Tag Archives: republican

The Presidential Primaries as of February 2012

This round of Republican Primaries is called wacky, zany, strange, unpredictable and frustrating. It is also the most important election in my lifetime (born 1956). There is no way I can predict tomorrow, much less the election, so this is just a collection of wacky observations of others. These are more or less random thoughts of insanity. I am not documenting any of this, because it is so crazy and might be completely different even before we can publish this.

Newt Gingrich is in the lead in the polls in Georgia, Alabama and California. Ron Paul had a brief lead in Texas, but I could not verify that. Rick Santorum leads in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois (At this time it does not matter. Illinois votes March 20). Mitt Romney is expected to sweep the “Mormon Corridor” (Arizona, Utah and Idaho). Who came up with that name? I know a lot of people in Idaho. They are all voting for Ron Paul. At least, that’s what they say. New York is equally divided between Rick Santorum (upstate), Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (NYC).

The RNC has not yet taken action against Florida for awarding Mitt Romney a “winner-takes-all” of 50 delegates. The RNC rules require all elections before April first to be proportional. Arizona is also going to award delegates as winner-take-all. Steps the RNC is considering are: 1) Refuse to seat the Florida and Arizona delegates in the first round of voting. 2) Simply award Florida and Arizona’s delegate votes proportionally regardless of how the actual delegates vote. 3) File lawsuits against Florida and Arizona. I believe what will actually happen is: 4) nothing. The Arizona and Florida delegates will roll into Tampa and vote as if nothing happened.

Conservative, pro-family, anti-birth control Rick Santorum was just endorsed by the Rock Group Megadeth. (Eh?) Mitt Romney is reportedly outspending Rick Santorum more than 100:1. Yahoo just predicted Obama would win re-election 303 to 235. It’s a computer model, so it must be wrong. The Federal-spending limit will be reached in October, 2012. Newt Gingrich has pledged to stay in the race until the convention “no matter what.” What does that mean? Hillary Clinton reportedly wants out of the Obama administration. Does she seriously want to head the World Bank?

Head to head polls have Rick Santorum as the only Republican candidate to defeat Barak Obama. Will that hold? Unemployment, which includes those who have stopped looking for work, is around 20%. Figures which include the underemployed put the rate over 40%. Voters under 25 years old are very discouraged and not likely to vote for anyone. This is horrible news for liberals not at the top of the ticket. This is their primary voting block.

Personal freedom and moral values are listed as the driving forces for the vast majority of voters, Democrat as well as Republican. Economics is second, foreign policy, including wars, is third.

Every single one of these points could change before this is published. Interesting.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, History

Paul as VP for Santorum?

Jackie Kennedy believed LBJ killed JFK. Rick Santorum does not have to fear assassination by Ron Paul but the ticket above proves people don’t have to like each other to work together. Let’s examine the strengths and weaknesses of Ron Paul as a running mate for Rick Santorum.

Rick Santorum did not qualify for the ballots in every state, while Ron Paul has. Voters in states like Indiana and Virginia, where Santorum is not on the ballot, might be persuade to vote for Paul if they understand it will be a vote for Santorum. One often-repeated argument against Santorum is that he does not have a national organization. Ron Paul does, and if they combined forces it would convince people both that Santorum has a national organization and that he is willing to make reasonable sacrifices necessary to win the race.

If Santorum is the nominee he would likely follow tradition and announce his running mate during the convention. He would want to pick someone best able to help him win the general election. He would also like to pick someone he believes to be the best possible candidate to run the country if he were to die in office. In the case of George Bush Sr. under Ronald Reagan, Bush was groomed as a successor. At age 76 now, Paul would be 84 after two terms with Santorum. It is therefore extremely unlikely that he would ever become president himself. Considering their policy disagreements, Rick Santorum might look at this as a plus.

Running as Vice President under Rick Santorum, Paul has a better chance to see some of his policies put into place. With one exception on the domestic side, Santorum and Paul have very similar policies. Ron Paul’s auditing of the Fed is a good idea for Santorum to adopt. Paul wants to eliminate more federal agencies and cut the budget more even than does Santorum. This is also a good thing.

Ron Paul is in the race on principle. He has principles that he wants put into place because he loves America. He thinks that these policies are the best thing for America. He also understands that if he runs on his own, very few of these policies will be put into place, since his real chances of winning are small. If Mitt Romney wins the nomination, or even Gingrich, few or none of Paul’s policies will become reality.

It is very doubtful that Santorum would even consider legalizing drugs like Paul, and this is the greatest point of contention between the two. Rick Santorum’s military and general foreign policy and position on Israel are well know through his substantial voting record in the U.S. Senate. These are likely to be the most difficult areas for Ron Paul and his supporters to accept.

Any politician knows there are three types of voters. First are the voters who support him. Second are those against him or for his opposition. Third are various degrees of undecided. At the beginning of an election cycle undecided is the largest block. Most politicians look for ways to sway those undecideds to themselves.

Many Ron Paul voters have said they will vote for Obama if Ron Paul is not on the ticket. To the average person this does not appear to be entirely rational thinking. But having Paul on the ticket, even if not all his policies get put in place, means Obama loses. If some of Ron Paul’s crazier policies do not become reality, this may not be a bad thing, even for those who think they want them.

Apart from any policy considerations, a very realistic assessment is that it will take both Ron Paul’s and Rick Santorum’s supporters to defeat Obama.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, History

Rick Santorum Won in Iowa! Or, How Much Difference Can Just One Delegate Make?

To those in states with Primaries, the entire Caucus system seems confusing. We stayed up until 2:00 AM to watch the media proclaim Mitt Romney the winner by 8 votes. But the popular vote is not what counts. What counts is the delegates sent to the national Republican convention. While nothing is certified at this point and things can change, it appears that Rick Santorum might have one more delegate than Mitt Romney. How?

The widely publicized vote is actually a straw poll. http://www.iowacaucus.biz/IA_Caucus_Howitworks.html The votes are actually for delegates to a state convention on March 10. At this convention, these delegates will vote for the national delegates. Since they are morally pledged to their candidates, it seems the widely proclaimed Romney 13 delegates, Santorum 12 delegates will be the final outcome, plus Superdelegates (delegates picked by the state Republican convention). Not so fast.

First, at least 2 Ron Paul supporters monitoring vote counts have claimed errors in the vote counts. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/05/santorum-vote-count-error-in-iowa-is-no-big-deal/ The vote counts are not certified, so the totals, and the winners, could change.

Second, in another long shot, Michele Bachmann could attempt to transfer her few votes to Rick Santorum. While there is a lot of buzz about this on the Internet, none of the candidates in the Republican Party has commented on this possibility. The talk has ranged from “almost a done deal” to “not legal, not possible.” It is legal and possible because the state delegates pledged to Michele Bachmann now have no one to vote for and no legal requirement to vote for anyone in particular.

Third is the important part. From state party workers on caucus night, to county caucus, to state caucus, to national convention, these thousands of workers are all volunteers. This heavy time requirement means some of these delegates, especially on the state and county levels, will be unable to attend and vote. Alternates will fill these positions. The state party attempts to fill these empty delegate positions with alternates pledged to the same candidate so the missing delegates are not even noticed. This year saw a massive change. Ron Paul had a well-planned and well-executed plan to grab all the alternate slots throughout Iowa. Because of the late, close race many Rick Santorum supporters stuck around to provide enough Rick Santorum alternates. So if Ron Paul picks up some county delegates, at whose expense will they come? Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. It is almost certain that Ron Paul will gain some county delegates. The big question is will Ron Paul gain from this strategy or will Rick Santorum be the only beneficiary?

2 Comments

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, History

So Which Republican Candidate Do You Support? And Why?

It seems like every day someone is asking me this. So I am finally writing this blog and from now on will just link to this if anyone online asks me. First, I will support the candidate who most closely supports the United States Constitution and has a chance of winning the general election. The worst Republican candidate has more respect for the Constitution and Law and Order than the best Democratic candidate.

Second, and this is critical, the Constitution of the United States is written in English and anyone who is willing to spend some time on archives.gov can understand what the writers intended. It is not in code and anyone who is unsure as to the meaning of a word, phrase or even an entire Article in the Constitution can research and find the intended meaning.

Third, how honest is the candidate? Members of his own party constantly “praised” Bill Clinton for “being a really good liar.” The average politician does whatever he wants to do and then attempts to justify those actions by claiming that either the Constitution is unclear in that area or the Constitution does not address whatever it is that he wants to do.

Michele Bachmann had the best grasp of Constitutional principles of any candidate in either party. She confronted Rick Perry with his Gardasil fiasco, for which I am grateful. However, when her entire New Hampshire campaign staff quit and she not only did not know it but also denied it, that ended my support for her.

Jon Huntsman is unelectable, either in the primaries or the general election.

Newt Gingrich is unethical. Though he raised a lot of money, most of it is gone. His bulldog attack style turns many people off. He seems to be conservative on several important issues, but is he really?

Rick Perry would be an excellent choice if not for 2 things He insisted on forcing Gordasil on Junior High girls (which thankfully was stopped by the Texas legislature) and giving free tuition to illegals. The problem with these two major issues is the way he defends them. It seems that this man could justify just about anything in his own mind. Ann Coulter gives a very good reason why he could not win in general election.

Ron Paul can win both the Republican Primary and the general elections. I understand that very few of my friends and family members agree with me on this, so please hear me out. America is a very divided nation. Ron Paul has very strong national support. If he is consistently coming in 2nd and 3rd, he will be a major contender at the Republican National Convention. I do not believe that any Republican candidate will pick up enough delegates to win on the first ballot. So compromises and deals will have to be made. If the Republican delegation goes to a forth or fifth ballot, anything can happen. In the general election, he has one advantage over every other Republican. Certain issues, such as the legalization of Marijuana, immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and closing some foreign military bases, would take votes away from Obama. People who would otherwise vote Democrat will vote for Ron Paul. Ronald Reagan also took away votes from Democrats. Every one of these votes not only increases his chance of winning but also decreases Obama’s chances. It is the same as picking up two undecided votes. Also, President Obama did not win in a landslide and he has far less support in his own party this time. The margins will be close and Ron Paul has the ability to squeak out a victory by appealing to millions of pacifists who normally do not block vote. While no one knows how many Amish/Mennonites there are in this country, estimates place that number over 10 million. Though many of them do vote, most will not support any kind of military intervention. They will not pick up arms and will only serve in the military in noncombatant roles such as Chaplin’s assistants or medical personal. They did not vote for John McCain or George Bush. Enough of these people voting for the first time could swing several key states where they have large populations such as Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio.

Ronald Reagan was our oldest President. He took the oath of office for the first time when he was 70 years old and 74 for his second term. Ron Paul is 76 and would not be sworn in until he was 77. With the average life expectancy in this country being 78.1, the odds are that Ron Paul would not live out his first term. He does not have the health to put his entire agenda into place. So which of his stated goals are most important to him?

The vast majority of Republicans will agree with everything, or almost everything up to this point. I like Ron Paul’s reduction in government. His foreign policy and military positions seem dangerous at best and suicidal at worst. Though Ron Paul and I both believe that recreational use of drugs is destroying the fabric of this nation, we disagree on what to do about it. Because of his age, position on legalizing drugs, reducing our military and his position toward Israel, I cannot wholeheartedly support Ron Paul. Unlike other fellow conservatives, I could vote for Ron Paul if he would miraculously survive the nominating process.

Ann Coulter wrote last week that we must nominate Mitt Romney because he is the only candidate who can win the general election for the Republicans. This seems to be the major point of conservatives who support him. Mitt Romney is an establishment Republican. I am not sure if he is a RINO (Republican In Name Only), but he is certainly not what I want in a President. Compared to Arlen Specter or Chris Christie, Mitt Romney is a conservative. But Ann Coulter also said that the most important 2 issues are stopping the invasion of illegals and ending Obamacare. The very day Ann endorsed Mitt Romney as the only candidate capable of winning, Mitt Romney had a press conference where he said that he would repeal Obamacare as one of his first acts in office. But he also said that he thinks the core of Obamacare, the individual mandate, “is fundamentally a conservative principle.” He defended the individual mandate in Massachusetts with Romneycare. So Mitt Romney believes the details of Obamacare are wrong, but the fundamental principles of Romneycare are “fundamentally a conservative principle.” Mitt Romney believes that Obamacare is wrong in the details, but its fundamental principles are conservative? This is exactly what Ann Coulter condemned as unacceptable, yet she endorses Mitt Romney anyway.

Mitt Romney had questionable judicial appointments and the MA government grew larger under his administration. To be honest, Ronald Reagan saw the government grow while was Governor of CA and while we was President. Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum take the same positions on the illegal issue.

This is sad, but I support Rick Santorum because he has the fewest negatives. Isn’t this the way American Politics usually works out? Rick Santorum can win PA, NY and maybe one or two New England states. It will be very difficult and close but I believe that he can win the general election.

He is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion, favors the death penalty, will cut trillions from the National budget including eliminating several federal agencies, will reduce (though not eliminate) federal taxes, bomb Iran if necessary, and support the military. He homeschooled his children (which is the major reason he lost re-election to the senate), is a member of the NRA and owns guns, wears sweater vests, is a lawyer, allows (not requires) government funds for contraception, is opposed to all stimulus and welfare, opposes homosexuality, wants to cut all corporate taxes to zero, is in favor of tort reform, believes that the sagging economy is caused by the federal stop sign on oil drilling, believes that the major cause of poverty is the lack of 2-parent families, had a 100% voting record according to the Christian Coalition, wants the President to have a line item veto, believes our trade and labor laws need to change to make the USA more competitive with China, believes that higher minimum wages contribute to unemployment, believes that Social Security, welfare and all other entitlements need to change to remain solvent and that the Bush era tax cuts need to become permanent. Those tax cuts should only be a starting place for more tax cuts.

Stopping short of an endorsement, Rush Limbaugh said that he could sleep well at night knowing that Rick Santorum was commander-in-chief.

Rick Santorum authored the book It Takes A Family to counter Hillary Clinton’s It Takes A Village. I have yet to meet a Republican who did not like Rick Santorum. He is likable, with probably the best speaking abilities of the major candidates. When Rick Santorum had just been sworn in as Senator, I called him and had severe problems reaching him because the Senate refused to give him a phone or office. The only serious complaint I hear is that he is too conservative to win a national election. The last man that charge was leveled against was Ronald Reagan.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics, History

By the Numbers

The popular vote in 2008 was [Barack Obama] 69,456,897 to [John McCain] 59,934,814, respectively, according to Wikipedia. As we travel back and forth, up and down, we have talked to thousands who testify that they voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but will not vote for him again. This time around they just will not vote for anyone. Some of them will change their minds and vote for him in 2012. The issue is how many is “some.” The 2008 election saw a record turnout, which will not happen in 2012 unless something drastic happens. Since the out of power party usually makes a small gain, slightly over 60 million Republican votes are likely. It is very doubtful that Barack Obama will have even 55 million legitimate votes. Ron Paul is very likely correct that whoever wins the Republican nomination will win the general election.

The 2012 Republican Convention requires 1143 delegates to win the nomination. The state of Virginia has 49 delegates for this convention and only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are on the VA primary ballot. These 49 delegates are almost 5% of the total needed. With so many candidates and no candidate having even 30% this gives Mitt Romney and Ron Paul a tremendous advantage over the other candidates.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Issues, Politics