Recently the Romney campaign has faced criticism from voters
of all parts of the political spectrum over comments made during a May
fundraiser, in which Governor Romney blasted the 47 percent of the American
population that does not pay federal income taxes. Referring to them as “freeloaders,” Romney
continued with the assertion that these voters will not support him anyways in
the election, lopping off a huge portion of the electorate to which he will
appeal. I understand that the Governor
was speaking at a fundraiser, amidst a couple hundred people firmly in support
of him. Looking at the issue from a more
populist perspective, and seeking to give Governor Romney the benefit of the
doubt, I still find myself still coming up short to support him on his
comment. Consider:
As a college student
and a dependent of my parents, I work part-time and pay federal income
tax. However, most of the time it is
returned to me at the end of the year, in the form of a tax return. Does this
series of actions put me in with the 47 percent?
Let's be honest, Governor... money's tight when you're in your 20s.
I’m not the only college student in this country who works
to make a financial dent in my education.
I’m also not the only conservative-leaning college student in that
category. The last thing I wish to be
called is a “freeloader,” considering I do what I can to finance a horribly
inflated college education without having to rob Peter to pay Paul at the very
end. I want to pay for my education the
old way; however, I don’t want to be lumped into a category considered
“unproductive” in the process. With the
ambition to get a job that makes an impact on American foreign relations
directly out of my master’s program, as well as very low student debt, I don’t
consider myself at the moment a particularly large burden on the American
taxpayer. If I’m not paying taxes on the
bottom line at the moment, please be patient with me.
President Obama is by
all means a divider, with his incendiary commentary regarding the rich and
misguided statements against those with traditional cultural values. Mitt Romney, through a candid comment made
amongst a group of loyal supporters, positioned himself as someone no
different.
Don't lose NASCAR fans, Governor... just don't.
I used to give Governor Romney credit for not stepping on
his tongue while building relationships with the American middle class. I understood that he was out of touch
(comments related to being friends with NASCAR and NFL owners, yet not having a
lot of personal interest in either sport, come to mind), but to make a comment
that divides an electorate to which he was trying to appeal was beyond
ill-advised. I just heard on the Jerry
Doyle Show last night that Romney now polls lower than Obama among NASCAR
fans… NASCAR fans?!?!?! We’re talking about an interest group, mostly
from the American South, who finds its niche among American culture through
movies such as “Talladega Nights” and “Viva Las Vegas.” If any group was expected to vote Republican
in 2012, it was those frequenters of America’s answer to the Circus
Maximus. Anyone who believed Governor
Romney was out of touch before the comments surfaced received quite the
vindication afterwards. I wanted him to
be a “uniter” so fiercely… Unfortunately, even one video clip these days can
leave the sourest of tastes in a voter’s mouth.
If Jerry Doyle speaks accurately, I’m baffled.
You can build all the
support you want among groups in which you poll among the weakest; but once
you’ve lost the base, you’ve, well, lost.
Governor Romney’s comments were not just damaging because of
the divisive implications: he also found
a way to alienate part of his base.
Seniors, who have trended Republican in the past three elections in
spite of constant Republican cries for Medicare reform, now find themselves in
a bind because they fall into the same category I feel that I’ve fallen
into. I’ll still support the Governor in
the end, but pissing off the base is about as useful to a political campaign as
fumbling the snap is in football. If
there is anything the Republicans need to show up in droves in November, it is
the political and ideological base. If
Governor Romney believes that the rich serve as his niche, then perhaps his
comment is well-appointed; unfortunately, that group just does not carry the
weight necessary to carry the popular vote.
Republicans will discuss back and forth over the next couple
weeks as to how exactly to field the reaction to Governor Romney’s
comments. Some will attempt to forget
them, others defend them tirelessly.
Others (like me) will plead for Governor Romney to watch his mouth. In the context of a presidential election as
crucial as the one in November, any divisive slip-up will perpetuate the
“Divider-in-Chief’s” (borrowing this brilliant term from Kate Obenshain - http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/10/obenshain-obama-is-the-divider-in-chief/) reign
over not only the White House, but the metaphorical driver’s seat on re-uniting
the sides of the American political spectrum.
Not all of it is Greek to me... just a headline and a few words...
Since the beginning of the War on Terror, Americans and Europeans have been
at odds, to say the least, about American culture and the role of the United
States on the global scene. Pick up a
copy of The Guardian, Die Welt, Le Monde, O Globo, The Times of India, or
publications from whichever country you choose, and you will find anti-American
editorials and/or coverage of anti-American political action abroad. As the primary recipients of the criticisms,
members of the American Right struggle to skim even the news section while they
sift through the paper. As a result,
most readers prefer to remain stateside to get their news.
I write
this piece today to suggest a new approach to my fellow Republicans: stop
being afraid of foreign opinion. Not
everyone hates us. Here is how I got
to this point:
Remember that the United States still has
allies in the world. In most cases, European
right-wing newspapers and online sources are going to support at least some
American initiatives in the world and are worth reading against the
conventional anti-American screed written elsewhere.
Many of you might have experience reading a British
periodical (many of my political science professors have suggested either The
Economist or The Guardian, neither of which come to my surprise). You might have found articles such as these,
should you have visited the opinion website:
“Mitt Romney is too rational for a deluded Republican base (Guardian),”
or “Mitt Romney’s problems: Elite
defection (Economist).” In spite of the
headlines (and the comments, if you choose to peruse them), it takes a
well-read individual to understand that, like in the United States, other
countries have a variety of periodicals that cover the spectrum. To my friends on the right, I would suggest
The Telegraph (www.telegraph.co.uk), a
prominent right-leaning newspaper based in London. While I do not mix well with its pro-European
editorials, it also gives space for Eurosceptics such as Daniel Hannan, of
Youtube fame (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs). These opinions, though full of language and
terms understandably foreign to Americans, still give a set of metaphorical
water wings to the readers as they broaden their horizons. Keeping to the Anglosphere, I also suggest
Australia’s Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au),
Canada’s Toronto Sun (http://www.torontosun.com/)
and South Africa’s Sunday Times, specifically the politics section (http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/). Pointing these out leads me to the next
conclusion:
Foreign opinions matter because they often
give insight from perspectives that American writers miss.
Smacking down Marxism, Brazilian style!
One of my favorite foreign political commentators is the Brazilian philosopher
Olavo de Carvalho (www.olavodecarvalho.org/english),
and I found him through my frustration with Brazilian politics, having studied
it the past couple years. For those with
little to no background on Brazil, the country has been under firm control of
the left since 2003, but still operates under a largely backward political
structure. Political clientelism runs
rampant, no matter which side takes control.
Olavo writes as a ruthless critic of political leftism, pointing out errors
and fallacies through his weekly radio show, True Outspeak. He also gives insight on the American
political scene, as he lives and operates today out of Virginia. Regardless, Olavo gives opinions from a Latin
American perspective, which integrates opinions on political culture that we Americans
are not accustomed to seeing. Tim
Stanley, from Britain’s Daily Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/timstanley/),
is another favorite. One of the first
steps you can take, as a conservative committed to being better-read, is to
pick two foreign authors and mull over what they write. They will help you understand not only
international anti-American opinion better, but also gain a new perspective on
American politics that you may not have conceived in the past. With that, a final point:
Reading foreign opinion gets you out of the
“grid.”
I
could have lumped this point into the previous one, but I wanted to explain
separately the pitfalls of limiting yourself to only American opinion. It is true that the right and the left hold
divergent opinions in the United States, like any other country, but our
prominent issues are not issues in other countries. Take Brazil, for example: how do you structure the abortion debate in a
country where abortion is illegal, except in cases of rape or incest? Moreover, how can we criticize President
Obama’s healthcare law without gaining opinions and insight from foreigners who
have fallen victim to a universal healthcare system? In a debate concerning issues rather than ideology,
the foreign angle is vital to applying the concepts of a new law on our
society. Although we do not always share
the same cultural values as France or Brazil or India or Australia, the effects
of reform still have economic consequences that any sensible conservative can
see and apply to our current situation.
I
appeal to my fellow conservatives by simply saying that the American story does
not always tell the whole story.
Consider picking up a foreign publication this week, and see what you
can find. Sometimes the opinions of a
Telegraph, a Financial Times or a Sun can help to shape a well-founded opinion
just as much as the Wall Street Journal or the American Spectator. Food for thought.
Conservatives and Republicans are
constantly vilified as heartless, evil monsters when they propose austerity
measures. My liberal friends often ask me, “How can you put someone out in the
cold when they have nothing to live on?” It doesn’t help that conservatives
usually don’t make their own case very well either. The top argument in favor
of cutting welfare payments is often that there is some “welfare queen” who is
cheating the system and loafing around on others’ tax dollars. Mitt Romney
recently exacerbated this misconception when he said (as out of context as it
may be) that he “doesn’t care about the very poor,” because they have a safety
net. I feel it’s important for Americans to know that not only is it the most
economical plan to cut public assistance (or even eliminate it entirely), but
it is the most moral as well.
Get a man this excited about fishing, and he'll feed a community...?
The old adage goes that, “If you
give a man a fish, you’ll feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish,
you’ll feed him for a lifetime.” No other quote perfectly synopsizes how I feel
about poor relief quite as well as that one. By subsidizing poverty, we are not
helping to eliminate it, but rather, we are perpetuating it. Those receiving
the payments are the true victims. They never get the opportunity to practice self-reliance,
and therefore become just another cog in the machine that results in roughly a
third of those on welfare being comprised of second generation recipients. And
still, 15% of the country remains below the poverty line, even as big
government doubles-down on its initiatives.
Believe it or not, welfare is not
that old of an institution in the United States. It was prominently introduced
by Franklin Roosevelt in 1935 to combat the Great Depression. The new
government expansion eliminated any need for private-sector companies like the
Women’s Christian Association and the Charity Organization Society, which had
existed to do the same job. Even with this act of “compassion,” the U.S.
suffered through unemployment above 20% for the rest of the decade. We will
never know what might have happened had FDR been willing to put his trust in
the free market and the good faith of American individuals and charities.
That brings us to the largest
misperception about what would happen without welfare. Many seem to think that,
without help from the government, the streets would be filled with homeless
people, slowly starving to death. But in reality, we would not suddenly see Americans
en masse, in the streets begging.
Without the government to bail them out, it is only human nature for people to
do what is necessary to live and prosper. Instead of sitting back while working
minimal hours and waiting on a government check, a man might realize he’d better
look long and hard for a second job if he wants to keep his electric on. As a
result, he would gain life experience he would have never had otherwise, and
would improve society as a whole.
As alluded to earlier, not everyone
would be able to prosper on his own. And that is where soup kitchens, food
banks, private charities, and churches would come into play. It is well known
that Americans are some of the most compassionate and caring people on this
planet. With citizens now having more faith in the tax system and better
knowing the way in which their money is being spent, not only would they feel
more inclined to help, they would also have to pay less in taxes, resulting in
them having more discretionary income to give to the charities that help the
poor. Citizens would no longer have to worry about someone “cheating the
system,” or think that they should hold their money when someone asks for a
little help, because the government should have them covered. By eliminating
welfare and other public assistance programs, we would save our government
billions of dollars, and create a better society, where every American can
live, prosper, and better him or herself.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been in the news quite a
bit lately, due to it having just held its presidential primary election. While Puerto Ricans cannot vote in the U.S.
presidential election, both Republicans and Democrats allow residents of the island
to elect delegates to their national conventions. Mitt Romney won the primary with an
overwhelming 83% of the vote, but most of the media attention was caused by
Rick Santorum's contention that Puerto Rican statehood was undesirable, because
English is not the official language of the island and would create linguistic
conflicts with the mainland. This comment cost Santorum dearly, as the vast
majority of those who identify with the GOP on Puerto Rico are members of the
New Progressive Party, which advocates strongly for admittance as the 51st
state.
While Santorum was widely (and correctly) criticized for his
remarks, what would the impact of Puerto Rican statehood be, both for the
island and the rest of the United States? To understand this issue, we must first
examine Puerto Rico's current, unique status within the United States. Since 1917, Puerto Ricans have been full
citizens of the United States, and any who move off the island to the mainland
have the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other U.S. citizen. Since 1952, Puerto Rico has been known as a
"Free Associated State," a status in-between full statehood and
independence, which is similar (though not identical) to the statuses of Guam,
the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Under the FAS, Puerto Ricans have most of the rights of mainland citizens, such
as constitutional protections and liberties, full use of the U.S. federal court
system, protection of the military and federal agencies, and representation
abroad through the Department of State. The major differences between Puerto Rico
and any state are political representation and taxation. Puerto Ricans (who
have their own fully functional commonwealth legislature and governor) cannot
vote in presidential elections, and instead of electing congressmen and
senators, can send one non-voting delegate to Congress. However, Puerto Ricans
are also exempt from federal income taxes. Corporations doing business with entities
other than the U.S. government are also exempt from a variety of federal taxes
and regulations. At the same time, Puerto Ricans are not eligible for a variety
of social welfare programs; for instance, Medicaid spending is capped at 15% of
what it would be if Puerto Rico was a full state.
Thus the implications for Puerto Rican statehood would be
largely two-fold: firstly, what effect
would it have upon federal elections and political processes; and secondly,
what would the effects be on federal tax revenue and expenditures? It is challenging to predict how Puerto Rico
would vote in elections since it has its own vibrant two-and-a-half party
system, with supporters of statehood largely backing the mainland GOP,
continuing the FAS backing Democrats, and the remainder of independence
supporters largely ignoring mainland politics.
On the whole the statehood and GOP supporting NPP has been more
successful lately, which should give Republicans hope. In addition, Puerto
Ricans tend to be extremely anti-abortion and socially conservative in general,
which would align them more with the GOP. On the other hand, Puerto Ricans in the U.S.
tend to vote Democratic, either strongly so (New York) or slightly (Florida)
depending on the state they live in. Additionally,
the increasingly hardline stance taken by Republicans in the South and
Southwest towards Hispanic immigrants would probably not endear the party to
Puerto Ricans, even if immigration issues are much less salient than among
Mexican-Americans.
Puerto Ricans would probably benefit from statehood, even if
the U.S. Treasury would not. While
Puerto Rican residents would now be liable for federal income taxes, the low
levels of per-capita income would leave most Puerto Ricans with no income tax
liability whatsoever. In 2009, the per
capita income in Puerto Rico was about $19,000, extremely high for Latin
America, but well below that of the poorest US state Mississippi ($36,000.) A
study by the Heritage Foundation concluded that just making Puerto Ricans
eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (of which 59% would be eligible upon
statehood) would cost taxpayers more than the total remitted by Puerto Ricans
to the Treasury. In addition, Puerto Rico would be eligible for full Medicaid
and Medicare spending, instead of just 15%, as well as all other federal social
welfare programs. Ironically, Puerto
Rican statehood is far more popular on the mainland than in Puerto Rico, even
though the island would quickly become per capita the largest beneficiary of
social spending in the U.S.
How about one issue that would not arise with Puerto Rican
statehood? You guessed it, Santorum's linguistic fears. Contrary to his
statement, English is one of the two official languages of the island and a
required subject in all Puerto Rican schools. Almost all islanders have some
English proficiency, and over a third are fully fluent in English, a number
considerably higher than Louisiana and New Mexico when they were admitted to
the Union. In the end, though it is
difficult to conclude on whether Puerto Rican statehood is a certainty in the
near future, the case for its admission as our nation’s 51st state
is one that gains strength with each generation.
Over the past few months, pundits in
the media have openly fantasized about a scenario where no Republican
presidential candidate earns the 1,144 delegates needed to win a
first ballot nomination. This would plunge Republicans into what is
known as a “brokered convention”, where all 2,286 delegates are
free to vote however they please. It would also mean that the
Republican nominee would not be chosen until August 30th,
which most political experts regard as being catastrophically late.
If you are a Republican and the above
paragraph frightens you, worry not, the media is full of dramatic
amateurs, who are ignorant of party rules, state by state
polling,basic arithmetic, and intellectual honesty. Based on those
factors, it is clear that Governor Mitt Romney will clinch the 1,144
delegates needed for nomination prior to the convention. Here we will
go through each state, and based on party rules and available
polling, attempt to make a realistic delegate allocation projection.
In the Missouri
beauty contest vote held in early February, Rick Santorum beat Mitt
Romney 55%-25%. Newt Gingrich was not on the ballot however, and he
will be for the caucus. So if we assume that
Gingrich peels
15% off of Santorum's total, we are left with results similar to what
we saw in neighboring Kansas, with Santorum winning 40%-25%-15%. So
taking the most negative possible projection for Romney, we can
predict the delegates to be proportioned as something like, Santorum
35, Romney 12, Gingrich 5.
New Delegate
Count
Romney: 508
Santorum: 271
Gingrich: 146
March 18th
Puerto Rico
Caucus: 23 Delegates Winner Take All
Given that
Romney has won commanding majorities among Hispanics in every state
or territory with a measurable sample, and has the endorsement of
popular Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno, he should win a lopsided
victory here.
New Delegate
Count
Romney: 531
Santorum: 271
Gingrich: 146
March 20th
Illinois
Primary: 69 Delegates Proportional by Congressional District
The most recent
poll taken in Illinois shows Romney with a 35-31 lead over Santorum.
Gingrich and Paul poll 12 and 7 percent respectively. Romney recently
went on the air with a $1 million TV purchase, something Santorum
won't be able to match. Given Romney's propensity for closing strong
in Midwestern states, it is impossible for me to imagine Santorum
winning here, and my bet is he loses by a number in the high single
digits. In projecting the delegates, we can look to Michigan, while
projecting it to go slightly more in Romney's favor, so something
like 41-28 in Romney's favor, again trying to be cautious.
New Delegate
Count
Romney: 572
Santorum: 299
Gingrich: 146
March 24th
Louisiana
Primary: 46 Delegates, Proptional
Most recently,
polling showed a tight three way race: Santorum 25, Romney 21,
Gingrich 20. I would expect the final results to be similar to
Mississippi, where they finished 33-31-30, except for shifting some
of Gingrich's support to Santorum based on momentum, for a delegate
total of something like Santorum 21, Romney 15, Gingrich 10.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 587
Santorum 320
Gingrich 156
April 3rd
Wisconsin
Primary: 42 Delegates, Winner Take All
Maryland
Primary: 37 Delegates, Winner Take All
Washington D.C:
19 Delegates, Winner Take All
These three
winner take all contests provide major opportunity for delegate
pickups. Rick Santorum failed to qualify for the ballot in D.C,
meaning those 19 delegates should easily go to Romney. Based on
Maryland's ideology and demographics, which closely resemble New
England, where Romney has yet to lose, it is tough to envision it
going to Santorum, making those 37 delegates likely to go to Romney.
Wisconsin is a bit tougher to project, but since the two closest
states to them geographically and demographically, Ohio and Michigan,
went to Romney narrowly, we will predict it to follow. This day looks
likely to deliver a big prize for Romney, as he garners 99 delegates,
while his opponents combine for zero.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 686
Santorum 320
Gingrich 156
April 24th
Pennsylvania
Primary: 72 Delegates, Congressional District
New York
Primary: 95 Delegates, Proportional, Winner Take All if someone
reaches 50%
Connecticut
Primary: 28 Delegates, Proptional, Winner Take All if someone reaches
50%
Rhode Island
Primary: 19 Delegates, Proportional Delaware Primary: 17
Delegates, Winner Take All
On
the surface, April 24th
should be an outstanding day for Mitt Romney. To start with the small
states, Romney will certainly win Delaware, giving him all of their
17 delegates. He will likely win Rhode Island with a percentage well
over 50%, and where Ron Paul will likely finish in second, so being
generous to Paul, we project a 13-6 split. I expect this case to also
hold true in Connecticut, except that it becomes winner take all if
someone is over 50%, which I would expect Romney to reach, giving him
all 28 of their delegates. While no polling is available in these
three states, Romney has yet to lose in a single New England state,
and his margins have generally grown throughout the campaign. New
York is also likely to give him a big boost. While the most recent
poll shows Romney up only 38-31 over Santorum, the substantial number
of undecideds figure to break Romney's way, especially when one
consider that Romney and McCain combined for about 75% of the New
York Primary vote in 2008. This may be an optimistic hedge, but
Romney seems likely to edge 50% of the vote, giving him the big
delegate prize of the night with 95 delegates. In Santorum's home
state of Pennsylvania, Santorum currently leads by 18 points, a
margin I would expect to tighten. However, to give Santorum the
benefit of the doubt, lets project that margin holds, and he wins 45
of the 72 delegates, with the other 27 going for Romney. That gives
us a nightly total of Romney 180, Santorum 45, Paul 6.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 866
Santorum 365
Gingrich 156
Paul 73
May 8
North Carolina
Primary: 55 Delegates, Proportional
Indiana Primary:
46 Delegates , Congressional District
West Virginia:
31 Delegates, Congressional District
After a brutal
month, Santorum returns to more friendly territory. Given its
proximity to Pennsylvania, its ultra conservative and impoverished
demographic, I expect Santorum to sweep West Virginia, with Gingrich
and Romney perhaps earning a few delegates, so project that as
Santorum 25, Gingrich 4, Romney 2. Indiana should follow the pattern
of most Midwestern states, which have gone for Romney by narrow
margins. Also consider the fact that Santorum has gone through a
brutal month, where he has only won one primary. So figure those
delegates split in half, with each winning 23. North Carolina should
be the most favorable for Romney, as its demographic has begun to
look more like Florida than the other Southern states. I would still
expect it to be close, but with Romney winning a delegate victory of
about 25-20-10 (Romney-Santorum-Gingrich). Overall, it looks like
Santorum has the advantage for the night, but not by much, with the
following tally: Santorum 58, Romney 50, Gingrich 14.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 916
Santorum 423
Gingrich 170
May 15
Nebraska
Primary: 35 Delegates
Oregon Primary:
28 Delegates, Proportional
Nebraska is very
typical of the states Santorum has done well in, and I would expect
him to win a percentage near 50, making it likely he will carry
virtually all of the states 35 delegates. Oregon figures to follow
Washington, which was a close contest between Romney and Paul. It is
also purely proportional, so Santorum might pull out a delegate or
two. That one I would project something like 14-12-2
(Romney-Paul-Santorum). May 15th ends with a tally of,
Santorum 37, Romney 14, Paul 12.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 930
Santorum 460
Gingrich 170
Paul 85
May 22nd
Kentucky
Primary: 45 Delegates, Proportional
Arkansas
Primary: 36 Delegates, Proportional
While this
landscape is favorable to Santorum, the proportional rules make it
unlikely he will amass a significant delegate advantage. Kentucky
seems to fall into Santorum's region of strength, so I think he will
get something like a 25-12-8 advantage from it
(Santorum-Gingrich-Romney). Arkansas figures to be a bit more
Gingrich friendly, resulting in a closer three way race with the
delegates being split 13-12-11 (Santorum-Gingrich-Romney). This gives
us a tally of Santorum 38, Gingrich 24, Romney 19.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 949
Santorum 498
Gingrich 194
Paul 85
May 29th
Texas Primary,
155 Delegates, Proportional
The most recent
Texas polling has Romney leading Santorum 32-30, with Gingrich at 19.
If these numbers don't shift dramatically, then the delegates will be
split heavily, with Romney winning around 65 , Santorum about 60 and
maybe 30 for Gingrich. At this point Romney is in range of the
delegates needed to win the nomination prior to the convention.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 1,014
Santorum 558
Gingrich 224
Paul 85
June 5th
California
Primary: 172 Delegates, Winner Take All by Congressional District
New Jersey
Primary: 50 Delegates, Winner Take All
South Dakota
Primary: 28 Delegates, Proportional
Montana Primary:
26 Delegates, Proportional
New Mexico: 23
Delegates, Proportional
If the delegate
estimates I have made to this point are even in the ball park, Romney
is certain to lock up the nomination by June 5th. He leads
in California by over 20 points. With a lead that large it seems
impossible that Santorum leads in any district. To be as fair and
conservative as possible, I will just posit that he wins 4 of the
states 53 districts for a delegate total of around 15, leaving Romney
with 157, putting him over 1,144 and making him the 2012 Republican
Nominee for President of the United States. New Jersey is a
guaranteed Romney win, giving him all fifty of their delegates. South
Dakota and Montana are both likely to go to Santorum by insubstantial
margins, perhaps by a combined 28-22-2-2
(Santorum-Romney-Gingrich-Paul). New Mexico is likely to go
overwhelmingly to Romney so give him about 17 delegates to 5 for
Santorum. That puts our nightly total at :Romney 246, Santorum 48,
Gingrich 2, Paul 2.
New Delegate
Count
Romney 1,260,
Republican Nominee
Santorum 606
Gingrich 226
Paul 87
June 26th
Utah Primary: 40
Delegates, Winner Take All
Romney will win
the Mormon State by over 90% of the vote. He will easily capture all
40 of the state's delegates.
Final Delegate
Count
Romney 1,300,
Republican Nominee
Santorum 606
Gingrich 226
Paul 87
In closing,
while he is unlikely to do it before June, Romney should easily clear
the 1,144 delegates necessary to be nominated on the first ballot of
the convention. I project him finishing 156 delegates above the
threshold, meaning that unless I made a massive mistake somewhere, he
will be above what is needed to avoid any complaints about rules,
procedure etc. at the convention. What is demonstrated even more
clearly is that Santorum, and Gingrich, are unable to reach the
threshold, and that all they can do is hope to throw the contest to a
brokered convention, something that is unbelievably deleterious to
the party's goal of defeating Barack Obama.
“Warren
Harding was our worst president.” The previous declaration is one
that egghead academics have uttered countless times over the course
of the past 90 years, and one that is patently false, and
intellectually lazy. When one takes the time to look at the entire
record of the Harding Administration, they will find it filled with
monumental achievements. The president's policies served as a
modernizing and transformative force for America during the early
1920's.
“We need to
cut spending,” is a refrain heard from presidential candidates in
every election since the dawn of our republic. Unlike virtually
everyone who has said this, President Harding actually did cut
spending, and cut it dramatically, from $6.3 billion in 1920, to $3.3
billion in 1922. This was in large part due to his signing of the
Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which created the Bureau of the
Budget ( he precursor to the Office of Management and Budget).
Additionally, President Harding also signed legislation in 1922 that
included some of the sharpest across the board tax cuts in American
history, lowering the top marginal income rate from 73% to 25%.
Harding also signed the Revenue Act in 1921, which cut the corporate
tax rate from 65% to 50%. These supply side cuts actually resulted in
an increase of tax revenue, and helped to cut the national debt by
one third.
In addition to
cutting taxes and spending, Harding helped modernize the American
economy with significant investment in infrastructure, when he signed
the Highway Act in 1921, helping to establish some of the first
modern roads. He was also the first president to invest in preventive
medicine, by signing the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act in 1921, which
required doctors to regularly examine healthy pregnant women and
children to keep them from getting sick.
Along with his
economic achievements, Harding was the most pro-civil rights president since Abraham Lincoln. He was the first 20th
Century President to advocate political, educational, and economic
equality for African Americans, and followed up on that ideal by
appointing several to federal positions. Harding also spoke in favor
of anti-lynching legislation, pledging to sign the Dyer Bill, which
would have increased penalties on those convicted of lynching. The
bill met defeat in the Senate due to a Democratic filibuster.
Most famously,
Harding signed legislation establishing the Veteran's Bureau, which
eventually evolved into the Department of Veteran's Affairs. This
legislation modernized America's approach to taking care of its
returning soldiers, allowing 300,000 World War I veterans to
receive needed medical care, and helped to open up educational
opportunities for them.
Finally, Harding
provided leadership on another important front: our freedom to party.
Harding openly defied the Volstead Act during Prohibition, by
drinking whiskey during his poker games and serving wine to White
House guests at formal dinners. This act of leadership helped
embolden Americans to ignore one of the most unpatriotic and
un-American laws in our nation's history and contributed to the
“Roaring Twenties” atmosphere of the decade.
To conclude,
Harding's two years in office were filled with more accomplishments
than most presidents achieve in eight. His supply side economic
agenda helped stimulate one of the most robust periods of growth in
American history. His policies helped cut the federal budget in half,
and reduced our debt by a third. He was one of the first presidents
to invest heavily in infrastructure, which helped modernize the
American economy. His advocacy for Veteran's Affairs helped many
returning soldiers receive the care they needed. He had the patriotic
audacity to personally reject the absurdity and insanity that was
Prohibition, and encouraged his countryman to do the same. With all
of these facts taken into account, only a foolish stooge could call
Harding a failed president, despite the corruption of a handful of
his subordinates. Harding's low standing amongst historians is due to
intellectual laziness, and nothing more. He was enormously popular in
his time, winning the election with over 60% of the popular vote, and
was seen as a shoo-in for reelection before his death, as his
contemporaries saw the direct benefit from his leadership. If we
could elect a president in 2012 who was able to cut the federal
budget in half, reduce our national debt by a third, and stimulate a
decade of robust economic growth, we would leap for joy, and probably
ignore any corruption with gleeful ignorance. In other words, America
could use another Warren G. Harding.
There has been a
tremendous debate throughout our country’s history on how the Office of the
Presidency should function, and in particular just how much power should be
given to the President. This was one of the central issues that faced
our Founding Fathers, and even today is a topic of debate among various
scholars. I agree with Gene Healy of the
Cato Institute that America has been consumed by a “Cult of the Presidency”. This term is used to describe the issue of
expanding Presidential powers that our country has witnessed over the last few
decades. With the growing influence that the President has gained, many
American citizens have become enamored with the office, and look towards the Commander-in-Chief
in times of peril and flourish. I think
that the general public certainly desires (and somewhat expects) the President
to solve problems on a wide range of scales, both large and small.
With the growing
influence of the office come more responsibilities. In recent years especially, we have seen the
President take on issues of a massive variety and wide scale. A prominent example comes to mind when former
President George Bush was expected to acknowledge the issue that former Vice
President Al Gore made very public: global
warming. Not only did Bush need to make
the decisions to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but he also had to decide the
best strategy to pursue with the conflict in Iraq. This exemplifies the wide change in dynamics
that the American people expect the President to deal with.
When the public
thinks of politics, it focuses mainly on the President. The public does not understand, or I think
care enough, to learn a great deal about the House or the Senate, important
parts of the political puzzle. I would
go as far as to contend that the average American citizen knows more about the
President’s personal life then can even name five members of Congress! A large part of this “Cult of the Presidency”
is the idea that most citizens put blame on the President for failure to get
legislation passed, and don’t consider the difficulties that Presidents face
when negotiating with Congress. Sometimes
this underestimation of Congress can even be traced back to Presidents
themselves. During an interview with
President Truman during his last night in office, he indicated that Eisenhower
would expect the Presidency to work just like the military, where those at the
top would give orders and expect compliance. Truman concluded the interview by saying,
“Poor Ike, he’ll find it very frustrating. He will give orders and nothing will
happen.” Part of this problem is the media and the attention that they give to
the president. They almost treat him as
a celebrity. They stress coverage on the
wrong items, very little on legislation and a lot on their personal life. An example can be found with how much press
was given to the dog that the Obama family received upon moving into the White
House, or how women across the country kept close watch on the fashion sense of
Jackie Kennedy.
We're just not that efficient, Ike...
I believe that these
exaltations of the President started relatively recently. One of the first
recent Presidents to have an entire nation looking upon them in a time of need
was Franklin Roosevelt. He was a very
charismatic public speaker who was adored by many within the nation for his
Great Depression relief programs he put into place, collectively known as the
“New Deal”. His New Deal legislation greatly expanded the government and
connected with people on an emotional level, since many of their futures were now
in the hands of Roosevelt. His great
popularity and trust from the American people to guide the nation through
crises like the Great Depression and World War II, led him to be the only
president to be elected to 4 terms in office, which before that time and even
today is unheard of.
Tonight is a huge night for the Republican Presidential
candidates. The results could mean a
potential pulling-away for Mitt Romney, a key closing of the gap for Rick Santorum,
or a last-ditch effort for Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich to remain relevant in the
race. As most of Super Tuesday comes to
a close, I took the liberty to comment on a few pieces of Fox News’ coverage of
the ten primaries at stake:
·Like two weeks ago, I started putting comments
together way too late. It’s currently
10:30, and it appears that most of the states are wrapped up. A majority of the cases are no-brainers
(Romney in Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia, Santorum in Oklahoma and
Tennessee, Gingrich in Georgia), but what’s striking are some of the margins of
victory: Santorum took Tennessee by far
more than I expected, and Gingrich wasn’t even close in that key Southern
state. Gingrich needs to hang it up. Paul should have hung it up a while ago.
·They should never allow two Fox News talking
heads to use whiteboards at the same time.
The numbers and makeshift charts are way too confusing between Rove and
the Gingrich advisor. It’s like a really
bad episode of Around the Horn.
·As of 10:40, they still can’t call Ohio. Santorum appears to be up by 1%, and with
only 80% reporting, it’s still too close to call. In all seriousness, that race was the real
toss-up for the night: older reports
gave the state to Santorum, but Romney has been surging as of late. I wish I could look more closely at the
precincts with extra sets of eyes, but I sadly do not have a working knowledge
of voting behavior in Ohio. All I know
about the state politically is its knack for predicting Presidents:
·Ohio’s counties are messy like Pennsylvania’s,
like a fun jigsaw puzzle for those 8 and up… a great deal uglier than the neat
make-up of Iowa counties, for sure.
·Exit polling:
So you’re going to ask Ohio Republicans whether they think we should
choose a background in business or in government? Gee whiz… anyways, Santorum’s appeal to
voters under 30 is interesting. Romney’s
low polling numbers among the same group is a far cry from our chapter’s
feelings on the race thus far. In other
numbers, Santorum also wins the populist battle once again, winning the
question of who understands the problems of average Americans better. Even this guy, however, finds that a question
bizarrely framed: what exactly is an “average”
American (let alone an Ohio Republican’s perception of that)? In addition, how do you properly encapsulate
the problems they face?
·85% reporting - RAZOR THIN! Santorum by roughly 2,000. Seeing as some of the bigger counties
(Franklin, for example) are under 75% reporting, there’s a very good chance
Romney could leapfrog here in the next ten minutes.
·One of the big things that the talking heads
continue to juggle is Romney’s inability to lock up specific kinds of voters
with whom Santorum does very well. These groups include blue-collar workers and
evangelicals. As the front-runner in
2012, Romney has got to figure these groups out, and I must admit these groups’
stubbornness against the former governor concerns me. I think he’s the best choice to beat the
President, but he has to find a way to make other voters feel that way. It’s his best case against candidates who
align more to the right of him.
·Santorum chose Steubenville for his Ohio
campaign HQ. Shocker.
·And Romney just took the lead as of
11:06pm. Most of the punditry suggested since
polls closed that Romney would close the large early gap Santorum created, with
rural counties calculating their results more quickly. I suggest Romney probably has Ohio, and he’ll
claim five out of the ten contests. Though
he will claim three or four, the situation for Santorum is dire: if he wants to win anything in the near
future, he’s got to kick Gingrich out of the race as the primaries move to
Mississippi and Alabama. Even though the
South and the Midwest are not the entire country, they make up an important
psychological base for an anti-Romney effort.
Santorum’s biggest draw is that he presents himself as a true right-of-right
alternative to the more moderate, more businesslike Romney.
·Romney’s opened up a 5,000+ voter lead as of
11:15. Shouldn’t be long until this one
gets called…
·John Bolton is one of my favorites in
contemporary politics. As a foreign
policy nut myself, I couldn’t agree more that views and approaches to foreign
policy often serve as important surrogates to quality of leadership. I’m not entirely sold on his denunciation of
the President’s comments today related to Obama’s reaction to what GOP
candidates have been saying about Iran, Israel and the like: in all honesty, only the President has the
advantage of sitting behind the Commander-in-Chief’s desk and truly
understanding our strategic place in the world.
I may not agree with the President, but I respect his perspective. Nevertheless, I think Bolton is spot-on with
his evaluation of the implications of Iran’s potentiality of gaining a nuclear
weapon.
·It’s 11:40, and this thing still isn’t
over. Even if Romney took just five of
the states, another positive point for the campaign is that he finished second
in all of the others (except North Dakota, in which Ron Paul is still
technically in second). That confidence
is important for Romney: as long as the
final numbers stay close, it means that he still has strong appeal in the
states he didn’t win. Those results are the
key to a good base for the general election.
·Right before midnight, and I’m really confused
as to why Fox just cut to a brief excerpt from a Kucinich speech (apparently he’s
losing something in the first week of March?).
Then again, this is certainly not the first time I find myself
bewildered by Dennis Kucinich’s attempts to string together a complete thought…
·I find it mind-numbing that Fox anchors have to
introduce Sarah Palin as the former Governor of Alaska and former Vice
Presidential candidate. Her time on Fox News
since the 2008 election suggests to me that most people who religiously follow
Fox have a rough idea of who she is. I
still close my eyes and imagine Kitty from That 70’s Show is speaking... wow,
she struggles with complex sentences.
And so I went to bed last night not posting any more. But in the end, as we all know, Romney pulled it out. Before I turned off the television, I told myself I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, and now it seems that each side is claiming victory for various pieces of the race. As the story develops more, the Pitt CR's will be sure to offer commentary, especially as the race advances and heads south. Hope you enjoyed the notes!
(By the way, if the memes are not as appealing as I perceive them to be, please just let me know. I'll curb my behavior.)
Andrew Breitbart was a hero both philosophically and functionally to young conservatives across the country. We may not have agreed with him on every issue, and it serves us well as a free society to have differences of opinion. However, his spirit lives on in each one of us as we battle every day in the modern political scene. This post is dedicated to him.
CPAC 2011 - Breitbart with Pitt CR's - Rest in peace, good sir...
Four of our esteemed members took the opportunity to reflect on fond memories meeting Mr. Breitbart:
Josh Guckert
Andrew Breitbart never held public office. He never ran for president. He never made himself the center of attention. He always reserved that right for the issues at hand which he cared about so deeply. Born into a liberal family in Los Angeles, Breitbart had to decide for himself what his values and principles were at an early age. At some point during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ Senate confirmation hearings, he claimed to have had an ‘epiphany’ in which he realized he was a Reagan conservative. Little did the country know at that time just how big of an impact that revelation would have. He would go on to expose voter fraud by ACORN in 2009, force Shirley Sherrod to resign from the Department of Agriculture in 2010, and embarrass Anthony Weiner into resignation in 2011.
At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., I was part of a group who was approached by this very average-looking man. His hair was long and uncombed, and it looked like he hadn’t shaved in a few days. However, when I got to shake his hand and talk to him briefly, I realized that this was the epitome of what he stood for. He wasn’t there to put on a show and try to be something he was not, like so many politicians. He was there to work with his fellow conservatives in achieving the goals that he felt so passionately about. He didn’t have the luxury of lip service. His efficacy was judged purely on results. And on that front, not many can or ever will compare to Andrew Breitbart.
Elizabeth Matenkoski
I, like a few other of my fellow
Pitt CRs, met Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2011. After having heard him speak, we
randomly ran into him and who must have been his assistant. Andrew was kind enough to stop and take a few
photos with us including a formal one, and another one where he jumped in front
of the group, got down on one knee and his arms spread out, true to his witty
personality.
Breitbart was a strong personality
in the conservative world and will be remembered for shedding light on the Anthony
Weiner scandal, and for almost singlehandedly bringing down ACORN. He was an incredible asset for all
conservatives and will be strongly missed. Steve Bosela
Breitbart was the first person who I heard speak at CPAC. While I wasn't able to follow along with some of what he was talking about, I knew that I had witnessed some serious fire power in the conservative movement's arsenal. It was clear to me Breitbart enjoyed what he did and was not in it for himself. My favorite part of his speech was when he talked about taunting ACORN members on roller blades outside of a meeting in Southern California, doing nothing more than asking them questions about why they were there. The lack of response by the protestors, instead deferring questions to an official spokesperson, showed to me that he had really gotten to them and exposed their phoniness. What he was doing seemed so simple to outsiders, but required a lot of planning and assumed a lot of personal risk.
After the speech, I had the opportunity to meet Andrew. He told a small group of us why he switched from a liberal viewpoint to a conservative viewpoint. Growing up in Los Angeles, he was certainly well versed in liberal thinking. He became fully vested in the conservative cause, not thinking about himself in doing so, as it cost him many close friends, although he was still friends with some on the left (keeping your enemies closer?). Andrew also made himself available for photographs with both individuals and groups in the lobby area of the hotel where the convention was at. The man who was seemingly always awake, either traveling, giving a speech, producing a video, or keeping up on current events on his Blackberry took the time to meet with individuals and talk to them, even if just for a few minutes. He was genuinely excited about the number of young people attending the convention.
People have talked about an appropriate way to remember Andrew. To me, nothing would make him more proud than to continue to expose and defeat the institutional left despite the fact that he is no longer with us. One of his favorite things to do was retweet hate messages he got on Twitter, constantly reminding us of the hate filled message of the left. Like him or hate him, he changed the political world. May he rest in peace.
Brian Witt
Like most of his fans, I was shocked and saddened by the news that Andrew Breitbart had died last night while walking near his home in Brentwood, CA. Only 43 years old, Breitbart had gone from an entertainment insider working for the E! Network to probably the biggest force in conservative "gonzo" news reporting. Equal parts provocateur and serious journalist, he was responsible for breaking or publicizing some of the biggest and most controversial stories of the last few years, from the Anthony Weiner's penchant for sending out pictures of his groin to ACORN's enthusiastic involvement with child prostitution. He was also willing to defy social conservatives by welcoming the gay center-right group GOPROUD to events and promoting tolerance within the conservative movement. He will be sorely missed by all those of whatever political persuasion who value honest reporting un-beholden to political correctness and the conventional wisdom.
I had the pleasure of meeting Breitbart at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. For any readers who are not familiar with this event, it is probably the biggest annual gathering of conservative students, activists, policy makers, and politicians in the United States. Speakers from Sarah Palin to Herman Cain come to excite the crowd with barn-burning speeches and sell books, while journalists from around the world come to pick up the right-of-center zeitgeist for the coming year. Most of these conservative celebrities move around the conference like minor royalty, flanked by flunkies and bodyguards to keep any of the regular attendees from asking for autographs and photos.
Except for Breitbart.
Despite being one of the most lionized figures in conservative media for his recent take-down of ACORN and NPR, Breitbart was more than happy to talk with the Pitt CRs and pose for multiple pictures with them. He truly was a happy warrior, eager to share his beliefs and talents with the world.
So the group met up around 9:30 (after everyone finished their meetings and night classes) to comment a bit on the Michigan and Arizona primaries. Sorry for not getting the Arizona info... it was already decided by the time this group met!
9:38 pm: Santorum's underperforming so far in the counties of western Michigan where he was expected to win big. Take Ottawa County, for example: this particular county, historical home to scores of arch-conservative Dutch Calvinists in the late-19th century, gave Mike Huckabee the most support of any Michigan county in 2008. With less than 50% reporting, Santorum has not crossed the 50% threshold necessary for us to say he has the county under control.
9:48 pm: We've hit 50% of precincts reporting. Romney has a comfortable four-point lead. If he keeps this margin, and more precincts report consistently in the future, Romney will begin to pull away from Santorum.
10:00 pm: Props to the Michigan Department of State for reporting 61% of ballots by 10:00. In comparison, Maine took a week to count 5,000 votes. The Iowa caucuses took all week to formally count the ballots and still got it wrong, originally. Whoever's running State over in Lansing, we tip our hats.
10:03 pm: Fox News interviewing Jan Brewer, talking about her Romney endorsement. Fun fact... Santorum has no endorsement from any former or current state governor yet.
10:09 pm: Santorum giving a speech already? Wow, giving a concession speech this early is a bad sign, especially when the race is still "too close to call." He's still got that spirit that he's come from absolutely nothing... perhaps it might be a little late in the race, at this point. The punditry certainly proves otherwise, over the past month.
10:17 pm: Fox News calls the primary. Romney wins. CNN calls the primary 90 seconds later. Romney wins. These editors conclude that the night is over. Concluding remarks going around the room... "a dominant showing by Republican frontrunner (and Pitt CR-endorsed candidate), Mitt Romney, for sure." "Well, I guess the Dems didn't get their way..." Have a good night, everyone.
On Saturday, Rick Santorum said that President Barack Obama is a "snob," who is encouraging young people to go to college in in order to "indoctrinate" them and that decent, hardworking people didn't need "leftist" college professors to be successful.
This struck most observers as profoundly odd, as the U.S. has long differentiated itself from its Western European counterparts by succesfully encouraging a much larger percentage of its students to go on to attain a post-secondary degree. Thus Santorum's statement that more people should be content to "work with their hands" instead of obtaining an "elitist" degree sounds much more like the typical European welfare state than America.
Republicans have won college educated voters in every election since the 1960s, although Democrats do somewhat better with voters who display post-graduate degrees, most of whom tend to be concentrated in academia and the government. Republican presidential candidates have also consistently won voters who earn more than $100,000 a year, the lion's share of those being college educated.
Hm...
In other words, if Republicans are the party pf college educated, higher income Americans, why would a candidate for the GOP nomination set out to dismiss higher education and align so closely with the traditionally Democratic working class? Because Santorum knows his voter base and indeed the growing base of the Republican Party in general.
Despite the trouble caused by his poor debate performance and recent verbal gaffes, there is a real chance that Santorum can win Michigan today and will be very competitive in several of the Super Tuesday states. He has remained competitive against Romney by appealing to the growing number of Republican primary voters motivated by cultural instead of economic arguments. These voters care far more about sex education than marginal tax rates, and they see Romney's business experience as suspect not inspiring.
Some just aren't getting the joke...
They see the boogeyman of "elite snobs" everywhere, encouraged by a conservative media echo-chamber which devotes far more time to conspiracy theories about the New Black Panther Party and sharia law than actually trying to impact public policy. Where once the local Republican Party would be dominated by CEOs and doctors, the local business community motivated by civic spirit and sound economics, it has been taken over by marginally employed and education Tea Party activists, spouting what they think is Austrian economics while relying on an interpretation of the Constitution derived from a tearful radio host.
Rick Santorum, like Newt Gingrich before him, has attacked Romney by appealing to the basest instincts of the Republican Party's new working class voter base. He may well end up costing Romney the nomination, but the damage he and his fellow demagogues have done to the GOP will last far longer than this election cycle.
When examining global economy, the two main views that
Republicans will more than likely take are economic liberalism and
realism. Most people do not realize that
economic liberalism is the typical conservative view regarding economics, first
formulated by Adam Smith. Famous economic
liberals include Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Realism, on the other hand, is the belief
that all actions must be done in whatever keeps the nation safest, which tends
to put the military first. This point-of-view
is essential since we are living in a post 9/11 world. Realism is also the main course that the
United States generally takes when regarding foreign interests.
One perspective when looking into global economy that many
people fail to look at is the constructivist perspective. Constructivism is very important because it
takes the classic economic liberal position, but gives it more of a spine by
attempting to explain why states react in the way that they do. This mainly includes taking into account the
culture of a specific state and recognizing that there is more to a nation than
just politics and economics. Realism and
economic liberalism also fail to recognize the effect that non-state actors
have on the global economy, including groups like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.
Constructivism is a noble approach in which to examine
Middle Eastern affairs. Economically, it
is especially important when analyzing the oil economy. Of course, this does not mean that the United
States should ever let its guard down when dealing with a nation like
Iran. Rather, if we can understand where
and why the Iranians have such great antipathy towards the United States, it
would help to construct a more comprehensive approach. Obviously Iran feels the United States stands
or represents the opposite of everything that is Islam and Sharia Law (to be
fair, a very strict fundamentalist interpretation), and working and making
progress that ultimately lead to peace rests on these institutions. The Iranian government’s philosophy underlies
any decisions that are made, and our attitudes could benefit from greater
cultural sensitivity to ensure the Iranian people’s confidence that we do not
want to destroy their culture. This approach
would be much better than the economic liberal approach because Iranians would
see that we are not just out to maintain that oil will continue flowing into
the United States for a reasonable price.
In the world today, it is important to understand where
the decisions that states make come from. When we know the source of a decision, we are better prepared to handle
that particular state and the best course of action. On the other hand, the United States should not
abandon a realist view on the world anytime soon. Rather, it should structure constructivism
into its general realist worldview and allow a better understanding of culture
play a strong influence in its quest to ensure (and augment) its own existence
and global impact.
On Saturday, January 21, the political
world came to a shocking revelation: Republican voters from South Carolina had lost
their minds.Bypassing any pretense of
common sense, good judgment, or basic humanity, forty percent of South
Carolinians came to the buffoonish conclusion that former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich was the best possible choice to take on President Barack Obama in
November.When one stops to consider that
Speaker Gingrich’s career has been characterized by traits such as lack of
personal and professional discipline, his abysmal moral character, and perhaps
most importantly his record of corruption, it seems his nomination represents a
form of political malpractice on the part of the Republican Party. On every
front, Speaker Gingrich is an embarrassment to himself and his party, and he would
be the worst general election candidate in modern history.
The central rationale Speaker
Gingrich offers for his nomination is his assertion that he is the best choice
to stand toe-to-toe in the three televised debates with President Obama in the
fall. While Gingrich has consistently performed well in the never ending train
of Republican Primary debates, this is an inappropriate metric for forecasting
proficiency in general election debates. Much of Gingrich’s “success” is simply
due to his willingness to pander to audiences that are to the right of 90% of
the electorate, as well as the joy he takes in verbally assaulting the
moderators and his opponents.Neither of
these tactics seem likely to work in the more subdued general election debates,
which far more moderate voters watch, who are likely to find these tactics offensive
and immature.With his most tantalizing
asset largely neutralized, we are left to ponder the rest of Gingrich’s political
profile.Here is where it really starts
to get ugly.
Over the course of this campaign,
Gingrich has grown fond of bloviating on the “success” of his time in Congress,
particularly his four-year reign as Speaker.While his attempts to claim credit for the success of Ronald Reagan’s
policies during the 1980’s as a backbench junior congressman are too
narcissistic and asinine to warrant serious comment, he does bring serious
accomplishments as Speaker, such as balanced budgets and welfare reform
throughout the 1990’s. However, this era also highlights some of his most
serious character flaws, namely his lack of discipline and character. In 1995, Gingrich single-highhandedly lost the
battle over the government shutdown with President Clinton when he remarked in
an interview that he shut down the government as revenge for Clinton making
Gingrich exit from the back of Air Force One at a state funeral. These kinds of
wayward comments, as well as his hypocrisy in impeaching Clinton for an affair
while carrying on one of his own, caused Republicans to lose House seats in
both ’96 and ’98. Amidst these failures and ethics violations that lead to him
being fined $300,000 by the House (the only Speaker to ever be sanctioned this
severely), his fellow Republicans successfully forced him from the Speakership,
leading him to resign in disgrace.Gingrich’s erratic and failed record of leadership is further buttressed
by the fact that virtually none of his former colleagues who elected him as
Speaker are endorsing him for President.
Following his failed tenure as
Speaker, Gingrich decided to cash in on his influence, beginning a lucrative
career as a lobbyist. Most prominently, Gingrich collected $1.6 million from
mortgage giant Freddie Mac. Unwilling to own up to his participation in this
profession, Gingrich has cynically claimed that he was hired as a “historian”
at the “modest “ price of $25,000 a month for six years. His contract clearly contradicts
his claims, as he was hired by Freddie Mac's chief lobbyist, and the words
“history” and “historian” are absent from the document. In addition to his appalling lack of honesty,
Gingrich’s status as a lobbyist is a severe general election liability, as it
is among the public's least trusted professions. However, when it comes to
Gingrich’s dishonesty, his record on lobbying is among the least of his
problems.
Gingrich’s personal life is an
unmitigated disaster of his own creation.From serving his cancer stricken first wife with divorce papers in 1981,
to asking his second wife, newly diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, for an open
marriage in 1998, Gingrich has distinguished himself as a repulsive and
shameful excuse for a human being. While he can blame these problems on the
“lamestream media” in the primary, general election voters will look past his
weak excuses and judge him for the shameful personal life he has led,
especially considering the disingenuous attack he lead on President Clinton in
the late 90's for his extramarital adventures.Character matters in politics, and Gingrich has less than any person who
has ever served in the Oval Office.
With all of this evidence taken
together its summation is a simple one:Gingrich
is incapable of winning the presidency. This is confirmed by decades worth of
polling: in no survey taken throughout his political career has Gingrich ever
surpassed a 43% approval rate, while consistently possessing unfavorable
ratings of 55-60%. Even more troubling, Gingrich possesses nearly 100% name
recognition, meaning that these numbers will be almost impossible to reverse.
These ratings carry over to polls pitting him head to head with President
Obama, as he loses to the president by an average of 11 points according to
Real Clear Politics, despite the president's mediocre approval rating of
46%.Gingrich’s toxic candidacy would be
catastrophic for Republican candidates running for any office in 2012, and
would likely result in our losing the House and failing to recapture the
Senate. With our country facing historic economic and international challenges,
the Republican Party cannot afford to nominate an erratic, corrupt, degenerate
lobbyist to oppose this failed president. We must nominate someone who
understands the economy, who has worked in the private sector, who has a record
of successful leadership (particularly as an executive), and who has unblemished
character who can appeal to the middle of the road voters who will decide this
election.
Fortunately for Republicans, such a
candidate exists. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney checks all of these
boxes, having started one of the most successful private equity firms in the
country, Bain Capital, who under Romney's leadership invested in companies such
as Staples, Sports Authority, Steel Dynamics, and Domino's Pizza, which employ
hundreds of thousands of people. In 2002, Romney successfully turned around the
failing 2002 Olympics, making it the most profitable Olympics in history. As
Massachusetts governor, Romney balanced four consecutive budgets without increasing
taxes on individuals or businesses, cut taxes 19 times, created a rainy day
fund, and left the state with a 4.7% unemployment rate. Romney's first rate
character is evidenced by his marriage of over forty years to his wife, and the
absence of any scandal either public or private in his career. All of these attributes
have been born out in polling, as Governor Romney is in a statistical tie with
President Obama. It is clear to all but the most ignorant that Romney is the
only credible challenger to the president, making it our patriotic duty to nominate
him.
Now is the time for Republicans to
choose competence over corruption, decency over degeneracy, record over
rhetoric, and success over scandal. It is time for Republicans to choose Mitt
Romney over Newt Gingrich.
