Posts Tagged ‘gop’

Rick Santorum’s Path to the Nomination

Posted on: March 14th, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum accomplished two important wins in the Deep South on Tuesday – one in Alabama and the other in Mississippi – that denied front-runner Mitt Romney the opportunity to finish up the nasty GOP primary fight. While Romney’s aides publicly state that it would take an “act of God” for Santorum to win the nomination, it is actually more plausible than they would have you believe.

With Newt Gingrich’s second place finishes in Alabama and Mississippi – states that he recently said that he must win – his campaign’s path forward it unclear at best. Indeed it would take an act of God for Gingrich to become the Republican nominee. The same cannot be said of Santorum, though, who despite trailing Romney by roughly 200 delegates could quickly catch up to him at the convention. Consider this scenario:

The Republicans enter their convention in Tampa without a candidate holding a clear majority of delegates – a requirement for winning the nomination. The first round of ballots is indecisive. After this point delegates bound to Romney or any other candidate could vote for whomever they please.

Now imagine that Gingrich drops out of the race. Where do his delegates go? Will these conservative, largely Southern delegates go with a former moderate governor from Massachusetts? Highly doubtful, unless Gingrich is enticed by another prize: a slot on the ticket.

This is where Santorum can find a path without entering the convention with a majority of delegates. He wins Gingrich’s endorsement early on, ensuring that his supporters will carry Santorum to victory in places like Texas. Then Santorum cuts a deal with Gingrich giving him a VP slot in exchange for his hundred plus delegates. Adding the delegates won so far by Gingrich and Santorum puts him within striking distance of Romney. Hardly an act of God.

Recapping the GOP Primary

Posted on: February 26th, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

New York Magazine‘s John Heilemann has a great piece this week on the GOP primary race thus far. He writes about the rightward drift of the Republican Party, the struggles that “front-runner” Mitt Romney has had to curry favor with the Tea Party base, and Santorum’s rise as his primary conservative challenger. In Heilemann’s own words:

That Mitt Romney finds himself so imperiled by Rick Santorum—Rick Santorum!—is just the latest in a series of jaw-dropping developments in what has been the most volatile, unpredictable, and just plain wackadoodle Republican-nomination contest ever. Part of the explanation lies in Romney’s lameness as a candidate, in Santorum’s strength, and in the sudden efflorescence of social issues in what was supposed to be an all-economy-all-the-time affair. But even more important have been the seismic changes within the Republican Party.

The schism is very real. The establishment of the Republican Party – comprised of lifelong politicians, Wall Street execs, the Chamber of Commerce and others – usually wins out. Their picks included George H. W. Bush in 88 and 92, Bob Dole in 96, George W. Bush in 00 and 04, and John McCain in 08. Each of them won their primary fights – even after tough challenges for Bush Sr. and John McCain. That may not be the case this year with an insurgent Tea Party. While Rick Santorum is very much a Washington insider – serving in both the House of Representatives and Senate until his defeat in 2006 – he is a nightmare candidate for the establishment due to his ardently conservative views on social issues that will alienate independent voters, but attract the very conservative voters that Mitt Romney needs in order to win the nomination.

Time is Running out for Mitt Romney

Posted on: December 13th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

Casual political observers are probably not aware, but the race for selecting a Republican nominee is in its final stages. While the Iowa caucuses are now only three weeks away, the candidates realistically have only about ten more days left to campaign. That’s because by December 24 – Christmas Eve – most Americans will tune out presidential politics and news in general to focus on family time. The holiday lull will likely continue into the New Year a week later.

The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia presents Mitt Romney, April 6, 2010

With polls showing that Newt Gingrich is now the prohibitive national favorite, as well as the leader in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and numerous other states with the notable exception of New Hampshire, these final ten days could very well decide who will be the Republican nominee. Mitt’s hands-off approach to Iowa could be his downfall. It worked when his ascendant rivals imploded within a few weeks of taking their leads: Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain.

There is no indication from last weekend’s debate that Gingrich’s momentum is slowing down. Unlike the others Gingrich is a gritty political veteran. If anything Romney took the most damage with his $10,000 bet challenge to Rick Perry – acting as if it were chump change (and it is for a man worth nearly $200 million) – following up with a testy exchange on Monday with a Vietnam War veteran over his opposition to gay marriage. Gingrich is in the driver’s seat and time is running out for Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul Indie Run Has Support of 1 in 5 Voters

Posted on: November 20th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

Ron Paul is unlikely to win the Republican nomination, but should he run as an independent in next fall’s election he would be the strongest independent candidate since Ross Perot in 1992. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll pegs the Texas Congressman’s support at 18 percent in a three-way race between himself, President Obama and Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. While President Obama easily routs Mitt Romney in a two-way race (49-43), support for both of them falls with Paul in the race. Obama would only win 44 percent of the vote to Romney’s 32 percent.

Perhaps an even likelier scenario for Paul would be to run as the nominee of the Libertarian Party as he did in 1988. This would give him a guaranteed spot on the ballot in a number of states, including critical swing states such as Indiana. Instead of focusing on collecting signatures for an independent run, Paul could get an automatic position on the ballot and instead focus on campaigning. Given the reality of the electoral college, Paul could conceivably win enough electoral votes to deny either Obama or Romney a majority. That would send the race to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Voters Reject GOP Bills in OH, ME and MS Personhood Amendment

Posted on: November 8th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

American voters soundly defeated a series of extremist measures that looked to take away collective bargaining rights for public employees (including police officers, firemen and teachers) in Ohio, same-day voter registration in Maine, and legally defining personhood as beginning at conception in Mississippi. The Ohio and Maine laws were passed after Republicans took control of all levels of state government in the 2010 elections. The Mississippi referendum was pushed by Christian groups, but opposed by even more moderate Republicans like Jon Huntsman. Voters in Arizona also recalled the sponsor of last year’s anti-immigration law.

The Ohio collective bargaining law went down to defeat with 61% of voters electing to repeal the law. It signals a clear opportunity for President Obama and Democrats to fight for the state in 2012 on a pro-worker, pro-middle class message. Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who at this point is a favorite for the nomination, signaled his support for the law last week. After initially hedging on the issue, Romney flip-flopped within a day to “110 percent” support. Clearly his enthusiasm is a stark contrast with the reality on the ground in Ohio.

The Mississippi amendment would have defined personhood as beginning at conception into the state constitution. The results would have been devastating for women in the state. It would have effectively banned the morning after pill and other forms of birth control and prohibited abortions in all cases. No exceptions were given for cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother was at risk. Simply put the law would have allowed women to die and forced rape victims to have their rapist’s baby. Even in ultra-conservative Mississippi this was seen as going too far. The measure was rejected by a surprisingly large margin with 55% voting against the amendment. The group that sponsored the bill is hoping to put it on ballots in other states next year, but if they can’t get it passed in Mississippi, I doubt it can pass anywhere.

In one final positive note for the night, voters in Arizona recalled the state senate’s president Russell Pearce – a first in the nation’s history. The far-right Pearce has called himself the “Tea Party President” of the Arizona Senate. He was the sponsor of last year’s SB 1070, which gave the state broad powers on immigration enforcement, including requiring police officers to ask the immigration status of people that they suspect are undocumented immigrants. It also imposed harsh fines on undocumented immigrants and up to six months of jail time. His challenger, Jerry Lewis, won by 8 points in the Republican district on a platform opposing SB 1070.

GOP House Schedules 108 Workdays in 2012

Posted on: October 27th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

The GOP Congress is doing what no other employer in America would ever allow:

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have unveiled a plan that would allow the GOP Congress to have one week off for every two weeks of work. While relatively common to have fewer workdays during an election year, the 2012 schedule would only have the House convene for a miniscule 108 days. That’s down from 127 days during the last election year in 2010 when Democrats controlled the House. Democrats in the House quickly decried the light schedule as rancorous debates have led to few legislative results in the current session.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a Thursday press conference that “the American people deserve better… it really makes you wonder about the schedule, but particularly at this time, when the American people are feeling so much pain.” Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer complained that “the House has struggled to get even its most basic work done.”

The schedule calls for only six work days in January, eight days in April and three days in August. After returning on September 10 from their August recess, the House will only be in session for 13 days before the elections in November 2012. To make sure that lawmakers do not have to wake up too early, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said that he will schedule votes no earlier than 1 p.m. and that they will end before 7 p.m.

Voters of all political stripes should be outraged by this lack of respect for the public. Can you think of any other place than Congress where you get 7 days off for every 14 days of work? Working class Americans wouldn’t know what to do with all of that free time even if they had it. They wish that they could have a single vacation in a year. Of course the Congressional vacation time is just in-between fundraisers and campaigning.

I would recommend passing a bill that would require both chambers of Congress to remain in full session for at least 3/4 of the year instead of the 1/3 that is planned. That gives them plenty of time to do their campaigning without devoting their entire schedule to it. Just like everyone else that doesn’t show up for work, members that miss the mandatory sessions would be docked pay. Of course it would never pass the GOP Congress because it makes too much sense.

Michigan GOP Candidate Wants to Eliminate Social Security, Medicare

Posted on: October 4th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

A Tea Party candidate that wants to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is running in the great state of Michigan to take on Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow in next year’s Senate race. Stabenow has served since January 2003, when she defeated one-termer Spencer Abraham. Pete Konetchy, a businessman that identifies with the Tea Party, is the candidate running for the Republican nomination in Michigan. Konetchy does not have the race to himself, however, as former Congressman Pete Hoekstra is expected to throw his hat into the ring.

In an interview with the South Bend Tribune, Konetchy stressed his belief that Social Security is unconstitutional. “Essentially, he said, the federal government has overstepped its bounds, particularly since 1930 when it began creating programs it had no right to create. The result, he said, has been a rise in the federal debt that since 1980 has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels,” the Tribune writes.

Of course it is untrue that Social Security is the reason that the United States has run deficits since the 1980s. The federal deficit tripled between the time that Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 and when he left office in 1989, mostly due to tax cuts and a build-up in military spending. Social Security is not funded through the ordinary budget mechanism that most spending programs are. The Social Security Trust Fund, which is a result of Social Security taxes that are taken out of one’s paycheck, is responsible for paying out Social Security benefits. In fact, Social Security often runs surpluses and with those surpluses has loaned money to the federal government (in the form of Treasury Bonds) to meet its spending priorities. Konetchy and others that blame Social Security for the country’s deficit are either ill informed or intentionally lying.

Should he have his way, he’d ratchet down spending to 2 or 3 percent of the gross domestic product, he said, thus shrinking the debt. He advocated also balanced federal budgets, arguing there might be more support for such measures than some think.

He wants to peg government spending to 2 or 3 percent of GDP? Considering that government spending is currently at around 20 percent of GDP, getting it down to 2 or 3 percent would mean that you would have to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and dismantle the U.S. military. I doubt many Americans would support such a radical vision where we completely abandon our social obligation to the poor, middle class, students and senior citizens. It would mean vast reductions in military membership and a turn-over of the country’s social welfare programs to the private sector. Bye bye Social Security!

“The government can’t create jobs. …. We drain so much out of the private sector, we’re ruining the economy,” he said. “Rather than taking money out of the private sector, I’d cut tax rates dramatically. And I’d do away with all repressive EPA and labor restrictions. I’d make us business friendly.”

Interestingly the government can and does create jobs. The Recovery Act (aka the “stimulus package” of 2009) created between 2.5 and 3.6 million jobs. Republicans might not like the fact that they voted against a successful bill, but a refusal to admit that government can play a role in job creation is not only naive, it hurts any prospect we have at passing bills that will further reduce the unemployment rate such as President Obama’s American Jobs Act.

One of the major reasons that the United States continues to see high unemployment is because of austerity measures passed by Republicans across the country and in Congress. 600,000 public sector employees have lost their job since the recession began. The United States is not the only country that has seen this. The United Kingdom, which voted in a Conservative majority last year, has also seen a spike in unemployment as a quarter million public sector workers were let go. Private sector companies have been slow to hire, resulting in a net job loss. The belief in conservative circles that government does not create jobs is ludicrous and fallacious at the same time.

Just as troubling is his willingness to eliminate entire agencies that are responsible for the health of average Americans. The EPA ensures that we all breathe clean air and drink clean water. Without the EPA, there is nothing from stopping the pollution of our waterways and skies. Or maybe Tea Party people liked the BP oil spill and want to see more of them? Likewise turning back the dial on labor laws is basically saying that workplace safety is not a top concern, nor are the rights of workers. We’ve seen this play out in states where the right to collectively bargain has been taken away, even though states with higher unionization have better paid workers. Something is seriously wrong with the tea that these people are sipping.

Run or Not, Chris Christie Won’t Be Republican Nominee

Posted on: October 3rd, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

The media darling of the minute is New Jersey governor Chris Christie. You can’t turn on a television news program without a “journalist” talk about whether or not Christie will get in the race, even with no new information. The man known for his grumpy demeanor is unlikely to win a lot of Republican votes if he decides to pull the gun and run. While I don’t think that Christie will run, I take the man at his word that he is neither prepared to be president nor has the “fire in the belly“, I can confidently say that he will not be the Republican nominee should he change his mind.

Rick Perry has shown what a late entry into a race can do to your reputation. While Perry quickly vaulted to the top of the polls, the result of a Republican base that is hungry for anyone with charisma to challenge Romney, it quickly became obvious that the over ten year record that Perry had as governor of Texas was a treasure trove of potential mud. While Christie has only been governor of New Jersey for fewer than two years, his positions will be quite problematic for him among the Republican base that is decidedly more conservative than it was in 2008.

While Christie isn’t a liberal by any stretch, many Republicans would be hard to identify him as anything short of it when they compare him to someone like Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. Case in point, Christie supports civil unions, called people that believe Sharia law is a threat to the U.S. “crazy”, believes that climate change is man-made, and holds a tolerant stance on immigration. In other words, he’s a moderate Northeastern Republican that has essentially gone the way of the Dodo. The only other Northeastern Republican in the race, Mitt Romney, is likely to be the main casualty of a Christie entrance. Just don’t expect Christie to win anything other than New York and New Jersey.

Pennsylvania Voters Oppose Partisan Effort to Change Electoral Vote

Posted on: September 29th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

Republican politicians in Pennsylvania have floated around the idea of changing state election law to give their party’s nominee an advantage in next year’s election. The Democratic-leaning state has not supported a Republican for president since George Bush’s father in 1988 against Michael Dukakis. Barack Obama easily defeated John McCain here in 2008 by a margin of over ten percentage points – slightly more than 600,000 votes.

So how do Republicans in the state plan on undermining President Obama in his bid for re-election?

The answer is actually pretty simple. They don’t have to raise millions of dollars, run TV ads or even get volunteers to canvass for votes. All they have to do is change a mundane election law within the state to move from a “winner-take-all” system, where the winner of the statewide race gets all Electoral Votes, to a system that is based on Congressional districts. In this system there would literally be 18 different elections for president taking place within Pennsylvania.

Let me explain. Each ten years the Census is held as required by the Constitution. Along with the Census comes Congressional redistricting where each state legislature is tasked with redrawing lines to make sure that each Congressional district has the same number of people. Since people move in and out of states, as well as around within the same state, this is a necessary reflection of the flow of people.

However, redistricting is often a partisan process. If a single party controls a state House, Senate and governor’s mansion, as the Republicans do in Pennsylvania currently, they can engineer a map that conforms to their political wishes. Essentially they are expected to produce a map where a state that voted 55% for Barack Obama in 2008 will only elect 6 Democrats to Congress next year and 12 Republicans. If Obama only carries those Democratic districts and not any Republican districts, he could win the statewide popular vote in Pennsylvania but decisively lose their Electoral Votes.

A new poll done by the independent Quinnipiac University finds that 52% of Pennsylvania voters oppose the effort to change the law to only 40% that support it. It’s no surprise that 57% of voters say that the changes being proposed are only being done to help the Republican presidential candidate. Among the all-important independent voters in the state, support for keeping winner-takes-all stands at 53%. Even Republican voters are hesitant to support these partisan efforts. 44% of Republicans say leave it alone, while 48% want the law to be changed.

“Pennsylvania voters say stick to the winner-take-all formula used in most states: Whoever gets the most popular votes, wins all of the state’s Electoral College votes,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Overall, most Pennsylvanians think the proposal is being presented to give partisan advantage to Republicans. By large margins, Democrats and independent voters are not buying that ‘will of the voters’ argument.”

Of course because these same lawmakers get to draw up their own maps for state House and Senate districts, not just Congressional maps, what voters think might not matter all that much. The voters don’t get to decide their politicians, the politicians get to decide their voters.

Republican Presidential Debate Liveblog

Posted on: September 7th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

9:50 p.m.: That’s it. The debate is over. Not much new came out of it. I watched it so that you didn’t have to. The one surprise that I had was the amount of unanimity among the candidates. The only real disagreements were over Romney’s healthcare plan (basically everyone on stage agreed that Romney’s plan sucks) and the use of the military. It’s interesting to see people like Michele Bachmann as vociferous opponents to a limited military role in Libya (a successful mission at that) when they were cheerleaders for the war in Iraq.

9:48 p.m.: Ron Paul gets asked whether he supports nutrition programs in schools, like those pioneered by former President Lyndon Johnson (and fellow Texan). He says that as long as it is done with local support, he’s fine with it. He goes on to say that the federal government has never fed people, that it’s “the market” that looks out for people. That would come as a surprise to people on Social Security, unemployment insurance, and food stamps. Where do you think their food is coming from?

9:43 p.m.: Brian Williams noted that Texas has executed over 200 death row inmates during Rick Perry’s tenure. The crowd cheers. So much for “pro-life”. Disgusting people. Death isn’t something to celebrate, especially state-sponsored murder.

9:38 p.m.: Michele Bachmann stands by her comment that the U.S. should drill for oil in the Florida Everglades.

9:36 p.m.: Rick Perry says that the verdict is out on climate change. “The fact of the matter is the science is not settled,” Perry said. This, of course, is blatantly false. The UN and other organizations comprising hundreds of scientists have stated that climate change is not only real, but caused by man. The only people casting doubt on the science are those with an economic interest to see nothing be done.

9:35 p.m.: Jon Huntsman makes the argument that Republicans can’t run away from science in the way that most Republican candidates on the stage have. “98 percent of climate scientists” agree on climate change and comments that “don’t reflect the reality of the situation” will “turn people off”.

9:30 p.m.: Perry says that he doesn’t support military adventurism, but is unwilling to criticize President Bush for getting America into an 8 year long war in Iraq and 10 year long war in Afghanistan.

9:26 p.m.: Jon Huntsman says that it’s time for America’s troops to come home from Afghanistan. Amen to that!

9:24 p.m.: Rick Perry joins every other Republican presidential candidate in saying that he would oppose a 10-to-1 spending cuts-to-tax increases debt ceiling deal.

9:23 p.m.: Mitt Romney won’t say whether he’s a member of the Tea Party.

9:20 p.m.: Jon Huntsman seems to have a Rudy Giuliani problem. Being a social moderate didn’t work for Rudy in 2008, it’s not going to work in 2012 with a Republican Party further to the right.

9:17 p.m.: Ron Paul falsely states that undocumented immigrants qualify for welfare. He sees a conspiracy behind the fence as being used to “keep us in”. At least he makes a good point that it is un-American to have a border with machine gun turrets facing our southern neighbor.

9:13 p.m.: Rick Santorum says that immigrants come to the United States to leach off of the government. I know they don’t have a lot of Latinos in Pennsylvania, but that’s a woefully uninformed statement.

9:12 p.m.: Newt Gingrich says that immigrants should come to the U.S. and learn American history. Apparently he doesn’t know much about immigration, because that’s already the law.

9:11 p.m.: Mitt Romney wants a border fence along the nearly 2,000 mile long border. Great way to create jobs, Mitt! Let’s build a new Berlin Wall. Shows how much of a welcoming country the U.S. will become under a Republican president. He also wants to end in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants.

9:04 p.m.: Williams points to billions in cuts to education in Texas, despite some of the lowest graduation rates in the country. “When you share the border with Mexico…. we have a unique situation in our state.” Interesting way to unload your failures onto Latinos.

8:59 p.m.: Newt Gingrich seems to think that he developed everything since the wheel.

8:50 p.m.: Mitt Romney says he would not call Social Security “by any measure, a failure”.

8:48 p.m.: Rick Perry repeated his line that Social Security is a “Ponzi Scheme”.

8:40 p.m.: Ron Paul does a no-no among Republicans: criticizing Ronald Reagan in his own presidential library. He says that his message was great, but that the country greatly increased its deficit during the Reagan years. Of course that’s true, but it’s not a popular line among conservatives who like to pretend that the Reagan years were the golden years for America.

8:37 p.m.: Ron Paul says that he supports eliminating the minimum wage – and that it would help the poor.

8:34 p.m.: Michele Bachmann says that she would like to see the government pull back its regulation on energy production. I assume that means she supports another Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

8:30 p.m.: Rick Santorum calls government assistance for poor people a “culture of dependency”. No mention of how to ensure that people have jobs or whether to provide unemployment insurance.

8:27 p.m.: Newt Gingrich is carrying Rick Perry’s water for him saying that the news media is attempting to get Republicans to attack each other. I understand why Romney would not like to address the fact that he supported the individual mandate and Rick Perry’s unwillingness to address 25% uninsured in Texas.

8:25 p.m.: The GOP healthcare plan is to repeal the Affordable Care Act without any solution to cover the 50 million Americans without health insurance.

8:23 p.m.: Massachusetts has nearly universal healthcare, while Texas ranks 50th with a quarter of its population uninsured. Perry doesn’t have an answer for Texas’ horrible healthcare system. He blames the federal government. Pathetic. Take some responsibility, Governor Perry.

8:21 p.m.: Mitt Romney says that he would grant a waiver to states from the same national law that was modeled after Romneycare. Nice try, Mitt.

8:15 p.m.: Ron Paul claims that government isn’t needed for air traffic control, drug safety, etc. Just let “the market” regulate itself!

8:10 p.m.: Herman Cain wants to tax corporations at a 9% rate, a flat tax rate of 9% on incomes (a giant tax cut for millionaires, essentially) and a 9% national sales tax (a huge tax increase on the poor and middle class). Herman Cain isn’t alone on flat tax. Jon Huntsman and other Republican candidates also support it.

8:09 p.m.: “Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt.” -Rick Perry to Mitt Romney

8:03 p.m.: Brian Williams didn’t pull any punches. He points out that Texas is a leader in minimum wage jobs and has some of the worst schools in the nation. He turned to Mitt Romney and noted that Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation during his term as governor.

8:00 p.m.: I love the positioning of these candidates in each debate. Romney and Michele Bachmann are always in the middle of the stage (Rick Perry joins them there tonight). Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum are left nearly falling off the stage.

7:56 p.m.: Speaking of Al Gore, just saw Ron Paul’s anti-Perry ad on MSNBC.

7:47 p.m.: While we wait for things to get started, be sure to check out the article I wrote about a potential weakness that Rick Perry might have – the fact that he supported Al Gore for president. Not exactly the best selling point for a far-right conservative to have.

7:40 p.m.: I’m going to be liveblogging the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in California. The debate begins at 8 p.m. on MSNBC and MSNBC.com. It will be the first debate featuring Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has quickly taken the lead in both national and state polls among GOP contenders.