A Change In Tactics

The latest GOP debate on the economy took place in New Hampshire earlier tonight. It displayed a change from the direction of previous debates. Herman Cain played a much larger role. The Pizzaman has seen his poll ratings rise rapidly in the wake of his performance in the previous debate and his victory in the Florida straw poll. His larger role seems to have come at the expense of Texas Governor, Rick Perry, who has fallen from the graces. Perry underwhelmed again and seemed widely ignored by the other candidates. He also made no attempts to take control of the debate or issues, which may or may not have been a bad thing, given his previous mediocre performances.

The key thing about Perry is that he still hasn't fully released his economic plan:

Mr. Perry is set to deliver his first major policy speech of the campaign on Friday in Pittsburgh, on energy and jobs. When pressed for specifics, he said, “I’m not going to lay it out all for you tonight.” Asked about Mr. Romney’s lengthy economic plan, he said, “You know, Mitt’s had six years to be working on a plan. I’ve been in this for about eight weeks.” Asked if he might accept a budget compromise that could involve raising revenue, as President Ronald Reagan did, Mr. Perry suggested that he would not.

The problem with this is that he comes across as unprepared. This was a debate on economics and Perry is withholding his plan for campaign speeches? Please. You're on a national stage in an important primary state, you have to deliver the goods. I have no idea who is running Perry's campaign, but they have failed miserably.

In the meantime, Cain has received the most attention from the other candidates:

Later, when Jon M. Huntsman joked that Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan — which calls for reducing the individual and corporate income taxes to 9 percent and introducing a 9 percent national sales tax — sounded more like the price of pizza, Mr. Cain shot back that it “didn’t come off a pizza box, no.”

Bachmann also poured it on:

Bachmann said Cain’s plan wasn’t a jobs plan, but a proposal that would give Congress “a pipeline in a sales tax.”

“When you take the 9-9-9 plan and you turn it upside down, I think the devil is in the details,” she said.

Cain is convinced that his simple tax code will spur economic growth, but there are just too many concerns with it. It's also the only thing he has brought to the table thus far in terms of getting this economy going. As I've said in the past, the flat tax won't work because it'll put an immense burden on the poor who can barely make ends meet as things stand now. A flat tax will reduce their purchasing power and they will have to make tougher decisions about their consumption. Broadening the tax base has a similar effect.

Simple can be good, but simple won't necessarily work.

Romney seems to understand that:

“I have had the experience in my life of taking on some tough problems,” Romney said. “And I must admit that simple answers are always very helpful but oftentimes inadequate. And in my view, to get this economy going again, we’re going to have to deal with more than just tax policy and just energy policy, even though both of those are part of my plan.”

His approach seems much more pragmatic and with a stronger expectation of what Washington is going to be like. Cain, Perry, and Bachmann have all portrayed themselves as somewhat of Washington outsiders, but their problem is that they don't know how Washington works. Romney has the experience of working with liberals in Massachusetts and had to work with them to accomplish some of his initiative, which is what it's going to be like in DC. This is not even getting into his private sector experience.

We've already had like 4-5 debates and doesn't appear like a new candidate is going to enter nor does it appear that further debating is going to change the landscape of the primaries. Right now, it's pretty clear who should be the nominee and it isn't even close. In the long term, you have to look at the person who makes the most sense; this time it's Mitt Romney.

Talking Points: Tea Party Debate

If you were watching the Tea Party Debate last night, then you missed a great football game. Yes, I spent the evening basking in the glow of my television as two Michigan quarterbacks threw for a Monday Night Football record amount of yards. I flipped over to the debate for may be ten seconds and heard Herman Cain speak, but I missed the majority of the action.

I don't know how many of you missed it, but I'm going to review the main talking points.

Social Security:
Mitt Romney attacked Rick Perry for calling it a Ponzi Scheme:

In the debate, Romney chided Perry for referring to Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" and vowed to protect the program. Romney called such language "over the top" and said that Perry wrote in his book "Fed Up!" that the entitlement program is unconstitutional.

Rick Perry responded by saying that Romney was using the term to scare seniors. While that may be true, Perry did say that in his book. What's more important to me is that Romney is taking the offensive. My big knock on him has been that he is not very assertive in the debates. He seemed to really leave his mark last night.

I expect him to show that he is serious about being president and taking control of the Republican primaries.

Rick Perry, meanwhile, wrote this op-ed in USA Today:

For too long, politicians have been afraid to speak honestly about Social Security. We must have the guts to talk about its financial condition if we are to fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come.

So basically, he says we should talk about it, but doesn't give a solution. He didn't provide a solution last night either. He will continue to get pounded on this and other matters of entitlement reform until he comes up with a proper plan for making Social Security financially viable.

HPV:
Perry also continues to be attacked for making young girls get HPV vaccinations. Michelle Bachmann has been the most offended by this:

"To have innocent little 12-year old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat out wrong," Bachmann says in her e-mail requesting donations, titled "I'm Offended.

Perry has been weak in defending himself. The thing Republicans seem most offended by is the fact it was passed through an executive order rather than through the legislature.

It's an effort to help these young women healthy. I don't see how you can't strongly defend yourself against that.

Regardless, it does bring into question Perry's values. He has admitted that he would have liked to have gotten it through the legislature, but there's also questions of chrony capitalism in this matter. Bachmann again:

She returned to that line of attack on NBC’s "Today" show. “It’s very clear that crony capitalism could have likely been the cause” of the HPV vaccination program. She ripped Perry for deciding to implement the program through a 2007 executive order.

Crony capitalism or not, I don't know how big an issue is. Yeah, it has brought into question Perry's character, but there are other flaws with Perry related to bigger issues.

Immigration:
While I don't see this as being a huge issue, Perry also came weak on immigration:

Third, immigration. In Texas, Perry has extended in-state, taxpayer-subsidized tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. It's a sensible policy, as it brings them into the fold and gives them the opportunity to improve their lives and contribute to the wider economy. But his opponents slammed Perry hard for a policy they called "amnesty." Romney was straightforward in stating what is, for most conservatives, gospel: This is a nation of laws, and we follow the laws.

As a border state, Perry should have a stronger opinion or more connected policies regarding immigration, but he failed once again. Even Jon Huntsman ripped him on it:

Even Jon Huntsman, when he wasn’t making baffling jokes about Kurt Cobain, told Perry his claim that he couldn’t secure the border was “pretty much a treasonous comment.”

Perry responded to the attacks with this:

"What we did in the state of Texas was clearly a states right issue. And the legislature passed with only four dissenting votes in the House and the Senate to allow this to occur," he said. "We were clearly sending a message to young people, regardless of what the sound of their last name is, that we believe in you. That if you want to live in the state of Texas and you want to pursue citizenship, that we're going to allow you the opportunity to be contributing members in the state of Texas and not be a drag on our state."

I'm not quite sure how well that's going to fly, especially with Tea Party voters. Anything that suggests providing subsidies is a hot button issue. Giving these benefits to illegal immigrants is, as Bachmann put it, "not the American way."

Also notable was Rick Santorum's flub:

Former two-term Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested that Perry's support for the Texas DREAM act was a ploy to attract Latino voters.

"What Governor Perry's done is he provided in-state tuition for -- for illegal immigrants. Maybe that was an attempt to attract the illegal vote -- I mean, the Latino voters," Santorum said, quickly correcting his flub.

I don't think attacking a race of people is a good idea, Mr. Santorum.

Jobs:
Romney finally made a strong case for Perry's record:

It's easy to do well when you have everything going for you. In Massachusetts, which is one of the most liberal states, Romney didn't have a lot going for him. He had a democratic state senate. He had high taxes. There were jobs leaving the state. There were a lot of things going to the other way.

From Fact Check:

Romney is correct that Massachusetts was losing jobs month after month for nearly a year before he took office. Those losses stabilized in his first year, and the state then began to see job growth. According to BLS statistics, over the entirety of Romney's term in office, the ranks of Massachusetts' employed went from 3,224,600 to 3,270,400. That’s a 1.4 percent increase. However, that was far slower growth than the national average, 5.3 percent. In fact, as Perry and Huntsman correctly pointed out at the debate, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the length of Romney's term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.

So what's the difference between the rate at which Massachusetts was losing jobs and the job growth that Romney had? Are we not talking turn around? Or are we just focusing on job growth?

Isn't this a legitimate question to see whether he did turn things around even if at a slow pace?

General Impressions:
It sounds like Perry is losing his lead or he's suffering from being the front runner at the moment. As the front runner, he is taking the brunt of the crossfire from his opponents. He has a target on his back and the rest of the candidates, even Michelle Bachmann, are hitting it.

The most important thing to me was to see Mitt Romney actually take control and assert himself. He took command and showed that he is passionate about wanting to be president. He showed them that he means serious business. That's what stood out to me.

The rest of the candidates aren't legitimate contenders to me. Bachmann is this year's Sarah Palin. Ron Paul still isn't a viable mainstream candidate. Rick Santorum isn't really making any headway. I've been very disappointed with Jon Huntsman who has yet to be in bloom.

As the candidates continue to debate, we'll learn more about how things are going to turn up. It seems now that there are two horses with the rest nipping at their heels.

The Forgotten Son: Ron Paul

Ron Paul always seems to not be taken seriously. It's unfortunate. After all, he's the one who said governments should have less influence on people's lives. He campaigned hard on it in 2008. Now, it seems everyone else is capitalizing on his original message. He continues to be forgotten:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The media's ignoring of Ron Paul hasn't gone unnoticed in the mainstream media either:

By now, pretty much everyone agrees Ron Paul was ignored by the media following his second place finish in the Ames straw poll on Saturday. Whether or not the media blackout was justified due to his less-than-favorable campaign prospects is subject to debate.

So what are Paul's prospects? We can judge some of it by his ability to raise money right? Well, he's cash:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised $1.8 million in 24 hours on Saturday and Sunday, a major online "money bomb" timed to coincide with his 76th birthday. This is the fourth time Paul has raised more than $1 million in a day this campaign cycle, and a signal that he will have the money to compete as long as he wants for the Republican presidential nomination.

Paul is still behind Romney and Perry as far as raising money, but the man is raising more money than Michelle Bachmann at this point. He's not going away. And with all that money, he should not go away quietly.

He's also polling well in New Hampshire:

On the ballot Romney remains in a strong position. He leads all candidates with 36% of the vote. However, Perry, making his first appearance in the NH Journal poll, debuts with a strong 18%. Ron Paul continues to impress despite relatively little media attention with 14%. And Bachmann earns 10%. All other candidates were in single digits.

So despite the lack of media attention, Paul continues to raise money and do well in the polls. You've got to still wonder why no one's considering him a serious contender. Is the media attention the only thing keeping him from being a serious contender.

Yet we see all these other candidates that seemingly have no chance getting media attention. Rick Santorum continues to get attention, despite finishing a distant fourth place. Even Jon Huntsman is getting more attention than Ron Paul. What's the deal with that:

Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media: evolution is a fact, so is climate change, and the debt ceiling had to be raised. In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment.

Even more worrying is the fact that not only is Paul getting outshined in media coverage by his fellow candidates, but also by the potential Presidential candidates.

The Tea Party is using a radio blitz for Sarah Palin. Everyone under the sun are waiting for a Paul Ryan or Chris Christie to throw their hat into the race.

It's unbelievable.

In many ways, by not giving Ron Paul fair time or attention, he is becoming a forgotten man in this race. However, the extent to which people are going to ignore him is ridiculous. Palin, Ryan, and Christie aren't even in the race, and attention should not focus on them until they decide they want to serve our country. Huntsman and Santorum are not campaigning nearly as well as Paul, yet they are both getting the mainstream treatment. Whether you like Ron Paul or not, you should agree his voice should at least be heard. The media blackout on Ron Paul is anti-American.

Let the man have a voice.

The Tea Party Candidate

One of the top challenges for any Republican candidate for President is to win the Tea Party vote.

The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that may or may not be misunderstood. When it first emerged, the protests seemed silly because there seemed to be racially motivated, particularly in the way they tried to convince the public that Barack Obama was born outside the United States:

It's been a very controversial movement:

"Given how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics," Campbell and Putnam write. "But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic."

In spite of this, it has continued to gain political influence amongst Republican presidential candidates.

Rather than discuss the movement, I would like to address in regards to their Tea Party politics.

Michelle Bachmann has been championing herself as a Tea Party Republican, particularly in highlighting her recent voting record in light of the debt crisis. However, she was burned in Friday's Wall Street Journal for some of her stances:

If Mrs. Bachmann is worried that Mr. Ryan's reforms would not address her concerns, then there are other approaches to choose from. But she has declined to offer or endorse any, expressing only vague support for a small increase in the retirement age and greater means testing—neither of which would make a real dent in Medicare's growth, since neither would reform the grossly inefficient payment system that causes costs to explode throughout the health sector. An asterisk is not enough.

The problem is that while the Tea Party has admirable political goals, its politicians may not have the spine to get things done. Providing concrete policies is an important factor:

A posture of bold fiscal conservatism is simply not compatible with timid evasions on Medicare reform. The combination may be politically convenient, but it is substantively incoherent. And it's not just Mrs. Bachmann who has done this—most of the GOP presidential candidates have as well. Virtually every speech they give is laced with promises to tame our deficit and debt, to scale back the size, scope, reach and cost of government. Yet they have little to say when it comes to fixing the fundamental structure of our health entitlements. They want to will the ends but not the means to those ends. And that just won't do.

You can't shy away from strength. By dodging concrete policies, you're building uncertainty for your campaign. One of the main criticisms of Obama was that he didn't provide concrete policies. I think a 2012 candidate will have to provide a much stronger stance on the issues.

Tea Party activists also have concerns about Rick Perry:

The activists and enthusiasts were much more likely to express doubts about a Perry candidacy. Many were dissatisfied with his time as governor and doubted the authenticity of his conservative credentials.

These are the two "front-runners." I discount Mitt Romney only because I think his religion will be an issue and his spotty record is something that he won't defend. Romney is a smart guy, but he's not charismatic and he's not outspoken. I think he genuinely wants to be President and probably would do a good job if elected. However, he lacks those two traits which are prime on the campaign trail. Oh, and he's definitely not a Tea Party favorite.

Interestingly, the two candidates that would probably most appeal to the Tea Party are not even in the race.

Chris Christie of New Jersey had this to say earlier this year:

And let me tell you what the truth is. What's the truth that no one is talking about-here is the truth that no one is talking about: you're going to have to raise the retirement age for social security. Oh I just said it and I'm still standing here! I did not vaporize into the carpeting and I said it! We have to reform Medicare because it costs too much and it is going to bankrupt us. Once again lightning did not come through the windows and strike me dead. And we have to fix Medicaid because it's not only bankrupting the federal government, it's bankrupting every state government. There you go. If we're not honest about these things, on the state level about pensions and benefits and on the federal level about social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we are on the path to ruin.

Christie is mulling a run as is Paul Ryan, who brought us the Path to Prosperity:

No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.

Both of these candidates fit the Tea Party agenda so far as cutting government spending and reducing taxes. More importantly, they have a strong record for entitlement reform. They have a strong stance against it and would provide the spine that the Republicans that the other candidates lack.

While the Bachmanns and the Perrys may have the charisma to appeal to the Tea Party supporters, they lack the record to bring about changes the Tea Party activiists can get behind. There's hope that one of these men will run for the presidency. However, until then, the Tea Party activists will have to settle for less.

GOP Race Heats Up

Despite the departure of Tim Pawlenty, the GOP race is heating up. Over the weekend, Tim Pawlenty dropped out, Rick Perry dropped in, and Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll. Meanwhile, Obama is touring the midwest.

What's this all mean?

Questions.

Let's start with Rick Perry. First, fact checking his speech:

On a blended basis, we would rate this as a Two Pinocchio speech, similar to many of the other announcement speeches — a mishmash of high-flying rhetoric and facts sometimes tethered uncertainly to the truth. We look forward to rating more of the governor’s statements in the future.

There's some interesting stuff about his claims that low-taxes leading to the success he has had in Texas, including:

Texas, as a state rich in oil and national gas, has also benefited from increases in energy prices that have slowed the economy elsewhere in the country. Higher energy prices have meant more jobs in Texas. Though Perry proudly claims the job growth is the result of a low-tax, anti-regulatory environment, others have pointed to a big investment in education in the 1980s that, yes, was the result of a tax increase.

So let's address this point by point.

How does Texas's economy differ from the American economy:

“Because the Texas economy has been prosperous during his tenure as governor, he has not had to make the draconian choices that one would have to make in the White House,” said Bryan W. Brown, chairman of the Rice University economics department and a critic of Mr. Perry’s economic record. “We have no idea how he would perform when he has to make calls for the entire country.”

It's easy to govern when things are going well. Obama inherited a nation underwater and has had to balance his campaign promises with balance to keep the country afloat. Perry's record in Texas might contrast with the needs of the nation:

“The Texas model can’t be the blueprint for the United States to successfully compete in the 21st century economy, where you need a well-educated work force,” said Dick Lavine, senior fiscal analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based liberal research group.

In Texas, Perry has been questioned by democrats for:

And if Mr. Perry were to win the Republican nomination, he would face critics, among them Democrats, who have long complained that the state’s economic health has come at a steep a price: a long-term hollowing out of the state’s prospects because of deep cuts to education spending, low rates of investment in research and development, and a disparity in the job market that confines many blacks and Hispanics to minimum-wage jobs without health insurance.

This does not sound like a recipe for growth.

On a national stage, this could be a huge issue. Education is probably the second largest point of debate coming into the 2012 election. As someone that is hellbent on improving America's future, this does not bode well for Perry. Considering that education is one of the things that has faced the most cuts over the last few years, and clearly, education has started to fall behind:
I'm a staunch believer in one of the few things that government should invest in is education. However, like all forms of government, you have to make sure it is running efficiently, and that is done through incentives. Massachusetts, probably the most liberal state in the union, understands this:

In Massachusetts, Mitchell Chester, state education commissioner of Massachusetts, said his state, which also posts higher than average scores on the national exam, created a plan to "aim high, make sure results count" by holding schools accountable for results and targeting support to help them succeed.

Seems a little bit off topic, but if we're going to make cuts, I expect education to be one of the victims, and without, a economy high in human capital, we're going to continue to struggle. All of these candidates want to lower taxes, and with the budget concerns, we're going to need to make cuts. It'll be interesting to see how these candidates outline their plans. For Rick Perry, you can't ignore the fact that an investment in education played a role in his success as governor, but that his cuts in education will inevitably be a drag in the future. Perry has benefited from rising oil prices, which is integral to the Texas economy. In a more complex national economy, he might struggle to have the same degree of success.

Furthermore, there are questions about whether Perry can win the middle:

The concern for Republicans, however, lies with those swing voters in the middle. Among independent voters, a slight majority of 50% said government should do more, while 44% said it should do less.

I find this very interesting, considering how many people have been critical of Obama. You have to wonder how polarizing an issue this is. It seems like government is taking adaptive measures, while people might want them to do less or more in regards to spending and taxes.

There are still a lot of questions regarding Perry's candidacy, but there's a belief that he can overtake Bachmann:

Logic says that Perry will eclipse Bachmann in Iowa because he’s as conservative but with the bonus of extensive executive experience. As a fiscal and social conservative who’s an evangelical with a background in agriculture, Perry seems a natural fit for the state.

The question is whether he can make the same connection with the voters that Bachmann seems to have done. Bachmann lacks executive experience and while she has won over a lot of supporters, I think her executive experience is going to be crucial in determining her fate. In many ways, she could be the conservative Obama. In the same way that liberals aren't happy with Obama, conservatives might not be happy with Bachmann.

Bachmann has to prove to conservatives she is not (did they steal my headline?):

Americans are already living with the consequences of electing a President who sounded good but had achieved little as a legislator and had no executive experience. Mrs. Bachmann will have to persuade voters she isn't the conservative version of Mr. Obama.

I don't believe she will. To me, she's a political chameleon, always painting herself in a way that will appeal to her desired constituency:

More substantively, her attempt to position herself at all times as the anti-establishment outsider has made her seem on occasion less principled than opportunistic. She quickly distanced herself from Paul Ryan's Medicare reform when it came under liberal fire, even as she purports to be the scourge of uncontrolled spending. Her recent opposition to the debt-ceiling deal on grounds that GOP leaders should have insisted on first passing a balanced budget amendment, while holding only the House, was a political fantasy.

She seems misguided and her candidacy for President of the United States of America seems like a political fantasy.

For the time being, she's up there with the top dogs, so let's not count her out yet. She's going to play a part in the race, stealing votes from the other two top dogs. I just don't think she can beat two candidates with executive experience. That's a big deal in this race.

My top dog in this race is Mitt Romney. I just worry about his electability. While religion is not an issue with me, it is with evangelical conservatives. Furthermore, I don't think he asserts himself well enough. A big thing he's going to have to do is differentiate himself from other candidates:

“I think understanding how the economy works by having worked in the real economy is finally essential for the White House, and I hope people recognize that,” Romney told reporters after touring and addressing employees at a small manufacturer.

“I respect the other people in this race, but I think the only other person that has that kind of extensive private sector experience, besides me, in the Republican race is Herman Cain. And I respect Herman Cain, but I also think it’s helpful to have had that government experience that I’ve had,” said Romney.

He has to be assertive. He has been riding too high on his qualifications. He has to make an earnest effort to reach out to the voters and take a stronger stance defending his record and his beliefs. People have questions about him regarding the policies that were passed when he was governor of Massachusetts and about his religion. He needs to defend these stronger. You have to convince conservatives that you have strong socially conservative beliefs.

The best candidate does not always win the nomination. Often times, it's about the best campaign. The best candidate, for me, is Mitt Romney. As of now, it appears Bachmann and Perry are running better campaigns. It will be interesting to see how things unravel as things develop.

Michelle Bachmann Overdrive

The WSJ had an interesting front page piece on Michelle Bachmann. For the most part, it focuses on her positives:

But here in Iowa, the tough rhetoric is sheathed in a soft presentation. Ms. Bachmann hugs, dances and offers girl talk on the campaign trail—"That's a rockin' shirt!"—as if baking her steely conservatism into a warm apple pie.

But it also, highlights some of her faults as well:

"I found out real fast that the Michele I knew publicly is not the behind-the-scenes Michele," said Ron Carey, who was hired as Ms. Bachmann's staff chief last year and says he quit less than six months later. Mr. Carey said that Ms. Bachmann was consumed with getting herself on television and seemed indifferent to the task of tending to her district, a view expressed by more than half a dozen other former aides.

While she may appeal to many socially conservatively individuals:

Ms. Bachmann's supporters say they are energized by her stances against abortion rights, gay marriage and government bailouts.

She clearly lacks the experience to be commander-in-chief.

Furthermore, her interests seem to be driven more by personal ambition than anything else. That's what bothers me with politicians more than anything else. I think this part is a good example:

For months, Mr. Carey said, the staff tried to get Ms. Bachmann to stop saying in speeches that Mr. Obama had added more to the federal debt load than all other presidents combined. "It was simply not true, and yet I could never get her to drop that line," he said.

You can't stretch the truth to win votes in my book. I understand speaking negatively about the opposing party's leader because it does help rally your constituency and supporters, but lying is simply not something I support at all.

I don't know how the Republican race is going to play out. I'm concerned that we will have another election where the best candidate to lead our country will not be in the race. No one in the race thus far has really inspired confidence in me.