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

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!

Bread and Circuses: Primarily Ridiculous

There are about 308 million people that live in the country.  Over 50% of the nation lives in one of the following ten states (starting with the highest):

1. California
2.  Texas
3. New York
4. Florida
5. Illinois
6. Pennsylvania
7. Ohio
8. Michigan
9. Georgia (I'm from there!)
10.  North Carolina


The first primaries and caucuses, however, are not held in these states.  They're held in South Carolina (#24), Iowa (#30), Nevada (#35) and New Hampshire (#42).  Combined, these states have a combined population less that of the Los Angeles Metro Area.  The entire state of South Carolina's population could fit in Atlanta, GA.  So, why is it that these states are the ones that have the first primaries?  More or less because... well, they say so.

Everyone in South Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada could live here.

This first in the nation mentality has two adverse affects.  First, it creates a false mentality that the people who live in these states are relevant.  I don't say that to be cruel.  But the reality of the situation is that polticians every four years descend upon the state of Iowa, they make the party chairmen happy and they always make some vague promise about ethanol subsidies and then never do anything about it.  A bunch of money is dumped into the state and then it becomes a political pariah for the remainder of the term of the presidency.

And New Hampshire, classy place that it is, has a state law that requires that the first primary in the nation has to be held there.  It used to be held in March, but when other states even move their primary a little bit close to NH's, they move it up.  In 2008, the Secretary of State of NH, classy guy that he is, said that if the other states would move their primaries again, that it would push NH to have their primary in 2007, almost TEN MONTHS before the general election.  And he didn't care that this was going to elongate the process (the entire election run takes far, far, far too much time) and by elongating the process making it cost more money.  But as long as NH becomes relevant for a few months every few years...

I could go on about how the NH primary hasn't picked the eventual nominee for the Democrats since Jimmy Carter in 1976 (35 years) and hasn't done that with the Republicans since George H.W. Bush in 1988 (23 years).  The reason why this is important because the argument for the NH primary to be held first is because the electorate is said to be more highly educated and better versed in politics, civics and government.  Why hold the first primary in the nation if you're going to pick Senator Paul Tsongas.  Do you remember who that is?  I rest my case.

Now, we're brought to South Carolina.  Gov. Nikki Haley may cut funding for the primary in the state.  (This column will give her credit for being consistent.  If she's going to cut the state's public broadcasting, she should at least cut funding for her party's state primary.)  This means that they would have to move to a less costly caucus and may give other states (probably Florida), the chance to step forward and assume the First in the South Primary.


Sigh.

This kind of infighting is wholly unnecessary and by and large creates a false narrative in the entire election process.  The fact of the matter is that it didn't matter then, it doesn't matter now and it won't ever really matter what voters in one state think.  It's the collective view of the entire population of the country.

And the things that gets me is that it doesn't have to be this way! They are alternatives to the current primary system (which takes far too long and is far too expensive) and they would require not an action of Congress or the President, but they could be done by a conference of all the Secretaries of State for the individual states.  I mean, it's not as if they're doing anything else right now!

The established states should step aside for new ways of making a party's nominee.  It's putting too much power in such a specialized population.  It's nice to think that going to small towns and rural regions give us that homespun wisdom that we need to get by in this crazy, mixed-up world that we live in, but it's disingenuous and, frankly, not practical any more.

www.nuzcom.com

Meghan McCain Is Completely Reasonable (Countdown to her being kicked out of GOP begins NOW!)

Meghan McCain's Advice to the GOP Hopefuls

Two of the things that I've always told myself if I ever started a political blog would be first, that my arguments would be weak and in an echo chamber AND, most importantly, about once a week I would talk about how I have a crush on Meghan McCain.

But whats secretly most appealing about her is that she's someone who is not just extremely beautiful but also very reasonable.  She's like the version of her father that got me interested in politics (a lifetime ago in 2000).  She's like a date-able, blonde George Will.  Don't get me wrong, George Will seems like a nice kind of guy, the kind that would insist on paying the bill and would end the first date with a hug after holding your hand on the walk.  He's classy, in a Gilded-Age "You're not a flapper are you" kind of way.

What was I talking about?  Oh, yeah, Meghan McCain.

I've already included the link where McCain the Younger lists the different things that the GOP Hopefuls will have to do in order to get the nomination.  I don't disagree with her by and large.  There are a couple of little things though:


"What the Republican Party needs is a candidate unafraid to put the president up against the wall and call him out on all the damage his administration has done, especially to the economy, in the last three years. "


And all that damage would include what?  De-regulation of banks?  Turning a blind eye and encouraging the regulators to turn the other way or even get in bed with the people who brought us into the financial mess in the first place?  It's phrasing like this that makes one think that the federal government is the reason why we're in the economic straits that we're in, when we all know that this is not the case.  Would Ms. McCain also be willing to blame the previous president for signing the $700 billion bailout or continue to ignore it and pretend that there was just $787 billion bailout by the current president?

However, McCain makes an open acknowledgement that not many in the GOP are willing to make right now.    The fact of the matter is that Obama is going to be extremely difficult to hit and bring down in 2012.  The sooner that R's begin to admit that, the closer to winning they'll get.

The best bit of advice was to "outlast Palin fever".  McCain manages to be diplomatic about Palin, but also, in a sense, derides the actual tenacity of the campaign.  The one comment of "... at some point she is going to have to do something other than come up with clever soundbites." seems to be a little off.  I remember that was a major critique of Clinton was all he came up with were soundbites and you know what that got him?  Two terms.

One last bit:  the "forget about Iowa" part.  In the section, she talks about how its less important than people might portray it to be and that the real gamble and the real stakes are established in New Hampshire.  She's not entirely correct.  Obama made his first strong showing in Iowa back in 2008, to the surprise (even shock) to many.  Granted, Hilary Clinton came back in the NH primary, but Iowa was supposed to be a cake walk for her and, instead, it marked the beginning of the end (or the seemingly endless Bataan death march to the Democratic nomination.)

Also would be fair to point out that in 2000, John McCain didn't get the nod in IA, he got it in NH and then proceeded to get the shit beat out of him by Bush II all over the rest of the USA.  I say this not with malice towards John McCain; after all, I was supporting him and wishing that the rest of the country would see reason and vote McCain in 2000.  But Iowa did figure into the overall political strategy and, the candidates can't completely ignore IA.  Why?

Well, assume that a plausible candidate like Romney, Johnson or Huntsman pull out of IA and then put everything down in NH?  Now imagine if Herman Cain or (worse?) Michelle Bachmann getting the nod in IA.  They went from being ridiculous and inane to being "legitimate" and "plausible".

I mean, generally speaking, the entire primary/caucus/nomination process (on both sides, but especially the GOP) has to be reformed.  The arbitrariness of random states holding a good deal of political sway in the process isn't good politics and it's detrimental to the entirety of the campaign.  I can go on and on about it (and probably will in a later post).  But, the way that everything is set up currently, the road has to go through IA.  A long, desolate, pointless road, but a road nonetheless.