Mitt Romney – Iowa Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus Candidate Guide

Mitt Romney

1. Who is he?

The son of a former governor of Michigan, Mitt Romney was the one-term Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. He ran for the Republican nomination in 2008, but came in second/third. Prior to his governorship, he was most famous for his impressive work with the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is a former Senate candidate in Massachusetts, defeated in 1994 by the prolific Ted Kennedy. Outside of politics, his main occupation has been businessman, serving as the CEO of Bain & Company.

On the Republican political spectrum, Mitt Romney is fairly moderate. As the Republican governor of the liberal Massachusetts, Romney staked out moderate positions, which he carries with him today. Romney is also an insider, as he has many connections in Washington D.C. and in the business world. His connections and ideology place most other presidential candidates to the right of him on the conservative spectrum.



Governor Romney will be 65 years old on election day 2012.

2. Why he could win the primary – Biggest advantages

Four things: Money, name recognition, next-in line status, and electability

Mitt Romney raised the most money by far during the 2nd Quarter. Ron Paul raised just over $4.5 million while the bronze went to Tim Pawlenty for raising just under $4 million. Mitt Romney blew everyone away with $18 million raised (except President Obama who raised over $80 million). Also, because he did well in the 2008 primary, he is already well known by the GOP electorate. Furthermore, the Republican party (historically) has tended to elected the guy who is “next in line” for the nomination (i.e. John McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc.). Romney is the current frontrunner for the nomination and this should help him in the primary. Plus, he has the best poll numbers against the President at this time.

3. Why he could lose - Biggest weaknesses

Here’s the biggie: ObamaCare and RomneyCare. While Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he instituted universal health care in his state. Since the health insurance debate last year, President Obama has shrewdly "congratulated" Romney for helping inspire his health care bill that is now law. Most troubling to small government conservatives is the individual mandate, which forces every American to purchase private health insurance, which runs contrary to free-market principles. While Romney was running Massachusetts, he championed this mandate and signed it into law, thus requiring every person in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance. Needless to say, this is a rather unpopular part of ObamaCare today, and GOP voters might be disinclined to support Governor Romney because of the mandate that RomneyCare instituted in Massachusetts.

4. What the candidate wants you to see

Governor Romney is focused on President Obama, taking him to task over jobs, or the lack thereof. He is clearly looking forward towards the general election.



5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

In 2008, the media pounced on Romney, referring to him as a flip-flopper.

From the Washington Post:

1. Abortion. In October 2002, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose. He now describes himself as an abortion opponent.


The above story has position changes on several other items including gun rights and immigration. These position changes certainly hurt him in 2008 among the Republican primary voters and they have not gone away. YouTube has several videos that highlight Mitt Romney’s past positions. As it stands, social conservatives are still wary of his new pro-life credentials.

6. How would he fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

Governor Romney might be able to be competitive in Iowa, as long as he could convince social conservatives in the state to support him. As for Ohio, he is the most competitive compared to the other candidates.

In Ohio, President Obama leads each candidate polled but by different amounts
v. Romney – 4 point lead
v. Rick Perry – 12 point lead
v. Bachmann – 13 point lead
v. Sarah Palin – 16 point lead

Ohio is winnable by Romney, as he is only 4 points behind right now.

7. Chances that he could win the Presidency

As of right now, Mitt Romney has the best chance out of all Republican candidates to win the Presidency in 2012. He is the front runner and Intrade currently gives him a 12.5% chance of entering the White House in January 2013. He has to win the primary first, though.

Herman Cain – Iowa Straw Poll and Iowa Caucus Candidate Guide

Herman Cain

1. Who is he?

Herman Cain is a businessman. While he has worked for many companies, his most notable work was as the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, where he turned the company from unprofitable to profitable. He served on the board of directors for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City for four years in the 1990s. Before that, he worked with the United States Navy as a ballistics expert.

On the Republican spectrum, Herman Cain is an outsider. In fact, his only rival for true “outsider” status is Ron Paul. Cain has never served in Congress, in a governor’s mansion, or in a state house or state senate. He is a solid conservative, though, who is both socially and fiscally conservative.



Herman Cain will be 66 years old on election day 2012.

2. Why he could win the primary – Biggest advantages

Three things: The ultimate outsider, passion, and business experience

In a year where tea party outsiders are challenging the Republican establishment, Herman Cain remains the only real outsider in this Republican field. In a nation where many Republican voters are extremely fed up with Washington D.C., Cain can stand up and say, more so than any other person, “I am not a career politician.” His speeches are passionate and they draw upon his experience in the business world. These three things could give him an edge, as they did in the Fox News debate in May. Herman Cain was generally viewed as the winner of this debate.

3. Why he could lose - Biggest weaknesses

Herman Cain’s biggest strength is also his biggest weakness. There’s a reason that politicians always win Presidential primaries: politicians are extremely good at campaigning for political positions and the President of the United States is the ultimate political position. Furthermore, running a political campaign is a lot easier if you’ve ran a successful one before. With Cain, this has never happened before.

4. What the candidate wants you to see

His debate with President Clinton in 1993 is rather storied. Many would call this exchange as the beginning of the end of “Hillarycare.”



From Newsweek:
Herman Cain is the president of Godfather's Pizza and president-elect of the National Restaurant Association. An articulate black entrepreneur, Cain transformed the debate when he challenged Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo., last April. Cain asked the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would have to lay off because of the cost of the "employer mandate." Clinton responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small businessmen, but Cain persisted. "Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate," he told the president. "In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn't work that way."

Cain became somewhat of a conservative hero after this exchange.

5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

The challenge for the atypical presidential candidate (i.e. the non-politician) is foreign policy. It’s incredibly important to understand that the President of the United States is still, for the most part, the leader of the free world. Thus, with so many issues in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East issues encircling US foreign policy, you’d better know your stuff. Similar to Sarah Palin’s damaging Bush Doctrine answer 3 years ago, Herman Cain’s answer to the Palestinian Right of Return serves as evidence that he needs to brush up some more.



Also, his recent comments regarding freedom of religion, or lack thereof, have not placed him in the most positive light. He has since apologized for his remarks regarding Islam.

6. How would he fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

If Herman Cain were to become the nominee, he could most likely go toe to toe with President Obama in a debate. However, the President has shown himself to be an exceptional politician, despite his 2008 campaign which centered around him being “above the fray” and an “atypical” politician. What remains to be seen is whether a straight shooter like Herman Cain will be able to resonate with people in swing states such as Iowa and Ohio.

7. Chances that he could win the Presidency

Politicians usually win the presidency. When they don’t, it’s a war hero that sweeps into office. Herman Cain is neither. Unfortunately for Cain, history has shown that candidates such as him (Steve Forbes anyone?) do not fare well once the voting begins. Thus, his chances of winning the primary and then defeating President Obama are fairly small.

Candidate Guide for the 2011 GOP Iowa Straw Poll in Ames - 2012 Republican Primary

The Iowa Straw Poll (ISP) is less than a month away and the time to start winnowing the large field of GOP candidates has arrived. History has shown that after each previous Straw Poll, there’s always been at least one candidate who drops out due to poor performance. Thus, the ISP maintains at least some importance in this year-long primary process.

Who are the candidates on the ISP Ballot? Here they are:

Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Thaddeus McCotter
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum




Over the next few days, we’ll be looking first at the candidates that will most likely receive a good amount of support in the Iowa Straw Poll. For example, conventional wisdom suggests that Newt Gingrich, Thaddeus McCotter, and Jon Huntsman will not do very well in the Straw Poll. Because of this, we’ll save posts about them for later.

In this series of posts, we’ll be looking at each candidate in regards to seven different topics

1. Who are they?

We’ll do a quick overview of their past experiences. We’ll also look at where they lie on paper, with the help of the Nate Silver, statistics guru. In February, he created the chart below (which I’ve updated by removing those who are definitely not running). This chart outlines where each candidate lies (insider-outsider, conservative-moderate, with each color representing the candidates’ home regions).




2. Why they could win the primary – Biggest advantages

What gives them the extra edge in the Republican race to face President Obama?

3. Why they could lose - Biggest weaknesses

Every candidate has at least one weakness, either with the Republican electorate or the general population.

4. What the candidate wants you to see

By now, we’ve seen advertisements from nearly all the candidates. In this category we’ll put their best foot forward.

5. What the candidate does NOT want you to see

Ahh…the power of YouTube. In the second decade of this new millennium, a regular American’s first impression of these candidates will be what they find on YouTube or through a Google search. Thus, any video clip, press release, or skeleton in the closet that is problematic can easily sink a candidate in the primary, or even worse, the general election.

Remember that President Obama has already been through extensive “vetting” during his primary against the Clintons and then in the general election as well. For the most part, we shouldn’t expect an “October Surprise” that hurts Obama. We should, however, make sure that a nasty surprise doesn’t sink our candidate…that’s what the primary season is for. Imagine how angry the Democrats would have been if they had nominated John Edwards as their candidate in 2008.


6. How would they fare against President Obama in Iowa and Ohio

I believe that Iowa is going to be a very competitive state in November of 2012. Thus, a candidate should be able to perform well here in a general election. As for Ohio, the Republican candidate must win Ohio to become the next President of the United States. Thus, we’ll estimate how a candidate might perform there as well.

7. Chances that they could win the Presidency

Currently, the prediction markets (such as Intrade) believe that President Obama has roughly a 60% chance of being reelected. However, that number could go either way depending on who the Republicans nominate for the Presidency. Simply stated, some candidates have a better shot at winning against Obama.

We’ll be looking at the following six candidates:

Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum

I am not including Sarah Palin (former governor of Alaska) and Rick Perry (current governor of Texas), because they are not declared candidates at this point. Plus, I’m a little concerned about the following two polls, which has them both losing to Obama in Ohio and Texas.

Ohio, a must win state for the Republicans in 2012

Obama 51 - Palin 35 (16 point lead)
Obama 47 - Perry 35 (12 point lead)

Texas, usually a very reliable state for the Republicans in presidential election:

Obama 46 - Palin 44
Obama 47 - Perry 45

While I am certainly concerned about Ohio, my biggest fears regarding Palin and Perry revolve around Texas. Needless to say, all Texans know who Obama is and who Palin and Perry are. And yet, with that knowledge, this poll has them losing the state’s electoral votes to President Obama. While they are not candidates at this point, we’ll see what transpires over the next month.

Final Thoughts

The election is upon us, and it looks as though the Republicans are going to take over the House of Representatives, but just fall short in the US Senate.

However, the question is, how big is this wave election? We'll probably be able to find out by the Congressional races here in Iowa.

If it's a small wave, Leonard Boswell wins in IA-3.
If it's a big wave, Boswell loses in IA-3.
If it's a huge wave, Boswell loses in IA-3 AND Braley loses in IA-1
If it's a ridiculous tsunami, Boswell, Braley, and Loebsack lose in IA-3, IA-1, and even the most liberal IA-2, producing five Republican Congresspersons from the state of Iowa.

Thus, when you're watching returns tomorrow night, be sure to watch these races. They'll give you an idea of how the Republicans will do nationwide.

Also, from the Wall Street Journal.

It took Democrats in the House of Representatives 40 years to become out-of-touch enough to get thrown out of office in 1994. It took 12 years for the Republicans who replaced them to abandon their principles and be repudiated in 2006. Now it appears that the current Democratic majority has lost voter confidence in only four years.

While I disagree with many of Rep. Baird's stances (D-Washington), he makes some very astute points. Republicans would be wise to understand that voters, especially in a down economy are not going to be very patient. As such, if the GOP does take over part or all of Congress, it will be their responsibility to govern wisely.

If they do not, then it will only take 2 years for the GOP to lose voter confidence. At that point, 2012 will be a disaster, as President Obama will be reelected, the Democrats will control Congress yet again, and Obama will nominate another two Supreme Court justices, tipping the balance of justice in favor of liberal interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Yeah...the stakes are that high. We Republicans are about to receive a gift from voters. Let's not squander it.

Tuesday Afternoon Musings

It's primary day in the Northeast, and Delaware Republicans have a choice between winning Vice President Biden's Senate seat or losing it. Mike Castle, the moderate Republican running for the seat is not very conservative, and not my favorite politician. However, even a quality conservative candidate would have trouble winning in Delaware (Christine O'Donnell, Castle's inexperienced challenger, is no Marco Rubio), and these political facts cannot be changed.

Thus, I'm thinking that a Mike Castle win tonight will put more Republicans in the Senate, while a Castle loss would mean more Democrats there. I'm not a petty man, but I love the fact that VP Biden's former Senate seat could switch to Republican if Mike Castle wins.

I already adore the fact that liberal lion Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat belongs to Republican Scott Brown.

Furthermore, I'm really excited to see that President Obama's former Senate seat could soon belong to Republican Mark Kirk.

The real question is, are we a party that can accept moderate Northeastern Republicans? If we are not, we should throw out Scott Brown now, and the GOP should avoid spending campaign money in 12 states because the GOP will rarely win up there.

Jay Cost, over at Weekly Standard:

By and large, genuinely conservative candidates are going to have a difficult time getting elected and staying elected in the Northeast.

With the exception of the once-in-a-while Scott Brown type of candidate (and O'Donnell is clearly no Scott Brown!), the GOP can run moderate Republicans in the Northeast, or it can effectively cede the region to the Democrats, who will elect by default some of the most liberal members in the entire United States Congress. Which is it going to be?

Is this really a tough call for conservatives?

Can we have Northeastern Republicans who aren't as conservative as Utah or South Carolina Republicans? YES!

---

Good news from the courts:

A federal judge said Tuesday he is likely to let 20 states proceed with at least a portion of their lawsuit challenging the heart of the Democrats’ health care overhaul.

---

Speaking of the health care law:

In a 46-52 vote, lawmakers killed an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) that would have saved businesses and nonprofit groups from having to report an array of small and medium-sized purchases to the Internal Revenue Service.

Why is this random, stupid IRS small business reporting rule mixed in with the Obamacare law? Easy. Because Obamacare is complex by design. Because Obamacare is designed to take more money from small businesses. Because Obamacare could have been ten pages long, but Democrats felt that ten pages was 200 times too short.

Let it never be said that Democrats always have small businesses' best interests in mind, because this rule, which brings new taxes and ludicrous amounts of paperwork along with it, could have been rejected today. However, the Democratic party (save a handful of conservative Democrats) voted against an amendment to remove this obscure, but very significant small business IRS reporting tax provision from the health care bill. Thus, my mother-in-law will be hurting. My good friend will be hurting. Several neighbors of mine will be hurting.

All because most Democrats in the United States voted against an amendment to remove an obscure, but very significant small business IRS reporting tax provision from the health care bill.

For future reference, if you see any serious tax code changes in the next random piece of legislation, let me know. I was wondering if this type of behavior (i.e. changing tax regulations in a random lung cancer awareness month bill) is typical.

Senate Race #5 - California

For this installment of Senate Race, we turn to California. Incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer is very liberal, and rather unpopular. California has been hit hard by the recession, and as a Democratic member of the Democratic led Congress, Senator Boxer is being hit hard in the polls. It’s actually quite remarkable that this race is even close. In most other states, a Democrat such as Boxer would be well behind in the polls. However, California is one of the most left leaning states in the union.

Why is Senator Boxer struggling so much in a state that gave her 58% of the vote just six years ago?

A little background: California’s Democratic-controlled state government and its Democrat-lite Governor Schwarzenegger (who fiscal and social conservatives would never call a Republican) have created a statewide mess. Its two powerful Democratic senators and a lot of Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen (in the majority in Congress for nearly four years since well BEFORE the recession began) have been helpless to halt the economic disaster of California. California deserves better than Barbara Boxer, and they may be beginning to realize it.

Here’s Boxer criticizing a member of the Armed Forces because he called her “Ma’am”



Boxer is very well-known in California. Republican candidate Carly Fiorina, however, is a fresh face. She is one of only a handful of women who have risen to the level of CEO of a Fortune 500 company. However, what impresses me most about her is her commitment to life. Even in the left-leaning state of California, Fiorina is a pro-life woman who is forthright with her views, even if it costs her a few independent voters. By the end of this post, though, you may feel that Fiorina is much closer to the mainstream of Californians on the issue of abortion than Boxer.

Nonetheless, this race should also be fairly close.

Carly Fiorina v. Barbara Boxer


Polling average, from Pollster.com

BB - 47%
CF - 45%

Percentage chance of a party change
23%

Current status
Leans Democratic Seat

Election night results estimate
Boxer 48.7%
Fiorina 46.9%

Final Thoughts

I have met many folks who are new to Iowa, having left the struggling Golden State. While it is very unfortunate for such a fine state to be in trouble, our state is certainly welcoming of those who are migrating to a more economically friendly Iowa. I do believe that Senator Boxer is not helping the current situation in California, though. While Fiorina has a tough road ahead of her (she’s at a 10:1 cash disadvantage) there is a chance she will pull it off.

On a related note, George Will recently criticized Senator Boxer for her extreme position on abortion. Here's an argument on the Senate floor from several years ago, dealing with when life begins.

In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”

There's only one correct answer to the question that former Senator Santorum asked.

Question: Once a baby leaves his or her mother, does that child have a constitutional right to life?

Answer: Yes.

Anyone who does not answer as I answered above has, at best, serious moral failings...and Barbara Boxer did not answer a simple "Yes" to the question. Does this question really need more than a one word answer? Un...believable.

Senate Race #4 - Washington

Moving to the West Coast, we look at the beautiful state of Washington. Here we have Senator Patti Murray, who is a very typical blue state Democrat. However, she has an opponent this year who is the competent and well known former gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi. This race should remain fairly close like Wisconsin, despite the Democratic tilt of Washington state.

I have to imagine that if Dino Rossi was running for governor again this year (he has lost the previous two times to current Governor Christine Gregoire, once by only 129 votes) he would wipe the floor with the Governor. However, he is running against a well established and well-funded liberal Democrat, who may be tough to beat.

Patty Murray v. Dino Rossi


Polling average, from Pollster.com

DR - 50%
PM - 48%

Percentage chance of a party change
54%

Current status
Toss Up

Election night results estimate
Rossi 49.1%
Murray 48.9%

Final Thoughts
Washington is a blue state, no doubt. However, Dino Rossi is a mainstream Republican with a positive economic message and a strong electoral wind at his back. This Senate race will be interesting in regards to voter turnout. If Republicans, both conservative and moderate turn out for him, he’ll become a U.S. Senator. However, he is still working on getting the full support of Tea Party Republicans, who are somewhat wary of him. Given the alternative, though, I imagine that they will come around.

Senate Race #3 – Wisconsin

The next three posts will revolve around three Senate races that the Democrats were probably hoping to keep rather safe this year. These hopes, however, will not become reality.

59 D to 41 R – This is the current partisan breakdown in the Senate.

One year ago, most pundits would have said that the Republicans might gain 4-5 seats in the Senate this cycle. However, it is fascinating to see where we’ve come over the past 12 months. 10 Republican wins and 10 Democratic Senate losses in November are certainly possible. This would give the Republicans a majority in the Senate.

Three major reasons for this potential Republican majority are the Senate races in Washington, Wisconsin, and California. From Politico:

At the start of the year, few observers thought the Senate was up for grabs, in part because it seemed implausible that Washington’s Patty Murray, California’s Barbara Boxer and Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold were in any serious danger.

But with the political environment turning toxic for Democrats and incumbents, Murray drawing perhaps her toughest possible opponent and Boxer and Feingold facing self-funders, the three Class of 1992 veterans are in the fight of their long political lives as the battle for control of the Senate moves from traditional battlegrounds to blue state venues.

We start with our neighbors to the northwest, Wisconsin. They have elected Russ Feingold three times, and he’s trying to make it four. Feingold has always been an interesting Democrat, sometimes bucking the trends. For example, he voted against the Obama/Bush supported $700 billion bank bailout. He was also the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, which passed through the Senate by a 98-1 vote. However, he voted for both Obamacare and the $800 billion stimulus package last year. Overall, he’s pretty loyal to the Democratic platform, and that may cause him trouble this year.

His opponent, businessman Ron Johnson, is well financed and could potentially knock off this 18-year Senator.

Ron Johnson v. Russ Feingold


Polling average, from Pollster.com

RJ - 47%
RF - 46%

Percentage chance of a party change
51%

Current status
Toss Up

Election night results estimate
Johnson 49.3%
Feingold 49.1%

Final Thoughts
Wisconsin is a purple state at heart. With the wind at his back, Ron Johnson could really give Senator Feingold a run for his money. Still, Senator Feingold isn’t hated in Wisconsin, and he gives off that “maverick” vibe that voters like. It may just propel him over the finish line. Here’s hoping it won’t though.

The Home Stretch

As we enter the month of September, we are just over two months away from the 2010 Midterm Elections. The stakes: Control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

I'll start posting more over the next two months as we are entering a time period when non-political folks start looking at races more carefully. As such, if they come to 1007 East Grand, they'll be able to find information about local, statewide, and national issues and elections.

Today, let's look at some information that the fine folks over at Gallup are providing...particularly the "Trust" numbers from 2010 compared to the "Trust" numbers from 2006.

The difference between now and four years ago is pretty stark.

The question is: WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE?



These numbers truly explain why so many Democrats are fearing this upcoming election. The Democratic Party has had virtually unlimited control of the federal government for the past two years, and the American people are clearly not happy.

Here's how the trust numbers have turned toward the Republican Party:
- Corruption in Government: 26 points
- The Economy: 27 points
- Terrorism: 29 points
- Immigration: 31 points
- Healthcare (the Democrats key domestic victory): 38 points

This massive swing in trust foreshadows good fortune for the Republican Party in November.

Wednesday Morning Musings

It really has been an interesting 48 hours, especially when it comes to the issue of racism in America. Shirley Sherrod, the woman who was essentially fired from the Department of Agriculture for telling a story about mistakes she made a quarter century ago, has received an apology from the NAACP. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is reviewing her situation, to see if she she should be rehired, which she should.

Here's a quick rundown of what has occurred the last two days.

-Shirley Sherrod was in the business of helping Southern farmers in 1986.
-According to her, she liked helping black farmers a lot more than white farmers
-However, she begrudgingly helped white farmers who needed assistance.
-The white farmers were very thankful, and they are friends with Sherrod now.
-23 years pass
-Sherrod was appointed by the Obama administration to serve in the Dept. of Agriculture.
-In 2010, she told this story to a local NAACP chapter, telling them that important to AVOID doing what she did, i.e. using racial preferences.
-The media got a hold of the video, and it seemed as though she was using racial preferences TODAY.
-Sherrod was forced to resign.
-And now, Tom Vilsack is reviewing the situation, because it seems she was treated unfairly.

The 24 hour media circus can be exhausting, but as I said yesterday, I believe Shirley Sherrod, and I certainly believe that she does NOT hold racist beliefs today.

-----

The Christian Science Monitor explores the liberal journalist organization known as Journolist. This is the organization I referred to yesterday that may be involved in shaping the media narrative in an inappropriate way. Although many organizations shape the narrative, i.e. the more conservative Fox and the more liberal MSNBC, there is one major difference: most people know that Sean Hannity is conservative and that Keith Olbermann is liberal, while a seemingly unbiased member of Journolist may be more insidious.

-----
Democratic Governors Association (DGA)...really???

Major Dem donors who wrote checks to the Democratic Governors Association funded a below-the-radar campaign that attacked Pres. Obama and other Dem all-stars, all in hopes of knocking off a strong GOP challenger.

If this is true, Democrats effectively wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on attacking Terry Branstad…and Barack Obama…together? Let’s be clear about this. First, it’s a stupid move because I imagine that Democratic candidates around the country would LOVE to have those monies, and second, Terry Branstad is no Barack Obama, which is a very good thing.

-----
From Robert Samuelson at Real Clear Politics

If you want a preview of President Obama's health care "reform," take a look at Massachusetts. In 2006, it enacted a "reform" that became a model for Obama. What's happened since isn't encouraging.

It's an interesting read, and it may foretell the future of the new health care law.

Tuesday Morning Musings

Musings for the mid-morning coffee break.

-----

Some feel that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin received too much money as a trial lawyer. From the Register:

"Des Moines lawyer Roxanne Conlin has been sued by a national group of plaintiffs lawyers for not sharing with them a portion of the $75 million in fees that she and a Minnesota law firm received in a settlement in Iowa's civil antitrust case against Microsoft."

-----

There's been a lot of talk about the NAACP and racism recently, most notably revolving around the ridiculous charge that most Tea Party members are racist. This is a monumentally inaccurate charge, and I expect more from an organization as historically significant as the NAACP. However, a news story today was especially interesting, and the woman involved was promptly criticized by the NAACP. From Huffington Post:

"Shirley Sherrod, a USDA official in Georgia, has resigned after publicly admitting that race played a factor in her decision to limit how much aid would be given to a white farmer."

The NAACP agrees with her resignation, tendered to Iowa's own Tom Vilsack.

"We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet."

Preferring to help one race over another is unfortunate, and it's certainly good for groups such as the NAACP or the Tea Party to criticize trace elements of racism whenever they can, in the interest of American values of freedom and equality.

Quick update: The white farmers in question have come out in defense of Sherrod, and Sherrod has said that she holds no animosity for those farmers, despite her comments. To be honest, all of these years later, I absolutely believe her, and I'm quite sure that Sherrod is sorry for the unfortunate comments that she made. As for the NAACP, they have retracted their criticism.

Interesting enough, she lays some of the blame on the NAACP because of:

the NAACP's recent resolution calling on the Tea Party movement to repudiate racist elements within it...The controversy has led one Tea Party group to oust another because of a blog posting by the second group's leader.

Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams posted on his blog a faux letter from Jealous to President Abraham Lincoln in which Williams ridicules the organization's use of "colored" in its historic name and uses multiple stereotypes to bolster his point. The National Tea Party Foundation expelled Williams' organization from its coalition as a result.

Sherrod on Tuesday called the NAACP "the reason why this happened. They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that."

-----

On a separate note, I'm glad that the aforementioned Mark Williams was expelled from the Tea Party Coalition. His letter was unhelpful and rather inappropriate.

-----

Apparently several liberal journalists wished to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright during President Obama's presidential campaign.

-----

Finally, the constitutionality of Obamacare is currently being challenged in court. If you read only one New York Times article this year, make sure it's this one. After you finish with it, read this abstract which deals with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Here's a quick version for those who may not have time to read both articles.

1. During the health care debate, the following exchange occurred on ABC:

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

2. This bold statement from Obama makes sense, because President Obama promised not to create any new taxes, especially for the middle and lower class.

3. After the the law was challenged in court, the President's legal team, realizing that the law was most likely unconstitutional using the commerce clause, made the switch, and said that Obamacare is indeed a new tax...most likely an excise tax.

4. It may not matter, because according to Steven Willis and Nakku Chung from the University of Florida, this health care excise tax, for all intents and purposes, in unconstitutional.

5. However, we do know that the President conveniently promised that Obamacare was NOT a tax before it passed, and then stated that it was a tax, only after it was passed into law. It's a classic bait and switch, which of course, is change we can believe in!

Senate Race #2 – South Dakota

Continuing to look at the 2010 Senate picture, we’ll move on to our neighbors to the northwest, South Dakota.

On January 7th, 2011, Senator John Thune will celebrate his 50th birthday. He will celebrate by beginning his second term as the junior senator from the great state of South Dakota. I make this statement with certainty because of two reasons: First, Senator Thune is very popular in South Dakota. Second, and more importantly, Democrats in South Dakota chose against running an opponent against Thune due to his popularity and his mainstream conservative values that lie squarely in line with the vast majority of South Dakotans.

First, a little history. In 2004, John Thune was in the midst of a very competitive election against Tom Daschle, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate. At the end of very tough campaign against perhaps the most powerful Democrat in the United States, Thune was victorious by less than 5,000 votes. After six years of solid, mainstream conservatism in the Senate, he is up for reelection this year.

However, this reelection campaign has important implications for the future of the Republican Party. John Thune is considered a potential Presidential candidate by many insiders. As such, if he has the opportunity to help other Republicans around the country with their reelection campaigns, he may gain friendships, support, and potential future endorsements.

Thus, if Senator Thune is indeed thinking of running for the Presidency, he can thank the Democratic Party of South Dakota for giving him a great 50th birthday present…a 2nd term in the Senate and a possible springboard to the Presidency.


Thune v. No Democrat


Polling average, not from Pollster.com, because they do not have a chart

JT – 70%+
ND – 0%

Percentage chance of a party change
0%

Current status
Safe Republican Seat

Election night results estimate
Thune 80%+
Democrat 0%

Final Thoughts
I really like John Thune, and I think he would make a great addition to the 2012 primary race for President.

T.N.L.V.

A Thursday Night Lighthearted Video

Now I know that politicians say silly things sometimes, but as a history teacher, I find this video especially unfortunate.

The following is U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, saying some very interesting things about the great nations of Vietnam, both North and South...in 2010. Clearly, Representative Jackson-Lee needs to fire her speechwriter or brush up on American history, because this speech is pretty rough.

Senate Race #1 - Iowa

Currently, there are 41 Republicans in the Senate. Had Scott Brown not won the special election to replace liberal lion Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, there would only be 40 Republican held seats, which would not be able to overcome a successful Democratic cloture vote (which essentially halts a filibuster). The health care bill was only passed because of clever use of Senate rules, which allowed for the first vote to occur before Scott Brown was elected. After that, the use of reconciliation precluded any filibuster from occurring, and we received what has become known as “Obamacare.”

To avoid any future worries of unfortunate legislation, Republicans across the country should be doing what they can to increase the number of seats held by Republicans, particularly conservative ones.

Of course, we start by looking at our own state of Iowa. The Republican in the race, Chuck Grassley has been Iowa's senior senator for many years now, and frankly, he's a most excellent representative of the people. An Iowa farmer at heart, Chuck is more conservative than the average Iowa voter (although Tom Harkin is WAY more liberal than the average Iowa voter), which makes Grassley even more valuable, because conventional wisdom would expect a Republican to be less conservative from a swing state such as Iowa.

Chuck Grassley serves Iowa in several important ways. He serves on the powerful Senate Judiciary committee, as well as the influential Senate Agriculture committee. Furthermore, he is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and he is the 10th most senior member of the upper house. His amount of power and influence is very important for Iowans to have in Washington D.C.

Senator Grassley is an avid campaigner, who usually succeeds at visiting all 99 counties of Iowa every year, meeting with and listening to Iowans all across the state. He is consistently the most popular politician in Iowa, surpassing junior Senator Harkin, and even President Obama in polls that measure approval ratings.

Senator Grassley's history of exceptional service to the state of Iowa, coupled with his general approval by the people of Iowa make him a tough foe this November, even for the most knowledgeable, likable, and well-funded Democratic candidate.

Fortunately for Grassley, Democrats in Iowa did not choose a candidate with all three of those qualities. In the June primary, Roxanne Conlin was nominated to oppose Grassley in November. While Conlin is definitely well-funded and she seems knowledgeable, her likability (in other words, her personality) is lacking. While this is only anecdotal evidence, many Democrats who I have spoken with are not fond of Conlin as a person. They feel as though she is bristling, abrasive, and that she lacks a certain kind of warmth that voters like. In contrast, Chuck Grassley is a man who has met with tens of thousands of Iowans over the years, and they have continued to reelect him with over 66% of the vote in EVERY reelection campaign. Do Iowans like Grassley? The answer is clear...yes.

However, in the end, likability can only get you so many votes. You gotta be competent, and you gotta have money, and Grassley has both intelligence and a massive war chest of over five million dollars.

National Democrats would love to make this race competitive, but at this point, this race still leans towards Senator Grassley. While Conlin will make this race more competitive than any other reelection campaign for Grassley, she will most likely fall short. Chuck Grassley, the most popular politician in Iowa, is simply too well-liked to overcome. Iowans want to keep him where he is, which is the right move.

Grassley v. Conlin




Polling average, from Pollster.com

CG - 54%
RC - 37%

Percentage chance of a party change
10%

Current status
Safe Republican Seat

Election night results estimate
Grassley 54%
Conlin 45%

Final Thoughts

Roxianne Conlin's mug shot certainly shares some similarities with Dustin Hoffman from Tootsie.

The United States Senate

Over the next few weeks, I'll be putting up some posts that highlight some of the important Senate races around the country. The United States Senate, as the upper house of a bicameral legislature generally holds a little more power than the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, in the Senate, each individual member holds a fairly large amount of power, whether it be through the use of the hold or the filibuster.

Thus, each and every Senate race is very important this year, because we as a nation will be determining what men and women will be given a six year term in Washington.

The future of Congress will be decided in November. After election night in November, we may find the GOP in control of the House of Representatives. While I think there's about a 25% chance of a Republican takeover of the lower house, I still think that Nancy Pelosi will be holding the gavel in January. However, her ridiculously huge majority will be all but lost, and there will have to be serious compromise in the House.

In the Senate, it is nearly impossible for the Republicans to take control of 51 seats for a pure majority. However, the makeup of the Senate in January of 2011 will surely determine how President Obama's final two years in office will go. Thus, we'll be looking at critical Senate races around the nation so we can find out exactly where we stand this summer.

GOP Convention on Saturday!

This Saturday, the Republican Party will be holding their state convention in downtown Des Moines. While there will be speeches by officeholders and candidates and discussion of the party platform, one major event of interest will be the nomination of Terry Branstad’s choice for Lt. Governor.

Now, Iowans will know who the former Governor has selected before the convention on Saturday, but the question still remains: Who will it be?

As a lowly blogger for the Dallas County Republicans, I’m fairly confident that my thoughts and opinions have little to no bearing on Terry Branstad’s choice for Lt. Gov. However, I do have a few ideas as to who would make a good candidate in 2010.

So, here is my open letter to the former governor.

Dear Governor Branstad.

I’m told that you’re really excited to choose someone to be the next Lt. Governor of the great state of Iowa. I have a few ideas.

First, please choose someone younger. I think that you would like to live at Terrace Hill for at least the next 8 years, at which point, you can have a younger Lt. Governor that can carry the executive torch of Iowa. Furthermore, having a younger candidate will help the GOP reach out to younger voters, which needs to occur.

Second, choose someone with a personality, who has been fully vetted. Skeletons and unfortunate encounters with the media can quickly sour the public’s perception of a running mate, but having a strong, intelligent, and amiable personality will only help reinforce you and your personality. Terry…people really like you, so make sure you choose someone who you know Iowans will like.

Finally, please choose someone to your political right. There are tens of thousands of Iowans who are fired up and ready to vote for conservatives. During the primary campaign, Bob Vander Plaats levied charges at you, basically saying that you are not conservative enough. While I think those charges are somewhat unfair, I think that we’re going to be seeing a serious conservative resurgence in November. Why not choose a person who can help reinforce your conservative message?

I hope you take my suggestions to heart and I’ll see you at the convention. Best wishes!

Sincerely

ghbraves

We have a Commander-in-Chief

Today, news has been swirling around General Stanley McChrystal, the prominent military official directing the war in Afghanistan. As it turns out, there is a profile of McChrystal within the pages of this month’s Rolling Stone magazine. However, the profile reveals that that the general made several unflattering comments about the Obama administration.

From CNN

McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which the general and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general has also fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone magazine.

How does President Obama feel about this? Also, from CNN.

President Barack Obama was "angry" after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal's controversial remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the interview for the article were "profound," Gibbs said.

This much is clear: General McChrystal made a mistake in allowing Rolling Stone magazine (you know, that magazine devoted primarily to music) to have access to conversations that painted President Obama’s team as inexperienced (at best). At the very least, General McChrystal is guilty of poor judgment, taking action akin to slamming your boss on Facebook, which has actually gotten gotten several Iowans fired in recent times.

However, at worst, it brings back memories of the dispute between President Harry Truman and the very popular General Douglas MacArthur in the early 1950s.

In 1950, Harry Truman and “Mac” had very different ideas about the future of the Korean war, and General MacArthur publicly questioned his superior, the President, in Time Magazine. In the end, Truman fired the general, and would eventually have the lowest approval rating of any president in United States history. Recent years have vindicated Truman, and he is considered to be one of the top 10 Presidents in American history.

The point is, it's not uncommon for generals to disagree with their President. However, it is uncommon for generals to disagree with their President in a very public way, which is what General McChrystal did by criticizing the President's administration, and even Vice President Biden.

So, what does this mean for the man who, according to many, has done very impressive work for U.S. efforts in the Middle East? Chances are he’ll resign, ending a long, notable career on a sour note. However, President Obama may channel Harry Truman, and fire the general tomorrow, although this is doubtful. I would guess that the former will occur in the coming days.

One thing is clear, as much as we may disagree with the policies of President Obama, he certainly has every right to fire Gen. McChrystal. We have a civilian commander-in-chief for a reason, and if I were President Obama, I would be “angry” with the general too.

Today is Primary Day in Iowa

Just a friendly reminder: Go out and vote. Polls are open until 9pm.

A Wednesday Musing

Just imagine if George W. Bush was President right now.

Do you think he would be:

a) criticized more than President Obama (for the oil spill)
b) criticized less than President Obama (for the oil spill)
c) criticized the same as President Obama (for the oil spill)
d) criticized ridiculously more than President Obama (for the oil spill)

If you guessed b, I question your intelligence. If you guessed c, I think that's naively sweet. If you guessed a, I believe that you are an optimist. Which leaves those who answered question d, who are correct.

The Importance of Voter Enthusiasm

This is good news for the GOP...the most recent CNN enthusiasm poll



If you notice, the enthusiasm is definitely on the side of the Republicans. 54% of Republicans in this poll are AT LEAST very enthusiastic for the November mid-term elections. However, according to CNN, only 32% of Democrats in this poll are pumped to vote this November. This equates to a 22% “enthusiasm gap" (or EG) in favor of the Republicans.

This is important (and good) for several reasons.

First, those more enthusiastic to vote will obviously be those that will go to the polls.

Second, this EG demonstrates that many Republicans who may have supported President Obama in 2008 are probably having buyers remorse. There’s always the chance that an Obama-supporting Republican might be really excited to vote for Democrats in the midterms to keep the President’s agenda running strong, but I would not bet on it.

Third, the enthusiasm gap will be very advantageous in the summer and fall leading up to the election. More excited voters are not only more excited to vote, but they are more excited to organize, donate time and money, and spread the conservative gospel.

Augmented excitement from the party base is what parties strive for, and a significant lead in the EG is a good place to start in an election year.

To compare, let's look at the enthusiasm gap in 2008, perhaps the worst electoral year for Republicans in recent memory. About 5 months before that election, the enthusiasm gap as polled by CNN was a bit different.



In this poll, a whopping 63% of Democrats were excited to vote, while only 37% of Republicans were excited to vote (in a Presidential election, mind you). That equates to a 26% EG, that turned into a 17% EG by election day, which turned into a 7% victory for President Obama over Senator McCain.

What will this current 22% EG lead to in November? Who knows? But one thing is clear: The Republicans have the wind at their backs, and they should press their advantage in the coming months.