Archive
What if you had a debate and no one came?
Tonight was supposed to be the big night: the first Republican debate of the 2012 cycle. Following the big GOP wave of 2010, it would seem that Republicans are geared up to take on the incumbent President. So who do we have lined up for this momentous occasion?
- Herman “the Godfather (of pizza)” Cain
- Gary “Weed-member Me?” Johnson
- Ron “I’m baaaaack, establishment Neo-Cons!” Paul
- Tim “not so good and” Pawlenty
- Rick “Hey, at least I didn’t lose as big as Keyes” Santorum
Uh-huh.
Where are the big names?? Where’s the Newt? Mittens? The Huckster? The Donald?? Even that “adorable little fuzzball” (her actual words, not mine) Michele Bachmann? They all took a pass.
Well, maybe they didn’t quite take a pass, but they didn’t make any outright effort to meet Fox News’s criteria. And what a set they were!
- Must register a presidential exploratory committee or have announced a formal campaign for president
- Must file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)
- Must file all necessary paperwork with the South Carolina Republican Party
- Must have paid all federal and South Carolina filing fees
- Must meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements
Some candidates haven’t met these criteria, but others have and are still staying home, namely Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. From their point of view, it really didn’t make sense, even if they are “officially” not officially in the race, to go on stage with a number of candidates who, frankly, are considered longshots at best. As Race 4 2012 points out:
Not exactly the roaring start to the primary season we have all been hoping for… on average, these five guys get around 10-12% combined in the national polls.
I would add that, heck: some of these guys aren’t even regularly included in polling on the race. Fox News and the SC GOP have managed criteria that simultaneously kept out some heavy hitters and allowed enough deep pocketed but flaky candidates to get in to make it unattractive to top tier candidates that did qualify. Personally, I think part of this was motivated by business–Fox has put money down on two potential candidates, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. If they officially announce, they’re off the air, so Fox wants them to go or get off the pot. It appears that didn’t work–or, maybe it has yet to play out. Maybe they REALLY want those two to stay, and they think continuing to stage these things without them will diminish their credibility.
Whatever the case, the low turnout was cause enough for SC GOP to blast the field–well, at least those that aren’t showing. From Fox News:
“There is an arrogance that is abounding right now with some of these candidates,” said Karen Floyd, chairwoman of the South Carolina Republican Party. “And the state of South Carolina is a perfect conduit to select someone that will go out and work hard, shake hands, meet the people and say look, this is what I stand for, this is what I’m about. Not about buying elections.”
The one to beat in the GOP presidential field, Mitt Romney, won’t attend the first debate of the party’s 2012 nomination race. Neither will any other big-name Republicans weighing bids, like Sarah Palin, or celebrity hopefuls, like Donald Trump.And, with Osama bin Laden’s death commanding the public’s attention, the political spotlight will be turned hundreds of miles to the north as President Barack Obama visits New York’s ground zero days after American forces killed the terrorist behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
Even so, the lead-off debate of the Republican presidential race is set to go on as planned Thursday night in Greenville, S.C. With only five candidates participating, it’s poised to be a low-key affair much like the sluggish early days of the Republican contest itself.
The Associated Press has decided not to cover a Republican presidential debate to protest limits placed on media coverage by its organizers.
Fox News Channel and the South Carolina Republican Party are co-sponsoring the first GOP debate of the 2012 presidential race on Thursday. But the sponsors are barring still photographers from entering the hall in Greenville, S.C., during the debate.
That is a change from past debates, when Fox permitted still photographers greater access. Both AP and Reuters photographers were permitted extensive access to the January 2008 GOP primary debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., including multiple photographers from each agency allowed in the hall during large parts of the debate, said J. David Ake, the AP’s assistant chief of bureau/photos.
That said, the one arguably top tier candidate in the debate, Tim Pawlenty, is using this as an opportunity to show he’s serious:
“Some candidates are skipping tonight’s Republican debate in South Carolina because they believe it’s ‘too soon’ to begin the presidential campaign against Barack Obama. I only hope that it’s not too late,” Pawlenty wrote. “After two and a half years of Barack Obama’s presidency, nearly one in five American workers are consistently unable to find full employment, our national debt continues to skyrocket, and inflating energy and food prices are eating away at families’ budgets.”
To anyone upset that their “guy” isn’t showing up or that they won’t get a chance to hear from the “big guys,” get real–there are PLENTY of debates left. From Race 4 2012:
June 7, 2011 CNN / NH Union Leader / WMUR-TV Debate Manchester, NH August 11, 2011 FOX News / Iowa GOP Straw Poll Debate Ames, IA September 7, 2011 Reagan Library / NBC News / Politico Debate Simi Valley, CA September 12, 2011 CNN / Tea Party Express Debate Tampa, FL September 22, 2011 FOX News / Florida GOP Debate Orlando, FL October 11, 2011 Washington Post / Bloomberg Debate Hanover, NH October 18, 2011 CNN / Western States Leadership Conference Debate Las Vegas, NV December 10-11 (TBD), 2012 ABC News / Iowa GOP Debate TBD January 30, 2012 FOX News / Iowa GOP Debate Sioux City, IA
Yeah, that’s NINE more debates between now and the first binding delegate selection event in Iowa (that is, if Florida folds and moves in after the reserved states in February). You’ll have plenty of time to assess the candidates.
That is, if you think these debates mean anything. In my view, as the field continues to firm up, these debates will only become more and more tedious, with candidates getting less and less time within the time frame of roughly 90 minutes that most networks will use for these events. Some will crowd the others out, they’ll complain, and frankly, we really won’t know much more. “Debates” these days are little more than press conferences, with questions thrown out by the media and then answered with acceptable soundbites. I would much rather see debates with one broad topic where candidates present, defend, and rip apart each others stances, but that ain’t gonna happen. That would entail really thinking and real drama–something the media is just uncomfortable with, and I would reckon some of the campaigns, given the intellectual heft of their candidates.
Yet, I will be watching tonight. For two reasons: One, I want to see Pawlenty. He has a big risk and a big chance here. The risk: sharing the stage with a bunch of third and fourth tier candidates and being, well, Tim Pawlenty. The chance: rising above the expectations and off the stage with much flashier candidates, getting to shine in front of a dedicated Republican audience, as well as a ton of wonks, pundits, and consultants.
Two, I think this will be an interesting debate despite the line-up. For starters, we have a true Tea Partier (Cain), two liberty, non-interventionist candidates (Johnson and Paul), a mainstreamer (Pawlenty), and the shining light of the social conservatives (Santorum). As I’ve pointed out before, I see this much as 1988: a very split field with a candidate for everybody–EVERYBODY–in the party.
And so, I announce, just 1 minute beforehand: LIVE BLOGGING! Dang computer. Tune in here–we’ll have news and analysis as the debate develops.
One step forward, Two steps back in Latin America
Conservatives and those who believe in the rule of law are cheering the election of a right leaning candidate in Honduras. From the New York Times:
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Porfirio Lobo, a longtime conservative politician, appeared headed toward victory on Sunday in the Honduran presidential election, which many hoped could help the country emerge from the crisis caused by last summer’s coup and end its isolation.
The electoral tribunal said Sunday night that Mr. Lobo had 52 percent of the vote, with almost two-thirds of the votes counted. That gave him a margin of 16 percentage points over his main opponent, Elvin Santos.
Honduras has been embroiled in a constitutional crisis since early this summer. The tale is very complicated, but the long and short of it is that incumbent President Manuel Zelaya has been attempting for several years to extend his term beyond 2010. He first attempted to put the referendum on the ballot for this election but then called a referendum on the referendum, which the Supreme Court held he could not do. The commander of the military, which is responsible for distributing ballots, refused to participate and was summarily sacked by Zelaya. Despite pronouncements from the Supreme Court, the AG, and the electoral tribunal, Zelaya and his supporters invaded the base where the ballots were held and held the election anyways. Zelaya was soon seized by soldiers and tossed to Costa Rica.
Although many Hondurans (and indeed, the Congress) thought that Zelaya had far overstepped his boundaries, the international community did not see it that way. Even though the interim government remained dedicated to the election, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela coddled the man, while the U.S. and UN shamed the Honduran people. During his time in exile, Zelaya has repeatedly blamed Israeli mercenaries for a variety of outlandish attacks against him. Now, the Hondurans have decided their fate, and with the winning candidate getting 52% of the vote, it would appear that they did it the free and open way that democracies should strive to.
However, all is not well elsewhere in the region. Uruguay has elected a formal leftist rebel to its presidency. The vote appears to have been as fair and open as Honduras’s, but victor Jose Mujica is winning praise from a character not well appreciated by many in this hemisphere. From the AP:
Chavez called Mujica a symbol of leftist resistance who always fought with morality on his side and whose presence is now necessary to counter “gorilismo” – referring to right-wing coup plotters in Latin America.
Chavez went on to laud the militance of the National Liberation Movement-Tupamaros, the movement that Mujica helped found in the 1960s and that carried out bombings, kidnappings and robberies to overthrow elected governments of the time.
Again, we’ll have to see just how Mujica rules, and one can only hope that he’s smart enough to steer away from Hugo Chavez’s heavy handed style and burning desire for total state power.
Bob’s Focus
Vodpod videos no longer available.
A Jobs Governor – VA
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Wagner: Not the Details Candidate
I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t been paying a whole lot of attention to the Democratic race for the LG nomination. Wagner appears to be winning that race in both those few polls that have been done and in terms of money. However, candidate Mike Signer has turned up an interesting issue in the race. It appears that Madame Wagner did not vote in the 2004, 2005 and 2008 Democratic primaries. While this is rather curious coming from someone who is seeking a major party’s nomination for the second highest office in the state, what is even more curious is how she chooses to explain it away. From Not Larry Sabato:
As Jody said, she tried to get back to her home in Virginia Beach from her job in Richmond as a member of the Kaine Administration in time to vote, but traffic prevented her. It demonstrates the need for Virginia to pass early voting, which Republicans in the General Assembly once again killed.
Really? You’re going to blame this on the Republicans?
Anyone who has voted absentee in Virginia even once knows that the acceptable excuses for doing so are rather varied. They include if you will be away from your precinct for more than 12 hours during Election Day due to work obligations. So this means one of two things: either Mrs. Wagner just absolutely loves the thrill of feeding her ballot into the machine and just can’t vote absentee, or she doesn’t know the rules for voting absentee in the very Commonwealth that employed her for seven years. I could understand if we still used real voting machines (I just love that little bell!), but c’mon.
So there you have it folks. Not only is the Dem frontrunner for LG bad at math, but she’s not very good with details either.
BREAKING: Sandra Liddy Bourne Drops Out of RPV Race
Sandra Liddy Bourne has dropped out of the race for RPV Chair to be elected on May 2nd. If Pat is elected she has agreed to serve as chair of Victory ’09. More later…..
A Tale of Two Candidates
UPDATE: Breaking news has preeetty much rendered this post useless. However, I’m putting this up in the interest of background on these two great leaders for RPV.
-Pat Mullins started off by joking that his Fairfax YRs often battled against Mike Thomas’s Henrico YRs in the 1980’s. He recounted how the Fairfax YRs drafted him for chairman in Fairfax after a successful run as a community and business leader (Chamber and Rotary Chair), and he relied heavily on the YRs for his executive board. He noted how he raised a million dollars over his six year term, grew the Committee from 200 to 500 members (to the point of having a waiting list for members), and won 60% of the elections in the county. He noted the press attacked him for his beliefs even though he ran and won with conservative candidates. He noted that after his move from Fairfax his wife wanted him to stay out. However, last year he entered the fray again with the belief that a small committee can do what a large one can–it’s all about scale. And the results were similar: Louisa went from 20 to 88 members). They went from $300 in the hole to spending $2000 last year. He talked about the importance not just of sweeping the state constitutional offices but holding the House not just by playing defense but looking for pick-up opportunities as well. Mr. Mullins has a very outgoing and warm manner, but you can tell that its part of his natural personality.
-Up next was Sandra Liddy Bourne. She joked that while Too Conservative noted she was . She noted her father’s legacy, but played it off by joking that if G. Gordon Liddy is Darth Vader, then that must make her Princess Leia. She touted her status as a veteran, as well as a advocate on climate change and energy policy. She noted her strong anti-tax credentials. She also rejected the big tent philosophy, stating that she would rather have a “brick house” of a party, standing on four key principles: faith, family, individual freedom, and free enterprise. She reitereated her pro-life beliefs several times. She also noted that YRs need to be active on New Media and from the VERY bottom (all the way down to HOAs). She noted that her political career began when her husband’s best friend was murdered. She took this as proof o the failure of the welfare state.
Hang on, breaking news.
Gilbert’s Evolving Role in the General Assembly
When Delegate Todd Gilbert was first elected to the General Assembly by a wide margin in 2005, it was widely assumed that he was going to be at the forefront of criminal law and public safety issues in the House of Delegates. Speaker Howell saw to that–I worked for Delegate Gilbert that first year, and we were in no way surprised when the Delegate was appointed to the Courts of Justice and Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committees (along with Education). He was later appointed to General Laws as well. He’s ended up carrying a number of key public safety proposals, including the much-debated rollback of the Triggerman Rule.
However, a funny thing has happened to the Delegate in Richmond. Usually, the trend is for conservatives to ride into office upon rhetoric about limiting the size of government but quickly bend under political pressures (real and imagined). However, Delegate Gilbert has actually become MORE fiscally conservative, and has actually begun speaking out on the role of government.
The first change was relatively subtle. Starting in 2007, Delegate Gilbert stopped offering budget amendments, Virginia’s equivalent of pork barrel politics. However, this year the Delegate has hit full stride. During the debate on the smoking ban. he spoke out in multiple outlets about the government’s overreach in this regards. Additionally, he carried an array of bills designed to bring some sense to Virginia’s fiscal house. They included a bill to require the budget process start at zero (requiring bureaucrats to justify every dollar rather than just asking for an x% request), an exemption for the fabrication of animal meat for those grow or kill or their own animals, and a constitutional amendment that would keeps the growth of appropriations to the rate of population growth and inflation.
He voted against the budget this year, joining a small minority who thought that Governor Kaine and others just hadn’t done enough work on the budget to make it fair to the people. Even now, while fighting for VDOT to keep services in rural areas, the Delegate is pointing out that such extreme changes are deliberately designed to force tax hikes in the General Assembly. Gilbert made the following pledge:
“I fully intend to branch out and start a new hobby to constantly take a look at what you do right and wrong,” Gilbert said.
Gilbert signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in 2005 and supported the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (which more or less consists of his above proposal on limiting the growth of spending). However, for most of his first two terms he hasn’t been focused on these issues. Now, he is showing his true colors as a fiscal hawk.
Here’s to you, Delegate Gilbert. I’ll make sure to fight hard to make sure you can continue doing the right thing for the taxpayers in Richmond.
The Big O Show Tonight
Tonight: Freestyle.
Obama the Fear Monger
George F. Will writes today about the amazing certitude that has possessed both Obama and Congressional Democrats. After running a campaign of hope and change, they seem determined to elicit enough fear and panic to garner the support of average Americans. From Townhall.com:
The president, convinced that the only thing America has to fear is an insufficiency of fear, has warned that “disaster” and “catastrophe” are the certain alternatives to swift passage of the stimulus legislation. One marvels at his certitude more than one envies his custody of this adventure.
Certitude of one flavor or another is never entirely out of fashion in Washington. Thirty years ago, some conservatives were certain that their tax cuts would be so stimulative that they would be completely self-financing. Today, some liberals are certain that the spending they favor — on green jobs, infrastructure and everything else — will completely pay for itself. For liberals, “stimulus spending” is a classification that no longer classifies: All spending is, they are certain,necessarily stimulative.
Will recounts the last time that Democrats were this certain about the healing power of massive government spending:
resident Lyndon Johnson was embarked on building the Great Society, assisted by policymakers who, wrote Time, “have used Keynesian principles” to smooth the moderate business cycles and achieve price stability: “Washington’s economic managers scaled these heights by their adherence to Keynes’ central theme” that a modern economy can operate at “top efficiency” only with government “intervention and influence.” So, “economists have descended in force from their ivory towers and now sit confidently at the elbow of almost every important leader in government and business, where they are increasingly called upon to forecast, plan and decide.” Ten years later, the “misery index” — the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate — was 19.9, heading for 22 percent in 1980.
I’m not one to wish misery upon this country or to predict economic trends. However, past history shows that Keynesian economics may be good for a short term fix but in the long run can hamper the engines of innovation in our economy.
Will wraps it up with an apt comparison to the first “100 Days”–but not the one you’re thinking about:
John McCain probably was eager to return to the Senate as an avatar of bipartisanship, a role he has enjoyed. It is, therefore, a measure of the recklessness of House Democrats that they caused the stimulus debate to revolve around a bill that McCain dismisses as “generational theft.”
The federal government, with its separation of powers and myriad blocking mechanisms, was not made for speed but for safety. This is particularly pertinent today because if $789 billion is spent ineffectively or destructively, government does not get to say “oops” and take a mulligan. Senate Republicans have slowed and altered the course of the “disaster! catastrophe!” stampede. Still, as Anthony Trollope wrote in one of his parliamentary novels, “The best carriage horses are those which can most steadily hold back against the coach as it trundles down the hill.”
Not yet a third of the way through the president’s “first 100 days,” he and we should remember that it was not FDR’s initial burst of activity in 1933 that put the phrase “100 days” into the Western lexicon. It was Napoleon’s frenetic trajectory in 1815 that began with his escape from Elba and ended near the Belgian village of Waterloo.
On the Western Banks of the Shenandoah 