Well, yet another primary day is upon us and once again hyperbole abounds as to what the results will mean for the Republicans. A week ago the Republican establishment began to hyperventilate at the prospect of a Gingrich juggernaut sweeping from South Carolina to Florida and on to the nomination. Of course, a week before that, his candidacy was, "dead."
Now the blogosphere has declared that if Romney wins Florida as polls suggest he will: "THE RACE IS OVER!!!" Leave it to the partisans of the establishment to go to extremes once again. It's o.k. Romneyites, we understand. If the establishment loses it's hold on the GOP to it's conservative base
all heck will break lose. Can't let that happen, now can we?
But let's apply a little perspective to what is turning out to be quite an extraordinary campaign. First of all, as Newt has said, he's in the race to the convention. He's not going away. Having won South Carolina by 12 points, Gingrich is now a contender. If Rick Santorum drops out his voters may not be so inclined to vote for Romney. In fact, many of them fit the same profile as those who supported Mike Huckabee 4 years ago and the two of them never quite reconciled. Ron Paul will probably stay in, fighting for more delegates, hoping for a brokered convention between Newt and Romney. But of course, his supporters aren't voting for anyone else. No one articulates the Libertarian viewpoint quite like Congressman Paul does.
Second, if Romney wins, his margin of victory will be scrutinized. In current polls Romney has about 40-41 percent of the vote, while Newt has between 31 and 33 percent. The vote is still close. That leaves about 9 to 10 percent undecided which almost certainly consists of voters still hesitant to vote for Romney, but have spent the last week being deluged by anti-Newt ads desparately trying to convince them that Newt isn't conservative. If Newt gets those 9 percent the result will be close. If not, they'll probably break evenly to Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum. After this week, if they haven't settled on Romney, they probably never will.
Third, there are still 46 other states that haven't voted. February starts with a flurry of caucuses and ends with primaries in Michigan and Arizona. Because caucus participants must actually drive some distance to a voting site and spend the evening there engaged in political organization and debate, they tend to be both more partisan and more ideological. In this case, conservative. Is Romney more conservative than Newt? I'm not sure the Florida results will be determined on that basis, but the caucus results almost certainly will be.
The Michigan GOP is also more conservative than the party is in other parts of the Industrial Midwest and East where Romney must do well to be nominated. If Newt wins Michigan, it would be considered a coup. In fact, except for Arizona, Romney won every state four years ago, that is slated to vote in February. A veritable minefield of opportunities for Gingrich to deal a psychologlical blow to his opponent. Immigration, of course, will be the center-piece of the battle for Arizona and on this issue Romney may have the advantage of articulating the most conservative viewpoint.
So, just how far will this nomination battle go? If Newt can take some states out of Romney's column in February he'll have the momentum to continue to Super Tuesday in March where most of the states are either in Gingrich's backyard in the South or Caucus states filled with conservative activists, mostly in the west. Massachusetts also votes that day and should easily go to Romney, as should Ohio on the same day. In fact both Ohio and Illinois, which votes a couple weeks after, have more liberal party organizations and are must wins for Romney. If he doesn't, he's in trouble.
Two dates are of the utmost importance: Feb 28th and April 3rd. In 2008, more than half the states voted on Super Tuesday. California, New York, Illinois, Missouri, and just about every state in the Rocky Mountain West voted that day, but not in 2012. Now, they all vote later. So unless Newt is reversed in the South the race won't end on that day, as it has n every competitve pimary season for Republicans since 1988. Florida, Michigan, and Texas will determine if the race goes all the way to June. Texas votes on April 3rd. If either candidate wins all 3, the race will effectively be over that day. Newt needs Michigan on Feb 28th to prove, both that he's the more conservative candidate and that Romney's Mid-Western base isn't a lock for him. If not, he's in trouble.
If Romney wins Florida on Tuesday, Texas becomes all important for Gingrich. As the nation's 2nd largest state and the home of the last Republican President, Texas will prove if the establishment, represented by no one better than Mr. Bush, can take hold of the GOP's rank and file and end the contest early for Romney. Should Gingrich add Texas to his Southern base of support despite losing Florida, the race will go all the way to California in June and Newt will be in the driver's seat. From that point on it's all about delegates, fighting for every single state, and controlling the Convention in August.
At that point, a number of vulnerabilities will present themselves with Romney defending his base in New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticutt, Rhode Island, and Delaware. Any losses here would further diminish him down the final stretch. Wisconsin and Indiana could also prove difficult for Romney if Gingrich has managed to make it this far.
Is Florida the end of the line for Newt Gingrich? It could prove once again to be pivotal in determining who becomes the next President of the United States. But don't bet your life on it.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Two Amendments
I have had a project in the back of my mind which I hope to hatch before too long. I still consider myself a conservative despite the troubles I've faced in the Obama economy. I strongly believe that only a growing economy brought on by limited taxation and fiscal discipline can tame our massive deficit and restore the kind of prosperity Americans are used to. I voted for McCain in 2008 and despite my continued frustration with the Republican party, can not imagine a scenario in which I wouldn't vote out the President to ensure these policies were returned to in 2013.
Still, this outcome is not assured. And after having seen one candidate after another rise and then fall
in the polls it occurs to me that a top-down solution, i.e. finding the perfect presidential candidate, may not ever be possible within the Republican circles. I have my favorite, of course, but results from the first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, don't inspire much confidence, that a compelling alternative will emerge to Gov. Romney.
Which is why I have been considering for awhile now an idea for a grassroots, bottom-up campaign, centered around the Tea Party, or a portion of the Tea Party, to reform America's politics and give Americans a greater and more direct say in government policy.
Specifically, I advocate the passage of two Amendments to United States Constitution that will turn our nation's current predicament around. The first is a Reform of Congress. This will include a life-time four term-limit for members of the House and giving states (and their consituents) the power to Recall U.S. Senators. In addition, the Amendment would cap the pay of members of Congress' at $80,000 and Senators at $90,000. Congressional pensions would be terminated. After leaving Congress, members would be constitutionally required to forfeit all pay to the Treasury in excess of this standard congressional salary for any lobbying they do of the Federal Government and to pay the going rate for all gifts received. And Congress' Administrative costs (the amount they spend on themselves) would be capped as well at about 2/3rds what they are allowed today. As a Constitutional Amendment this will go a long way towards giving us the citizen Congress we deserve.
The second amendment proposed would be a 10% cap on all income taxes levied by the Federal Government. The cap could only be waved in war time, and even then in favor of a higher flat rate.
Congress would be required to pay the costs of all unfunded liabilities mandated by them so as to establish a genuine transparency in the total liabilities created by the Federal Government and allow states the right to spend their own taxes raised. Congress would be granted the power to give the President, for a specified time and subject to review periodically, the authority to veto line-items in the Federal budget.
These two amendments would go a long way towards restoring the kind of balance in government policy long absent from our discourse. But how to get Congress to propose them? It doesn't get mentioned in our history books, however, there were several attempts made to amend the Constitution in response to excesses of the Federal Govermnent. In each case, amendments proposed by the States for consideration by a Constitutional Convention came within a single state of becoming a reality. Each time, however, fears that a New Convention could not be controlled caused the effort to fail.
In my next post, I will describe how this issue can be addressed and assure the amendments suggested get sent to the states for ratification.
Still, this outcome is not assured. And after having seen one candidate after another rise and then fall
in the polls it occurs to me that a top-down solution, i.e. finding the perfect presidential candidate, may not ever be possible within the Republican circles. I have my favorite, of course, but results from the first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, don't inspire much confidence, that a compelling alternative will emerge to Gov. Romney.
Which is why I have been considering for awhile now an idea for a grassroots, bottom-up campaign, centered around the Tea Party, or a portion of the Tea Party, to reform America's politics and give Americans a greater and more direct say in government policy.
Specifically, I advocate the passage of two Amendments to United States Constitution that will turn our nation's current predicament around. The first is a Reform of Congress. This will include a life-time four term-limit for members of the House and giving states (and their consituents) the power to Recall U.S. Senators. In addition, the Amendment would cap the pay of members of Congress' at $80,000 and Senators at $90,000. Congressional pensions would be terminated. After leaving Congress, members would be constitutionally required to forfeit all pay to the Treasury in excess of this standard congressional salary for any lobbying they do of the Federal Government and to pay the going rate for all gifts received. And Congress' Administrative costs (the amount they spend on themselves) would be capped as well at about 2/3rds what they are allowed today. As a Constitutional Amendment this will go a long way towards giving us the citizen Congress we deserve.
The second amendment proposed would be a 10% cap on all income taxes levied by the Federal Government. The cap could only be waved in war time, and even then in favor of a higher flat rate.
Congress would be required to pay the costs of all unfunded liabilities mandated by them so as to establish a genuine transparency in the total liabilities created by the Federal Government and allow states the right to spend their own taxes raised. Congress would be granted the power to give the President, for a specified time and subject to review periodically, the authority to veto line-items in the Federal budget.
These two amendments would go a long way towards restoring the kind of balance in government policy long absent from our discourse. But how to get Congress to propose them? It doesn't get mentioned in our history books, however, there were several attempts made to amend the Constitution in response to excesses of the Federal Govermnent. In each case, amendments proposed by the States for consideration by a Constitutional Convention came within a single state of becoming a reality. Each time, however, fears that a New Convention could not be controlled caused the effort to fail.
In my next post, I will describe how this issue can be addressed and assure the amendments suggested get sent to the states for ratification.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The Iowa Impact.
The New Year is finally upon us, and that means, finally, that it is time for Iowa to vote. When we last visited the Iowa polls, Newt Gingrich had replaced Herman Cain as the leading contender for the top spot in that state's caucuses. Since then an unrelenting barrage of negative advertizing has knocked the former Speaker of the House out of first place and into a life-or-death struggle for 3rd with Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. Some polls even have the former Senator from Pennsylvania pulling away and fighting for the win himself.
Despite all the protestations to the contrary ahead of voting Tuesday, several candidates will be eliminated after Iowa. Historically, there are only 3 tickets out of that state: Win (1), Place (2), and Show (3). In the Republican Party, a Win gets you into the final two, Placing gives you a shot at the final two, and 3rd, historically, has only been worth one week of favorable press coverage that goes nowhere. (See Lamar Alexander and Fred Thompson). This year, however, there may be evidence that the process is about to unfold differently and that 3rd spot may hold the key to victory.
If Ron Paul wins the caucuses, the establishment of the GOP will run scared trying to stop him. The question will then be whether such a win results in Mr. Paul moving into the top two in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Doing so would likely unite the party behind Mr. Romney. In New Hampshire, Paul is already there, despite being about 20 points behind the governor. But in South Carolina he's never gotten above single digits. Unless Paul becomes a serious threat to win there by climbing into second, the opening should still remain for an alternative to emerge in the Palmetto State. And given past nomination fights there is every reason to believe that honor would go to the 3rd candidate in Iowa.
If Romney wins the caucuses, the media will attempt to coronate him assuming a follow-up win in New Hampshire will seal the nomination for the Governor. In the Republican party, however, South Carolina has always been a more consistent predictor of who the eventual nominee ends up being, than either Iowa or New Hampshire. To think Romney closes out the contest within the next week or so would be to assume South Carolina Republicans had conceded the race to Romney. The problem with this scenario is that South Carolina polls show that Romney hasn't been very popular in that state either. Governor Romney has consistently held a weak second place there and often fallen to 3rd. That's a worse condition than he's faced nationally, where he's always been a consistent second to a series of alternatives and as I said in my last post, Romney came in 4th South Carolina in 2008.
So unless Mr. Paul scares voters into the arms of Romney, whoever takes the 3rd spot in Iowa, regardless of rank, will have a unique opportunity to consolidate the opposition to Romney and go on to win the nomination. And if this happens despite failing to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, the process will have fundamentally changed in the Republican party for years to come.
Despite all the protestations to the contrary ahead of voting Tuesday, several candidates will be eliminated after Iowa. Historically, there are only 3 tickets out of that state: Win (1), Place (2), and Show (3). In the Republican Party, a Win gets you into the final two, Placing gives you a shot at the final two, and 3rd, historically, has only been worth one week of favorable press coverage that goes nowhere. (See Lamar Alexander and Fred Thompson). This year, however, there may be evidence that the process is about to unfold differently and that 3rd spot may hold the key to victory.
If Ron Paul wins the caucuses, the establishment of the GOP will run scared trying to stop him. The question will then be whether such a win results in Mr. Paul moving into the top two in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Doing so would likely unite the party behind Mr. Romney. In New Hampshire, Paul is already there, despite being about 20 points behind the governor. But in South Carolina he's never gotten above single digits. Unless Paul becomes a serious threat to win there by climbing into second, the opening should still remain for an alternative to emerge in the Palmetto State. And given past nomination fights there is every reason to believe that honor would go to the 3rd candidate in Iowa.
If Romney wins the caucuses, the media will attempt to coronate him assuming a follow-up win in New Hampshire will seal the nomination for the Governor. In the Republican party, however, South Carolina has always been a more consistent predictor of who the eventual nominee ends up being, than either Iowa or New Hampshire. To think Romney closes out the contest within the next week or so would be to assume South Carolina Republicans had conceded the race to Romney. The problem with this scenario is that South Carolina polls show that Romney hasn't been very popular in that state either. Governor Romney has consistently held a weak second place there and often fallen to 3rd. That's a worse condition than he's faced nationally, where he's always been a consistent second to a series of alternatives and as I said in my last post, Romney came in 4th South Carolina in 2008.
So unless Mr. Paul scares voters into the arms of Romney, whoever takes the 3rd spot in Iowa, regardless of rank, will have a unique opportunity to consolidate the opposition to Romney and go on to win the nomination. And if this happens despite failing to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, the process will have fundamentally changed in the Republican party for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)