GOP Candidate Breakdown #10: Gary Johnson

There's really nothing wrong with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.  He seems like a nice enough guy, he's honest and principled.  The main problem with him almost has nothing to do with him: he has zero name recognition beyond his home state of New Mexico.  Beyond that state, voters may remember his name but it's a long way from Albuquerque to Iowa and even further from the White House.

A lot of the accomplishments listed on his website (link above) tout that he was a principled conservative in the face of Democratic majorities and that he continued to hold those principles dear throughout his tenure.  More than likely there was a bit of compromise involved and there's nothing wrong with that (unless you are trying to get the GOP nomination.)

Normally, I'd go through the poll numbers, attempting to read the tea leaves about what the latest batch means for one contender or another, how the affect of a primary or caucus will play out on a particular candidate.  The unfortunate truth of the matter is that Gary Johnson doesn't appear in any of them.  This either means that his name isn't mentioned by the pollsters (and if they are, people don't know or support him) or if the pollsters are asking for candidates that the voter supports, they still don't mention this to him.

Is the media to blame for this?  Yes and no.  The media has had an insatiable appetite for GOP candidates.  The moment that Rick Perry entered the race, they were already looking at each other with wide eyes and salivating mouths wondering if Rep. Paul Ryan was going to enter the race.  Rudy Giuliani is still floated as a possible entrant into the competition and almost any other Republican that has a modicum of respect in the party or one that has conservative appeal is mentioned (Sen. Marco Rubio.)

At the same time, however, Johnson has done little or nothing to stand out as a candidate in the current field.  He can give great answers to debate questions, his appeal is good (not great) and his character is without question.  But when you got a crazy lady like Rep. Michele Bachmann running for president, how's a reasonable guy supposed to get any respect around here?  He's a little to the left of someone like, say Ron Paul, but Johnson still believes that the drug war is bullshit and that the government shouldn't spend the kind of money on it that it has been spending.  And what does that get you?  Well, ask Ron Paul.

In the research that I've done for Gary Johnson, the fact of the matter is that wherever he is, he's starting from square one.  He declared that he was running back in April of this year but if had waited until last month, it would have been better for him.  He would have entered the race and there would have been a flurry of media attention and speculation.  With that, he could have established himself as candidate to be dealt with, got his message out and thereby establishing a foothold in any of the states.

So what are the odds that Johnson is going to make headway? Well, a few of the candidates are going to have to drop out.  Not the top tier, mind you, but the lower tier.  Santorum, Gingrich and Cain would have to quit the race and Johnson would have to stick around (I don't know what would cause them to drop out, but this is a hypothetical, right?)  Then, by being the only bottom tier candidate that is still sticking around, he would get more attention not just from the media but from anybody.  The Campaign That Lived, kind of thing.

If Johnson survives to the actual primary season, he could do well in NH and NV, but he would get decimated in IA and SC (where religion and social issues are more important.  Johnson himself just made a blog post about how social issues were not going to win the White House.  By the way, somebody should tell Santorum that.)

I'm not writing the campaign obituary yet because, again, anything can happen in the campaign, but the chances are beyond dim, they're just plain dark.

Sorry, bud.

---

You can follow me on Twitter where I actually have more positive things to say than this @truthissoap

GOP Candidate Breakdown #9: Herman Cain

I lived in Atlanta, Georgia for several years.  Some of my favorite times were in the year 2008.  I don't have a sports team that I follow, no real religion to speak of, so it was replaced by the 2008 campaign.  I watched CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all the time, I was constantly reading the Drudge Report; it's safe to say that I knew everything that was going on in the campaign, I knew the journalists and the broadcasters who was with what campaign and the latest poll numbers.

In Atlanta, there's a talk radio station, WSB 750 that hosted people like Neal Boortz (who I don't mind as much as I used to), Clark Howard (there's nothing wrong with Clark Howard) and Sean Hannity (who I despise.)  Late in the evening, about 8pm, they'd play the Michael Savage show.  For those of you who don't know who Savage is, I would say that you lead normal and well-adjusted lives.  I know this because the moment that Savage enters your life, everything will fall into chaos and disarray.

I was leaving work late one night and turned on the radio.  I listened to WSB because I like listening to points of view and opinion that radically differ from my own.  But one evening instead of listening to the harsh and crass Brooklyn-accented voice of Savage, came a clear, concise Southern elegance, the kind that you'd expect a Baptist preacher from Georgia to execute without flaw.  It was Herman Cain.  He replaced Michael Savage because (according to talking with someone at WSB), they had to push Savage back to get the "nutjobs" to stop calling during the "regular" hours.

So my first full-on exposure to Herman Cain wasn't as quick as others.  He is known of course to be the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza and for having turned the company around (with the exception of the one up the street from my house.)  He also ran in 2004 for the Georgia Senate Seat that was being vacated by Zell Miller and would be taken by Johnny Isakson (R).  But with this radio show, he was going to get a chance to speak to the Atlanta audience and who-knows-where-else and explain his message.

He's still in the race despite poll numbers and general lack of knowing what the hell he's doing.  So, let's get to it.

Age: 65.  He's in good health and shows his age a little, but there's polish in there.  Thats to say that Herman Cain looks wise not just... well, old.

Hometown:  He was born in Tennessee, but his home for the last several years has been Atlanta, GA.  He's usually described of as Georgian or from Georgia, which is well-enough.

It should be noted that he's the only candidate so far that doesn't have a political office under his belt.  Outside of radio broadcaster and CEO, his other credential is Chariman of the Federal Bank in Kansas City.  He's never been elected to office before, despite his campaigns.

Place in the Republican Party:  He's likable to the Tea Party movement and Fox News likes him as well, more because they like conservative minorities and not really because of who Herman Cain is or what he stands for.  Because he's never held an elected office before and hasn't won a campaign before, he's considered more of a fringe candidate than Ron Paul.

He's okay with fundraising, but will have a long way to go to match Perry, Bachmann or Romney.

Polls:


Nationally, he's in the back of the pack.  If someone like Palin enters the race, like Ron Paul, Herman Cain should consider cutting his loses.  His voice would be lost in the media shitstorm that would ensue.

In a head-to-head match up with Obama, Cain loses by an average of 14 points.  That number is born out of two points:  Cain has a hard time getting his name and message out among the other candidates (a problem that Obama doesn't have) and while Obama is slipping in popularity, people prefer the Devil they know to the Devil they don't.  The other point is this:  what little information about Cain that has gotten out into the public knowledge has been his strong opposition against Muslims.  Not Muslim extremists, just Muslims.   More about that later on in this post.

Iowa:  He's towards the back in the poll averages, however, this is going to be worse once Perry is included in all the polling.  A black conservative businessman isn't going to have the same sort of appeal that a white Southern farmer is going to.  This blogger also wonders how Cain's religion and church (here's a link to the website of the church he's a minister that he attends) is going to play out should he advance in the nomination process.

New Hampshire: Again, not doing so hot in New Hampshire.  The more libertarian-minded populace of the state should prove to be something of an advantage to Cain, but it's harder for him to get his name out in the media (in a good way).

South Carolina:  He does better here.  However, Perry isn't put into the mix and, again, if Palin enters, a lot of attention will be taken from Cain.  As I've written before, SC does like it's crazy politicians and in the South, smart-mouthed politicians can get a little bit further.  If his campaign survives long enough, he could stand to do well here, but it's hard to imagine him getting by far enough.  At least at this point.

Florida:  More bad news. He gets shoved back, even with a hypothetical Palin campaign and there's no reason to think that he would do well in Florida.  If he can somehow position himself as a favorite in the Tea Party and still appear as a loyal Republican, he might do well.  But it's hard to tell and a little bit of a long shot.

Nevada:  Herman who?

As I wrote earlier, there are two main problems with Cain's campaign:  name recognition and bad name recognition.

Not a lot of people know who Herman Cain is and sometimes he just comes across as a bad imitation of Alan Keyes.  He's never held an elected position anywhere and, while he has a strength in a business background, there's a larger question as to whether or not that is necessary to get the country running in the right direction again.  He has to make both arguments at the same time;  that's double the work that he has to put into the campaign.

The other problem, and maybe the bigger problem, is that when Herman Cain does get on television, it's about some horrible and disgraceful thing that he has said about Muslims.  He's vocal that he wouldn't nominate a Muslim to his cabinet, he's said that Sharia law is trying to take over the country and that he's supportive of communities that want to ostracize Muslims and prevent the construct of mosques anywhere.  As these links demonstrate, it's not just that he's wrong, but that he's gone back and said that he didn't say these things.  Which makes him a liar and an opportunist.

While there is something refreshing about his bluntness and his frank speaking manner (something I always appreciate), it has to be made clear that someone that he is bigoted in private and lies about it in public.  Does he not remember that he says these things?  And if Muslims are a problem domestically, how would this play out in diplomatic relations in Pakistan and Indonesia and other predominately Muslim nations?

I don't think that Herman Cain is a bad person, but he should stop and ask himself why he's running for president.  It comes across to me as a vanity project.  It's why he took the radio gig, it's why he's a commentator on Fox News and Fox Business and why he says half the things that he does.  He's disingenuous, insincere and is a waste of everyone's time.

---

You can also follow me on Twitter @truthissoap

GOP Candidate Breakdown #8: Ron Paul

The internet sensation of Rep. Ron Paul is well known and well documented.  In spite of his age and demeanor (he seems the type that would yell at kids for getting off of his yard), he's someone that has appealed to the younger generation.  Personally, I have nothing against Ron Paul.  I think that he's principled and strong-headed, which could also be interpreted as narrow-minded and stubborn.

The problem with Paul is that he's an ideologue and not a practical politician or leader.  It's hard to have someone running everything that believes that he shouldn't be running everything, not out of a sense of psychosis but because they believe that it would be wrong for the president to do something.

This past weekend, Ron Paul made a strong showing at the Ames Straw Poll, nearly beating the winner of the contest, Michele Bachmann.  He was campaigning for it but didn't have the do-or-die approach that Tim Pawlenty had.  For some reasons, he hasn't gotten the appropriate amount of media attention for this win.  Rick Santorum is seen as the "other" winner of the straw poll, even though he didn't poll nearly as well.

So, why Ron Paul?  While this blogger doesn't support the Ron Paul campaign nor does this blogger think that President Ron Paul is a good idea, there is something to be said about his appeal.  I will at least acknowledge his stature in the campaign for president.

Age: 75.  He has this grandpa-type feel to him.  Maybe not always mean.  He's capable of being fired up (the debate last Thursday was a good sign of that) without coming across like a demagogue (learn something Zell Miller!)  However, if age is going to be the unspoken issue of the McCain campaign, I can't imagine that it wouldn't be ignored for a man that's a year older than McCain.

Hometown:  Born in Pennsylvania, but has spent the last forty-some odd years living in Texas.  He got into politics back in the late-70's, inspired to action by President Nixon completing the removal of the gold standard from the US economy.

Place in the Republican Party:  Pariah.  The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is emblematic of most Tea Party issues, the main difference is that he started spouting the nonsense back in the 1970's while the Tea Party waited for a Democrat (and a black guy) to get elected president before they started kvetching about government spending.  Again, Paul is consistent and principled, which is the real reason why he won't get the nomination.

The other being that his foreign policy would make Pat Buchanan blush.  Paul is the most vocal member in the halls of Congress that advocates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.  He's always held this position, regardless as to whether or not it was politically popular to do so.  Readers will remember that back in 2008, he had cross-party appeal because of this position.  Whether or not he'll be able to pull liberals away from Obama remains to be seen.

Polls:

Throughout all the polls, Paul usually falls in fifth place.  Technically, he can't be considered a front runner at this point.  However, some of these polls have not been updated since the Ames Straw Poll, so these figures could change rather quickly.

Nationally, he's behind established candidates like Romney, Perry and Bachmann but is also behind hypothetical Sarah Palin.  Whether she announces or not will have an impact on Ron Paul as to whether or not the media pays any more attention to him.  They barely pay enough attention to him now.  The Daily Show had a good bit about that the other night.

When he's matched against President Obama, like any other current Republican candidate, Obama wins hands down.  In this instance, he wins by over ten points.

Iowa:  While he ranks behind a lot of candidates, the poll is a little outdated: it includes Tim Pawlenty who dropped out of the race on Sunday.  It'll be interesting to see who his supporters go towards (probably someone like Romney) but Paul could gain a couple of supporters.

New Hampshire: Ron Paul does very well here.  The state has a libertarian streak in it and that might have a little more pull here than elsewhere.  Paul might do better in a primary voting system as opposed to a caucus system, but with the other candidates in the mix, it's hard to tell.  One thing is for sure, he could do well here.

South Carolina: This might be the strangest poll possible.  There's not enough to create a consistent average, but it might be safe to say that Paul might not do well here.  At the same time, though, South Carolina does gravitate to candidates that they think would win (John McCain, George W.) but they also like weird, weird politicians.  This is another state where Paul could do well and maybe even an upset.

Nevada:  Again, Romney is probably going to take this caucus without much of a struggle.  Paul is falling to fifth here, but that is including Palin in the polls.  If she were removed, some of the TP's that are supporting her would either gravitate towards Bachmann or Paul.  Either way, it's a win for Paul.

Florida:  While it's not one of the "first in the nation" primary/caucus or even first in the region, it's still an important state to show how one would do in the national election.  Now, I will include it in the profiles.  Here, we see Romney doing strong, as well as Perry and Palin.  Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul are making the second tier.

Quote me on this: If Florida is going to be vital in the general election (and there's no flippin' way that it's not going to be important), then the nomination for the GOP in Florida is going to be the bellwether of what the Republicans should do.  As of right now, Romney is leading, the one person in the race that could beat Obama and lead a bipartisan government. Next is Perry and Palin, who are more Republican operatives than dyed-in-the-wool Tea Party conservatives.

Also, remember that the current Tea Party Governor of Florida (R), Rick Scott is looking at less than 40% approval rating.  While I'm not saying that the more moderate the candidate the better (however true that may be), the key to victory in Florida is demonstrating how much of an average Republican the candidate can be.  Ron Paul will struggle here, even if he has victories in other states.

This is what you look like when you make bargains with Skeletor.

Right now, in mid-August of 2011 in the campaign, I would say that Rep Ron Paul of Texas is a long shot.  He was a long shot in 2008 and he's a long shot now.  The reason why he's a long-shot is simple:  he actually believes in the ideals that form the modern Republican Party.  He's a man of principle, rarely wavering.  And it's for this reason that the GOP will more than likely not nominate him.

As a liberal, this strikes me as odd.  After all, he's the perfect candidate.  But he also doesn't kneel at the altars that he should: he doesn't go on and on about how great Ronald Reagan was for one.  He's a guy that speaks his mind and sticks to his guns even if it means crashing on the ground in flames.

I would be pleasantly surprised at Ron Paul doing better in the campaigns than most.  He's probably going to spend more time on the Presidential campaign this time around (he's not running for re-election in his Texas district, which is fine, he can always come back in a couple of years and pick it back up.  He's done it before.)  Whether or not Paul does well remains to be seen.  One thing is for sure, he doesn't have the most important political factor on his side:  Fox News.

They report on the candidates that you can decide on later.  

Sunday's On the Phone to Monday: Aug 13th and 14th

It was the first big weekend of the campaign between the Fox News Debate on Thursday, the Straw Poll on Saturday, the entrance of Gov. Rick Perry and the exit of Gov. Tim Pawlenty.  I've already reviewed the prospects of Perry and the perils of Pawlenty, but let's review the results of the weekend.

Rep. Michele Bachmann Wins Ames Straw Poll

As I have previously written and in regards to what else has been said on the matter, the Ames Straw Poll is important for two kinds of people:  the people who win and the people who say that they have to win it.  Michele Bachmann falls in the former category.  She's allowed to take a victory lap for it as long as she likes, as long as she realizes that it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the end.  Mitt Romney can tell her all about that.

But the straw poll had more than just the effect of boosting the ego and campaign of the craziest woman running for President.  Certainly worth-noting is that Rep. Ron Paul placed second and a close second at that.  Does this mean that Ron Paul might be able to walk away with a shot at the nomination.

Well, no.  For the same reason that the straw poll doesn't mean that Bachmann is within the nomination by any means, the perception that Ron Paul placed second somehow means something is faulty.  How could Bachmann winning first mean nothing but Paul winning second (which means that he lost, by the way) mean something?

Gov. Rick Perry had announced that he was running for President that day and still managed to pull in more votes than Mitt Romney, but you know who doesn't care?  Mitt Romney.  He hasn't taken a blow in the polls (maybe for the "corporations are people, too" comment, but not for a lack of will at the straw poll) and his campaign is still going strong.  Romney (and others) treated the straw poll for what it is: a nonbinding popularity contest for a group of Iowans.  This isn't the race for the President of Iowa but for the United States and Bachmann and others have yet to really demonstrate the strength beyond the borders of a sparsely populated state.

Oh, dear God...

Gov. Rick Perry Is In Despite Of Everything That He Has Ever Said

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have been Rick-roll'd.

I'm not going into too much about Rick Perry himself;  I've covered that here.

But, in the strict sense of commenting on the announcement itself, the following points should be made about Gov. Perry.

1- When interviewed in December of 2010 (that was about 9 months ago), Governor Rick Perry said, quote "I don't want to be President of the United States.  I'm not going to run for the Presidency of the United States."  By this past Saturday, he changed his mind.  What changed his mind?  Well, either God told him to run (which is conflicting issue because I'm sure that He told Michele Bachmann to run as well) or because he thought that he could win.  I believe he was told the latter.

2-  He was a strong support of then Sen. Al Gore's run for President back in 1992.  If that's not the GOP equivalent of "palling around with terrorists", then it doesn't exist.

3-  In 1989, then Democratic State Rep. Rick Perry introduced an amendment to the Texas constitution that would require that any elected official that is running for another, different elected office would be forced to automatically resign from their current post.  That is to say 1989 Rick Perry would insist that since 2011 Rick Perry is running for President, 2011 Rick Perry should resign immediately.

If the GOP are going to hold Obama to something that Rev. Wright said ten years ago, then doesn't it follow that we should hold politicians to what they actually said themselves?

Ex-Gov. Tim Pawlenty Forgets Why He Got Into this Race To Begin With and Quits

You can read more about my thoughts of this doomed campaign here.  One of the points that I make is that he got into the race almost a full year before the first votes were to be cast in Iowa and then spent the majority of his time in Iowa.  There wasn't a particular issue that he was running on, and, as has been observed elsewhere, because he is at his heart a reasonable person, he wasn't ready to give out the red meat that other candidates (Bachmann).  Overexposure to sheer boredom leads people only one option:  change the channel.

Now, why would he get into the race about 11 months before the first votes would be cast in the state that he campaigned so heavily in?  Because that's the nomination system that we have concocted for ourselves.

Were the entire process streamlined, a moderate voice like Pawlenty would have a chance of surviving the race and having it heard, instead of having it fall to the wayside not six months into campaigning.  He has to withdraw from the race after a popularity contest that (and I cannot stress this enough) doesn't mean anything.

I suppose in the end, it's just as well that he does withdraw, under the circumstances.  If Pawlenty's campaign cannot get past the fact that Ames Straw Poll doesn't mean anything, if they have the foolish perception, like so many in Iowa do, that the Poll actually gives a sustainable moment and produces actual results, then clearly Pawlenty is not fit to hold the highest office in the country.  Good for him.

Tim who?

---

You can also follow me on Twitter @truthissoap

Also, you can follow my regular posts on www.nuzcom.com for more unique insight and commentary on the 2012 Presidential Election!

Presidential Campaign Obituary #1: Tim Pawlenty

I feel responsible for this recent defeat of former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.  If I had the time, I could have written another GOP Candidate Breakdown of him and it would have garnered all sorts of attention.  Then, Pawlenty would have exited the race much, much earlier, instead of wasting all of his money on the pointless, fruitless Ames Straw Poll.

Should Pawlenty have dropped out of the race?  I think the better question why was he in the race to begin with.

Good for him.

Tim Pawlenty entered the race for 2012 because 1) he was floated as a possible VP candidate back in 2008 and the resulting chatter also speculated that he might make a bid in 2012 or 2016 and 2) he was originally seen as a reasonable guy that was capable of bridging the gap between the GOP and Democrats (he was elected Republican governor of a "blue" state.)

However, Pawlenty fell victim to a number of causes, most of which were preventable.

First, he got in the race to begin with entirely too early.  He declared back in March 2011, which meant that he had five months to get the message out.  Good for him.  But by jumping in so early, it allowed people to get bored with him so quickly and realize that he was the milquetoast candidate.  It wasn't until the end of his campaign that he realized that he had to distinguish himself.  What's more, he declared that he was running for President and then more or less stayed in one place the entire time, which leads me to...

Second, he put entirely too much emphasis on the Ames Straw Poll and the State of Iowa.  Watch this bite Michele Bachmann in the ass.  The Ames Straw Poll is important to two groups of people: the person who wins and the person who's banking on winning and then loses.  It proved to be catastrophic for Pawlenty for the simple reason that he made it so important.  Look at Newt Gingrich.  He wasn't doing nearly as well as Pawlenty and he's not a quitter!  I mean, he should quit, but that's not the point.  These things are only as important as you make them out to be.  Look at Romney:  he couldn't give a shit that he didn't win and he came in behind someone that had announced their candidacy that day (Gov. Rick Perry).  He's still going strong.

Boo hoo, Michele Bachmann is liked more in a corn wasteland than Pawlenty.  

That's like being the King of Turd Mountain.  

Third, he tried to break away from the pack too late.  The most significant point of the campaign before his withdrawal was actually within the last week when he was debating Michele Bachmann, among others.  He showed fire, he showed strength and he showed that he could be as snide and snippy as Rep. Bachmann.  But it was too little too late.  You don't try to out-sass the Sass Queen.  What's more, you have to establish that as your character a while ago.  Otherwise, you look desperate and out of control.

So, what does the future hold for someone like Pawlenty.  As was suggested back in 2008, he would make a good VP for the eventual nominee.  He's agreeable and capable of reaching across the aisle in order to solve issues.  He also would be good for balancing the ticket, not geographically but ideologically.  This would allow the Prez Nominee to be a little further to the right than they normally would be.

He should be on a short list, but it wouldn't surprise this blogger if Pawlenty were to go the way of Tommy Thompson and eventually take up a national level seat in Congress to represent Minnesota.  There might be a chair vacant for Minnesota's 6th District in November 2012.

I won't be using it!

---

You can also follow me on Twitter @truthissoap

Also, be sure to click over to www.nuzcom.com to get more news and commentary.  Be sure to follow my column there!

GOP Candidate Breakdown #7: Rick Perry

On August 13th, ahead of the Ames Straw Poll and after months of speculation, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced his bid to run for President of the United States.


"That's why with the support of my family and an unwavering belief in the goodness of America, I declare to you today my candidacy for president of the United States."

I'm Rick Perry and I have a finger.

Like many of the candidates that have declared in the past, the idea didn't come from the candidate him or herself, but rather came from the speculation as to who was going to run and not run.  It didn't matter that Rick Perry himself said that he had no interest in running for president.


But then the current field of candidates came around.  I can't help but think that he's running not because there are good enough candidates in the field but for other ulterior motives.  Romney's a good choice for the nomination, however, he is... well, he's a Mormon.  And while Fred Karger has campaigned on the Anti-Romney concept, he's not a feasible alternative.


With Perry, we have a man that doesn't care about the separation of Church and State, who has a good records on creating minimum wage jobs at Wal-Mart and Carl's Jr. and shamelessly flirted with the idea that Texas was permitted to leave the Union whenever it felt that it was prudent to do.


What more could the Republican Party or the Tea Party want?


While I was planning on writing a profile breakdown for Perry well before he announced his candidacy, the announcement today has forced my hand.

Look at this picture and tell me that he's not saying "Hee-yuck" to himself.

Age: 61.  A pretty healthy guy, in regards to his physical health.  Mental health issues have not been released or discussed at length and they should.


Hometown:  He's the first candidate that I've profiled that represents the same state that he was born in:  Texas.  I guess that's one difference between him and George W. Bush (but one of the few differences).


Place in the Republican Party:  Conservatives have a hard-on for Southern politicians.  He's a good-looking guy and doesn't make up words like W. Bush, but is a little gaffe-prone.  For further proof, here's his report card from Politifact: it's a little worse than his college transcripts.


Perry appeals to those Republicans and conservatives that think a) no one remembers George W. Bush and/or b) actually miss George W. Bush.  He's shown to be a fiscal conservative, but if he gets the nomination, the argument may very well become his social conservatism.  


He's also considered a Washington Outsider (like Obama campaigned on, but this may also describe Romney, Huntsman and Palin.)  Why this is considered a good thing is beyond me.  Obama ran on that platform and it's shown to be extremely difficult trying to become part of the beast that you are trying to reform.


Polls: 


Nationally, Perry enters the race consistently second, behind Romney.  It's going to be interesting to see the dynamic but Romney is really just one "He's not really a Christian" remark away from being shoved out of the race.  Romney also made the gaffe that 'corporations are people too', and while legally this is true, it's hard to sympathize with "people" that have teams of lawyers to get them out of paying taxes.  Are we all supposed to have lawyers like that?


It's also interesting to note that, as of this writing, polls show that Obama is vulnerable to nearly any generic GOP candidate that he may run against.  However, when a specific person is named, he tends to do better.  With Perry, such is the case, consistently beating him by double digits.  

Perry demonstrates his chances again Obama, pictured here.

Iowa:  Perry doesn't appear in enough polls to create a sufficient average.  However, Perry does appear in one where he places third.  What's significant about that polling is that it creates for Michele Bachmann a significant problem.  He pulls her supporters away.  In the polling where he doesn't appear, she can get support as much as 30%.  When Perry appears, she's down to 22%.  Clearly, he's going to take the Evangelical Christian vote away from her and that just leaves her with the Crazies.


New Hampshire:  Perry polls 6th here.  You might say that it's because it's only until today that he's established a campaign.  To that I say included in this same poll would be Palin and Giulinani, a figure who is sometimes mentioned, but by no means is seriously floated as a contender for the nomination.  Perry ranks behind them.  Maybe as time wears on (and he's had a chance to show his face in NH), he'll gain more support, but assuming that Perry gets as far as the NH primary, it'll be surprising if he takes it.  After all, Bush the Second did not.


South Carolina:  No polls include Perry.

Nevada: There's not a strong average of the poll numbers in the Silver State, however, he does make a better showing in a single poll than the more established candidates.  One prediction I'm willing to float at present:  now that Perry is in the race it'll make the Nevada Caucus a little more irrelevant than it was before.  That's not to say that this particular caucus has done anything to sway the race one way or another (Romney won back in 2008 to no avail) but if Romney cannot establish moment in either Iowa or NH, any winning in NV would prove to be fruitless in the long haul.

Ricky Perry's political experience is completely isolated to the Texan stage.  He doesn't have experience in the national arena (a point that may be considered an advantage, after all not being in DC or being familiar with it is a "good" thing).  He's already started to make trails for the campaigning that he'll have to do in four states but he's going to have to play catch up with any number of candidates.  


There's going to be an initial novelty at his entrance to the race.  Even more established candidates are going to have to step aside from the behemoth of media attention.  However, at some point, we are going to have to look at everything he has said and done more closely.


Remember, back in 2008, amid a flurry of media speculation and attention, former Senator from Tennessee  Fred Thompson entered the race.  He polled well and then started talking.  Then, the novelty wore off and he exited before the first votes were cast for the nomination.  It's a footnote in the race but it does come into play here; we have another candidate who seems like he would do well and it's distinctly possible that nothing will come in the campaign in the long term.

Does anybody remember me?  

I cite that as a possibility.  As a politician, Perry has a lot more going for him than Thompson did in '08.  But when he has to account for statements that he's made in the past (I refer you to the beginning of the article), I would be so bold as to predict that he'll make a strong showing between now and when the first votes are cast, but whether the entire campaign survives is something else entirely.


--


You can follow me on twitter at @truthissoap


Also, feel free to click over to www.nuzcom.com for more new, commentary and this blog!

GOP Candidate Breakdown #2: Michele Bachmann (as featured on www.nuzcom.com)

Michele Bachmann.  Sigh.  Alright, let's get through this.

Age: 55, but probably made a pact with Lucifer to live forever.  This may drain on Social Security and Medicare.

Hometown:  Again, its a tricky one, but she was physically born in Waterloo, Iowa.  She represents a district in Minnesota in the House of Representatives.

Place in Republican Party:  She wears three hats.  First, she's most closely associated with the Tea Party movement (after all, she did found the Tea Party Caucus).  However, she's also an evangelical Christian and votes based on what the Bible tells her and what her church teaches as opposed to the reality of the situation and she's a vote in Congress that does everything that she can to retard the efforts of the Obama Administration.

Polls:  NH:  She's behind Romney (everyone is), and her chances here aren't that great.  The voters tend to go for the relatively sensible candidate.  John McCain in 2000 and 2008, George H.W. Bush in '88.  They were candidates who are capable of appealing to the center.  Bachmann doesn't have that savoir faire.

IA:  She's leading here (for now).  She's got two advantages.  She's originally from Iowa (her second announcement for president was in her hometown) so there's a perceived home court advantage, but also her religious zealotry has an appeal to core GOP voters.  Also, she's coming across as a candidate that would do well in caucus states and situations.  And you know who else was great in caucus votes?  Barack Obama.

SC:  Again, Romney leads the pack, but her Christianity can be played up here to great effect.  Also, if SC switches to a caucus this year, she stands a decent chance.

NV:  She shouldn't bother with this place.  It's so sewed up for Romney, it's not funny.  Also, there's Las Vegas.  Sin City.  And if Bachmann is going to scream and run away because of two lesbians wanting to ask her a question, her head's going to explode when she see's the Strip.

The first thing that I would like to point out is that no sitting Representative has lead a successful campaign to the White House.  Ever.  Your usual springboard positions are Vice-President, Senator, Governor and, on the occasion, a General.  So, statistics are against Bachmann from the beginning, but I'm sure she would ignore something like math.

To borrow a joke from Lewis Black, Michele Bachmann smiles so much, I don't believe that she has a central nervous system.  I have evidence to back this up.  There are three things that Bachmann is primarily known for:

1.  Saying stupid, stupid things.  The following are pulled from PolitiFact, a fact-checking website.  These are listed as "false" statements or "pants on fire" statements.  The latter signifies that the statement isn't just wrong, it's a lie.  I'm going to pull three at random:

Says the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home."  Pants on Fire.  And she instructed her constituents to not fill out the census, which I wish that they would have done because that meant that the GOP in MN would have erased her district.  After all, there's not that many people living there... all of a sudden...

In the 1970s, "the swine flu broke out . . . under another Democrat, President Jimmy Carter."  Pants on Fire.  It was Gerald Ford.  And I'm pretty sure that Swine Flu doesn't give a shit as to who is in the White House.

"Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table" of abandoning the dollar for a multinational currency.  False.  Just... just, wrong.  Who told her that?  Who tells her these things?

And it's not just that she's wrong.  She's allowed to be wrong.  But when she's told that she's wrong, she doubles down, a la George W. Bush.  

Take the issue of her statement that the Founding Fathers fought tirelessly to end slavery (spoiler alert: they didn't).  When this objective fact is pointed out to her, she says "Oh, no, YOU'RE wrong!  Because there is John Quincy Adams and he fought against slavery.  He worked hard during the Revolution and was certainly a Founding Father."

Now, generally speaking to be considered a Founding Father, you are someone who signed the Declaration of Independence or were present at the debates of the Constitutional Convention.  John Quincy Adams did neither.  BECAUSE HE WAS 9 WHEN THE DECLARATION WAS SIGNED.

So, if Mrs. Bachmann becomes President and is dealing in foreign affairs and she confuses India and Pakistan, is she going to correct the Indian Minister?  If she's talking with a group of scientists about global warming, if she's speaking with men and women that have made it their life's work to study climate change and the affects that humanity has on the weather, is she going to flat-out tell them that their wrong because God told her that she was right?  

2.  Intense and deplorable hatred of homosexuals and those that tolerate the homosexual lifestyle.   Her husband, Marcus Bachmann runs a "clinic" in MN that tells you to "pray the gay away".  It rhymes so it must be correct!  She's not a favorite among the gay community, probably because she has called the lifestyle "living in bondage" and akin to Satan, I think Fred Karger (the log cabin Republican that's running against Romney) should actually focus on Bachmann.  The whole thing is enough to make Jesus Christ shake his head and say "I'm positive I mentioned something about loving each other."

3.  She's allowed to be a bigot.  She's allowed to be ignorant.  She's allowed to be a powerful and ignorant bigot.  But she completely lacks any sort of intellectual curiosity.  That's what makes Obama refreshing from Bush.  If Obama doesn't know something, he's the kind of guy that would go look it up and then draw a conclusion.  Bachmann already has the conclusion, and is going to go find some facts that are going to support her ideas.  It's why she supports the teaching of Intelligent Design in the classroom (also says that there are several Nobel Prize winning scientists that back her up.  Guess what?  She can't name one.  Because they don't exist.)  She said, when she announced that she was running for president in Waterloo, IA (the second announcement she made that she was running for president), that everything that she ever learned was in Waterloo. 

This is a ridiculous notion.  The concept that the people in a small town can have the right plan to run a nation of 300 million or that they would be able to get along (or against) the rest of the billions of people on the planet is just silly.  The idea that the right way is somehow attained in Small Town USA and that the big cities and Washington DC are ignorant to this is just stupid and detrimental to the entire process.

Instead, the solutions come from open, honest dialogue.  This cannot happen in echo chambers in small towns or big cities. The real question that we should be asking ourselves is whether or not we are capable of having an honest dialogue at all.  

Now, watch Bachmann in an interview.  See how fast she answers questions and see how she never hesitates.  Thoughtful people hesitate.  Considerate people hesitate.  Blockheads do not hesitate.  They shoot first and ask questions later.

Bachmann is not a good choice for President, for the GOP or for anybody.  As a general observation, there's little doubt in my mind that Bachmann is going to appeal to hard-core conservatives, but the General Election is not about appealing to the base, it's convincing everyone else, the Independents and even the liberals and progressives.  She'll flounder and I doubt that she'll get the nomination.  She'll pick up some delegates, maybe even enough to bargain with at the convention.  But the GOP has to think about the long term not just the nomination.  

Political Posturing Without A Spine (as featured on www.nuzcom.com)

Back in April (a lifetime ago in politics), Congress passed the budget for the year and then, when the common man began to breathe a sigh of relief that the government wasn't going to shut down, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner (bundle of joy that he is) said that the debt limit was going to have to be raised, otherwise the US AAA Bond Rating (our credit score) was going to go down the toilet and possibly put the economy, which is now generally agreed to be an anemic recovery, into a tailspin and then we're back where we started in 2008 or worse.

I remember thinking, well, they should raise the debt ceiling then.  They should question what the purpose of a limit is if they are just going to raise the limit whenever they want to.  Then I remembered that there is the GOP.  The party that doesn't question what a Republican president do, but when a Democrat is in there, all of a sudden, it doesn't matter what the previous president did, we have to focus on the current administration.  But for conservatism, a line of thought that spends so much time on history and studying the way things have worked, its convenient for them to either be amnesiacs OR for them to have suddenly seen the light!

So it didn't matter that the debt ceiling was raised about 7 times under the previous administration.  It didn't matter that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were never put on the books and now this president is responsibly putting them in the figures for the budget.  The rest of it didn't matter.  The only thing that matters now is cutting entitlement spending and not willing to make one single compromise.

The GOP, at first, said that under no circumstances were they going to raise the debt limit.  Then Boehner said that, actually, there were circumstances and that would include cuts in spending in the trillions of dollars BUT NO SPENDING INCREASES WHATSOEVER!  Not even closing tax loopholes, the money that the wealthy should be paying but are not.  NO, NOT EVEN THAT!!!

Hrm.

Then began the stalemate, with it's dramatic walk-outs, starting with Eric Cantor who walked out in the middle of the meeting and President Obama who walked out... at the end of the meeting, after setting the time for the next meeting... not nearly as dramatic as Mr. Cantor, but then again Obama doesn't act like a little child.

It didn't seem like anything was going to happen.  It seems now at this writing that the US is going to fail to pass the measures necessary to raise the debt ceiling, we're going to go into default on our debt and that we're going to be speaking Mandarin by the end of the year... well, maybe not, but the default is likely to happen.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R - KY) proposed that the Congress pass a resolution that would give the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling to the president.  It would be subject to a resolution of approval or disapproval (which the president would be able to veto and raise the debt limit anyway).  I heard about this because I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio program.  Sean Hannity has a head so big that I'm positive that it affects the tides.

Hannity, in a rare demonstration of journalism (a profession that he professes to be an active member of), reported the initial suggestions that McConnell's proposal, he immediately said "I'm going on the record that I don't believe this."  Then he siad that if it was true, then McConnell, should "stand aside".  Not "step down" but "stand aside".  Which goes against the Reagan Commandment:  Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican, but that's hardly the point.

I mention this moment for two reason.  First, Sean Hannity is a blathering idiot and when he talks, its at the detriment to the GOP .  He's the conservative Jane Fonda or Barbra Streisand only without the Tony nominations (next year, Sean, next year!) In the last ten year,s, the Republicans have begun to rely too much on their non-elected officials to get their message out.  Conservative commentators have too much impact and for all the talk about the influence of liberal bloggers (not me specifically, but the collective hive mind) and the liberal Hollywood Elite, nary a word is spoke about AM Talk Radio, conservative websites and Fox News.  The idea that a Senator could have an idea (albeit a bad one, but an idea nonetheless) and be immediately politically threatened is disgraceful.
It shows a disparity within the GOP  that must be addressed before the party returns to full power.  And, because of the Two Party system, it's only a matter of time before they do.

The second reason is more obvious and is one that has already been discussed:  that the Republicans are less interesting in coming to a resolution and are more interested in creating an atmosphere that they feel can support their return to the White House.  it's political posturing on a level that is at least disingenuous and at most criminal.  If Reince Priebus, the RNC Chair, wants the FEC to go after Obama for filming a campaign video in the White House, then he should also speak to the fact that the GOP are blatantly holding up negotiations while they struggle to control the narrative.

There's the suggestion that the GOP are crazy.  I leave that for the New York Times Op-Ed page to discuss. However, if they are sane, then the only reason that the GOP would delay up to this point would be because they are trying to control the narrative.  They are trying to convince people that not only what they are doing is the right thing to do but that, regardless as to the outcome, they have won the overall debate.

It's cowardice, a failure of ideas, and a failure of Republican leadership.  The Tea Party may have bolstered the GOP in the past but if the Republicans can't come up with a real idea or admit to a simple compromise, conservatives have to find a new party.  Because when it comes to evolution and adapting to survive, it helps to have a backbone.

Candidates Against Change: Mitt Romney

This is going to be a series of meditations and profiles on the significant candidates in the 2012 GOP Primary Run (Sorry, Fred Karger, I couldn't care less about you running).  I'm also going to include info on the prospects in the primaries and caucuses and a serious hypothetical about this person running in the general election.  First up, Mitt Romney.



Age: 64.  But, damn, he doesn't look it!

Hometown:  This is a tricky one.  He was born in Detroit (his father George Romney was governor there), but he spent a great deal of time in Utah (he's Mormon.  You had to have already known that, but we'll talk more about that later), but his political experience is in Massachusetts (hereafter Mass).  I'm going to go with political birthplace and say Boston, MA.

Place in Republican Party:  He's well-respected, with no ties to the previous administration, which is a good thing and should have helped him with the nomination then.  He's changed positions which some don't care for and see as a liability.  Other's don't like him because... he's Mormon (again, more on that later.)

Polls:  NH - Very good.  He polls well with independents and does very well with the moderate wing of the Republican Party.  That's why he's doing well here and will have to do well in the primary (assuming he's there for the primary).

Iowa - Today, it was announced that a single poll has Michele Bachmann ahead in the state.  This shouldn't deter Romney because, honestly the Bachmann campaign may implode if she talks about how slavery was bad, sure, but what about the family staying together?  (Don't worry, that, unfortunately, won't be the nail in her campaign's coffin.) Romney should stick it out and coast along.  He'll be fine.

SC - The odds that he'll win here are so-so.  There is talk that the primary here may become a less costly caucus.  If so, it's believed that Romney will do better, but maybe not an outright win.  He should downplay any expectations in SC.

Nevada - This became a target in the last primary season and Romney's a shoe-in.  This may dampen the state's effect in future nominations (to include this one) but Romney polls well in states where there's a high Mormon population.  The more people know about the religion, the more likely that they are going to support a candidate who's Mormon. Think of SC as the complete opposite of SC.

Ah, Mitt Romney:  While I would not vote for him, Romney is probably the best candidate that the GOP has.  This was true in '08 and it remains to be true now.  Reason why he was ideal in /08 was because he didn't have strong connections to the Bush Administrations like other candidates I know (His name starts with a J and ends with ohn McCain.)  This time around, he has the stink of a loser, but he smiles and waves and moves like a winner.

His lead should be treated caution.  Both Rudy Giuliani and Hilary Clinton were polling as well in IA and NH at this point in the campaign last time around.  However, he should play it up and exploit it.  The major strength of the Romney campaign is fundraising.  He's always well-known for three things, herein to be discussed and analyzed:

1.  He stated and ran Bain Capital, a highly successful hedge fund that turned several businesses around.  This is true, he did turn them around.  Right after he and Bain Capital got paid, the businesses typically declared bankruptcies and laid off countless employees (I mean, you could count them, but it was still heartless and pointless business decision-making.  Romney's perceived strength (not actual strength) is on the economy.  And he's going to have a hard time pressing against Obama for not creating jobs when he himself destroyed jobs deliberately.

2.  Romney was  the Governor of Mass.  In a traditionally blue-state, he was elected as a Republican.  No small feat.  And everyone that I've ever talked to, Republican and Democrat from the Bay State, have more or less said the same thing "He might have been the best governor that we've ever had."  Now, either that's a common phrase in Boston or it's the truth.  He was, at one point in time, able to reach across the aisle and make compromises and get work done (RomneyCare or CommonwealthCare if you prefer real names of things).  It's going to hang over his head for the entire race, but this is a calculation that he's made and he couldn't have missed it.  This column will assume that Romney knows what he's doing in this regard.  Hopefully, its more than "Maybe people will ignore it."  Not a chance.



3.  Romney is a practicing Mormon (that's the difference between him and Huntsman).  most in the GOP say that they wouldn't vote for an LDS.  Romney, however, is still polling well and he's doing very well in states with significant Mormon population.  Familiarity, in this case, does not breed contempt.

It's a shame that in the 21st century, we still take where a man goes to on a Sunday morning into consideration.  We shouldn't .  Because a man might sleep in, he might wake up at 5am, but who cares?  As long as they are an effective leader, what difference does the rest of it make?  John Kennedy's Catholocism had nothing to do with the way that he ran the office of the White House.  None.  The only time the fact that he was Catholic was mentioned was when he gave a speech saying that he didn't take marching orders from the Vatican.  Romney has already said as much regarding Temple Square in SLC and he did that four years ago.

Especially when there are so many other things to criticize Romney for.  While the polling is in his favor now, Romney doesn't stand a good chance in the general election. It's going to be to easy for Democrats to portray him as a New England flip-flopper.

Joke liberally taken (get it?) from the Daily Show.

And that doesn't work.

www.nuzcom.com