The last time the Drudge Report posted news of a likely VP selection, it was Barack Obama choosing Evan Baye. And before that, it was John Kerry choosing Hillary Clinton. And now we are supposed to believe that Mitt Romney is taking Condoleeza Rice?
Read the rest of the article here...
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/rice-for-vp-is-a-ruse/
Monday, July 16, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Jeb Bush: 2012 Was My Time
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/06/jeb-bush-2012-was-my-time-to-run.html
In a rather stirring video, Jeb Bush admits that 2012 was his time to run for President. As for why, he gives a rather opaque answer, but one can almost see exactly what he was thinking: "My damn brother ruined the Bush name and there's no way I could run."
In a rather stirring video, Jeb Bush admits that 2012 was his time to run for President. As for why, he gives a rather opaque answer, but one can almost see exactly what he was thinking: "My damn brother ruined the Bush name and there's no way I could run."
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Could Bibi Endorse Romney?
Could Bibi Endorse Romney?
Sure.
If there’s one man out there who could perform the most unlikely of political miracles, it’s Binyamin Netanyahu.
But we all know that this is an extremely unlikely scenario.
Should Bibi endorse Romney ahead of the 2012 November elections, it would incur a huge and unnecessary political risk on Israel. It would be a maneuver that would be frowned upon by the savviest of political strategists.
Even the great Karl Rove would get cold feet.
Yet something within this foolproof utopia of political logic still nags at me. Because, as I’ve learned about Bibi over the years, one thing is Mey Eden clear. Never, ever, say never.
Read the rest: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/could-bibi-endorse-romney/
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Hawaii > Kenya
Birtherism has heated up again this week, with Donald Trump making more claims against Obama's true birthplace.
He didn’t know he was running for president, so he told the truth (in regard to a biography written about Obama)... The literary agent wrote down what he said… He said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia… Now they’re saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her she said, ‘Oh, I mean Hawaii.’ Give me a break.”
He didn’t know he was running for president, so he told the truth (in regard to a biography written about Obama)... The literary agent wrote down what he said… He said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia… Now they’re saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her she said, ‘Oh, I mean Hawaii.’ Give me a break.”
These attacks and assertions may hold some semblance of weight, depending on whom you ask, but more importantly, are short sighted.
Let's say an official federal investigation opens and finds that Obama was indeed born in Kenya and is officially ineligible to be President. At that point, current VP Joe Biden moves into Obama's former post. Is that good for the Democrats? Of course not. Biden is not particularly popular and didn't make much of a dent in the Democratic primaries back in 2007. But you know who did? Hillary Clinton.
With a 2012 election looming, assuming Obama was indeed tossed aside due to ineligibility, who is the most likely candidate to be pushed forward by the Democratic brain trust? Biden or Clinton? Seeing as they want to win in 2012, they will almost certainly declare the most popular politician in the White House right now, Hillary Clinton, as the official Democratic candidate.
Does that help the GOP in any way?
Sure the PR fallout will be negative should Obama be tossed aside. But how long would that last for once Hillary steps forward? She has the highest approval rating of her career right now. She has accomplished what is considered to be a great four years in the current White House as Secretary of State, and would be an immense upgrade over Obama (at least in terms of polls).
It is for this very reason that Birtherism, at this point, is foolish. Kenya, if true, would be much worse for the GOP than Hawaii.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Huntsman 3rd Party Run?
Jon Huntsman is still stewing over being dis-invited to a Republican Florida fundraiser back in March.
Why was he dis-invited? As if you didn't know.
Probably because he called for the existence of a 3rd party. GOP officials didn't take kindly to that, and despite Huntsman's public endorsement of Romney, essentially cut him loose.
Huntsman upped the rhetoric yesterday, by declaring "This is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script."
Huntsman also declared that Reagan could not get the GOP Presidential Nomination in today's political climate.
Huntsman has a right to be upset- he was arguably the most qualified and pristine candidate that the GOP had to offer, but he received little support. Although, inversely, one has to give credit to Romney, loser in 2008, for garnering a huge amount of support 4 years later. That in itself is a skill which although trumps ideology and history, also trumps failure.
I wonder if Huntsman is considering a 3rd party run? Americans Elect, the somewhat ballyhooed 3rd party group that has officially registered in each state, is looking for a legitimate candidate to front. So far, their biggest name is Buddy Roemer.
*crickets*
Exactly.
Someone like Huntsman would be a fair candidate- respected on both sides, intelligent, and a moderate on most political positions. He could nab the center and poach plenty from both the right and left. (He's the only candidate other than Ron Paul to call for bringing the troops home immediately).
Huntsman has to consider 2016. He thinks that he can do what Romney just did- make a name for himself in 2008, and win in 2012. The problem for Huntsman is that the field in 2016 is crowded with skilled candidates- unlike this years circus show.
Once Huntsman realizes he has no shot in 2016, he might consider a 3rd party run for 2012. Especially if the GOP refuses to help him. Also, Huntsman has had campaign debt. It's probably fair to say that he's been frustrated at the lack of help from both the GOP and perhaps the Romney campaign for helping to retire his debt.
These issues might propel him to decide to run as a 3rd party, and I wouldn't blame him.
Why was he dis-invited? As if you didn't know.
Probably because he called for the existence of a 3rd party. GOP officials didn't take kindly to that, and despite Huntsman's public endorsement of Romney, essentially cut him loose.
Huntsman upped the rhetoric yesterday, by declaring "This is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script."
Huntsman also declared that Reagan could not get the GOP Presidential Nomination in today's political climate.
Huntsman has a right to be upset- he was arguably the most qualified and pristine candidate that the GOP had to offer, but he received little support. Although, inversely, one has to give credit to Romney, loser in 2008, for garnering a huge amount of support 4 years later. That in itself is a skill which although trumps ideology and history, also trumps failure.
I wonder if Huntsman is considering a 3rd party run? Americans Elect, the somewhat ballyhooed 3rd party group that has officially registered in each state, is looking for a legitimate candidate to front. So far, their biggest name is Buddy Roemer.
*crickets*
Exactly.
Someone like Huntsman would be a fair candidate- respected on both sides, intelligent, and a moderate on most political positions. He could nab the center and poach plenty from both the right and left. (He's the only candidate other than Ron Paul to call for bringing the troops home immediately).
Huntsman has to consider 2016. He thinks that he can do what Romney just did- make a name for himself in 2008, and win in 2012. The problem for Huntsman is that the field in 2016 is crowded with skilled candidates- unlike this years circus show.
Once Huntsman realizes he has no shot in 2016, he might consider a 3rd party run for 2012. Especially if the GOP refuses to help him. Also, Huntsman has had campaign debt. It's probably fair to say that he's been frustrated at the lack of help from both the GOP and perhaps the Romney campaign for helping to retire his debt.
These issues might propel him to decide to run as a 3rd party, and I wouldn't blame him.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Santorum Dissapoints
That Romney netted all 20 delegates from Puerto Rico with over 50% of the vote shouldn't come as a surprise. Especially after Santorum made another "gaffe" of sorts, when he said that the 51st State could indeed become the 51st State, so long as they make English their first language.
Let's be honest- most Americans are probably queasy on some level about granting full fledged statehood to Puerto Rico, if not partly because English is not the primary language there.
What was disappointing wasn't Santorum's 10% vote tally. It was his backtracking after his blunt comments on Puerto Rico's language.
Santorum made a statement that hurt him in Puerto Rico, but that the rest of America would probably agree with.
That's why it was disappointing that he back-peddled faster than a lamb stumbling into a lion's den, claiming that his words were taken out of context, and (insert political apology jargon here).
Santorum has become a legitimate nominee because of his forthrightness, his refusal to apologize for his views, and his standing strong in the face of criticism. He consistently points to his 18 point loss in Pennsylvania as proof of not backing down from his sometimes unpopular views. He had a chance in Puerto Rico to be unpopular but true to his belief- the same characteristic that the other 50 states have finally noticed, respected, and admired.
And if character isn't enough of a reason, even from a political perspective Santorum should have just stayed mum and taken the heat after his PR/English comments, namely because the damage had already been done, and a half-apology would not help him recover at all in the voting.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Santorum's Necessary Gameplan
What Santorum can do to overtake Romney:
1) Refer to Romney as "McCain 2.0''
One of the reasons why Romney eked out a Michigan victory despite a 2nd mini-Santorum surge in the last two days was that voters expressed concerns over Santorum's electability. It has become almost common knowledge that a very right wing candidate such as Santorum is a much harder candidate to elect than Romney, a moderate.
Santorum has publicly denounced this notion, by referring to McCain's loss in 2008 as proof that nominating a moderate is far from a guarantee. Santorum is right- there is a reason why he is currenly neck and neck with a man who has spent over $30 million so far (Super PAC included). Santorum has galvanized the Right. And I do not use the term 'galvanize' lightly. In 2008, Huckabee 'galvanized' the Right, but how long did that last? Sure Huckabee got a few delegates, but he was essentially finished after Iowa. Santorum, however, has had more staying power and now has 4 states under his belt with Super Tuesday looming. Lets remember that Super Tuesday is a rural show, and Santorum is poised to do well.
What Santorum needs to do is drive home the McCain 2.0 aspect. He needs to remind the conservatives that nominating Moderate Mitt will leave scores of conservatives at home. Romney doesn't excite the base at all. Santorum has indeed benefited from that, but he needs to convince that particular pocket of voters who hesitate at the prospect of a Santorum nomination as iffy on a national scale. Santorum must prove that he is not iffy on a national scale. He needs to show that his nomination will bring out scores of conservative, rural, rust belt voters who have stayed home during McCain's run, and will likely stay home during Romney's 2nd lap. The argument that the hate for Obama is stronger than the disdain for Romney has never been proven.
Santorum needs to start referring to Romney as "McCain 2.0, sans military experience, political background, personality, and character".
Santorum needs to show voters that Romney is simply a very poor man's version of McCain, albeit with far less credentials. In essence, McCain was the perfect candidate; war hero, jovial personality, respected throughout Washington, and solid, consistent political background. Romney has none of that. If Santorum can continue to paint Romney as a very poor McCain redux-- the same McCain who soundly lost in 2008, voters might begin to realize that Mitt's moderation might not pan out in a general election.
2) Don't shy away from the 18 point loss
One of Santorum's sticking points has been his 18 point loss in the Pennsylvania 2006 Senate race. He has responded adequately in debates by saying that he knew he was going to lose, but he stood up for his beliefs in a liberal environment. That's honorable, but not sticky enough. For this argument to stick in voters' minds, Santorum needs to consistently remind voters that Romney was in a very similar situation after his 4 years of Governor, but instead of running again in a likely loss, he hightailed it out of Massachusetts. Santorum needs to remind voters that if Romney wouldn't stand up for his supposed conservative beliefs in Massachusetts, how in the world will he be expected to do that on a national scale?
3) Offer Gingrich a position
I know that the media has been hesitant to write off Gingrich for the 3rd time, but let's be honest here, it doesn't look bright. Mainly because Santorum's surge has pretty much crystallized him into the official anti-Romney, leaving Gingrich on the sidelines for good this time. Yes, Newt did get a new cash infusion from Sheldon Adelson, but the $5 million or so will only be enough for 1 state, a la South Carolina. And judging by his Super PAC's performance in Florida, Gingrich has a dim future. At this point, it seems that most of that money will have to go into Georgia to protect Newt's home turf. Now I'm sure that Santorum would be weary of having Gingrich in his Cabinet, but offering him a position of, oh I don't know, Secretary of State might work. This way Gingrich could turn into a scathing attack dog against Romney and even Paul, and not hurt Santorum, because it wouldn't be publicly known that the two sides have struck a deal.
Santorum may be reluctant to include Gingrich in a possible Government, but he needs to realize that the numbers are too close to gamble with. Assuming that 80% of Gingrich supporters would go to Santorum's side, Michigan would have gone to Santorum. That would have pushed Santorum into full-fledged frontrunner status. And even though Santorum had no business losing by just 3 percentage points, a loss is a loss.
4) Challenge Romney to a 1 on 1 debate
The last debate wasn't too kind to Santorum, one of his few as a frontrunner. Now that Santorum has seen Mitt's teeth up close and personal, sitting down nonetheless, he knows how to respond to debate attacks in the future. Gone will be the damaging lawyerly informational responses to each Romney volley. Santorum will fight fire with fire. The draw of a 1 on 1 debate is that it will exclude the still-unpredictable Gingrich, as well as Romney's security officer, Ron Paul, who has taken on the surprising role of chief attack dog toward both Newt and Rick.
However, it may not be enough to simply issue a challenge. Post-Michigan, Romney has regained his frontrunner status by the slimmest of numbers. But, a frontrunner is a frontrunner, and no frontrunner would ever agree to a debate, lest they inflict themselves with possible negative attacks.
This debate, however, can be accomplished through directive #5:
5) Bait Romney: Where's Waldo
As Rick Perry brilliantly showed, Romney can be baited into saying or doing something damaging. If someone like Perry can cause an intelligent, well coiffed man such as Romney to unravel on a public stage, then there is hope for the remaining candidates. Again, however, baiting is very difficult without a public debate stage. That is why through advertising, interviews, speeches, town hall meetings, and robocalls, Santorum can unleash a very baiting prerogative: Where's Waldo?
Before you assume this is some silly, juvenile ad campaign, keep in mind what needs to be driven home here. Romney's biggest weakness is also his most vague and hard to pinpoint: His lack of core. His aloofness. His nebulous past. The reason why Romney has skirted so many arguments against his character is due to his organization and money, but also to his candidates lack of artistic touch.
Why hasn't anyone been able to paint Romney the same way Kerry was painted in 2004? Romney is essentially a Kerry redux, in terms of personality and aloofness. These damning ingredients need to be molded together to form a lasting impression, much like Kerry's wind-sailing, knowledge of French, and swift boat veteran attacks. Those were the three things that stuck in voter's heads that caused Kerry to be painted as a flip-flopper.
Romney has emerged relatively unscathed in the character department due to a lack of creativity on his opponents' behalf. That can easily change. By using a silly, childish metaphor such as Where's Waldo, voters will immediately have a mental picture to tack on Romney- a canvas of sorts to capture the paint that has been unsuccessfully lobbed at him until now. Here's how:
"Much like in the children's game Where's Waldo, we have no idea where Mitt Romney is. Where is he right now? I'm not sure. He might be in his Utah residence, and if not there, in his Massachusetts mansion. Or he could be at the track with his Nascar owner buddies. Or maybe he's in one of his wife's 5 Cadillacs? Now I wonder, where was he in-
1983? On a 12 hour road trip to Ontario in the family station wagon, with dog Seamus tied to the roof.
1988? Stripping down companies and selling them off for Bain Capital.
1994? Becoming anti-abortion in order to run against Ted Kennedy.
2003? Raising taxes on gun licenses in Massacheusets.
2004? Raising taxes on gasoline at 2 cents per gallon.
2006? Putting the finishing touches on Romneycare, the blueprint for Obamacare.
An ad showing this type of blithe and almost unfair attack on Romney is what Santorum needs to embrace. If Romney can get away with steamrolling each opponent of his with negative ads, why can't Santorum? It's time to get with the program.
1) Refer to Romney as "McCain 2.0''
One of the reasons why Romney eked out a Michigan victory despite a 2nd mini-Santorum surge in the last two days was that voters expressed concerns over Santorum's electability. It has become almost common knowledge that a very right wing candidate such as Santorum is a much harder candidate to elect than Romney, a moderate.
Santorum has publicly denounced this notion, by referring to McCain's loss in 2008 as proof that nominating a moderate is far from a guarantee. Santorum is right- there is a reason why he is currenly neck and neck with a man who has spent over $30 million so far (Super PAC included). Santorum has galvanized the Right. And I do not use the term 'galvanize' lightly. In 2008, Huckabee 'galvanized' the Right, but how long did that last? Sure Huckabee got a few delegates, but he was essentially finished after Iowa. Santorum, however, has had more staying power and now has 4 states under his belt with Super Tuesday looming. Lets remember that Super Tuesday is a rural show, and Santorum is poised to do well.
What Santorum needs to do is drive home the McCain 2.0 aspect. He needs to remind the conservatives that nominating Moderate Mitt will leave scores of conservatives at home. Romney doesn't excite the base at all. Santorum has indeed benefited from that, but he needs to convince that particular pocket of voters who hesitate at the prospect of a Santorum nomination as iffy on a national scale. Santorum must prove that he is not iffy on a national scale. He needs to show that his nomination will bring out scores of conservative, rural, rust belt voters who have stayed home during McCain's run, and will likely stay home during Romney's 2nd lap. The argument that the hate for Obama is stronger than the disdain for Romney has never been proven.
Santorum needs to start referring to Romney as "McCain 2.0, sans military experience, political background, personality, and character".
Santorum needs to show voters that Romney is simply a very poor man's version of McCain, albeit with far less credentials. In essence, McCain was the perfect candidate; war hero, jovial personality, respected throughout Washington, and solid, consistent political background. Romney has none of that. If Santorum can continue to paint Romney as a very poor McCain redux-- the same McCain who soundly lost in 2008, voters might begin to realize that Mitt's moderation might not pan out in a general election.
2) Don't shy away from the 18 point loss
One of Santorum's sticking points has been his 18 point loss in the Pennsylvania 2006 Senate race. He has responded adequately in debates by saying that he knew he was going to lose, but he stood up for his beliefs in a liberal environment. That's honorable, but not sticky enough. For this argument to stick in voters' minds, Santorum needs to consistently remind voters that Romney was in a very similar situation after his 4 years of Governor, but instead of running again in a likely loss, he hightailed it out of Massachusetts. Santorum needs to remind voters that if Romney wouldn't stand up for his supposed conservative beliefs in Massachusetts, how in the world will he be expected to do that on a national scale?
3) Offer Gingrich a position
I know that the media has been hesitant to write off Gingrich for the 3rd time, but let's be honest here, it doesn't look bright. Mainly because Santorum's surge has pretty much crystallized him into the official anti-Romney, leaving Gingrich on the sidelines for good this time. Yes, Newt did get a new cash infusion from Sheldon Adelson, but the $5 million or so will only be enough for 1 state, a la South Carolina. And judging by his Super PAC's performance in Florida, Gingrich has a dim future. At this point, it seems that most of that money will have to go into Georgia to protect Newt's home turf. Now I'm sure that Santorum would be weary of having Gingrich in his Cabinet, but offering him a position of, oh I don't know, Secretary of State might work. This way Gingrich could turn into a scathing attack dog against Romney and even Paul, and not hurt Santorum, because it wouldn't be publicly known that the two sides have struck a deal.
Santorum may be reluctant to include Gingrich in a possible Government, but he needs to realize that the numbers are too close to gamble with. Assuming that 80% of Gingrich supporters would go to Santorum's side, Michigan would have gone to Santorum. That would have pushed Santorum into full-fledged frontrunner status. And even though Santorum had no business losing by just 3 percentage points, a loss is a loss.
4) Challenge Romney to a 1 on 1 debate
The last debate wasn't too kind to Santorum, one of his few as a frontrunner. Now that Santorum has seen Mitt's teeth up close and personal, sitting down nonetheless, he knows how to respond to debate attacks in the future. Gone will be the damaging lawyerly informational responses to each Romney volley. Santorum will fight fire with fire. The draw of a 1 on 1 debate is that it will exclude the still-unpredictable Gingrich, as well as Romney's security officer, Ron Paul, who has taken on the surprising role of chief attack dog toward both Newt and Rick.
However, it may not be enough to simply issue a challenge. Post-Michigan, Romney has regained his frontrunner status by the slimmest of numbers. But, a frontrunner is a frontrunner, and no frontrunner would ever agree to a debate, lest they inflict themselves with possible negative attacks.
This debate, however, can be accomplished through directive #5:
5) Bait Romney: Where's Waldo
As Rick Perry brilliantly showed, Romney can be baited into saying or doing something damaging. If someone like Perry can cause an intelligent, well coiffed man such as Romney to unravel on a public stage, then there is hope for the remaining candidates. Again, however, baiting is very difficult without a public debate stage. That is why through advertising, interviews, speeches, town hall meetings, and robocalls, Santorum can unleash a very baiting prerogative: Where's Waldo?
Before you assume this is some silly, juvenile ad campaign, keep in mind what needs to be driven home here. Romney's biggest weakness is also his most vague and hard to pinpoint: His lack of core. His aloofness. His nebulous past. The reason why Romney has skirted so many arguments against his character is due to his organization and money, but also to his candidates lack of artistic touch.
Why hasn't anyone been able to paint Romney the same way Kerry was painted in 2004? Romney is essentially a Kerry redux, in terms of personality and aloofness. These damning ingredients need to be molded together to form a lasting impression, much like Kerry's wind-sailing, knowledge of French, and swift boat veteran attacks. Those were the three things that stuck in voter's heads that caused Kerry to be painted as a flip-flopper.
Romney has emerged relatively unscathed in the character department due to a lack of creativity on his opponents' behalf. That can easily change. By using a silly, childish metaphor such as Where's Waldo, voters will immediately have a mental picture to tack on Romney- a canvas of sorts to capture the paint that has been unsuccessfully lobbed at him until now. Here's how:
"Much like in the children's game Where's Waldo, we have no idea where Mitt Romney is. Where is he right now? I'm not sure. He might be in his Utah residence, and if not there, in his Massachusetts mansion. Or he could be at the track with his Nascar owner buddies. Or maybe he's in one of his wife's 5 Cadillacs? Now I wonder, where was he in-
1983? On a 12 hour road trip to Ontario in the family station wagon, with dog Seamus tied to the roof.
1988? Stripping down companies and selling them off for Bain Capital.
1994? Becoming anti-abortion in order to run against Ted Kennedy.
2003? Raising taxes on gun licenses in Massacheusets.
2004? Raising taxes on gasoline at 2 cents per gallon.
2006? Putting the finishing touches on Romneycare, the blueprint for Obamacare.
An ad showing this type of blithe and almost unfair attack on Romney is what Santorum needs to embrace. If Romney can get away with steamrolling each opponent of his with negative ads, why can't Santorum? It's time to get with the program.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The Final Debate
Rick Santorum is no debate-slouch. He has an answer for everything, and until now, had yet to have been caught up in a gotcha type moment.
The problem is, a gotcha moment wasn't needed in order to disarm the conservative former Senator. Romney was smart enough to let Santorum get twisted up in his own words, regardless if they were correct. Santorum may have provided sound logic, but it came at a cost of sounding long winded, verbose, and frankly, guilty.
This is probably where Santorum's attorney background came to hurt him. If the debate had been before a judge, Santorum would have probably won. A judge wouldn't have minded hearing Santorum say the word "earmark" over 10 times, because it was simply part of his defense. The same could not be said for the raucous GOP crowd, who justifiably didn't enjoy watching a former Senator get tangled up in toxic political and legal jargon.
While Romney has mastered the art of the debate by now, knowing which soundbytes work, which attacks are worth defending, and which keywords not to say, Santorum is the opposite. Though arguably more intelligent and knowledgeable, Santorum couldn't resist passing up each and every knock that Romney laid on him, even when it was worthwhile to lay off and maybe counter attack. Each argument that Santorum defeated in a technical manner came at a Pyrrhic cost, as the audience either couldn't keep up or simply tired of hearing a seemingly guilty man argue his way to the truth.
There are many who say that Romney is going to come out of this GOP nomination process as a battered nominee. But after 20 debates, Romney won the final 3, all of which included Gingrich, arguably the best debater of the bunch. Battered and bruised? Maybe. But it comes with progress. Obama may be practicing behind closed doors with his debate coaches, but Romney has just finished twenty nationally televised debates. The experience alone certainly counts for something, and may provide a Kevlar-like protection for Romney as he heads into the national contest coming this Fall.
Additionally, each Romney attack has been exhausted. Bain Capital? Check. The dog strapped to the roof of the car? Double check. Paying only a 15% tax rate? No problem there. Accounts in the Cayman Islands? Didn't seem to bother too many. The great thing about a drawn out nomination process is transparency. Romney has been vetted down to his core, if he even has one.
The problem is, a gotcha moment wasn't needed in order to disarm the conservative former Senator. Romney was smart enough to let Santorum get twisted up in his own words, regardless if they were correct. Santorum may have provided sound logic, but it came at a cost of sounding long winded, verbose, and frankly, guilty.
This is probably where Santorum's attorney background came to hurt him. If the debate had been before a judge, Santorum would have probably won. A judge wouldn't have minded hearing Santorum say the word "earmark" over 10 times, because it was simply part of his defense. The same could not be said for the raucous GOP crowd, who justifiably didn't enjoy watching a former Senator get tangled up in toxic political and legal jargon.
While Romney has mastered the art of the debate by now, knowing which soundbytes work, which attacks are worth defending, and which keywords not to say, Santorum is the opposite. Though arguably more intelligent and knowledgeable, Santorum couldn't resist passing up each and every knock that Romney laid on him, even when it was worthwhile to lay off and maybe counter attack. Each argument that Santorum defeated in a technical manner came at a Pyrrhic cost, as the audience either couldn't keep up or simply tired of hearing a seemingly guilty man argue his way to the truth.
There are many who say that Romney is going to come out of this GOP nomination process as a battered nominee. But after 20 debates, Romney won the final 3, all of which included Gingrich, arguably the best debater of the bunch. Battered and bruised? Maybe. But it comes with progress. Obama may be practicing behind closed doors with his debate coaches, but Romney has just finished twenty nationally televised debates. The experience alone certainly counts for something, and may provide a Kevlar-like protection for Romney as he heads into the national contest coming this Fall.
Additionally, each Romney attack has been exhausted. Bain Capital? Check. The dog strapped to the roof of the car? Double check. Paying only a 15% tax rate? No problem there. Accounts in the Cayman Islands? Didn't seem to bother too many. The great thing about a drawn out nomination process is transparency. Romney has been vetted down to his core, if he even has one.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Romney, 3-2=1
It was just a week ago that Romney could claim victory in Iowa, New Hampshire, and a clear path to an eventual victory in South Carolina. That's 3 states.
Things change rather quickly. Santorum was announced the true Iowa winner, and Gingrich has definitively passed Romney in SC polls. That leaves New Hampshire with his 1 state victory.
Why did all this happen? A combination of the following:
1) Romney was too quick to claim victory in Iowa. Soon after the supposed 8 vote victory, there were numerous anecdotes of vote-tally mistakes, and Santorum's camp kept quietly maintaining that they believed they won. I think Santorum should have been more vocal about this, because even if he did get the Iowa victory, the momentum has long vanished. No one cares about Iowa anymore. Romney's initial Iowa momentum already bolstered his NH victory.
2) Romney's tax problems. I have no problem with Romney demurring on releasing his tax returns. But at least come up with a clear cut, forceful response! When asked if he would release them in the first SC debate, Romney fairly answered that traditionally most candidates released them in April. Then in the second SC debate, he strangely responded "maybe" when asked again if he would release them. It's one thing for him to refuse to release them, but its another to waffle. Romney cannot afford to waffle on anything these days.
3) Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed Gingrich. I'd say out of Perry's 5% polling numbers, 4% went to Gingrich and the other 1% to Santorum.
4) Sarah Palin endorsed Gingrich, kind of. While she didn't stand up and make a speech, she quietly stated that if she lived in SC, she would vote for Gingrich. Romney should have tried harder to get Palin on his team, but much like Gore ignored Clinton for short sighted reasons, I believe Romney figured Palin too toxic a figure to recruit to his team. Also, it could be that Palin endorsed Newt because she knows she could get a position in his government, whereas with Romney that would never happen.
5) Gingrich got a mega-standing ovation in the most recent debate. Gingrich has had plenty of debate moments before, and I still think his best line yet was his response to Romney accusing him of being in Washington/Government for over 25 years- "The only reason you haven't been in government as long as I have is because you lost to Ted Kennedy in 1984." Though Gingrich's absolute obliteration of moderator John King was more memorable.
Things change rather quickly. Santorum was announced the true Iowa winner, and Gingrich has definitively passed Romney in SC polls. That leaves New Hampshire with his 1 state victory.
Why did all this happen? A combination of the following:
1) Romney was too quick to claim victory in Iowa. Soon after the supposed 8 vote victory, there were numerous anecdotes of vote-tally mistakes, and Santorum's camp kept quietly maintaining that they believed they won. I think Santorum should have been more vocal about this, because even if he did get the Iowa victory, the momentum has long vanished. No one cares about Iowa anymore. Romney's initial Iowa momentum already bolstered his NH victory.
2) Romney's tax problems. I have no problem with Romney demurring on releasing his tax returns. But at least come up with a clear cut, forceful response! When asked if he would release them in the first SC debate, Romney fairly answered that traditionally most candidates released them in April. Then in the second SC debate, he strangely responded "maybe" when asked again if he would release them. It's one thing for him to refuse to release them, but its another to waffle. Romney cannot afford to waffle on anything these days.
3) Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed Gingrich. I'd say out of Perry's 5% polling numbers, 4% went to Gingrich and the other 1% to Santorum.
4) Sarah Palin endorsed Gingrich, kind of. While she didn't stand up and make a speech, she quietly stated that if she lived in SC, she would vote for Gingrich. Romney should have tried harder to get Palin on his team, but much like Gore ignored Clinton for short sighted reasons, I believe Romney figured Palin too toxic a figure to recruit to his team. Also, it could be that Palin endorsed Newt because she knows she could get a position in his government, whereas with Romney that would never happen.
5) Gingrich got a mega-standing ovation in the most recent debate. Gingrich has had plenty of debate moments before, and I still think his best line yet was his response to Romney accusing him of being in Washington/Government for over 25 years- "The only reason you haven't been in government as long as I have is because you lost to Ted Kennedy in 1984." Though Gingrich's absolute obliteration of moderator John King was more memorable.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Gingrich Strongarms Perry
I don't even know why Gingrich had to step in and convince Perry to drop out. He should have realized it on his own, without all of the pressure he supposedly faced in recent days to fold his campaign.
Gingrich is the clear beneficiary of Perry's exit, regardless of Perry's endorsement. Gingrich is now winning by a ratio of 2:1 against Santorum for the anti-Romney crown. Santorum, however, has no plans whatsoever to drop out, at least until after S.C.
That's because Santorum believes he can pull off another Iowa miracle, even though the SC polls don't indicate it. And truthfully, I can't fault Santorum for sticking with it. He labored through the hot Iowa summer, met thousands of people, and held hundreds of town hall meetings, and, in the very very end, it paid off. I can understand why he would have a hard time pulling the plug, especially after it was announced today that he indeed won Iowa.
But Newt needs to figure out something. He absolutely needs this SC victory, and with Santorum taking away at least 10%, Newt will have zero margin for error. That's why he needs to offer Santorum something. Maybe not VP, but something significant. Something that'll give Santorum pause, and force him to coalesce with Newt against the increasingly inevitable Romney.
Gingrich is the clear beneficiary of Perry's exit, regardless of Perry's endorsement. Gingrich is now winning by a ratio of 2:1 against Santorum for the anti-Romney crown. Santorum, however, has no plans whatsoever to drop out, at least until after S.C.
That's because Santorum believes he can pull off another Iowa miracle, even though the SC polls don't indicate it. And truthfully, I can't fault Santorum for sticking with it. He labored through the hot Iowa summer, met thousands of people, and held hundreds of town hall meetings, and, in the very very end, it paid off. I can understand why he would have a hard time pulling the plug, especially after it was announced today that he indeed won Iowa.
But Newt needs to figure out something. He absolutely needs this SC victory, and with Santorum taking away at least 10%, Newt will have zero margin for error. That's why he needs to offer Santorum something. Maybe not VP, but something significant. Something that'll give Santorum pause, and force him to coalesce with Newt against the increasingly inevitable Romney.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Romney's New Bain
While opponents and pundits all thought that Bain capital would be Romney's only potential undoing, a new, smokier gun has emerged.
Romney, strangely, has refused to release his tax returns. Okay, he hasn't refused, but he has certainly demurred to a degree. During the recent SC debate, after Perry prodded him for not yet releasing his tax returns, Romney seemed surprisingly unhinged, and struggled to give a coherent answer as to why exactly, he has yet to release his tax returns.
What's truly amazing is that Perry is the only candidate to consistently get under Mitt's skin. Perhaps because when Santorum and Gingirch attack him, Mitt kind of expects it. But when the blundering Texan asks an irrelevant, yet crowd-pandering question, Mitt seems to find himself bewildered time and time again.
But Perry isn't the real issue. It's Romney's taxes. Another issue is Romney saying "I only made a little bit last year off of public speaking." (That little bit turned out to be $374,000).
So why hasn't Romney released anything yet? It only makes us wonder what exactly he has in those returns. A clue lies in the fact that Romney said he only pays 15% taxes, (while the rest of us pay closer to 40%). This is because, as Romney said, his income is primarily from investments, (except for that little bit in public speaking payments he received).
This tax issue seems to peaking just in time for the next SC debate and eventual vote. If Gingrich, Santorum, and even Perry continue to harp on Romney for not yet releasing his tax returns, the kinks in Romney's armor will begin to expand.
Romney, strangely, has refused to release his tax returns. Okay, he hasn't refused, but he has certainly demurred to a degree. During the recent SC debate, after Perry prodded him for not yet releasing his tax returns, Romney seemed surprisingly unhinged, and struggled to give a coherent answer as to why exactly, he has yet to release his tax returns.
What's truly amazing is that Perry is the only candidate to consistently get under Mitt's skin. Perhaps because when Santorum and Gingirch attack him, Mitt kind of expects it. But when the blundering Texan asks an irrelevant, yet crowd-pandering question, Mitt seems to find himself bewildered time and time again.
But Perry isn't the real issue. It's Romney's taxes. Another issue is Romney saying "I only made a little bit last year off of public speaking." (That little bit turned out to be $374,000).
So why hasn't Romney released anything yet? It only makes us wonder what exactly he has in those returns. A clue lies in the fact that Romney said he only pays 15% taxes, (while the rest of us pay closer to 40%). This is because, as Romney said, his income is primarily from investments, (except for that little bit in public speaking payments he received).
This tax issue seems to peaking just in time for the next SC debate and eventual vote. If Gingrich, Santorum, and even Perry continue to harp on Romney for not yet releasing his tax returns, the kinks in Romney's armor will begin to expand.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Newt and the 2 Ricks
The real dropout story is still a non-news story. It's not
Huntsman dropping out- he already did that. Rather, it's Rick Perry,
conservative extraordinaire, sludging ahead despite little support.
Apparently, Perry believes that the conservatives in SC will recognize
his conservative credentials, and fall in line behind him just in time
for the vote. The problem is, the polls absolutely do not reflect that.
Even if the Perry camp claims recent polling volatility allows for shocking
upsets, (like Santorum's near Iowa victory), recent movement has Perry
in a neutral, if not downward momentum swing.
Perry stands to receive any where from 4-8% in the upcoming SC primary, which could otherwise be much more useful to Gingrich or Santorum. Newt, depending on the poll, is within single digits of Romney. The fact that Perry might cost Gingrich the primary fight of his life is bedeviling. Gingrich could help himself significantly by sitting down with Perry and Santorum and hashing out an agreement. Santorum's ego might prevent him from any dealmaking, but Perry would have to consider some sort of action, especially if he truly believes in knocking down Romney.
And if Newt thinks it wouldn't be prudent to make some sort of promise to Perry in order to secure his dropping out and subsequent endorsement, he should look more closely at the calendar. South Carolina is Newt's last chance. He didn't come in the top 3 in either Iowa or New Hampshire, yet he is still within striking distance of 1st place in South Carolina. Gingrich needs every single possible advantage he can get. And while it's clear that Santorum is going to stick it out, Perry can probably be persuaded. Obviously it might be short sighted to offer Perry his VP slot, but I'm sure Gingrich could promise another respectable, and perhaps more suitable position for Perry, in exchange for his dropping out and endorsement.
Perry stands to receive any where from 4-8% in the upcoming SC primary, which could otherwise be much more useful to Gingrich or Santorum. Newt, depending on the poll, is within single digits of Romney. The fact that Perry might cost Gingrich the primary fight of his life is bedeviling. Gingrich could help himself significantly by sitting down with Perry and Santorum and hashing out an agreement. Santorum's ego might prevent him from any dealmaking, but Perry would have to consider some sort of action, especially if he truly believes in knocking down Romney.
And if Newt thinks it wouldn't be prudent to make some sort of promise to Perry in order to secure his dropping out and subsequent endorsement, he should look more closely at the calendar. South Carolina is Newt's last chance. He didn't come in the top 3 in either Iowa or New Hampshire, yet he is still within striking distance of 1st place in South Carolina. Gingrich needs every single possible advantage he can get. And while it's clear that Santorum is going to stick it out, Perry can probably be persuaded. Obviously it might be short sighted to offer Perry his VP slot, but I'm sure Gingrich could promise another respectable, and perhaps more suitable position for Perry, in exchange for his dropping out and endorsement.
Huntsman, Romney, & Obama
I'm a bit uneasy that Huntsman, after dropping out, is going to endorse Romney. Huntsman targeted Romney more than he attacked any other candidate (save for his campaign's bizzare, snide tiff with the Ron Paul campaign).
This just goes to show you that candidates look after themselves first and foremost. I am a big fan of Huntsman, and I think he would probably be the GOP's best nomination for President. And, despite not respecting his decision to throw his support to Romney, I certainly understand it.
Romney is the clear frontrunner, and if he does eventually win the Presidency, well, Huntsman can always remind his Mormon brother that he did endorse him at a rather crucial juncture.
There were reports that Obama diabolically gave Huntsman the position of Ambassador to China in order to keep him away from the '12 election, being that Huntsman was arguably the GOP's greatest hope. That supposed weakness, however, of having served under Obama was categorically and successfully refuted by Huntsman in the last debate.
Toward the end of the first NH debate when Romney attacked Huntsman for serving under Obama, Huntsman invariably got railed by his advisers backstage for not replying in a loud enough manner. Sure enough, with his strongest sound-byte salvo of the entire election, Huntsman opened the second NH debate by pronouncing that "He puts his country first" and seemed to flip the tables on Romney's unfair yet initially effective attack.
So no, I do not think Huntsman's serving under Obama hurt him. See you in '16, Jon!
This just goes to show you that candidates look after themselves first and foremost. I am a big fan of Huntsman, and I think he would probably be the GOP's best nomination for President. And, despite not respecting his decision to throw his support to Romney, I certainly understand it.
Romney is the clear frontrunner, and if he does eventually win the Presidency, well, Huntsman can always remind his Mormon brother that he did endorse him at a rather crucial juncture.
There were reports that Obama diabolically gave Huntsman the position of Ambassador to China in order to keep him away from the '12 election, being that Huntsman was arguably the GOP's greatest hope. That supposed weakness, however, of having served under Obama was categorically and successfully refuted by Huntsman in the last debate.
Toward the end of the first NH debate when Romney attacked Huntsman for serving under Obama, Huntsman invariably got railed by his advisers backstage for not replying in a loud enough manner. Sure enough, with his strongest sound-byte salvo of the entire election, Huntsman opened the second NH debate by pronouncing that "He puts his country first" and seemed to flip the tables on Romney's unfair yet initially effective attack.
So no, I do not think Huntsman's serving under Obama hurt him. See you in '16, Jon!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman
It looks like 2008 is happening all over again. McCain was able to coast to victory after conservatives were split between a combination of Huckabee, Thompson, and even Romney. Now, Romney is emerging as conservatives are split between Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum. Perry is in there too, but he is just wasting everyone's time.
Why don't these candidates all sit down in a room and hammer out an agreement? It is clear that none of the anti-Romney candidates can win, as is. There needs to be a shakeup of the field.
I think that if Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum could sit down together, alone, and have an honest talk, we could get the following result:
Newt: Well, I think it's clear why I called this urgent meeting.
Rick: It is. Romney is getting out of hand.
Newt: Now, now, if anyone is getting out of hand it's going to be me.
Jon: You guys realize that I am the most electable candidate, right? Right??
Newt: I'm sorry Jon, did you just get a $5 million donation to your Super PAC? Daddy running out of money? You just hold your horses on electability.
Rick: *grits teeth* Look, we need to make a team here. One of us needs to rise up and the other 2 have to endorse. I say it's me.
Newt: Me what?
Rick: Me, as in the official anti-Romney.
Newt: Don't be ridiculous Rick- you couldn't get elected to the Presidency even if Obama were to be caught juicing with steroids in the White House workout room. You hate gays, Mexicans, liberals, and pacifists. I don't know how you won Iowa but that's the reason you're in this meeting right now.
Jon: Look, we need to be diplomatic about this. One of us will be President, the other Vice President, and the other, Secretary of State. And Newt, if you're going to be difficult, I'll be the Secretary.
Newt: Rick? You okay being my Veep?
Rick: *sigh* Fine, whatever.
Newt: *lets out big belly laugh* Well, that about solves it. Now what about this Ron Paul character?
Rick: Crap. We forgot about him. Let's give him a position.
Jon: Head of the Federal Reserve?
Newt: *uproarious laughter* Finally a funny joke, Jon! Now why can't you make jokes like that in the debates??
Rick: And what about Perry? He could get a slight bounce if 2 of us pull out before S.C.
Newt: In the next debate, lets ask him to name the 10 commandments!
*laughter throughout*
If only politicians would swallow their pride and realize their limitations. Santorum cannot win the nomination. Neither can Huntsman, at this point. Gingrich can't either. But if two of these three were to endorse the other, THEN there is a good chance to stop the Romney train.
Why don't these candidates all sit down in a room and hammer out an agreement? It is clear that none of the anti-Romney candidates can win, as is. There needs to be a shakeup of the field.
I think that if Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum could sit down together, alone, and have an honest talk, we could get the following result:
Newt: Well, I think it's clear why I called this urgent meeting.
Rick: It is. Romney is getting out of hand.
Newt: Now, now, if anyone is getting out of hand it's going to be me.
Jon: You guys realize that I am the most electable candidate, right? Right??
Newt: I'm sorry Jon, did you just get a $5 million donation to your Super PAC? Daddy running out of money? You just hold your horses on electability.
Rick: *grits teeth* Look, we need to make a team here. One of us needs to rise up and the other 2 have to endorse. I say it's me.
Newt: Me what?
Rick: Me, as in the official anti-Romney.
Newt: Don't be ridiculous Rick- you couldn't get elected to the Presidency even if Obama were to be caught juicing with steroids in the White House workout room. You hate gays, Mexicans, liberals, and pacifists. I don't know how you won Iowa but that's the reason you're in this meeting right now.
Jon: Look, we need to be diplomatic about this. One of us will be President, the other Vice President, and the other, Secretary of State. And Newt, if you're going to be difficult, I'll be the Secretary.
Newt: Rick? You okay being my Veep?
Rick: *sigh* Fine, whatever.
Newt: *lets out big belly laugh* Well, that about solves it. Now what about this Ron Paul character?
Rick: Crap. We forgot about him. Let's give him a position.
Jon: Head of the Federal Reserve?
Newt: *uproarious laughter* Finally a funny joke, Jon! Now why can't you make jokes like that in the debates??
Rick: And what about Perry? He could get a slight bounce if 2 of us pull out before S.C.
Newt: In the next debate, lets ask him to name the 10 commandments!
*laughter throughout*
If only politicians would swallow their pride and realize their limitations. Santorum cannot win the nomination. Neither can Huntsman, at this point. Gingrich can't either. But if two of these three were to endorse the other, THEN there is a good chance to stop the Romney train.
Monday, January 9, 2012
How To Be A Politician, By Mitt Romney
Watch the video from :20 until 1:40. Mitt Romney is faced with an essentially unanswerable question. How does he answer it? Well, like any good politician, he doesn't. Yet he still ends up with an applause.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
What Would You Do On A Saturday Night?
The final question of the debate, "It's Saturday night- if you weren't at this debate, what would you be doing?"
It was too poetic as to how aptly the candidates answers' represented their personalities and tendencies.
Perry- "Shooting range." As if we suddenly forgot that he's a brawny alpha male from Texas.
Gingrich- "I'd be watching the college championship basketball game", (to which Santorum quickly corrected him that it was a football game). Could you think of anything more American?
Santorum- "I'd be watching the football game, huddled around with my family." He one-ups Gingrich by saying he'd watch the game AND watch it with his family. Touche.
Romney- "It's football, I love it." Romney quickly surmises that football is the politically correct answer here, and keeps his answer quick, simple, and successful.
Paul- "I'd probably read an economic textbook." (Gingrich's uproarious laughter was heard over the entire audience's laughter). The great thing is, Paul wasn't joking.
Huntsman- "I'd be on the phone with my two boys in the US Navy, because they are a constant reminder of what this great nation blah blah blah..." They call him a media darling because he is such a diplomat. Can't this guy ever speak off the cuff? What he should've said is that he would be at home, having sex with his wife. Now THAT would make Huntsman relevant again.
It was too poetic as to how aptly the candidates answers' represented their personalities and tendencies.
Perry- "Shooting range." As if we suddenly forgot that he's a brawny alpha male from Texas.
Gingrich- "I'd be watching the college championship basketball game", (to which Santorum quickly corrected him that it was a football game). Could you think of anything more American?
Santorum- "I'd be watching the football game, huddled around with my family." He one-ups Gingrich by saying he'd watch the game AND watch it with his family. Touche.
Romney- "It's football, I love it." Romney quickly surmises that football is the politically correct answer here, and keeps his answer quick, simple, and successful.
Paul- "I'd probably read an economic textbook." (Gingrich's uproarious laughter was heard over the entire audience's laughter). The great thing is, Paul wasn't joking.
Huntsman- "I'd be on the phone with my two boys in the US Navy, because they are a constant reminder of what this great nation blah blah blah..." They call him a media darling because he is such a diplomat. Can't this guy ever speak off the cuff? What he should've said is that he would be at home, having sex with his wife. Now THAT would make Huntsman relevant again.
No Bite, All Bark
The first 10 minutes of the January 7th GOP debate tells us all we need to know about candidates' behavior toward each other, when actually facing one another.
Gingrich made news this past week when a Super PAC supporting him purchased the rights to a 30 minute film which supposedly eviscerates Romney's tenure as CEO of Bain capital. It paints Romney as a job killing money hungry capitalist. For $1.5 million, that sounds like money well spent.
But when George Stephanopoulos asked Gingrich about video, Gingrich kindly reminded us viewers at home to check the facts on both the video and a New York Times article which described Bain capital as having gutted a company bone dry of its resources and employees. Gingrich missed a HUGE opportunity to lambast Romney in the very first 5 minutes of the debate. This was probably an overcompensation as a result of Gingrich trying to tame "Bad Newt".
Soon after, Huntsman was also asked what his thoughts were of Romney's time at Bain. (Huntsman's Super PAC's have not been too kind to Romney's Bain tenure either). Huntsman inexplicably went into a bizarre diatribe about focusing on both his and Romney's politcal careers, and not so much on their business careers. Huntsman passed up yet another wide open opportunity to get his hands dirty- something he continues to avoid during debates, which I believe is a great reason for why he is the only candidate yet to reach double digits in national polls. Perhaps he is too diplomatic. It makes one wonder what he thinks is going to happen if he keeps tapping Romney with kid gloves. Conservatives want fire, which is why all the fiery candidates- Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum, have all had their moments. Huntsman won't ever get there with his tired media darling shtick.
And finally, Ron Paul, the isolationist himself, also backs down when coaxed by moderators. After Stephanopoulos asked Paul about his ads calling Santorum "corrupt", Paul quickly corrected Stephanopoulos to say that it was a quote of someone else. Why all the negative ads if when confronted, all the candidates quickly shy away? And Ron Paul especially. He is generally among the fieriest. But when presented with easy ammunition, Paul lowers his weapon and makes that silly smirk he seems to do in order to diffuse any tension. It must have been Santorum's teeth gritting.
Overall, candidates are simply too light on one another. Sure, there were a couple of light verbal skirmishes, but the least one of these candidates could do is humor the moderators a bit and stand by their scathing advertisements.
Gingrich made news this past week when a Super PAC supporting him purchased the rights to a 30 minute film which supposedly eviscerates Romney's tenure as CEO of Bain capital. It paints Romney as a job killing money hungry capitalist. For $1.5 million, that sounds like money well spent.
But when George Stephanopoulos asked Gingrich about video, Gingrich kindly reminded us viewers at home to check the facts on both the video and a New York Times article which described Bain capital as having gutted a company bone dry of its resources and employees. Gingrich missed a HUGE opportunity to lambast Romney in the very first 5 minutes of the debate. This was probably an overcompensation as a result of Gingrich trying to tame "Bad Newt".
Soon after, Huntsman was also asked what his thoughts were of Romney's time at Bain. (Huntsman's Super PAC's have not been too kind to Romney's Bain tenure either). Huntsman inexplicably went into a bizarre diatribe about focusing on both his and Romney's politcal careers, and not so much on their business careers. Huntsman passed up yet another wide open opportunity to get his hands dirty- something he continues to avoid during debates, which I believe is a great reason for why he is the only candidate yet to reach double digits in national polls. Perhaps he is too diplomatic. It makes one wonder what he thinks is going to happen if he keeps tapping Romney with kid gloves. Conservatives want fire, which is why all the fiery candidates- Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum, have all had their moments. Huntsman won't ever get there with his tired media darling shtick.
And finally, Ron Paul, the isolationist himself, also backs down when coaxed by moderators. After Stephanopoulos asked Paul about his ads calling Santorum "corrupt", Paul quickly corrected Stephanopoulos to say that it was a quote of someone else. Why all the negative ads if when confronted, all the candidates quickly shy away? And Ron Paul especially. He is generally among the fieriest. But when presented with easy ammunition, Paul lowers his weapon and makes that silly smirk he seems to do in order to diffuse any tension. It must have been Santorum's teeth gritting.
Overall, candidates are simply too light on one another. Sure, there were a couple of light verbal skirmishes, but the least one of these candidates could do is humor the moderators a bit and stand by their scathing advertisements.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Santorum and Gingrich Together?
The only way to defeat Mitt Romney is clear: Santorum and Gingirch need to team up. Now for all those who have written off Gingrich, please remember that he is still winning the polls in South Carolina, and has a fair 13% in New Hampshire. Santorum, on the other hand has little traction yet in NH or SC, but his surge from Iowa has yet to crystallize, meaning he can only go upward.
Romney, still viewed as the overall frontrunner, still does not have the support of the Republican base. Pundits insist that he is the inevitable GOP candidate, but I don't quite see it.
Never have we had an election cycle like this, in which alternative, and generally weaker candidates are all propped up for their moment in the sun in order to defeat the enemy-within, moderate Mitt Romney, only to have wilted.
Santorum, on the other hand, and as mentioned before, is being propped up while votes are being counted. A surge in January is 10x more valuable than a surge in August (Bachmann), September (Perry), October (Cain), November (Cain/Gingrich), and even December (Gingrich/Paul).
This combination of good timing, as well as Evangelicals' abject mistrust of Romney and his off-putting forward march mean a very brutal, bloody battle going forward. The only way to stop the bleeding is unification, which does not seem like it will happen any time soon. Romney has shown little interest in courting Evangelicals, and expects to win the nomination without them, much in the same way as McCain in '08.
If Santorum and Gingrich strike a deal, team up, and unite the Evangelicals and other hard line conservatives, Romney can be taken down. The ideal scenario would be to wait until after NH and SC. If Gingrich emerges as the clear alternative to Romney, then he should offer Santorum his V.P. spot in order to join his team and bring his votes with him, and vice versa if Santorum somehow emerges.
The only dark horse is Huntsman. His Super Pac just bought some air time in SC for the first time, and he is still polling around a respectable 12% in NH. Respectable, but not sufficient. Huntsman needs a Santorum-like surge in order to gain any momentum from NH and beyond.
Romney, still viewed as the overall frontrunner, still does not have the support of the Republican base. Pundits insist that he is the inevitable GOP candidate, but I don't quite see it.
Never have we had an election cycle like this, in which alternative, and generally weaker candidates are all propped up for their moment in the sun in order to defeat the enemy-within, moderate Mitt Romney, only to have wilted.
Santorum, on the other hand, and as mentioned before, is being propped up while votes are being counted. A surge in January is 10x more valuable than a surge in August (Bachmann), September (Perry), October (Cain), November (Cain/Gingrich), and even December (Gingrich/Paul).
This combination of good timing, as well as Evangelicals' abject mistrust of Romney and his off-putting forward march mean a very brutal, bloody battle going forward. The only way to stop the bleeding is unification, which does not seem like it will happen any time soon. Romney has shown little interest in courting Evangelicals, and expects to win the nomination without them, much in the same way as McCain in '08.
If Santorum and Gingrich strike a deal, team up, and unite the Evangelicals and other hard line conservatives, Romney can be taken down. The ideal scenario would be to wait until after NH and SC. If Gingrich emerges as the clear alternative to Romney, then he should offer Santorum his V.P. spot in order to join his team and bring his votes with him, and vice versa if Santorum somehow emerges.
The only dark horse is Huntsman. His Super Pac just bought some air time in SC for the first time, and he is still polling around a respectable 12% in NH. Respectable, but not sufficient. Huntsman needs a Santorum-like surge in order to gain any momentum from NH and beyond.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
58 People Voted for Herman Cain
What's amazing about Romney's 8 vote victory margin over Santorum is that there were 58 people who voted for Herman Freakin' Cain. FIFTY EIGHT PEOPLE.
I think, if possible, they should find out who these people were, round them up, and shoot them.
Why? Because voting for Herman Cain is like flushing your vote down the toilet. Not in the same sense as voting for Michelle Bachmann. Voting for Bachmann may metaphorically be a way of flushing one's vote down the toilet, but at least she is an active, and technically legitimate candidate. Herman Cain, on the other hand, is neither. He long ago officially suspended his campaign, and has yet to reactivate it.
What is more maddening is that the people who voted for Cain were more likely to vote for Santorum than Romney. Out of the 58 Cain holdouts, I'd expect the breakdown to be such:
Romney-6
Paul-2
Santorum-15
Perry-4
Gingrich-20
Bachmann-11
Cain and Gingrich were always chummy, and after Cain dropped out, Gingrich's surge began to crystallize. Cain was also the anti-Romney candidate for a while, so Mitt wouldn't have gotten much out of those 58. Perry was long viewed as responsible for leaking the damaging extramarital affairs about Cain, and Cain supporters knew that. Santorum's surge would have probably netted him a bigger chunk of Cain's supporters, but, to be conservative about it, Gingrich would still pocket more. Adding up this fair hypothetical tally, Santorum ends up beating Romney by 1 vote.
What's even more sad is that only 38 people voted for Buddy Roemer. Poor Buddy got beaten by an inactive candidate. Surprisingly, Gary Johnson either wasn't on the ballot or didn't get any votes.
I think, if possible, they should find out who these people were, round them up, and shoot them.
Why? Because voting for Herman Cain is like flushing your vote down the toilet. Not in the same sense as voting for Michelle Bachmann. Voting for Bachmann may metaphorically be a way of flushing one's vote down the toilet, but at least she is an active, and technically legitimate candidate. Herman Cain, on the other hand, is neither. He long ago officially suspended his campaign, and has yet to reactivate it.
What is more maddening is that the people who voted for Cain were more likely to vote for Santorum than Romney. Out of the 58 Cain holdouts, I'd expect the breakdown to be such:
Romney-6
Paul-2
Santorum-15
Perry-4
Gingrich-20
Bachmann-11
Cain and Gingrich were always chummy, and after Cain dropped out, Gingrich's surge began to crystallize. Cain was also the anti-Romney candidate for a while, so Mitt wouldn't have gotten much out of those 58. Perry was long viewed as responsible for leaking the damaging extramarital affairs about Cain, and Cain supporters knew that. Santorum's surge would have probably netted him a bigger chunk of Cain's supporters, but, to be conservative about it, Gingrich would still pocket more. Adding up this fair hypothetical tally, Santorum ends up beating Romney by 1 vote.
What's even more sad is that only 38 people voted for Buddy Roemer. Poor Buddy got beaten by an inactive candidate. Surprisingly, Gary Johnson either wasn't on the ballot or didn't get any votes.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
What's Huntsman Doing Tonight?
With all the talk about Iowa and its top 6 contenders, Jon Huntsman has barely been mentioned. That's probably because he hasn't set in foot in Iowa, in, I think, ever.
Much in the same way that Santorum moved his entire family to Iowa and essentially camped out there for the last 6 months, Huntsman has done the same with New Hampshire.
So the question remains, what's Huntsman doing tonight? Filming YouTube videos with his very attractive daughters? Throwing darts at a Romney bulls-eye? Realizing that he's following verbatim the failed Giuliani campaign plan to completely ignore Iowa? Uh ohh...
Much in the same way that Santorum moved his entire family to Iowa and essentially camped out there for the last 6 months, Huntsman has done the same with New Hampshire.
So the question remains, what's Huntsman doing tonight? Filming YouTube videos with his very attractive daughters? Throwing darts at a Romney bulls-eye? Realizing that he's following verbatim the failed Giuliani campaign plan to completely ignore Iowa? Uh ohh...
Monday, January 2, 2012
Santorum Tied For First!
This is what makes presidential campaigns so interesting. A man, stuck in the cellar the ENTIRE campaign, suddenly roars to life in the final stretch, and may win a state in which he was in last place for nearly 4 months.
Rick Santorum might be the comeback kid. Polling as low as 5% for a while, Santorum used to make the news only as a headscratcher- he was the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties, yet was still polling in single digits. Now, with just hours to go before the caucus gets underway, Santorum steamrolled his way up the pack into a virtual 3 way tie with Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.
The popular catchphrase is that Santorum is now having his flavor of the month joyride. However, and as I mentioned before, Santorum shouldn't be dismissed as another ol' flavor of the month candidate- his popularity coincides with actual voting, which means he will pocket net results. Instead of jumping and then swooning like Bachmannn, Perry, and Gingrich, Santorum isn't due to swoon for at least 2 weeks, which includes at least Iowa and NH.
Santorum peaked at the absolute perfect time.
Remember how at each campaign stop he kept assuring people "Don't worry about the polls, this was our plan all along, to meet and greet every single voter, and come voting time, the people will vote for me." Santorum didn't actually say that, but he certainly said things of a similar nature. No one ever believed him, nor did he himself. But votes are votes, and he stands to benefit the most at this point.
Rick Santorum might be the comeback kid. Polling as low as 5% for a while, Santorum used to make the news only as a headscratcher- he was the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties, yet was still polling in single digits. Now, with just hours to go before the caucus gets underway, Santorum steamrolled his way up the pack into a virtual 3 way tie with Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.
The popular catchphrase is that Santorum is now having his flavor of the month joyride. However, and as I mentioned before, Santorum shouldn't be dismissed as another ol' flavor of the month candidate- his popularity coincides with actual voting, which means he will pocket net results. Instead of jumping and then swooning like Bachmannn, Perry, and Gingrich, Santorum isn't due to swoon for at least 2 weeks, which includes at least Iowa and NH.
Santorum peaked at the absolute perfect time.
Remember how at each campaign stop he kept assuring people "Don't worry about the polls, this was our plan all along, to meet and greet every single voter, and come voting time, the people will vote for me." Santorum didn't actually say that, but he certainly said things of a similar nature. No one ever believed him, nor did he himself. But votes are votes, and he stands to benefit the most at this point.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Ron Paul Gets Comfy With a Top 2 Finish
“I may come in first. I may come in second. I doubt if I'll come in
third or fourth. I would say the people are with me on this, and the momentum is
going to continue regardless of what happens and what place I am
Tuesday night."
Hey Ron, how about we get you a pillow and some cotton slippers while you're up there in first or second place. I'd join you too, but the Santorum Express is finally rolling through.
Much ado was made about Santorum's recent 15% finish in the most recent Iowa poll. Paul finished with 19%, with Romney at 22%. However, the problem for these "top 2" guys is that, when taking a closer look at the poll, (conducted over 4 days), the final 2 days put Santorum at a ratio of a whopping 22% clip, putting him in first place and knocking the Texan isolationist into a probably uncomfortable 3rd place.
Santorum could not have peaked at a better time- it's rather amazing that he finally gets his flavor of the month turn the same week as the Iowa Caucus. Eventually, flavor of the month candidates begin to fade- but if Santorum does fade in 3 weeks, he may have already picked up Iowa along with a few other delegates- delegates which former flavor of the month candidates Bachman and Perry won't get their hands at.
Ron Paul might need comfort.
Hey Ron, how about we get you a pillow and some cotton slippers while you're up there in first or second place. I'd join you too, but the Santorum Express is finally rolling through.
Much ado was made about Santorum's recent 15% finish in the most recent Iowa poll. Paul finished with 19%, with Romney at 22%. However, the problem for these "top 2" guys is that, when taking a closer look at the poll, (conducted over 4 days), the final 2 days put Santorum at a ratio of a whopping 22% clip, putting him in first place and knocking the Texan isolationist into a probably uncomfortable 3rd place.
Santorum could not have peaked at a better time- it's rather amazing that he finally gets his flavor of the month turn the same week as the Iowa Caucus. Eventually, flavor of the month candidates begin to fade- but if Santorum does fade in 3 weeks, he may have already picked up Iowa along with a few other delegates- delegates which former flavor of the month candidates Bachman and Perry won't get their hands at.
Ron Paul might need comfort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)