgia and its people. My father and I watched a news update as we saw Georgia's capital taken hostage and its people and journalists fired upon by the Russian army. The "conflict" is over "finger-pointing" between the countries over who is responsible for the "ethnic cleansing" in South Ossetia. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are taking a hard line with Georgia as Chimpy and Condi try to cater to them and get them to gently back down, without hurting the Russian government's feelings. Despite a cease-fire brokered by the European Union, Russia is still taking a hard line in Georgia at this writing.

Some people are shocked; my dad and I are not. Did everyone, including the White House, miss when Putin's presidential term was over that he basically picked his successor and then named himself prime minister? Ummm.... it has been a while since I have taken a Political Science class, but isn't that what people in a dictatorship do?

Russia still has a great deal of military fire power and, if need be, they could roll over its smaller neighbors and take control of more. Did everyone miss how the Russians are gobbling up rights to certain land areas in the north that are considered to hold untapped oil reserves? Did everyone miss when Medvedev publicly announced that "Georgia won't go unpunished" and called the Georgian government "morons"? I am not saying that I know the whole story, but the way the Russian are going about things smacks of "something ain't right here".

The signs of this Georgian takeover (or something like it) have been there for some time, and Bush has elected to, as usual, go on some "road trip" (in this case the Olympics) instead of doing his job. We need to ask Obama and McCain what they are going to do if elected. The problem in the former Soviet Union is not going away anytime soon and I feel safe saying that Bust won't take care of it either. In any case, Americans should arm themselves with the knowledge that is out there regarding this crisis and keep an eye on it.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Dem's VP's: The Elimination Game

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 8/20/08

On Monday, over at Presidential Politics for America, I used the Democratic Convention speaker schedule to eliminate all but three scheduled speakers (Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson) from VP contention. I then added one unscheduled speaker (Wesley Clark) to the list to come up with the final four VP candidates for the Democratic ticket.

A finalist that the media seems hell-bent on pushing is Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, so I should quickly address why he's not on this list. First, next Wednesday, when the Vice-Presidential nominee will formally accept the nomination, the convention will make foreign policy its theme. Tim Kaine has no experience in that area. It would be an awkward fit, and the DNC could easily have avoided this by making Tuesday about foreign policy and Wednesday about the economy or the environment, instead of vice versa. Another strike against Kaine's chances is Mark Warner, a fellow Virginian, being named as the Convention keynote speaker. It would be highly unorthodox for two Virginians to give the major speech on successive nights (which also eliminated Jim Webb, if he wasn't already eliminated in your mind for other reasons). Finally, Tim Kaine himself has said that he thinks he's been awarded the silver medal of the veepstakes. So there you have it.

This solidified my final four: Bayh, Biden, Clark, and Richardson.

So which of the Final Four will it be? As the speculation continues with the convention a week away, here's a quick look at the pros and cons of each:

Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Pros: Centrist enough for moderate Republicans; Is popular among remaining disenfranchised Clinton supporters; Is a Democrat in a largely Republican state; Serves on Armed Services Committee;
Cons: Too centrist for Democrats?; The least gravitas of the Final Four; Would be spun as a great pick by the pundits, but otherwise won't cause a buzz among the average voter like the others.

Senator Joe Biden (Delaware)
Pros: The expert of the party on foreign policy and international; One of the biggest critics of an unpopular President; Compliments Obama's inexperience; Would perform very well in the VP debate; Has proven presidential aspirations.
Cons: Is vocal enough to turn off a lot of voters; Useless geographically; His selection could be perceived as Obama being too inexperienced, making Biden look like the chaperone of the ticket.

Former General Wesley Clark
Pros: Supreme Commander NATO Allied Forces from 1997-2000; Gravitas like Biden, but much more respected amongst Republicans; Highly decorated officer; Perfect attack dog on McCain for all things military; Assuages fears that Obama is too green.
Cons: No political experience; A beginning Democrat; Like Biden, his VP nomination might imply that Obama is inexperienced.

Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
Pros: Wins over Latino's, crucial in New Mexico and Florida; Executive experience as governor; Helpful knowledge as former Secretary of Energy; Foreign policy experience as U.S. ambassador to the U.N; Congressional experience as former House member.
Cons: Had a stagnant presidential campaign; Lacks a presence in public forums; Unexpected support of Obama over former ally Clinton would look fishy if Richardson is appointed #2; Two minorities on the ticket is playing with fire.

However, shortly after I narrowed it down to four, there has been yet another development. Yesterday, Joe Biden plainly told a group of reporters that he wasn't "the guy." So the Final Four has become the Final Three: Bayh, Clark, and Richardson.

Who next to eliminate?

Well, as unfair and politically incorrect as it may be, it's highly unlikely that the Democrats, when the consensus is that this election is theirs for the taking, will nominate two minorities on the same ticket. A half-black and Latino running together would be an enormous roll of the dice. That eliminates Richardson.

And then there were two...

Senator Evan Bayh and former General Wesley Clark remain. However, the media doesn't even consider Clark a finalist. I don't consider myself media until I get a check in the mail for my work. However, believe it or not, the media has better sources than I do. If nothing is leaking about Clark being vetted, than it's probably not him.

That leaves one. The Democratic vice-presidential nominee will be Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Still, I can't help but wonder "Why not Clark?" Indeed, if I were kaing decisions for the Democrats, Wesley Clark would be my pick to round out the ticket. To see my reasoning, check out Presidential Politics for America tomorrow.

Until next week...

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Seriously Flip' Floppin' on VP

Now I'm back to Wesley Clark. Honestly. For an explanation, check Presidential Politics for America on Monday, and don't forget to start checking Wednesdays on 1% More Conscious for Weekly Presidential Politics.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Lord, I'm a Flip-Floppin' Man

The Democratic nominee for Vice-President will be Joe Biden. Or Evan Bayh. Or Wesley Clark. No, Joe Biden. Explanation to come on Monday, when Presidential Politics for America returns.

Also returning: for the first time since June 11, Weekly Presidential Politics on 1% More Conscious!

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

It's Over

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 6/11/07

(IC note: This blog has been dormant far too long. Indeed, I haven't even posted here since February, with my "Explaining Limbaugh" column. Therefore, I've decided to run one of my recent blog posts from Presidential Politics for America. Enjoy.)

It's over. History has been made. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

Yet, with all of the stories that slowly trickled in last week - the seventeen senate superdelegates, Clyburn, Carter, Clinton ready to concede, Clinton letting go staff, Clinton not conceding, Clinton wanting to meet face to face with Obama, Clinton interested in VP, Obama only interested in offering the VP if Clinton declines - it was easy to forget the big picture.

This was an historic event on several levels.

First, the magnitude of this upset is unparalleled in modern primary politics. Hillary Clinton, a lion in the Senate, with a 25-point lead in 2007 for the Democratic nomination, and with her spouse as the most popular member of the party and perhaps the most popular politician in the country, was beaten by a dark-skinned, mixed-race, first-term U.S. Senator with a Muslim sounding name who was just over two years removed from state politics when he declared for the United States presidency. Read that sentence again.

Second, the story everyone is talking about. For the first time in this country's history, a non-white has been nominated for President by a major political party. As an extension, if Obama wins on November 4th, he will be the first person with at least 50% African heritage to be the President of any country in Western Civilization (Europe, North America, South America).

Third, finally, and most important to me, I have to turn to a Hillary Clinton quote from last night. Who would have thought that it would be Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, who could put forth the quote of the contest? I have been following this primary for 18 months and in her speech last night, Clinton had my favorite line of the primary. Nothing sums up the ground breaking experience of the 2008 Democratic Primary better than a snippet of her simple prose. I know it's not Shakespeare, Jefferson, Glenn Cheney, or Dylan. I know it's clichéd. I know it seems obvious looking back on it. But she said it, and she's absolutely right.

"...we saw millions of Americans registering to vote for the first time, raising money for the first time, knocking on doors, making calls, talking to their friends and neighbors, mothers and fathers lifting their little girls and their little boys on to their shoulders and whispering,

"'See, you can be anything you want to be.'"


The crowd erupted, as it should have. Young minorities and young girls who saw the Democratic Primary come down to a woman and a black man must have been inspired. Our society isn't perfect. We haven't torn down all the barriers. We haven't convinced all the racists and misogynists of their archaic and misguided thoughts, and through aesthetic affirmative action, we've even gone too far in the opposite direction at times...

But those young girls and minorities haven't experienced any of that yet. They're new and innocent and untouched by the evils of prejudice and thoughtless malevolence. The most publicized and talked about news event of their young lives had a black man and white woman vying for the nomination of the Democratic Party. I don't think we can yet accurately predict the far-reaching effect this one political event will have on the next generation, but we can hope that the very best was taken from it.

And as we wave good-bye to the last few pre-19th Amendment seniors, as the generation that grew up in pre-Civil Rights slowly fades away, as the memory of the George Wallace south diminishes, and as my generation of Rodney King, OJ Simpson, and affirmative action begins its exit in a few decades, the generation of watching Clinton-Obama with wide eyes and big dreams will take our place. It was Dr. King's dream and it's becoming a reality.

So yes, the Democratic Primary is over, but it might not be the only thing that is. Over is the time where we walk into an election cycle with full confidence that we will see a white man vying against a white man to lead a country that is half female and steadily growing less white. Over is the time where we discount a candidate's viability because of the way they look. Over is the time where a girl or a black child gives up on their dream to hold the highest office in the land because of what they see when they look in the mirror.

It's over.

So I apologize if you checked into Presidential Politics for America this morning and wanted to see me break down numbers (unnecessary) or finish off my Barack Obama Veepstakes (Friday) or preview Obama-McCain (all summer). I just had to take a minute with a wide-angle lens and appreciate what we've experienced. I urge you to do the same.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Bowling for Balance

Bowling for Balance

If you haven’t already, you must check out “Bowling 1, Health Care 0,” the op-ed piece by Elizabeth Edwards in today’s The New York Times.

In this essay, Mrs. Edwards beautifully examines “the candidates [she] saw; the campaign [we] see.” In other words, folks, the mainstream media frames, selects, emphasizes, de-emphasizes the “news” fit to print about the ’08 election to suit their agendas—they are controlling everything.

This is MSM therapy and it’s scary. But what’s even scarier is how in the MSM meta-narrative soap operas, we have the same cast of actors/cheerleaders/analysts/and of course, the likes of Jabba, the Fart—Rush Limbaugh, media-created “authorities” who are more about imposing their views rather than simply conveying the news. It’s an ugly, incestuous crew and they pretty much say the same things. Why, oh why, does Smucker Carlson get booted from a news network, get fired from a job, get a show canceled, only to land on his feet yet again as some sort of analyst? Let’s face it: bow-tie loser boy sucks. And we don’t need Jon Stewart to tell us this again.

Check out “Bowling 1, Health Care O” to cure yourselves from the mega doses of MSM therapy; after all, the first step of recovery involves an admission of powerlessness—and this is precisely the case when it comes to what the MSM feeds us.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Explaining Limbaugh

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 2/20/07

One has to wonder, when Rush Limbaugh previewed and framed a potential John McCain nomination as a precursor to a "fracture" in the Republican Party, did he intend for it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I will not use this space to analyze Limbaugh's animus towards McCain, nor will I appraise his intent. I will, however, examine the possibility that if the Republican Party does indeed split upon McCain's official ascension to Republican nominee, would McCain have any shot of winning the White House? And if not, can we not assume that Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and co., whom despite being inarguably self-promotive and agenda-driven are brilliant and talented pundits, knew they were hurting the Republicans' November chances when they made their audacious attacks against Arizona's Senior Senator? If so, is the conservative base planning to punt the 2008 general election, hoping to hand off a sliding economy, an acrimonious international relationship, an increasingly hostile Muslim world, and a perilously prodigious debt to the Democrats, in hopes of licking their wounds and coming back strong with, say, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich in 2012? And if that's the case, do the Limbaugh's and Hannity's of the world really think it is crucial to keep a Republican in the Oval Office after all?

Let us start at the beginning. Thanks to weeks of consistent and calculated comments from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter, an unusually incohesive Republican Party was experiencing a prelude to a civil war. It would pit the social conservative base, flanked by the conservative media, against everyone else who called themselves a Republican, which meant social conservatives, moderates, war hawks, and red-staters caught in blue states - blue states which very much play a role in the nomination process of the Republican Party. There are shades of the English Civil War, when Anglicans and Catholics teamed up to take on all comers.

The aim of the social conservatives was to rally enough Republican support around Mitt Romney before McCain opened up too large of a lead in pledged delegates. To this end, they failed. Miserably. Romney won less than a third of McCain's delegates and pulled out of the race soon thereafter. At that point, the two Republican candidates that Rush Limbaugh continually denounced, McCain and Mike Huckabee, were the only two viable candidates that remained.

Now, all of a sudden, Huckabee isn't looking too bad, despite his fiscally and executively liberal (for a Republican) tendencies. When compared to McCain, conservatives drool over Mike Huckabee. It probably explains why Huckabee forges on in a race he cannot win. He is the last hope of Republicans who cannot bear to see McCain represent their party. Despite his success in the states below the Mason-Dixon line, however, Huckabee has no realistic avenue to victory.

Here's what political pundits cannot escape, though: We knew Huckabee could only compete in the southern states. We knew Mitt Romney could not compete with McCain in the big ones. Surely, if amateur bloggers are predicting the Republican race since New Hampshire and South Carolina, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity must have seen it coming, too.

Why, then, did they move forward with the assault on McCain? Surely they realized that verbal attacks on McCain's conservatism would hurt McCain's chances in November, and, by extension, hurt the chances of the Republican Party. Only one conclusion can be drawn.

They do not want a member of the Republican Party to be sworn in upon President Bush's exit on January 20th. The Republican Bush Administration, and for 3/4 of their stay in Washington, a Republican Congress, saw a steady downfall in approval both from the American people and foreign countries from all continents. The reasons were loud and clear.

A rash and incautious war with poor results has produced more tentacles of terror on a headless foe. Irresponsible spending from the self-proclaimed fiscally faithful party has produced an outrageous debt never before seen in history, perhaps irrevocably damaging the United States economy. These policies have concussed the working class to the point where even our ever-optimistic President must admit we are in uncertain economic times. The median salary falls while the number of millionaires and billionaires grow. The United States is still tending to fractured relationships with foreign allies who stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. as 2001 came to a close, only to steadily put distance between themselves and the unrelentingly bellicose world superpower.

The next President faces these challenges and more. Is it at all possible that the Republican base wants no part of a battle that is, at best, uphill, and, at worst, a brick wall? In fact, from a Republican perspective, either a Democrat inherits this mess and fails, or McCain inherits this mess and fails. Either way, in four years, while the U.S. and the world are still shattered in partisan and precarious pieces, Republicans put up a strong social conservative who claims to be the broom.

If this is truly their intent - to sacrifice 2008 in order to regain power in 2012 - one can only wonder how much they really do want an established presence in Iraq. One can only wonder how much they really do want President Bush's tax cuts to stay in place. One can only wonder if they really worry about the impending Supreme Court retirements and appointments that could overturn Roe. One can only wonder how sincerely they believe that the growing Islamo-fascist threat must be dealt with through concentrated and unilateral force.

Because if these issues were truly as imperative and paramount as they claim, how can they possibly live with themselves if they split their party and allow a Democrat in the west wing of the White House? It is as monstrously mindless as it is myopic, though Democrats might argue that such a characterization of the Republican Party is neither surprising nor new. Even more would argue that partisan games are being played with the future of this country.

The attitude of the Republican base is ultimately as defeatist as they accuse their ideological adversaries of being in foreign policy. To them, the November 2008 elections will produce no winners, just someone who gets more votes.





(IC is a bi-weekly contributor to 1% More Conscious. He blogs almost daily at his website Presidential Politics for America.)

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

It's Over for the Republicans

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 1/30/07


Well, Presidential Politics for America predicted last year, re-predicted before Iowa, reaffirmed it after South Carolina, and explained it a week ago today. So it was already over. But now it's reeeeeally over.

John McCain's Florida victory and ensuing endorsement from Rudy Giuliani, has relegated the rest of the Republican Primary to window dressing. While it can be expected that Mitt Romney is nowhere close to bowing out, for reasons to be explained soon, there is nothing left in the party that can stop the Straight Talk Express.

Let's take a look at the top 10 reasons McCain will win Super Tuesday and the nomination.

1. He has the lead in the delegate count, so he has horse race coverage going for him, not to mention the remaining undecided voters who want to support the eventual winner.
McCain - 93
Romney - 59
Huckabee - 40

2. He and Romney have each won three states to Huckabee's one, but one of Romney's was Wyoming.

3. McCain has won the last two states, South Carolina and Florida, to obtain all momentum.

4. Before those two states, many conservatives pointed to the fact that McCain was only doing well because of crossover appeal to open primaries. Both South Carolina and Florida were states where only registered Republicans could vote in the Republican Primary.

5. McCain is commonly regarded as the Republican with the best chance to win the general election, especially against Hillary Clinton. This cannot be underestimated, as the Republican Party is much better than their counterparts at casting aside differences in order to win elections.

6. The Rudy Giuliani endorsement consolidates almost total power among hawkish foreign policy voters. They are the same type of candidate, minimizing social issues important to the party in favor of prioritizing, you know, being alive to bicker about these social issues. This brings over the 10-15% of the country still leaning towards Giuliani. This also eases the decision for voters' undecided between the two.

7. Knocking out Giuliani and earning his endorsement sews up California (174 delegates) and New York (101), each are winner-take-all Super Tuesday states. Those two states will widen the lead to what will seem insurmountable.

8. Unlike Romney, Huckabee has left his gloves on when it comes to challenging McCain's recent spike in support. He's refused to significantly attack McCain on any issue, either in debates or ads. Instead, Huckabee has actually washed McCain in praise. It is a real possibility Huckabee is campaigning for the Vice-Presidency.

9. There might even be a wink and a nod between the two campaigns. As long as Huckabee stays in, he's siphoning votes away from Romney's social conservative base. As much as Giuliani dropping out helps McCain, Huckabee staying hurts Romney. If it was just down to McCain vs. Romney, it'd be a spectacular battle between the foreign policy conservatives and social moderates vs. the base of the Republican Party.

10. While the conservative media (Fox News, Limbaugh and co.) will do all they can to rally conservatives around Romney, the mainstream and liberal media will cover every McCain triumph and like doing it, because they've always been find of McCain.

Still, if there's any hope that this still goes to a brokered convention, it's that some time between now and Super Tuesday, conservatives will do their very best to rally around Mitt Romney. If they had any pause about supporting him because he was a Mormon or because he had a history of saying liberal things or because he was spending too much money and still losing, those will all go by the way side. Any social conservative supporting Huckabee, who now realizes not only does Huckabee have no chance to win, but he might even be on McCain's side in this, will go to Romney.

It will turn into a zero-sum contest between McCain and Romney, with the other candidates doing very little the rest of the way. McCain's national numbers will go into the 40's, Romney's into the 30's. Rush Limbaugh and conservative radio will rail against McCain for a week, bringing up McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman and the rest of McCain's maverick tendencies to remind the Republican Party why they did not nominate him in 2000. Romney will see a lot of conservative money for the next week with promises of more to come. He'll combine that cash with his own wealth and blitzkrieg the airwaves across the country in order to subdue McCain's vote tally on February 5th.

But none of that will work. John McCain is going to win the nomination. The party will rally around him after this is evident. Then they will sit and wait for the Democrats to find someone to go up against him.

See you next week. (Remember that I blog every weekday over at Presidential Politics for America.)

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Presidential Power Rankings (Part 2)

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 1/16/07


First, feel free to quench your thirst for presidential politics over at my blog, Presidential Politics for America. Over there today I'm breaking down last night's Michigan results and there will be many more things to talk about leading up to Nevada and South Carolina, including an impending Republican brokered convention, Clinton and Obama on the same ticket (specifically how it's not going to happen), Edwards potential to choose the Democratic nominee, and much more.

Now, on to the conclusion of the Presidential Power Rankings, which began last Friday. Remember, these are the rankings for most likely to be the next President.


3. Hillary Clinton - I really don't like her chances in a general election, but she's got a 50/50 shot at being a nominee, and only one other person of either party can say that. If she somehow lucks into a contest against Huckabee or Romney, she should win the election when VP nominee Richardson brings over New Mexico and Florida and the rest of the electoral map stays the same.

In the Democratic nomination process, the Obama-Clinton duel is the definition of a toss up. Clinton currently holds solid leads in national polls, but it'll be a close race in Nevada this Saturday, which gives Obama more credibility. Then Obama will win South Carolina to further dig into Clinton's national lead which Senator Obama has been softening since the end of December.

When it comes time for Super Tuesday, Obama will have a small lead in the delegate count. The national polls will then be about as reliable the infamous New Hampshire polls, meaning either one has a legit shot at coming out on top, and in the unlikely event that one of them dominates (note: this domination could only be from Clinton and her strength in NY, NJ, and California), the race is alive at least until March 4th.

2. John McCain - Last night's Michigan loss was disappointing, but by no means backbreaking. Simply, a Michigan win would have put McCain in position for a South Carolina win. Those two wins would have resulted in a runaway McCain nomination. All the second place finish means is that McCain's road to victory becomes a bit more difficult. South Carolina is a three-way race with Huckabee and Romney. The winner of that will be the leader heading into Super Tuesday, but as long as McCain doesn't finish at a distant third, he will remain the favorite.

Ultimately, McCain is the candidate that the Republican Party can rally around easiest. For eight years, he's been the third most visible face of the party, after President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. He's been at the front of a war that is still popular with Fox News and the party. He led a troop surge which has quelled violence. He has a record that is more conservative than many think, though isolated maverick forays like McCain-Feingold have always been a trademark considered undesirable in the Republican Party.

In a general election, John McCain is the favorite over Hillary Clinton. With Republicans coming out in full force to vote against Clinton, the Democratic ire of the last five years will be negated and they'll break even with voters registered with one of the two parties. Then it becomes a battle for the center, and Independents love McCain, while Clinton's unfavorables among non-Democrats are notorious. With John Edwards' non-viability, there's only one candidate from the Democratic Party that can compete against McCain in a general election.

1. Barack Obama - The 2008 general election will be won in the middle, in between the trenches. No candidate since Clinton appeals to the moderates of this country like Barack Obama does now. His continuing rhetoric about making America whole again appeals to every Independent and moderate who could not bring themselves to join the bitter partisanship that has developed in this country since the 1994 Republican revolution. Obama has untapped potential to attract moderate and young voters, meaning he could defeat almost any Republican that the GOP nominates.

Almost.

Only two things stand in the way of Senator Obama getting the chance to transform the nation from the Oval Office: the two people above him on this list. Enough has been written about the Clinton-Obama duel. What could shape up to be a very interesting general election is Obama vs. McCain. It's hope vs. reality. Rhetoric vs. straight talk. Liberal vs. conservative. Domestic agenda vs. foreign policy. It's the yin vs. yang of America, and you couldn't pick two better candidates to represent the balance and articulate their side. Moreover, they are the two candidates that most appeal to the center. The two candidates have the integrity to only speak to the issues and have a great debate about the direction this country needs to go.

There's a lot to look forward to and a lot still left to analyze, but no matter the results, we're in for a treat.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Presidential Power Rankings

Weekly Presidential Politics - 1/11/07

It's been three weeks since my last post on here, but for good reason. Over at my site, Presidential Politics for America, I've made a weekday post everyday since December 3rd, which, coupled with my job, has kept me too busy to guest write on this fantastic blog.

Therefore, upon my return today, there's a lot of catching up to do. I will thus address every candidate in the most eye-pleasing way - list form! Here are the Power Rankings for the race to the White House, ranking each remaining candidate in likelihood of being our next President, beginning with the least likely.

T8 - Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter - One chance in a thousand... combined.

7. John Edwards - If he won Iowa, he'd be in this list's top 3, and if nominated, Edwards would actually have the greatest chance of any potential nominee of winning the general election. However, he neither won Iowa nor does he have a realistic shot at the nomination. Therefore, the reason less attractive general election candidates like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are ahead of him on this list is that at least they have a path to their party's nomination.

6. Mitt Romney - Although incredibly unlikely, it's easy to see how Romney can make a run at the Republican nomination, you just have to look really, really hard. Michigan votes this Tuesday and unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are still awarding the state delegates despite its controversial move into January. Born in Michigan and polling near the top in Michigan polls, it's not out of the question that Romney's last financial push will win the state, thus reviving his campaign and influx of contributors. If he does in fact win Michigan this Tuesday, he'll be up in the delegate count, and would be working off two firsts (Michigan, Wyoming) and two seconds (Iowa, New Hampshire). Then he's a South Carolina victory away from being the frontrunner. So what's the problem with this feasible scenario? He needs to win both.

5. Mike Huckabee - Huckabee has an easier path to the nomination than Romney. Michigan, like New Hampshire, is top three territory for Huckabee. He needed to Iowa, which he did, and he needs to win South Carolina. In between, "as-expecteds" will work just fine, and he's right on pace with his strategy. He can't be ranked as highly as Giuliani for a couple reasons. First, with a problem that Giuliani actually shares - there's a significant portion of the Republican Party that does not want Huckabee nominated. In fact, his potential nomination has driven many Reagan alum to support McCain before it's too late.

His second shortcoming for this Power Ranking is that, despite haveing as good of a chance as Giuliani to win the nomination, his chances in the general election are decidedly lower. His appeal to social conservatives is what is pushing him in this race, but his background as a Baptist minister will make Democrats nervous and give Independents enough unease that they'll opt for a new party in the White House.

4. Rudy Giuliani - Remember him? Remember he was leading all national polls by double digits? Now, while technically competitive within a few points nationally (of Huckabee and McCain) Giuliani is locked in slowly degrading polling numbers. The man is clinging to relevance and viability, but make no mistake, he is still relevant and viable. If he can hold national poll numbers around 20% by Super Tuesday, he will be thrust into the lead thanks to California, New York, and New Jersey, and then use that enormous bounce to push to the other primaries. However, if he continues to fall with each early primary, putting him in low double digits by February 5th, the leading Republican candidate at the time should catch him in those big states and end the Giuliani campaign.

If Giuliani were to win the nomination, he is a viable force in a general election. His moderation on social issues, which, to his credit, he never strayed too far from in his quest for the nomination, makes him palatable to anyone who doesn't want to support the Democratic nominee (a determining factor if the Democrats nominate Clinton). There's a large bloc of voters who want them kept safe and think Giuliani's the guy to do it. After that, social issues are secondary. This has always been Giuliani's greatest apparent strength as a candidate and it has the potential to get him to November.


Check back for my normal Wednesday post to see the top 3. They won't be impacted regardless of the results of Tuesday's Michigan Primary. And don't forget to keep up with the more frequent postings at Presidential Politics for America.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

One Sentence on Each Republican Candidate

Weekly Wednesday Presidential Politics - 12/19/07


Here is one sentence on each Republican candidate that should get you up to speed if your temporary residence this month has been next door to a megadrile.

Rudy Giuliani - He's giving up on all of the early states to concentrate on Florida, which would set up Super Tuesday, reminding us of an adage regarding eggs and a solitary basket.

Mike Huckabee - Contrarily to Giuliani, Huckabee is putting nearly all his efforts into the early primaries, counting on the momentum to roll over into Florida and Super Tuesday, reminding us of an old adage about a hare.

Duncan Hunter - Hunter reminds us of a tortoise, the reason for which has nothing to do with an old adage.

John McCain - McCain has temporarily taken the headline wars from Huckabee, earning numerous newspaper significant endorsements as well as one from party-crossing Joe Lieberman, which should excite independents who can vote in the Republican primary.

Ron Paul - He picks up about a point every month, which means if this election is held in 2047... he has a shot.

Mitt Romney - Romney's starting to throw some jabs at Huckabee, but if Romney doesn't make up ground by the end of the week, expect to see some right hooks starting on December 26th, Boxer Day. (Even I was taken aback at my cleverness there.)

Tom Tancredo - Speaking of Romney, if he doesn't win Iowa, he can still win New Hampshire, which keeps him alive to fight until Super Tuesday.

Fred Thompson - Wouldn't making Die Hard 5 be more fun?

(Note: I'm writing a post every workday over at Presidential Politics for America.)

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Iowa Updates

Weekly Presidential Politics - 12/12/07

(Note, over at Presidential Politics for America, I am doing daily updates regarding the upcoming Iowa Caucus)

Here are the two major Iowa polls released this past weekend. This clearly frames the upcoming week into two main stories.
1) Huckabee vs. Romney in an elimination caucus.
2) Clinton vs. Obama, with Iowa as a microcosm.

Republicans
From Mason-Dixon (December 3-6):
Huckabee - 32
Romney - 20
Thompson - 11
McCain - 7
Giuliani - 5 (!!!)*
Undecided - 19

From Newsweek (December 5-6):
Huckabee - 39
Romney - 17
Thompson - 10
Giuliani - 9
Paul - 8
McCain - 6
Undecided - 8

Analysis on Republican polls: Both Romney and Huckabee, as well as the rest of the Republican Party, surely know this - unless Rudy Giuliani completely falls apart in national polling, there is only room for one candidate to be strong enough heading into Super Tuesday to compete on a national scale. Romney and Huckabee also know that both of their hopes rest on Iowa. A second place finish for either one is unacceptable and is a prelude to a death knell in New Hampshire.

Romney needs a victory there because he has outspent the rest of the field combined in Iowa, and to still lose despite the money advantage would be a huge hit to his credibility in the subsequent primaries. Huckabee needs a victory because his recent appeal across the country has been directly related to his surge in Iowa. If he loses Iowa, it would presumably be because Iowa voters became disillusioned with him, and if a guy like Huckabee can't win a state like Iowa, then he is not going to win a country like the United States.

*An explanation of my exclamations. Giuliani is now consistently polling single digits in Iowa, placing fourth and fifth in most polls, and going in the wrong direction to boot. The cause of this, aside from him never having a good shot to win the state anyway, is that he has pulled money, staff, and other resources away from Iowa to deploy them in states (New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina) where they would be more useful. Be prepared to hear from the Giuliani campaign that they put very little effort into Iowa, which would serve as the explanation as to why the Giuliani message did not resonate with Iowan voters.


Democrats
From Mason-Dixon (Dec. 3-6):
Clinton - 27
Obama - 25
Edwards - 21
Richardson - 9
Biden - 5
Undecided - 11

From Newsweek (Dec. 5-6):
Obama - 35
Clinton - 29
Edwards - 18
Richardson - 9
Biden - 4
Undecided - 5

Analysis on Democrat polls: Examining the most recent results of the last seven major Iowa polls (Newsweek, Mason-Dixon, Strategic Vision, Zogby, American Research Group, Des Moines Register, Rasmussen) taken in the last two weeks, Obama leads four of them, and Clinton leads three of them. If you average the results of those seven polls, Obama leads by a miniscule 1.6 percentage points, practically meaningless in the world of polling data.

What makes this tightness all the more interesting is that these are becoming two decidedly different types of candidates. Not only do they clearly identify themselves as the candidate of change (Obama) and the candidate with experience (Clinton), but in the past few weeks, they have attacked the other for basically what their opponent is touting about themselves. Obama chides Clinton as partaking in politics as usual (experience), and months ago he famously referred to her as "Bush-Cheney light." Meanwhile, Clinton consistently blasts Obama as being drastically under-experienced (change) to be the President of the United States.

These two platforms are so strikingly different, yet in Iowa, the two candidates are fascinatingly tied in polling. Though Clinton still holds double digit leads nationally, losing to Obama in Iowa when they both are putting so much effort into the state would undoubtedly help Obama and hurt Clinton in votes, momentum, money, legitimacy, and undoubtedly other categories. Of course, it would not ruin her campaign, but in a primary that is shaping up to be the closest in a generation, even a slim Iowa loss would sting a lot more than Clinton would ever let on.

(And don't forget about John Edwards.)

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

The Iowa Caucus "Second Choice" Wrinkle

Weekly Presidential Politics - 12/5/07

The recent Des Moines poll still has political America in a tizzy. Obama's roaring, Hillary's vulnerable, and Edwards is fading. Thus spake the masses.

What if I were to tell you that an Obama-Hillary-Edwards finish is just as likely as an Edwards-Hillary-Obama finish? Or an Edwards-Obama-Hillary finish, or a Hillary-Edwards-Obama victory, or, well, you get the point.

See, what's consistently overlooked when it comes to the Democratic Iowa Caucus are the interesting rules attached to the contest. These rules are unlike any other primary of either party, including the Republican Iowa Caucus. The most important of these rules is: if a candidate doesn't reach a particular threshold (percentage of votes), the votes that were going to him go to the voter's "second choice."

Example: The threshold is placed at 15% (It's usually between 15 and 25). Only the three candidates end up exceeding that threshold. Richardson gets 8%, Biden get 6%, etc. The votes intended for Richardson, Biden, et. al get scattered into the top 3, depending on the voter's second choice. (Note: The reason for this is because Iowans want to make sure their votes go their top candidates and a viable candidate, if these two aren't the same person. Not that bad of an idea, especially when you think of the Nader dilemma in 2000.) In the 2004 Iowa Caucus, for example, only John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean earned national delegates to the convention.

Okay, so, what does this mean for 2008? Well, the Des Moines Register poll revealed:
Barack Obama - 28%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
John Edwards - 23%
No one else above 9%

Say that ends up being the numbers for the Iowa Caucus itself. Those first three numbers mean that 76% of voters have chosen one of the big three, and 24% have not. Therefore, 24% of the vote is still available to be divvied up among the top 3 candidates!

Therefore, second choice is hugely important in the Iowa Caucus. The question is: Who of the Big Three is the most popular second choice of those who are voting for someone not in the top tier? Who of the top 3 has the most support beyond those who are already planning on voting for them?

This will be examined throughout the month, but I think you at least know this: It's not Hillary Clinton.

(Note: You can read more on the Iowa Caucus all month at Presidential Politics for America.)

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Republican YouTube Debate Live Blog!

Weekly Presidential Politics - 11/28/07

7:52 PM - We're coming to you live from the IC condo in Groton, CT, ready to bring live coverage of tonight's CNN/YouTube Republican debate. There's been a plethora of debates in 2007, but I don't think any have been this anticipated. Finally, the American people get a shot at a floundering Republican Party.

I have no idea how the live blog will go. I've done a couple in the past, but they are almost always too verbose. I'll have to limit either the length or number of posts. Feel free to leave comments throughout the debate! The record is 63 comments. The low is 0.

Stay tuned!

7:58 - Three things I expect tonight: 1) First-tier candidates taking a shot at Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas. 2) Five candidates claim they're like Ronald Reagan. 3) Tom Tancredo will find an immigrant in the audience and kill him with his bare hands.

8:03 - Governor Crist (R-Fl) just had the first audition for the VP slot on the Republican ticket!

8:05 - Anderson Cooper is the Ryan Seacrest of politics, am I right? Frankly, I don't know which one I just insulted.

8:12 - First question and Giuliani gets hit on immigration. Mayor Rudy and Presidential Candidate Rudy are verrrry far apart from each other on immigration. About as far apart as New York City and El Paso.

8:16 - Yes! Romney and Giuliani are going at it during the first question! These guys will be the last two standing in February folks. Pay attention. The best part is they're both spinning and perpetuating an issue that makes both of them look bad. Ladies and gentlemen... your Republican frontrunners!

8:18 - Fred Thompson just got an absolute softball on immigration to smack out of the park and he did so.

8:19 - Okay, I'm giddy here. Thompson just took a shot at Romney AND Giuliani in 20 seconds. Is this setting the tone for the debate? This could be phenomenal.

8:22 - John McCain has never looked better. Wait, did I say better? I meant older. Did I really think this guy was the favorite a year ago?

8:24 - Prediction: Tom Tancredo drops out in December, now that his pet issue - immigration - is front and center. He was never in it to win it.

8:26 - Did Hunter just compare the San Diego-Tijuana border with the Arizona/New Mexico/Texas-Mexico border???

8:29 - Okay, Romney has three enemies on stage (Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson) and those are the three guys directly below him in Iowa polls. Not a good spot for Mitt.

8:34 - I don't know if Ron Paul is right about the potentially budding North American Union, but he was right with his historical example of the EU. It started as murmurs and bloomed fifty years later.

8:40 - It's fun to hear a bunch of Republicans hoot and holler the destruction of the IRS like school kids hearing they might get rid of homework.

8:42 - McCain just took on Ron Paul! It's like Sylvester Stallone and Carl Weathers doing Rocky XVII!

8:45 - So the left side of the stage would sign a pledge and the right side wouldn't? Sounds to me that after Thompson got the cajones to say "No," everyone else did, too. Not that I expected any different response from McCain and Ron Paul.

8:54 - In responding to the Fred Thompson YouTube add, I honestly think Mitt just put the abortion issue in the rearview mirror. Huckabee's tribulations, however, have just begun.

8:55 - First commercial break. Ranking: 1) Fred Thompson; 2) Ron Paul; 3) Huckabee; 4) Romney; 5) Tancredo; 6) McCain; 7) Giuliani; 8) Hunter.

9:04 - Okay, I gotta do a quick diatribe on the second amendment. It's easily the most brutalized amendment in the U.S. Constitution. It does not simply say, "The right to bear arms." It does not. What's continually dismissed is the premise of the amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State anymore? That's the issue that needs to be debated first. And I'd love someone to make the case that a militia is not an archaic institution that has been unnecessary since Taft.

9:05 - Hey, this is fun! Let's hear about the amount of guns our Presidential candidates own!

9:10 - Ron Paul can always fall back on one answer - let the states decide! Man, let's just get a prime minister and forget the office of the President altogether! Hmmm... More on that to come in the future.

9:14 - The death penalty: What would Jesus do? Ladies and gentlemen, the question of the night. And we all know the answer, don't we?

9:16 - Bible questions! We should have an entire debate on that subject alone.

9:17 - Giuliani just called the Bible the greatest book ever written. Sorry, I gotta go with McCullough's John Adams. By the way, this question was in Huckabee's wheelhouse and there's not even a close second.

9:22 - It's becoming clear that they'll close with the economy and then Iraq. Talk about a grand finale!

9:26 - Has anyone ever explained why Giuliani will be stronger on terror or be tougher in foreign policy than McCain? The guy was a mayor of a city that got attacked! That's it!

9:30 - John McCain is absolutely right about the water boarding issue. Absolutely right. I don't think he's said anything dishonest tonight, joining only Tancredo and Paul. Meanwhile, Romney still can't get out of his own way tonight.

9:35 - I love Ron Paul and Iraq questions. They're my favorite part of every debate.

9:38 - Islam takes such a beating during the Republican debates. Of course, the Muslim countries don't have debates to bash Christians...

9:41 - Fred Thompson has this crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. He's still leading this debate, and tonight might be the night he starts to right the sinking ship.

9:45 - Third commercial break rankings: 1) Thompson [winning the crowd, winning his freedom]; 2) Paul [his niche loves him more than ever]; 3) McCain [clearly straight shootin' like the old days]; 4) Tancredo [nothing to lose with his honesty and wrongness]; 5) Romney [not as impressive as usual]; 6) Huckabee [Disappointing performance] ; 7) Giuliani [Only one good answer on the night] 8) Hunter [Completely underwhelming].

9:50 - Romney just got caught in his newest flipflop!

9:52 - Did anyone else hear some (dozens) Republican audience members booing the gay officer? Not a good job by that crowd.

9:58 - Um, "Hillary can be on the first rocket to Mars?!" Watch out for that one tomorrow. On the Mars issue: There will be an absolute outcry from this country if the first manned expedition to Mars does not have an American. International cooperation would be fine, but if there's no American involvement, it'd be the greatest ideological and technological disappointment in this country's history.

10:02 - Romney just called out John Edwards. I'LL KILL HIM! He also just lost South Carolina, but whatever.

10:05 - Giuliani and Huckabee are closing strong. I can't say the same for myself. I'm getting up in 7 and a half hours.

10:10 - Well, "huge" Red Sox fan Mitt Romney just added a year to the Red Sox former World Series drought (86, not 87). A perfect way to end a disappointing night for Romney... but still my favorite for the Republican nomination.

10:12 - Annnd scene. Sorry for the relatively week analysis tonight, but there's simply not enough time to get into all the issues and do a live blog. For analysis, check out my blog at Presidential Politics for America, as I'll be starting daily Iowa Caucus posts starting on Monday, December 3rd - one month until the Iowa Caucus in both parties.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Huckabee Surging in Iowa

Weekly Presidential Politics - 11/21/07

As predicted by my blog after the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, Mike Huckabee is making a run at the Iowa Caucus. This just in from Real Clear Politics:

Republicans (ABCNews/Washington Post poll)
Romney 28 (+2 vs. last poll July 26-31)
Huckabee 24 (+16)
Thompson 15 (+2)
Giuliani 13 (-1)
McCain 6 (-2)
Paul 6 (+4)

Now, pundits across the country, in their classic insta-reactionary tradition, are taking Iowa away from Romney. If these prognosticators end up being right, even a second place Iowa finish effectively ends the Romney campaign.

Which is why it's not going to happen.

Romney will spend every last nickel of his billions of nickels to win the Iowa Caucus. If polls are still close by the end of December, Iowans can expect a blitzkrieg of ad-buys and "paid volunteers" unlike any in political history, and it'll be courtesy of Mitt Romney.

What's most interesting about the latest poll is not that Mitt Romney is losing control of Iowa polls, but rather that a Huckabee bump has meant national Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has slipped to fourth in the country's opening caucus. FOURTH. Fickle voters in New Hampshire and beyond will need to be very sure of their Giuliani vote to support a candidate that showed so poorly in a classic benchmark state, especially when the story on every cable news network will be sinking their claws into (remember - insta-reactionary) is about a reeling Giuliani campaign. Every social conservative who barely convinced themselves to support Giuliani will run to the closest conservative competitor.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will both be spinning the heck out of their top finishes and can ride the resulting free coverage, momentum, and huge added influx of money into the other primaries.

December will be a fascinating month, which is why I'm doing this.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Romney About to Take Off

Weekly Presidential Politics - 11/07/07

I tried to tell you. I did. I tried to tell you in April, and I tried to tell you in August. Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Although the national polls will not reflect this certainty until the end of January, and although his nomination will not be sewn up until the month after, this is the week where Mitt Romney turned the corner.

Paul Weyrich, who with the passing of Jerry Falwell is perhaps the foremost figurehead of evangelical Christians and social conservatives, has endorsed Romney.

And why not? With Rudy Giuliani’s national lead in Republican polls not diminishing, the conservative bloc is in danger of their party nominating a social liberal who’s pro-choice, pro-gay, and compared to the rest of the Republican field, unfriendly to the second amendment.

So how do they slow the Giuliani train? Quite simply, they cannot. That is, unless they can unite behind another candidate. All year, the paramount problem of Republican voters was the lack of a clear cut conservative alternative who was not only in lockstep with the right, but also whose legitimacy was not limited to their home state. Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Tommy Thomson and Gilmore were conservative but had no chance (as stated by this blogger numerous times). Huckabee was intriguing and the most talented candidate of the second tier, but didn’t have the money (also stated numerous times by this blogger). Paul was talented and entertaining but the party could not let a dovish Republican get nominated (yup). Thompson had been out of politics and was clearly a paper tiger (hit on the head by this blogger numerous times). The Right’s problems with McCain are notorious. Romney’s a Mormon who pandered to Democrats in Massachusetts.

So the Republican Party was splintered. A clear plurality were satisfied supporting the foreign policy and quasi-fiscal conservative former mayor of New York City, while ten other candidates divvied the constituency who said they could get at least that type of conservatism from nearly any Republican candidate.

Soon, however, it will be time to unify. For the Republican base to find their perfect candidate, it only takes one leap of faith, and this leap of faith has nothing to do with religion. Has Romney truly changed his mind on abortion? Running for Senate and Governor of Massachusetts during the 90's, Romney came out as a pro-choice candidate. Since then, however, Romney has said he's seen and learned some things that have changed him into a staunch pro-life advocate. The question for Republican voters: Do you believe him? If so, that's your candidate.

That is Mr. Weyrich's conclusion, and that decision will go a long way in convincing conservatives to pledge their allegiance to Romney. After all, Romney is a Protestant, as 41 of the 42 men to hold the office of POTUS have been. Sure, he's a different kind of Protestant than Protestant Americans (52% of the country and 2/3 of American Christians) are used to, but he's stressed that Mormonism will not impact his decisions as chief executive. If you recall, Catholic John Kennedy made a similar plea in 1960, and Kennedy's mea culpa made his Catholicism all but a non-issue in his victory over Richard Nixon.

All of this, combined with his unparalleled Republican money, not to mention his enormous lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, will propel him to a very strong showing on the fifth of February (SuperDuper Tuesday). After taking the first two states, effectively eliminating every candidate but himself and Giuliani, everyone leaning Romney will run to Romney. By the middle of February, Giuliani concedes and Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee.

I tried to tell you.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Brownback's Dropout Epitomizes Money Issue

Weekly Presidential Politics - 10/24/07

How important is money in politics? Important enough that the quintiessential conservative dropped out of the Republican Primary because he could never gain traction. So, Sam Brownback, the conservative alternative Republicans have been dreaming about, bows out of a crowded field and goes home to Kansas.

Look at the four Republican candidates who actually have a chance to garner the nomination. The poll leader, Rudi Giuliani, is a social liberal. The former leader, John McCain, supports an unpopular war and has crossed party lines on numerous issues, irritating many members of the GOP. The leader in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney, has a history of criticizing key Republican issues like abortion and gay rights, and, as a Mormon, is not exactly in step with the powerful Christian wing of the Republican Party. Finally, Fred Thompson, long thought of as the conservative savior, has shown a distinct inability to rally the base, and has lost points in nearly all national and early primary polls.

So why are they the leaders in the GOP polls? They are all huge names and fantastic fundraisers. I appreciate the argument that their palpability is the reason they can fundraise, but I'm disinclined to adhere to that in this case because of two reasons.

1. The money differential between the contenders and the non-contenders is too gross to conclude that anything but the money is chief reason why contenders contend and non-contenders do not. The contenders raise seven digits (often eight). The non-contenders are lucky to crack seven digits and spend nearly all of it just to break into polls.

Let's look at why they can fundraise. Rudy Giuliani was a huge name after 9/11 and was able to fundraise. John McCain has been a national name for decades. Mitt Romney has given tens of millions of dollars to his own campaign. Fred Thompson gets publicity every time his Law & Order series airs, not to mention Die Hard 2, Necessary Roughness, and Iron Eagle III. Does the fact that they're huge names or richer make the more qualified to be President then the lesser candidates, or, even, potential candidates? Of course not.

2. The Republicn constituency has been dying for a true conservative... and he was there the whole time. No one could every doubt Brownback's conservative record as Senator from Kansas. Every single debate he would remind them of this. He had been modeling it for years.

But without money... who cares?

Ask Dennis Kucinich how much voting your ideology helps in a national election without the funds to ram a platform down the throat of America.

Someone justify this.