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!

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

GOP Debate - Pick Romney and Cut the Fat

If the moment could be crystallized and maintained, it would seem that the GOP would be able to rectify the mistake that they made last prez election cycle by supporting Mitt Romney.  The fact of the matter is that he is the most sensible of the entire group, both in 2008 and now again in 2012.  Reports seem to indicate two things: first, he's the man to beat.  Second, that he would be the only chance at diversity that the GOP would have.

Michelle Bachmann also quietly announced that she was running for prez.  I can only imagine that she feels qualified because she took care of so many foster kids and, oh yeah, GOD told her to run for prez.  Because we will live in a country where when we tell others that a voice told them to do something, unless it was child rape or murder, we accept it.  Here's a woman who said that God told her to run for the House, but still had to raise the most money EVER for a House Campaign.  What, even with God on your side, you don't have the capital necessary?  I thought you just need the go ahead from the Big Guy Upstairs?

Also, on behalf of the state of Georgia, I would like to apologize for Herman Cain.  People are getting excited about him, but they also got excited about Alan Keyes (which nothing ever came of, I would remind the audience.)  The fact that the man hasn't apologized for the comments regarding Muslims and, in addition, hasn't resigned from the campaign entirely is ludicrous and shows that there are still bigots that can run for office and bigots that are going to support other bigots.

Even when given more than ample opportunity to redact the statement, he just doubled-down and said that he wouldn't hire those that were trying to kill him.  Well, what a brave fucking position!  Unlike Obama, who hired assassins and thugs to surround him... what President would hire people that are trying to kill him?  Even for the flourish and rhetoric, Cain is just a distraction.  If the GOP is smart, they'll ignore him and drop him like a bad habit.  But, as an Obama supporter, I hope he stays in the race through several primaries.

Back in 2008, the GOP had a very simple choice to make:  first, they had to find someone who was willing to run for president that didn't have strong or blatant ties to the previous administration.  They managed to cock that up relatively quickly.

Second, they had to find someone that appealed to the center more than Bush II.  They had (and have) that in Romney.  Romney managed to get elected Gov. of Mass. as a Republican!  And everyone that I've talked to from Boston that remembers the Romney years all said, "he was a great governor!"  Understanding of course that during the primaries and caucuses you have to appeal to the base, but the smart campaigner will be able to appeal to the base and convince them that they have to think about the general election now.

Having said all that, I will reiterate that I'm an ardent Obama supporter and will advocate for his re-election.