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

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!

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