presidential candidates

What happens if . . .

by asmwizard

As a habitual pessimist, I sometimes have horrible thoughts.  This morning, I woke up with a pair of what ifs?

What if the president-elect dies after the election but before inauguration?

What if the candidate dies after the convention but before the election?

I didn’t know the answers to these questions.  I thought it might be covered in the constitution.  The answer to the first is found there:  article two, section 1, and amendments XII and XX.

I googled the question, and came up with http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pvp.html

Here’s the way I interpret what the website tells me:

Say the president-elect is Obama and he dies of accident, illness, or assassination before inauguration.  This is a no-brainer.  Biden takes over as both president and president-elect.  If it’s Romney, then the constitution says that Ryan becomes the president-elect and will be inaugurated.  If it’s both, then the members of the Electoral College select a president and vice-president.

If the candidate dies before election day, his name may remain on the ballot, if it has already been printed.  If not, the party in each state can substitute another name.  The voters may end up voting for a dead person, but they are really voting for the electors from the state, who will cast their votes for whoever they see fit in December.

So, it’s all covered.  Let’s hope these things never happen, but it’s good that procedures are in place.

The 1st presidential debate of 2012

by asmwizard

I’ve written on all the Republican primary debates, so I might as well do the presidential ones. 

October 3, in Denver, Jim Lehrer presiding.  The subject was domestic issues.  For the first time, I liked the format: six very general questions to be asked the whole evening of 90 minutes, Lehrer acting more as a timekeeper than anyone else.   For once, the moderator didn’t ask loaded questions designed to embarrass one candidate or give the other guy an easy ride.

I took notes, but anything I report they said is necessarily paraphrased – my version, which only gives a general idea of some of what was said.

The first question was on their differences on creating jobs.  The second, differences on the deficit.  Third, differences on entitlement reform.  Fourth, differences on federal regulation.  Fifth, entitlements, and finally, what would they do as president to resolve partisan gridlock.

The discussion was polite, at times friendly, but neither man pulled punches.  Both cited statistics and provided detail.  There were no major gaffes, as far as I know.  I don’t believe there were any memorable lines, although Romney addressed Obama’s investment in renewable energy something like: “You don’t pick winners and losers, you just pick losers.”  I may have gotten this wrong, but it’s the general idea.

Obama kept telling Romney about his (Romney’s) plans, such as “you plan to raise taxes by 5 trillion dollars”.  Romney repeatedly came back and said that was inaccurate, and said what his plans really were.  These exchanges made Obama look bad, I believe.

When they talked about health care, Obama struggled.   Romney never did, looked presidential, and looked right at Obama when he spoke.  Obama looked at the camera when he spoke, and looked down a lot when Romney was speaking.

I can’t cover much of what was said.  Here are some selected tidbits from my notes:

Creating jobs: 

O – 4  years ago, I inherited a big depression; much work to do; we need a “new economic patriotism”.  (That last means people must be willing to pay more in taxes.)

R – Need a different path, balanced budget, energy independence.  The president wants a “trickle down government.”

O – Mentioned need to improve education.  He began a program called “Race to the Top”.  Wants to hire 100,000 math and science teachers.  He would cut tax on business, he said.

R – described O’s economic record.  Said he would not do a tax cut that adds to the deficit.

O – claims to have cut taxes on middle class by $3600 per family.  Said R wants to cut taxes by 5 trillion dollars (over 10 years?) and the only way this could be done is by raising taxes on the middle class.

and so on.

Deficit:

R – there are 3 ways to cut the deficit: raise taxes, cut spending, or grow the economy.  He’ll cut spending and grow the economy.  His criteria for federal program is: will we have to borrow money from China to pay for it?   He’ll cut the size of government by attrition.

O – claims to have cut 18 govt. programs, went after Medicare fraud.  Claims to have a 4 Trillion dollar debt reduction plan – that requires tax increases.

R – Spain spends 42% of GDP on government, we’re approaching that.

O – brought up subsidies to oil companies, about 5 billion/year.  He said budgets reflect choices.   Medicaid block grants to states would be a 30% cut.

R – You subsidized green energy by 90 billion/year, 15 times the oil companies.  He dropped the “you just pick losers” line.  He said the Medicaid block grants would be what each state got last year plus 1 per cent.  He said the governors would be delighted.

Entitlements:

O – said his and R’s policies on Social Security are similar.  He said his Medicare savings would come from cutting overpayments to insurance companies and providers – hospitals and doctors. 

R – said O will cut 716 billion (over 10 years?  Dammit, they never mention the time frame), and cutting payments to hospitals and doctors would make them drop Medicare patients.

There was a lot of further discussion on Medicare.  O – didn’t like Ryan’s voucher program for Medicare (insurance payment subsidy).

Federal Regulation:

R – regulations are necessary, but can be excessive.  Cited problems with Dodd-Frank.  It makes some banks too big to fail, kills smaller banks.

Health Care:

Obama defended, said R didn’t have details on his plans.  R – attacked, said he’d repeal it but keep some of the features.  O struggled here, didn’t do well.

Role of Government:

O – keep people safe; create framework where people can succeed. 

O – hit a homerun here; said it was to follow the constitution.

Partisan Gridlock:

R – as governor, I had a legislature which was 87% Democrat, yet succeeded.

O – I will take ideas from anyone (and ignore them).

============================================================

Obama didn’t mention Bain Capital or Romney’s 47% remark.  Romney didn’t seize on any of Obama’s gaffes or lack of producing credible budgets.

Overall, Romney won.  Some liberal talking heads conceded that and were angry about it, thinking Obama didn’t make his case.   So, Obama took strike one, as Romney did a superb job.   However, there are two debates left.  Obama likely will be tougher in the next two, and he’d better be.  If Romney dominates the second debate, I believe he will win the election.    

This is how it all turned out . . .

by asmwizard

(This, for obvious reasons, was never published in the Leavenworth Times.  It’s how I see things as of March 25, 2012.  Of course, things could change, but I doubt they will.)

OK, I’m a historian, writing fifty years from now.  My subject is how things worked out for the nation and the candidates after Super Tuesday in 2012. 

Ron Paul, who was 76 in 2012, never changed.  He ran again five more times in presidential primaries, before finally retiring from politics.  At the age of 100, he ran in the New York marathon and finished second. Shortly after that, Libertarianism was recognized as a mental illness, and he spent the rest of his life in a low-security mental hospital, where he taught classes on the Constitution to his fellow inmates.

Herman Cain never participated in politics again.  His continual hang-dog look was a result of incessant nagging from his wife, who never forgave him for the indiscretions revealed during his candidacy. 

Rick Perry ran for the Senate in 2018.  He was well liked but was always in the minority side, and had few real accomplishments in his three terms there.

Michelle Bachmann remained a gadfly in the House of Representatives for another few years before retiring.  She spent the next twenty years as a little old lady in Minnesota.

John Huntsman spent the rest of his life just being rich.  He eventually bought a vacation home in Roatan and lived there most of the time.  He did visit China several more times.

Newt Gingrich was the first of the remaining four to drop out of the race after Super Tuesday.  He won a total of two southern states, but did miserably everywhere else.  After that, he wrote and lectured extensively, and became the de facto intellectual leader of the Republican Party for several years.  His reform ideas were admired by many, but none were ever really tried. 

Rick Santorum fought on, but the Romney snowball eventually overwhelmed him.  Afterward, he served as Secretary of Health and Human Services during Romney’s presidency.  He retired after that, and devoted his life to writing and lecturing about social issues.  

Mitt Romney won a close, heavily contested election and became President of the United States in 2013.  He lost in the popular vote but won the Electoral College by a few votes.  This re-energized the Popular Vote advocates, but they never quite managed to pass the amendment.

As President, Romney was made ineffective by a Senate which remained under Democrat control.  Although he rescinded many of Obama’s regulations and fired the many czars Obama had appointed, he was unable to balance the budget, have Obamacare repealed, or make any serious reforms in entitlements.  Thus, during his term, the balance of people on government aid — as opposed to those earning wages and paying taxes — finally tipped so that there were more takers than taxpayers.  No Republican or fiscal conservative could win as long as this situation lasted.  Romney was defeated in his bid for re-election, and Michelle Obama became President in 2017. 

Barry Obama was content to be “First Husband” in the White House.  He founded and ran his centers for Islamic Studies, and traveled extensively on Air Force Two – at public expense — while his wife ran things.  She was no more competent than he had been.

During Michelle’s third year in office, the United States suffered a financial collapse similar to that of Greece when China suddenly stopped loaning money to the American government.  The United States could no longer pay Social Security, extend unemployment, hand out food stamps, provide medical care, or employ anyone. No one in the world offered bailout money.  Michelle ordered a lot of money printed, but it was almost worthless. So, millions of older folks starved to death, as did all those depending on the government for their living.  Only people with private sector jobs survived.  It was the greatest catastrophe in world history.

We now have a leaner, meaner America.  Much meaner, and much less crowded.  On the bright side, there’s no unemployment.    

   

  

The IQ of the public

by asmwizard

(As published in the Leavenworth Times, February 28, 2012.  This is personal bias — I have long believed the general public is effectively stupid, as are most subsets of it.)

Psychologists have long argued about intelligence testing in humans.  Various tests, such as Stanford-Binet, attempt to measure it, and scores are reported around an average of 100.  Some populations have a higher average, some lower, but 100 is the assumed value.  You might think that the IQ of the public itself (taken as a sort of multi-celled animal) is the same.  I maintain the IQ of the public as a whole is closer to zero.  Why?  The smart and the stupid cancel each other out. 

The behavior of the public is  like that of an amoeba, which has no brain, but reacts to stimuli.  For the public, stimulus is information and propaganda, and response can be measured through opinion polls and elections (the ultimate polls).   The information the public receives is a bewildering mixture of truth and lies.  The public has no organ to determine the validity of the information, but various portions of the public respond well to certain sources – Democrats tend to believe anything whatever said by other Democrats, for example.  Almost no logic is involved.

An amoeba follows a pattern.  It swims, or at least moves, slowly through still water.  It encounters particles from time to time.  It absorbs, then either digests or expels them.  The public doesn’t swim – information flows to it, is ingested.  A very small portion is retained, the rest rejected.   

Amoebas reproduce by dividing.  The public can be subdivided too, and the various parts continue to resemble an amoeba.  Consider the United States Congress: made up of very smart people, it gives the impression that it is collectively stupid.  Ideology cancels out the good that either side might do.  I won’t mention the arrogance and ignorance of politicians, and the difficulty of the problems they seek to solve.  

Consider Democrats:  the good some of them would do is offset and hindered by the destructive ideas of the far left: Communists and Socialists.  Republicans are similarly split and hampered.  Establishment Republicans resist change, while the more conservative want reform. 

I have a point to all this: the Republican public – the brainless amoeba — has a knack for choosing the wrong candidate for president.  They are doing so again.  What America needs is a determined reformer: Gingrich.  The Republican amoeba appears to be selecting either Santorum or Romney.   All three candidates are smart, but one is smarter and has specific plans for reform.  Check their websites for detail.  Santorum has offered some plans, Romney almost none.  Gingrich has extensive and rather detailed plans to reform America.  Gingrich is a PhD, has long legislative experience, a record of success, and a very high IQ.  He has long thought about and written several books on how to improve America’s future.  Romney and Santorum can’t match that.  Gingrich, after a long career, has more baggage, but his faults do not lessen the abilities he would bring to the presidency.   

The Republican amoeba eventually preferred Gingrich, but when negative (mostly erroneous) information dominated the stimulus, it turned away.   Debates provided a boost in South Carolina, which preferred Gingrich, then the Florida public selected Romney after a flood of negative ads.  The public has elevated five different candidates (Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum) to first place, only to let them fade.  Where’s the intelligence? 

Do you need absolute proof that the public has no intelligence?   Obama’s approval rating is climbing.  Nearly 50% now say they approve of the job he’s doing as president.  The amoeba strikes again.  

     

 

The Arizona Republican Debate

by asmwizard

The debate held on February 22, 2012 in Mesa, Arizona may have been the last of the entire Republican primary season.  CNN hosted, and Don King moderated.  The audience saw Ron Paul on the left, the Santorum, Romney and Gingrich. 

It was a spirited debate, largely without mistakes by the participants.  There were no standing ovations, but applause was frequent.  There were even a few boos. 

If you assume that Paul and Gingrich were irrelevant, and the only real contest was between frontrunner Santorum and close runner-up Romney, I would say Romney won.  Santorum failed to gain significant ground, was booed over his statements on Title X (subsidies to Planned Parenthood),  and even though the two men attacked each other Romney probably inflicted a few more wounds on Santorum than the other way around.   The two received the most time.

Rating the performances only, Gingrich stood head and shoulders above the others.  He hit doubles and triples on every at bat, while the others hit only singles.  He almost certainly helped himself by giving the best answers on every question.  Asked about what he would do on illegal immigration, a huge issue in Arizona, he hit a home run by saying he’d build the entire fence, then work with the governors of the states which border Mexico.  He looked comfortable and happy on stage, smiling a great deal, but there were virtually no attacks on either him or Paul.  Paul was also comfortable as he responded in his typical erratic fashion.  Santorum and Romney spent a much of their time bashing each other – with trivialities, for the most part.  

My notes on the debate follow, with my evaluation at the end.  I’ll abbreviate by using the first letter of the candidate’s last name. I’ll also use O for Obama.

? As president, what would you do about the national debt?  S – I’d cut 5 trillion in my first 5 years; I have experience in tackling tough jobs; would cut entitlement spending.  R – S voted for raising the debt ceiling 5 times; in business, you balance the budget or go out of business; I’d look at every government program, if unessential, cut it; if state could do it better, I’d give it to them.  S – while I was in Congress, the % of national debt to GDP went from 68% to 64%.  R – will cut taxes on everyone by 20%; the federal government doubled in size during Santorum’s time in office.  G – we balanced the budget 4 consecutive years while I was Speaker;  you can’t make major cuts while there is high unemployment, we’d have to tackle that first; there is enormous potential for federal income in allowing oil, coal and gas production from them.  P – S is a fake fiscal conservative; S voted for No Child Left Behind; I never voted for a deficit; S has a credibility problem.  S – The Weekly Standard rated me the most fiscally conservative senator during my time; I took on Medicare and Social Security reform; I took on the tough issues.  P – Republicans like foreign aid; I don’t.

? (for R) You described yourself as severely conservative.  What’s that?  R – I cut taxes 19 times, etc. 

? (for G) Is it possible to have both deficit reduction and economic growth at the same time?  G – current fed government is a disaster; I’d modernize government.

? (for S) R said you gave too many earmarks.   S –  R asked for earmarks to help the Olympics; took 300-400 million for Massachusetts as governor; there are good and bad earmarks; Congress has a role in allocating resources.  R – as prez, I would ban earmarks tacked on to other bills, would require them to be separate bills, or ask for the line item veto; while I fought to save the Olympics, S was voting for the Bridge to Nowhere.  S – R is misrepresenting the facts; I support line item veto;  G – I worked to help the Olympics get the money they needed.

? (for S) Was it wrong to bail out the auto industry?  S – I oppose bailouts with federal money; opposed the Wall Street bailouts; government gains too much control; we should allow the markets to work; R supported the Wall Street bailouts, but opposed those to the auto industry.  R – there was danger that all the banks would go under, we would have had a financial collapse, so I supported it; the auto industry would have been helped by going through managed bankruptcy.   G – auto management caved to the UAW; O paid off the UAW at the expense of GM bondholders.  P – no bailouts, ever; government should protect contracts.

? Do you believe in birth control?  G – O voted, as a state senator, to protect doctors who kill survivors of late term abortions.  R – Obama warring on religion – his position is clear;  in Massachusetts, I worked to help Catholic institutions keep adoption, but couldn’t win.

? (for S) If elected, will you talk about the dangers of contraception?  S – children out of wedlock much less likely to succeed; 5 times the chance that a child raised in a single parent household will be poor.  P – government gets involved in things they shouldn’t; morality is bad, not pills.  R – there should be no requirement for Catholic institutions to provide a morning after pill.   G – when government is the provider of services, you move toward tyranny.  P – S voted for Planned Parenthood; they should get nothing.  S – I did, but it was part of a very large bill; if prez, I will defund Planned Parenthood.  R – S, you said you personally don’t support contraception.  S – true, but I voted for bills that support it.  Romney-care was the model for Obama-care.  R – our bill was 20 pages, while O-care was more than 2000.   As prez, I will repeal Obama-care;  S, you supported Arlen Spector; I balanced the budget every year as governor.  S – R, you used federal money to pay for Romney-care; you had a constitutional requrirement to balance the budget.

? What will you do as president to secure the border?  P – we need more resources.  G – Walls work; when we erected a wall between San Diego and Tijuana, illegals went elsewhere;   I’d be prepared to move up to half of the 23,000 Homeland Security employees to the border. 

? (for R) You talked about self-deportation.  R – I’d use e-verify; I’d drop lawsuits against states; will complete the fence. 

? (for S)  Would you penalize homeowners for hiring illegal aliens?  S – I won’t require them to use e-verify.

? (for G) Rubio said Republican rhetoric on illegals is too harsh.  Is it?  G – We may have been; I voted to close the border as early as 1986, but it never happened; we must go step by step, first close the border. 

? Describe yourself with only one word.  P – consistent.  S – courageous.  R – resolute.  G – cheerful.  (G got a laugh.)

? As commander-in chief, would you send women into combat?  R – I’d ask the military; more than 100 American military women have lost their lives in Iran and Afghanistan;  O is cutting our military; I would strengthen it.  G – we now live in a world of total warfare; all citizens are at risk; nuclear weapons used against our cities is a real possibility; Obama is the most dangerous president in history, because of his foreign policy incompetence.  P – we fight too many offensive wars.   S – women are in danger now; I am concerned about women in the infantry. 

?  How should we deal with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?  G – Administration has it all wrong; General Dempsey said Iran is rational – that is totally wrong; when a dictator says he wants to kill us, I believe him; 3 nuclear weapons would wipe out Israel; I believe they have a moral responsibility to protect themselves, even with a pre-emptive strike.  R – we can’t allow Iran to have nukes; O bowed to stolen elections in Iran.  S – I agree with R’s comments; do the opposite of what Joe Biden says and you can’t go wrong.  P – we don’t know if Iran has a weapon; other crazy talk. 

? (for S) Should we intervene in Syria?  S – Syria is a puppet state of Iran; O never stands up to Iran.  G – we should change our energy policy to become independent, so we will never again have to bow to a Saudi king; I would covertly work to destroy Assad’s regime in Syria.  R – O is feckless; Syria is a key ally of Iran.  P – we have spent 4 trillion dollars in the mideast for no good results.

? What about No Child Left Behind?  S – I supported it, now I don’t; the feds and the states should get out of education; we must stand up to teacher’s unions.  G – I supported charter schools; we should urge states to return power to the parents; we need fundamental rethinking in education.  P – there’s no authority for the federal government to do anything in education. 

?  What’s the biggest misconception about you?  P – that I can’t win.  G – that I can’t get things done, unlike politicians who just talk about things they will do.  R – that I won’t lead the country as a conservative.  S – that I can’t defeat O, and that I can’t run a campaign on a shoestring.

 

 

 

The possibility of a brokered convention

by asmwizard

While Mitt Romney leads in delegates, he has not yet won more than 50% of the delegates from any state.  He did win 50% in Nevada. 

After April 1, all states will award delegates from their polls and caucuses on a winner-take-all basis.  If the other candidates win enough states to keep Romney from winning more than half the delegates (1144), they will arrive at the Republican Convention with a chance for a “brokered” convention.  There, the first roll call of the states would formalize the primary and caucus results.  Even though candidates are pledged to vote for someone, the results could push someone over 1144 and the candidate would have been chosen in the first roll call.  Assuming it does not, then roll calls by state will continue until someone gets 1144.  

In the second and subsequent roll calls, the people are not restricted to vote for the current 4 candidates. Someone else could be drafted, assuming they would go along.  For example, if Mitch Daniels would agree to run if drafted, I think he would immediately win the nomination.  Of course, among Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul, if they are all still candidates, they could talk among themselves, and make deals.   One of them could emerge as the winner.

Note that the primary/caucus season can only fail to produce a winner if there are 3 or more candidates.  If, for example, Gingrich and Paul drop out, Romney or Santorum would win before the convention.

I believe that many are not satisfied with the current set of candidates and would welcome a brokered convention and the chance to nominate someone else.  However, no one might step forward to become a new candidate.  It’s a forlorn hope for many.    But, wouldn’t it be a hoot?

 

Newt’s fatal flaw

by asmwizard

Note — revised 2/8/2012 after initial publication — D’Amato doesn’t particularly like Newt, according to various sources.

This morning, February 8, Former New York Senator Al D’Amato appeared on Fox News.  He explained the trap that his opposition can spring on Newt at any time.  Note that Al is a Republican and apparently isn’t too fond of Newt for some reason.  I don’t believe any Republican will do so, but if Newt becomes the Republican candidate, I’m certain that the Obama campaign wouldn’t hesitate.  The only question is the date they would spring it.  I think it would likely be the last day of October.

All they have to do is dig up 2 or 3 public officials, honest or otherwise, who will swear that Newt made contact, and tried to influence some favor for Freddy Mac while he was contracted with Freddy Mac.  Many would believe the accusation, because it’s already a sensitive subject for Newt, and Democrats have no trouble lying.  Since Newt was not registered as a lobbyist, that would constitute a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $200,000.  Here’s the relevant information: Unregistered lobbyist.

Remember that in the eyes of the public, once accused, you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent.  While Newt, if innocent, would likely be acquitted in a court of law, the accusation would be crushing.  I seriously doubt that Newt could win.  It breaks my heart to say so, because I absolutely believe he would have been the president we need: a conservative reformer who would make fundamental changes in all the important areas.  In my view, Santorum, though young, is the next most likely to do so.  I believe Romney is too ready to compromise. 

Politics is a dirty business, and just barely beats out the alternative, which is deciding who will be the next leader through bloodshed.

The candidates and their chances

by asmwizard

I evaluate the candidates and their chances to win. (Written on January 31, 2012, before Florida’s results are known.)

Mitt Romney:

  • Seems to have no clear ideas of what he will do in anything but economics. On his website, his “jobs” white paper (read economics) is extensive and detailed, but appears to have been written by someone else. Whoever wrote it said Romney wants a “territorial” tax system, in which a company pays taxes only in the country where the income is earned. For example, an American company selling goods in Germany would only pay taxes to Germany. This scares me, because it might invite outsourcing. His health care reform page has only general suggestions. His foreign policy page again seems to have been written by someone else and contains only generalities. We end up knowing nothing whatever about what he will do in entitlement reform and foreign policy.
  • Is the least experienced candidate at the national level. I fear he will be learning on the job to a great extent.
  • Is not clearly conservative. He has held liberal positions in the past, and we may be electing someone who (like Obama) will say what is necessary to be elected, then as president will revert to his real ideology and will govern from the left.
  • Is definitely a good manager, according to his reputation. That is his strong suit. A good manager can overcome gaps in his personal knowledge and understanding of issues. I only pray that he will be able to do this.
  • Who knows whether Romney is a true reformer? I don’t know that he has the ideas or the energy to reform the current version of America to any extent. This is what scares me about him – we may be electing another establishment conservative who won’t really do anything.
  • Appears to have the nomination locked up. His landslide win in Florida and his huge supply of campaign money leaves Gingrich with little hope of future success. I’d rate Romney’s chances as 80%. Only something unpredictable can derail him.

Ron Paul:

  • A libertarian, he is a protest candidate, trying to raise awareness as to how far America has strayed from the Constitution and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
  • He is too old to be president, in my opinion. Even though he may be the healthiest of the candidates now, at 76 his health and vigor could wane rapidly.
  • His foreign policy ideas are less than sane.
  • He has no chance to be elected president.

Rick Santorum:

  • Is a true conservative, is bright and very energetic. He is also young and unseasoned.
  • His website is well done, detailed, and comprehensive. It shows a great deal of thought has gone into what he will do as president.
  • His lack of gravitas holds him back, and would hold him back as president. He might try for reforms, but Congress and the American people might not take him seriously. In 4 or 8 years, after maturing, he might be an ideal candidate.
  • His chances of election would depend on Gingrich dropping out before he does, but Romney would have to commit a major blunder. Not likely. I’d rate his chances at 5%.

Newt Gingrich:

  • Is a true conservative. Like Rick, is bright and very energetic, almost to a fault. At 68, with 20 years in the House behind him, and a dozen years of being out of office and mostly out of politics, he has had time to think and mature.
  • He is a true reformer, and as president would make many fundamental changes. He would step on many, many toes in the process. In other words, he is exactly what we need. Unfortunately, the people with the toes he would step on know that, and are ferociously and viciously attacking him.
  • He understands the issues far better than any of the other candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. His long career in the House has completely educated him on the issues.
  • His debate skills, formidable as they are, will not help him against Obama, who will simply refuse to debate. Newt will have to campaign with TV appearances, ads, and help from blogs and conservative journalists.
  • I give him a 15% chance of being the nominee. Newt’s potential depends on something unpredictable happening. Even if Santorum drops out and endorses him before Super Tuesday, Newt’s chances are slim and none.

Second Florida Debate

by asmwizard

CNN and Wolf Blitzer hosted the 2nd and final Florida Republican debate. It took place on January 26, 2012.  The audience was allowed to applaud, but there were no standing ovations. 

My notes on the debate follow, with my evaluation at the end.  I’ll abbreviate by using the first letter of the candidate’s last name.  I’ll also use O for Obama.  

? Illegal immigration.  Is self-deportation, as advocated by R, possible?  S – yes; they broke the law when they entered; should not be able to stay; need strong employer sanctions.  G – it’s possible; make legal immigration easier, deportation easier; those here a very long time should have a legal way to stay; R – he favors the people who are waiting in line to immigrate legally. P – not practical to deport; closing the border hurts the economy.  R – 11 million grandmothers is not the problem.

? Why do you describe R as anti-immigration?  G – need some level of humanity.  R – I’m not anti-immigrant; his rhetoric is inexcusable; Newt should apologize to me.

? In your recent ad, you say Newt describe Spanish as the language of the ghetto.  Do you believe that?  R – haven’t seen the ad.  G – I didn’t say that, I didn’t single out Spanish; there are 94 languages spoken at Miami Dade College; English should be the official language.

? About Iran and China courting of Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba).   How to do better in Latin America?  P – Free trade; include Cuba; we should stop interfering.  S – Obama’s policy horrible, sides with leftists (Castro, Chavez) over Honduras; Radical Islam a threat.  P – Santorum always wants to use force.  S – Paul wasn’t listening to what I said; O left Columbia to hang out to dry for 3 years.

? Housing slump and foreclosures.  What to do? G – Florida one of the 2 or 3 worst hard-hit states; R owns Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac & Goldman Sachs stocks; He’s made millions from them; He should say how much he owns.  R – my investments are in a blind trust; Any ownership of those firms in mutual funds, not company stocks; G also has investments in those firms; G made 1.6 million on Freddy Mac as an influence peddler.  G – the only time I ever tried to influence anyone about FM was in a speech before Congress in 2008, when I urged Congress not to give them money.  P – we should have auctioned Fanny & Freddy off long ago; the Commercial Reinvestment Act of Congress was why we had the housing bubble.  S – I tried to stop the coming real estate collapse, but the Democrats blocked us; G & R should stop the petty stuff and focus on the issues! 

? G, now that R has released his tax records, are you satisfied with his transparency?  G – that’s a nonsense question.  (Here, Wolf Blitz insisted on an answer)  An exchange took place between G & R. 

? G, under your tax plan, R would have paid no taxes.  Is that all right with you?  G – I want to reduce taxes for everyone; I’m not interested in raising taxes, rather shrink government spending to match the revenue.  S – My tax plan is 2 tier, has 28% top rate, 10% bottom rate.  I don’t support a zero capital gains tax as G does.  P – unsound money, inflation steals from everyone, is a de facto tax raise. 

? P, you are 76.  Are you prepared to release your medical records?  P – sure, but it’s only about 1 page.  I challenge the others on this stage to get on a bike and try to stay with me for 25 miles; Wolf, you should remember there are laws against age discrimination.  (Paul got a laugh for this.)

? G has advocated building a moon base.  How would you handle NASA and manned space flight? S – G’s plan for station on the moon enormously expensive, we can’t afford it; debt and deficit out of control, we have to cut, not spend;  G’s not lacking for zany ideas, but this is irresponsible.  G – NASA has built up a big bureaucracy and has become ineffective; currently, no launch vehicle; I wouldn’t spend a lot of money for space station, I’d offer prizes and incentives to private industry; Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic to win the Orteig prize; the Atlas 5 would make a good launch vehicle; I wouldn’t want to be the president who shuts down our space program and lets China become dominant.  S – I’d only spend money for space defense; I’ll cut other programs; Newt is not responsible.  P – I go along with privatizing.  G – I’d do it program is 90% private sector.  R – G goes from state to state, telling each what they want to hear.  G – a presidential candidate should know the state’s problems; priorities make it possible to spend amply in some areas while cutting others. P – G has said he balanced the budget 4 straight years as Speaker, but they didn’t count entitlements, actually debt went up 1 trillion $ during that time.  G – that’s the way the budget was reported then; I’ve advocated taking Social Security off budget, to keep presidents honest.

? (audience member asked) I’m unemployed and can’t afford health care insurance, what will you do as prez?  P – must reduce health care costs; medical insurance mostly provided by employers, should go with you when you leave a job.  G – repeal O-care, fix the economy so she’ll have a job.  R – people should own their insurance.  S – R is the author of Obamacare; G advocated the individual mandate for 20 years; Massachusetts is the model for O-care. G – I advocated state mandates, never a federal mandate.  R – Massachusetts folks like it by 3 – 1; it was only for 8%; not really a mandate, there’s a fine for not having insurance.  S – More and more Mass. people are opting to pay the fine because insurance has gone up.  R – this isn’t worth getting angry about.  S – your mandate same as O’s.

? Name Hispanics you would like to include in your cabinet.  S – Rubio. R – (named several). G – (named several); I might use Rubio for more important position. (implying vice president)

? Why would your wife be a great first lady?  P – (can’t remember what he said); R – my wife has had multiple sclerosis & breast cancer; would be an advocate for women’s health; has a passion for young people.  G – she has an artistic focus, plays piano, produced TV videos, written a best selling children’s book.  S – she’s a great mother to our 7 children; a nurse, has a law degree, gave it all up to be a wife and mother; wrote a children’s book on manners.

? R, you said G not as close to Ronald Reagan as he claims.  Were you closer to Reagan than G?  R – no, I became politically invoved when I ran for governor.  G – Michael Reagan has endorsed me, Nancy Reagan said Reagan passed the torch to me.  (My Note – yesterday, both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly said it was ridiculous and castigated R for the assertion.)

? How would you handle Cuba?  S – Cuba is the heart of the leftist cancer spreading through Latin America; keep sanctions going; O rewards thuggery and Marxism.  P – Sanctions backfire; Cuba won’t invade us; I’d trade with them.  R – O has ignored Latin America; I’d continue sanctions. G – after Fidel Castro passes away, I’d try to improve relations with Cuba; O is obsessed with the “Arab Spring”; I’d try to foster a “Cuban Spring”.

?  (asked by a Palestinian audience member)  How to bring peace to Israel and Palestine?  R – Can’t as long as Hamas wants to destroy Israel; Palestinian leadership doesn’t want a 2-state solution; O has thrown Israel under the bus. 

? G, you said the “Palestinians are an invented people.”  What do you mean by that?  G – technically, that’s true; Palestine is making war against Israel, 11 rockets fired into Israel last month; no Palestinian state possible until they give up on destroying Israel; On becoming prez, I’d instruct the State Dept. to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jersualem, which would send a message to Palestinians.

? (audience member from PR) There are 4 million Puerto Ricans in the US and 3.5 million there.  Would you support statehood for PR?  S – no position on that, let them decide.

?  How would your religion impact your presidency?  R – I’d pray over complex issues; G – I’d pray too; it should be a part of my total life, not just on Sunday; one of the reasons I’m running is because of the secular war against religion.

?  Why are you the candidate most likely to beat O?  P – I poll well against him.  R – we need extraordinary change; you can’t change things with an insider; I’ve been in business.  G – I’d pose a very simple choice – big government and continuation of what we have now, or more jobs and less food stamps.  S – I’m better, but S & G aren’t. 

The debate lasted about 1:50.  

I see the final score as Romney won, but was very vicious in attacking Gingrich.  Gingrich needed a home run, didn’t get it, although he generally spoke well.  Santorum was strong.  I’d say Romney and Santorum gained voters, Gingrich lost.

In my opinion, Newt is likely to be badly defeated next Tuesday.  The latest polls show Romney up by 7 to 10 points in Florida.  I’ll predict at least a 10 point win by Romney, and I expect Santorum to come up a bit from his current 10 – 12 per cent – at Newt’s expense. 

It would be ironic, but if Newt is trounced as badly as I expect, I think he might drop out in February and endorse Santorum.  Would Santorum give Romney a run for his money after that?  I don’t know.

I don’t think Romney has a vision for the presidency – he just wants to come in and manage.  Does he really believe what he’s saying, or will he revert to moderate, almost liberal, policies after his election?  Again, I don’t know.  I’m sure, however, that Gingrich if elected would come in and reform the government extensively.  America would be much better off, I believe.  That possibility is looking more and more remote.

 

 

 

 

 

Compare their websites

by asmwizard

The 3 remaining candidates (discounting Paul, who has said he doesn’t expect to win).  In order to know what they want to do as president, it’s instructive to compare their campaign websites:

www.newt.org www.mittromney.com www.ricksantorum.com

The content of each site can change, but here are my current impressions:

Santorum: the first thing I saw was his donate page, asking for money.  Running down the right side is a menu containing his bio “Why Rick”, his op-ed pieces on his plans and policies “Where I Stand”, and A page of video clips, “Rick TV”.  If you come back to his home page the donation form is gone.  His “Where I Stand” page is a list of issues, each with a short paragraph and a click to “more” which brings up the full article.  This is a good and detailed explanation of his plans and policies.  It is impressive and well done.

Romney:  Again, his donation form came up first.  His menu is across the top: bio, issues, states, news . . . etc.  On his Issues page, he lists 3 issues: jobs, health care, and foreign policy.  When you click on jobs, you get a huge pdf file with more than a hundred pages, with very small print, very detailed but appearing to be written by someone other than Mitt.  It contains phrases like “ he will . . .”.   The health care page, on the other hand, is very short and totally lacking of detail. The foreign policy page is a link to another pdf white paper of about 40 pages, again written by someone else and in the 3rd person.  I would much prefer to see him write his own issues material. 

Gingrich: His home page features a picture rotation.  His issues page is called “solutions”.  His items in “solutions” are similar in layout to Santorum’s, a list of issues each with a short paragraph and a click to “more”.  However, he also has a link to his “21st Century Contract with America”, which brings up long and detailed articles. There is a great deal of detail on what he intends to do. 

I see Gingrich’s site as best and the most detailed.  Santorum’s site is also instructive as to what he wants to do.  Romney’s “issues” page is very sparse.  It’s as though he needs something there as a place holder.  If the devil is in the details, vote for Gingrich and Santorum before Romney.  You’ll have a better idea of what you’ll get.