Mitt Romney: About Faith

When it comes to the presidential election, faith always seems to play a large part in the race. Christianity is the name of the game and outsiders are viewed through a wary eye. We saw this happen last election when Barack Obama's faith was called into question. For Mitt Romney, it's something has had plague him his entire career and something he has been forced to downplay.

While many misguidedly govern by faith, the main appeal of faith seems to be a person's character. I don't think that's exclusive to Christianity. You can tell a lot about a person's character by their devotion to their faith.

This has come to a head because Rick Perry's camp has been on the offensive:

The Daily Beast has obtained a series of e-mails that show an influential evangelical activist with close ties to the Perry campaign stressing the political importance of “juxtaposing traditional Christianity to the false God of Mormonism,” and calling for a “clarion call to Evangelical pastors and pews” that will be “the key to the primary” for Perry.

This would represent a low point in politics, but like I said, it's nothing we haven't seen before. Obama's faith was questioned last election. Romney is actually a mormon and there are a lot of misconceptions of the religion. Fortunately, there are other people, like Joe Lieberman, who have spoken out for him:

Now we have two Mormon candidates running for president, and one of them, Romney, may well be the Republican nominee. Once again the promise of religious freedom enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution will be tested, along with our Founders' dream that America would be a shining city on a hill where religious freedom, diversity and tolerance thrive. And once again, a barrier may be broken.

My experience in 2000 gives me great confidence that the American people will again reject any sectarian religious tests for office and show their strong character, instinctive fairness and steadfast belief in our Constitution. That truly is the American way.

That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the man himself, but it does provide a sentiment that we judge our president by his character and not by his religion. Regardless, it seems like the Mormon Church has helped define Romney as a person:

“He told me that, as human beings, our work isn’t measured by taking the sum of our good deeds and the sum of our bad deeds and seeing how things even out,” recalled Mr. Clark, now 37, sober and working as a filmmaker in Utah. “He said, ‘The only thing you need to think about is: Are you trying to improve, are you trying to do better? And if you are, then you’re a saint.’ ”

Romney has long been a prominent figure in the Mormon Church and the biggest in the Boston community for so long. As a result, he has shown a lot of leadership and responsibility, even having a large part in the building of a church. For better or worse, he's taken it on himself to be a member of his community and support others:

If Mr. Romney, who no longer holds an official church title, seems overly polished or wooden on the campaign trail, his defenders say that is just how he is, reserved yet caring. “He’s always been that way, that’s his demeanor,” Mrs. Oparowski said.

While there may be many questions about Romney's religion, I don't think there should be questions about Romney. I do believe the "Mormon issue" will be played out in the coming weeks, but I don't think it will be what defines the election, though it may define Romney's campaign. While at times the man seem distant, Romney does care, and I believe he want dearly to help this country get back on track. Otherwise, why would he run again?

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.

Is Rick Perry Done?

Is Rick Perry Done?

Over the last week, we've seen increased speculation and encouragement for New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, to enter the GOP race. We've also seen the emergence of Herman Cain after his win in the Florida Straw Poll. We also had this drop this week:
Once again, the poll numbers are in and Rick Perry has dropped:

Among announced candidates — without Christie or Palin in the race — Romney leads with 25 percent, which is identical to his support from a month ago. Perry and Cain are tied for second with 16 percent, numbers representing a 13-point drop for Perry and a 12-point rise for Cain since early September.

What may be worse is that his core support seems to be eroding:

The falloff for Perry against other announced candidates has been particularly steep among those aligned with the tea party movement. In early September, Perry had a 3-to-1 advantage over any other candidate among those “strongly” backing the tea party, but his supported has plummeted from 45 percent to 10 percent in this group.

Conservatives aren't happy with the Texas Governor either:

Among all conservatives, Perry’s support has been sliced in half, from 39 to 19 percent. Some of his decline may stem from shaky debate showings: A majority of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who have watched recent debates say the more they hear about Perry, the less they like him.

I pretty much said the same exact thing in a recent blog post. It's worth checking out this graphic that shows how fast Perry's support is finding its way to other candidates, mainly Herman Cain. However, it's probably most relevant to see how he compares to Mitt Romney, the current front runner:

Romney has big – 20-point – advantages over Perry on two important questions: experience and electability. When asked who has the better experience to be president, Romney wins 50 to 30 percent.

Perry's struggles are being documented by the media. Some have questioned the Drudge effect:

Drudge's editorial decisions replace Perry's message of solid, inspirational, conservatism with an inept, flagging candidate. And while Drudge doesn't exert the broad influence over the scattered media landscape that he did over a more concentrated media five or 10 years ago, he still wields immense power, particularly in shaping the narrative of the right. He has helped chip away at Perry's image to hundreds of thousands of conservative readers daily, just for starters.

Blogs definitely have a big say in shaping narrative, but Drudge has to be one of the biggest. Many people go to his site as a source to finding links to news articles. Sometimes people just read his headlines without reading the articles. It's definitely been a factor, but hasn't Perry just done poorly himself?

Christian Science concludes what we've already heard about Perry, he doesn't wear well:

What happened in mid-September? That’s when debate season got rolling. Whether voters watched the debates or not, they appear to have heard much about Perry’s poor performances. It is also possible that publicity about Perry’s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” has taken a toll on his support.

The hits keep coming.

My interest in Perry sputtered rapidly since he entered the race. His first speech was open, honest and spoke to the ideals that America should live up to. Unfortunately, he has shown that he might not have the qualities to be the President of the United States. We have already elected a great orator into office. We need someone who will get things done. It's not the flubs which have undone Perry, it's his ability to achieve. I think people have realized that his potential is much lower than initially expected and the voters are flocking to other candidates.

Rick Perry is done as far as I'm concerned, and I would like to see Herman Cain get more feature time in the debates. We deserve to see more of a candidate that actually has broad appeal through out the party.

Christie Leaves Us Waiting

Although Chris Christie did not discuss a potential bid for the Republican nomination for President, it did not stop people from asking him:
The guy appears to be very charismatic and you can see why so many people want him to run for President. I wholeheartedly agree with him that if you are going to run for President, you have to be up for it. It's a taxing job and you heart has to be in it.

That hasn't stopped important figures from urging him into the race:

The renewed consideration about a White House run came after prodding this week from some Republicans he idolizes, including former First Lady Nancy Reagan, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and former President George W. Bush, sources said.

The people want him in the race and other leaders want him in the race, what's holding him back? Even Romney says it would be fun to have Christie in the race:

"Chris is a great friend, a great guy, a colorful character," the former Massachusetts governor said Wednesday at a campaign event in Manchester, N.H. "Who knows? Maybe he'll get in. I think it'd be fun if he got in."I

That sounds wrong coming from a potential competitor right? May be it's more a sign of the weakness of the current crop of candidates. The voters seem undecided. Romney, who is the current favorite, has not won any of the straw polls thus far. Rick Perry, the other frontrunner, hasn't won either. There is a lot of indecision between the Republicans, and that's because one candidate hasn't risen above the others. The GOP is hoping so:
An old Northeast Republican Moderate eh? I like the sounds of that, but don't we already have one of those? What makes Christie different from Mitt Romney? I don't know.

The other main question is whether it's too late. He still has some time:

Late October appears to be the latest someone could get in, gear up, and run in the early states, given all the requirements and needs of a campaign.

It would be best if he announced sooner rather than later to meet all the deadlines. Campaigning is another story.

Ultimately, it's about who raises fervor within the party and rejuvenates and unites a divided party. It appears that Christie could be that guy. The best candidate, Mitt Romney, has never garnered enough enthusiasm. Interest in Perry cooled down just as fast as it heated up. The rest of the candidates don't seem to be legitimate contenders. Christie will either win the race or make it abundantly clear who should win the race.

Defending Romney

Mitt Romney continues to get attacked over his lackluster jobs record as governor. From a pure numbers perspective, he probably should be bashed. However, when you consider what he did compared to his predecessors and his successors, he looks favorabley compared to someone like Rick Perry:

Romney was right. Employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the number of jobs in Texas grew nearly 3 percent annually while Ann Richards was governor and about 5 percent per year under Bush. Over Perry's 11 years as governor, job growth has averaged less than 2 percent per year.

With the favorable jobs market of Texas, Perry's growth rate has lagged behind both Bush and Richards. What does that say about Perry? As governor, Romney was in charge of turning around Massachusetts. He did it with a democratic legislature, something that Perry hasn't had to deal with. He had to deal with a bad credit rating, which he helped improve. He had to deal with the democratic healthcare legislation, which now ironically bare his name, RomneyCare. All of the potential issues that a future President of the United States is going to deal with, Romney has already faced.

Despite challenges, Romney produced results. Were they the best results in the country? Absolutely not. But given the circumstances, Romney was an effective governor.

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.

Under the Microscope: Job Creation

Since I called out Obama for not knowing how to create jobs, I guess I should tackle this issue.

My main beef with Obama is that he's using fiscal stimulus to try and create jobs. The way he's spending just isn't working. The economy continues to suffer even as he's spending billions of dollars "creating jobs:"

What’s clear, however, is that the Obama Administration badly needs a re-start after a(nother) disastrous August that saw the president’s numbers drop to record lows and the country descend deeper into economic pessimism.

Assuming that the jobs report shows in the neighborhood of 60,000 jobs created, it would provide fodder to Obama’s Republican critics who have long argued that not only are his policies not working but that the administration has little idea what else to do to make things better.

Despite this, it seems that President Obama wants to do more of the same:

President Barack Obama signaled Monday he'll propose a major infrastructure program and an extension of a payroll tax break in the jobs speech he planned to deliver Thursday before a joint session of Congress.

While the state of this country's infrastructure is a topic for another day, at what point will Obama realize that "creating" construction jobs is creating work not jobs. Once these projects are completed, there's nothing left to do unless you spend more money on improving infrastructure. It's just a spending spiral that he's creating. You can't do that.

The GOP has not made job growth a priority:

But issuing a call for jobs isn't as simple as it may seem. While the new jobs numbers present the GOP with an obvious issue with which to hammer the president, Republicans in Congress and out on the campaign trail have spent much of the year focused on a different economic area: fiscal austerity and proposals to pare the big federal budget deficit.

However, it seems that it will become a more contested issue. Mitt Romney outlined his plan today:

Standing in front of a large banner that read “Day One, Job One,” Mr. Romney detailed the 10 actions he would take the first day of his presidency. Five of them are executive orders, and the other five are pieces of legislation that he would send to Congress and request action on within 30 days.

“The right course for America is to believe in growth,” Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, said at McCandless International Trucks. “Growing our economy is the way to get people to work and to balance our national budget.”

The way I see it, in terms of the difference to approaches, Romney is putting the money back into the households and to the businesses, while Obama is using that money to spend on creating jobs. Clearly it's more efficient Romney's way. I'm not convinced that how great an effect it will have.

Jon Huntsman had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning:

Our entrepreneurs are harmed as much by overregulation as by overtaxation.

I believe that this is more the way to go.

Henry R Nothhaft had this to say yesterday:

We know, for starters, that 100% of net job growth in the U.S. comes from entrepreneurial start-ups, as a Kauffman Foundation report documented in 2010. If you took start-ups out of the picture and looked only at large or incumbent businesses, job growth over the last 35 years would actually be negative. In the words of Kauffman's Tim Kane, "When it comes to U.S. job growth, start-up companies aren't everything. They're the only thing."

While big companies may have to hire or fire people from time to time, they're, for the most part, mature companies. They're not going to continue to grow. The new technologies that are born and the new jobs are spurred by small businesses:

As I noted in an article last year with retired chief judge Paul Michel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handles patent appeals, simply clearing the patent backlog could create up to 2.25 million jobs by 2014. And it wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime, since the patent office is the only self-supporting agency of the federal government.

The problem with the current government is that they're not spending money right. I don't trust a government that is going to take tax payer money and misappropriate it in misguided band-aid programs.

While I'm not satisfied with the Republicans' plans thus far, I feel their plans will better alleviate the troubled economy because it will allow households and firms to choose where to spend that money. Deregulation has been mentioned by several candidates, but there hasn't been a specific plan laid out. Hopefully, as the election trail heats up, the candidates will be pushed to come up with specific ways to fix the economy and to create jobs.

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.

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.

Enter The Fray - Rick Perry

So Rick Perry is expected to announce his candidacy for President of the United States of America tomorrow. His foray into the race should see him instantly catapult him to the top of the Republican race. He will probably run on a jobs candidacy, being the only candidate with a strong record of job creation from public office. This should give him a strong leg up over Mitt Romney and John Huntsman, both of whom were successful businessman.

So how does he stack up?

Well, the man can fundraise:

“He is the most successful fund-raiser in the history of Texas politics,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog organization that tracks campaign spending. “He may be the best in the country. He will have no trouble raising the money he needs for his presidential campaign.”

Only Mitt Romney can compete with Perry in terms of money raised. In the last two weeks, he's raised twice as much as every other candidate. Financially, Rick Perry should be one of the toughest candidates to top.

As I said before, he will be the job's candidate:

Over the past year, Texas' job growth was twice the national average. In fact, of all the jobs created since June 2009, 30 percent – about 295,000 jobs – were created in Texas, according to a report from the Dallas Federal Reserve which analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That should make him a favorite in this recession. People want someone who will be business friendly and help the economy grow. Not someone who will continuously mislead the economy and not give a certain outlook over their future actions.

So what's been the secret to his success? Taxes:

Yucel said much of this job growth can be attributed to Texas' low tax rate – the state has no income tax -- few regulations and a law limiting tort litigation. Texas, according to Perry, is the "epicenter of growth."

Low taxes and few regulations are business friendly. Limited tort litigation is doctor friendly. In many ways, Perry is the anti-Obama. From the two and a half years we've seen so far, an anti-Obama is just what we might need to grow as a country.

Or is he? According to Joseph Henchman, while Perry decreased franchise taxes, he increased margin taxes, resulting in increased revenue:

"I think Perry's margin tax in Texas is a destructive type of tax," said Joseph Henchman, the vice president of state projects for the Tax Foundation. "You have taxes being levied on taxes based on how many levels of production a product has. It basically encourages people to form conglomerates purely for tax reasons which is economically destructive. You have these taxes pyramiding on each other so the effective rate is higher."

But what did Perry's opponents do? Unemployment under Pawlenty as Minnesota governor:

Still, 25 states had a lower unemployment rate in June 2011 than Texas, including Pawlenty's state of Minnesota in which 6.7 percent of the population is unemployed.

And the budget:

Pawlenty took office in 2003 when the state's budget was facing a $2 billion shortfall. Within his first year as governor Moody's rating agency downgraded Minnesota from a perfect AAA credit rating to AA1, one step lower, citing short-term fixes to long-term budget woes as the reason for the downgrade.

Despite the unemployment rate, Pawlenty has let his state's debt get down graded. He didn't solve the state's problems, but rather slowed it down by slowing down spending. It sounds very similar to what Boehner's plan appears to be doing.

Romney helped raise Massachusetts's credit rating:

Conversely, during Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's tenure from 2003 to 2007, he petitioned the S&P credit rating agency to increase his state's credit rating from AA- to AA, which they did in 2005, according to a report obtained by Politico.

But did he raise taxes:

But the credit upgrade did not come without a cost. In 2002 Massachusetts raised more than $1 billion in additional tax revenue and in 2004 the state increased fees such as those for drivers' licenses, raising an additional $271 million annually, according to the report.

Actually, no:

Henchman said former Romney is the only GOP candidate who saw income taxes decrease while he was in office, albeit slightly, from 5.6 percent when he took office in 2003 to 5.3 percent by the time he left in 2007.

The article seems a bit misleading about this fact.

Meanwhile, Huntsman went with a flat tax:

"Huntsman's flat tax achievement is an achievement," Henchman said. "It reduced complexity and it made it a much more growth-friendly tax system."

You may ask why I'm focusing on taxes, the credit rating, and job creation. Because it's going to be the most important talking point for debate for the 2012 election. It should have been for the 2008 election, but instead they focused on healthcare, immigration, and the war. As I said then, the economy is always the most important issue whether it's good or bad.

The 2012 election will be about creating jobs, solving the debt crisis, and restoring the credit rating of this country.

However, since people do like to focus on other, relatively minute details, let's look at Perry's social stances. He is staunchly anti-abortion and anti-gay rights:

Governor Perry and the supporters of "the Response" can say all they want that the prayer rally was a non-political event, but the fact is the event was sponsored by the American Family Association, an exclusively Christian group with a narrowly-focused political agenda that revolves mostly around outlawing abortion and curtailing gay rights.

I have a hard time taking these types of people seriously. You know, the ones that not only are intolerant in their private lives, but also feel it is their mission to force their views on your publicly. For me, it's hard to trust someone for this. One of the founding principles of our country is the separation of church and state and when someone's viewpoint is derived from religious beliefs, you are blurring that very sacred line.

Carl Medearis feels similarly about the political implications of Perry's religious rally:

But here's my suggestion for the next politician that feels the need to call the nation to prayer, and wants to do so in a way that honors Jesus. Why not make the event open to people of all faiths and political persuasions? And rather than focusing on a narrow set of political concerns, why not make the focus of prayer something that Jesus actually talked about, like removing the planks from our eyes before we judge others... and loving our neighbor as ourselves?

Regardless, the "Response" may have been a political move to consolidate support of the conservative Christian base:

By leaving politics out of The Response, Perry formed a bond with the evangelical community that no other 2012 Republican presidential candidate has, at least on such a large scale: He earned their respect.

"I think by him not saying anything [political], that shows he kept his word," Stringer said. "I think if he had said something, he would have totally lost any equity with anybody. By not doing anything, even those that don’t ever vote for him, those that don’t agree with his politics, they can say ‘you know what, we can pray for that guy, and he went up a notch in my book.'"
y

Yes, but the event was still sponsored by a anti-abortion and anti-gay rights group. So what about that homeboy? It's all politics, right?

Whether or not I'm a fan of Rick Perry, he might be the candidate to beat. Regardless of how annoyed I get with social issues entwined with religion and politics, this election might be about jobs. I think we have a lot to learn about all of these candidates in regards to what they intend to do to help grow our economy. However, on record, Rick Perry appears to be one of the stronger candidates. I can't really knock him for that, and it appears the Obama administration is already taking notice.

The 2012 election is about jobs. When you're voting in the caucuses and primaries as well as the general election, keep this in mind. The economy should outweigh everything else.

Healthcare Debate Starts

Now that the bill is passed, the debate has begun over how it will affect Americans. Democrats and Republicans are taking their stances:

"If you have health insurance, this reform just gave you more control by reining in the worst excesses and abuses of the insurance industry with some of the toughest consumer protections this country has ever known -- so that you are actually getting what you pay for," Obama said.

Republicans:

"His health-care bill is unhealthy for America," said Mitt Romney, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2012. "It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of healthcare."

I'm not too happy about the tax increases myself, but I think we need to wait and see how it is implemented to truly see how it affects the country. Tort reform was a major issue that was not addressed.