GOP Voters Want Leadership

Hand-tinted photo of the White House north face, circa 1900 – courtesy of whitehousemuseum.org

The Republican Party, while not solidified behind any candidate(s) yet, appears to favor someone who has served as governor rather than as a senator.  According to the recent Quinnipiac University poll, 59 percent of those who identify themselves as Republicans prefer someone with a governor’s background while 23 percent favor senatorial experience.

While Quinnipiac’s poll surveyed Republicans’ feeling towards former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), Governor Scott Walker (R-WI), Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) with Rubio and Ryan leading the pack with 19 and 17 percent respectively.  However, when names were removed and the generic question of “if you had to choose, would you prefer that the Republican party nominate for President a candidate with experience as a governor or experience as a United States Senator” was posed to respondents, the numbers showed that 59 percent favored a governor while 23 favored a senator and 18 percent were undecided.

These numbers show that the while the GOP has not coalesced behind a candidate yet, many voters are already thing of the qualities they would like for their next nominee to have.  One characteristic that seems to standout in the difference between a governor and a senator is leadership.  While a senator may show leadership on an issue or two, he/she is often lost in the mix of their 99 counterparts and 435 members of the House of Representatives.  A governor needs to be a leader on ALL issues within a state while also serving as a national voice on issues (I think back to former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels calling our National Debt being “New Red Menace” two years ago).  It also can be evidence that Republicans would prefer someone viewed as a “Washington Outsider” rather than someone who is part of the establishment there.

During President Obama’s first term, he was often called out for his “lack of leadership”.  Part of this was attributed to his absence of familiarity with having the proverbial “buck” stop with him.  GOP voters clearly don’t want a repeat of this scenario with 60 percent of men and 57 percent of women wanting a candidate who has shown leadership within the executive branch.  Governors need to be leaders, the successful ones know when to search for bi-partisan answers to issues and when to push for progress on legislation.

It will be interesting to see which way the numbers go in the next year as candidates start to establish their viability for 2016.  If the percentage of voters who prefer executive experience hold firm, it means bad news for people such as Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Paul Ryan.  With Gov. Christie, Gov. Walker, Gov. Jindal, and fmr Gov. Bush each polling under 15 percent, one has to think a new name could emerge for those seeking a candidate for President who has had “Governor” on their resume.

Student Loan Debate

When student loan interest rates were temporarily reduced from 6.8%to 3.4% a few years ago, it was to relieve those who had subsidized Stafford loans during tough economic times. The problem with giving temporary relief to group of individuals who are relatively new to creating personal budgets (recent college graduates) is that they rarely ever prepare for when the temporary relief ends. However, the idea of offering temporary relief in this case was that the economy was bad, so we’d make it easier on those with students loans to handle their debt Then when the economy rebounds and things look better for them, we can return interest rates to pre-relief levels.

So now we’re hearing about the current debt on this issue. The pre-determined deadline for the rate reduction has come. So now it is time to say “The economy still sucks and we need to continue the economic relief this reduction provided.” Or we say “The economy is better, recent grads can handle the pre-relief rates, and we can let the rate reduction expire.” That is it, those are the two options. There is no 3rd option of “The economy is on the rebound, but we should continue giving economic relief to this group of people because, well because it is a nice thing to do.”

In life we have to make tough decisions. But it looks like in Government we don’t have to do that. I guess that explains over $15 trillion in debt and trillion-dollar yearly operating deficits. See the only reason this is being debate is so we can paint one side as good and the other side as bad. That shouldn’t be the issue, it should be this is the right thing to do or it isn’t.

If the President wants to extend the temporary cuts in loan interest rates, then say that the economy is not in good shape, especially for recent grads, and increasing the rates will further hurt the economy. You can’t preach about recovery and a better economy one day, and the next talk about the need to extend economic relief. Don’t shit in one hand and then try to sell me fertilizer with the other Mr. President.

And as far as Republicans go. They should be for extending the relief and cuts because the economy is still in the shitter. They should be up there saying, “Yes, we need to provide this economic relief because the President’s economic policies have failed this country and this generation of recent and future college graduates. They need help, and this President is doing nothing to brighten their economic future. We will pass this extension of temporary assistance AND X,Y, and Z (Whatever economic recovery plans GOP leadership wants to insert in their would be fine), to help recent and future college graduates.”

Everyone is bullshitting too much with this. Plain and simple, the economy sucks, college grads need help, and Obama is just a panderer. The message is short and sweet: “Obama’s economy sucks, so we need to extend loan interest cuts.”

And the winner is….

Republicans everywhere and probably a majority of Americans that will vote in the November Presidential elections. That is right folks, thanks to the State of Florida we should all be able to call Mitt Romney the GOP nominee for 2012. I know that makes some people mad, but guess what you are in the minority.  This post will consist of 2 rants, the first about how the minority of our party bitches about democracy, and the second about how it makes perfect sense that the GOP nominate Mitt.

GOP Town Hall Meetings – An Opportunity Wasted…

During this August “Recess” we are frequently hearing about Republican Legislators holding “closed” Town Hall Meetings.  In order to avoid the yelling and screaming that have become so commonplace on YouTube, they are instead letting political organizations charge nominal fees (say $10) for people to participate.  The thought with this process is that it will keep out the protesters and ensure that those who are in the room are actually interested in discussion.  While Democrats cry foul over this, they also encourage the yelling and shouting that is so disruptive and makes many Town Hall a waste of time for everyone else involved.

Perhaps the idea of giving to conservative organizations is being used as a deterrent for liberal protesters.  If it is not, and is just political favoritism, I think the GOP is wasting a golden opportunity.  It would be nice to see theses Congresspeople use their town halls as charitable activities rather than as a way to siphon money to friendly organizations that frankly don’t need the money.  It would be nice to see that $500 to $1000 go to a local soup kitchen, homeless shelter, or a local Habitat for Humanity build.

I feel that too often the Republican and Democrats in who represent us in our states and in Washington tend to forget that they are their to serve the people of their community, not their parties or those who will vote for them in primaries.  So, while I understand the tactics they use to keep the town halls orderly, I think that better options exist.

A Congressional Majority Should be the Real Concern in 2012 for the GOP

While all of the focus in Republican politics has been on the race for the White House, it seems the subject of real importance has been pushed to the side. The United States Senate currently has a 51-47 Democratic majority (with 2 Independents who caucus with the D’s) and is essentially negating the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. In 2010 the GOP had a golden opportunity to close that gap to 49-49-2 but the elections in Nevada and Delaware torpedoed that hope. In 2012 the Republicans must take that next step and win back the Senate.

I do not want this to serve as post diminishing the importance of the Presidential race, rather I think the focus on the Senate races needs to be elevated. We have seen numerous instances this year of legislation being passed in the House (even with some Democratic support) and having it fail in the Senate, many times right along party lines. When something like this occurs, it really don’t matter who the President is if the legislation never even reaches their desk for a signature.

We need to remember that the mid to late 90′s were a time of awesome growth in our economy. While Democrats will claim this was due to Bill Clinton’s leadership, they conveniently forget that the two chambers of the United States Congress were controlled by Republicans. A Presidential Race is many things (a political beauty pageant minus the swimwear competition), the overall composition of Congress is really a reflection of the People’s Will. In 2006 the American public was upset with the Republican Party’s leadership and voted in a Democratic Majority to the House of Representatives and Senate. This majority played hardball with President Bush and meant that the next 2 years very little in the way of meaningful legislation would come out of Washington (in contrast to the Mid-90s GOP who, despite bringing up impeachment proceedings with President Clinton were actually able to work with him on policy). In 201o American once again showed it was tired of the status quo from Congress and the GOP won back several seats in the Senate while enjoying a landslide victory to take back the House.

The Republican National Committee, as well as the political arms of the GOP in each chamber (the NRCC and NRSC) along with each state party, must ensure that they recruit the best candidates possible for their districts/states. Those within the party need to make sure that they elect the best person for the job in each primary race that may occur. Sometimes (I am looking at you Nevada and Delaware) it is better to vote for the person who can win who you line up with on most issues rather than the person who will get trounced but who is your ideological twin (in some instances your ideological twin IS the person who can win).  It doesn’t do any good for you or the Party if “your” candidate loses in the general because now you line up 0% of the time with your representative in Washington DC rather than lining up 50%-60% of the time.  Elect-ability should be a factor in every Republican Primary – regardless of the office the candidates are seeking.

So, while the 2012 GOP President race continues to be an unquantifiable entity, we need to keep making strides to put quality candidates up for US Senate and US House. I am proud to say that the Republicans in Michigan (and the NRSC) have stepped up by urging Pete Hoekstra to run against Senator Debbie Stabenow. I, and our Nation, can only hope that other states follow suit and the GOP returns to the majority in the Senate while holding onto the House in 2012.

GOP WH2012 – Michele Bachmann

To continue our series on Republican White House hopefuls I decided it only made sense to focus on Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota who announced her candidacy yesterday in Waterloo, IA.  While she announced that she was running for President in the debate earlier this month, I guess this was her “official” announcement…or something.  This is something that is becoming commonplace in the WH2012 race though, so I am not fault her at all for making as big a splash – especially when it  takes place in the city of her birth (Waterloo) which just happens to be in home to our nation’s first test for White House viability.

Rep. Bachmann is the darling of the Tea Party wing of the GOP thanks to her outspoken views on taxes and government spending.  Since the economic collapse of 2008 and the rise of the Tea Party shortly following that, there has been a renewed focus on government spending, especially within the Republican Party who hope to keep the Tea Party in the fold rather than losing those voters to a 3rd party.  While Bachmann is the founder and head of the Tea Party Caucus within the US House, she is not the only candidate who is Tea Party friendly.  She really is a stark contrast to the candidate we first profiled, Jon Huntsman as he is rather soft-spoken and unassuming while she is one who often seeks the spotlight and is very outspoken about her views.  She is often compared to former AK Gov and 2008 GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin.  While the parallels are obvious to see in that both are outspoken and strong-willed women, they differ in style and substance.

I may draw some flack for this, but I actually see some similarities between Rep. Bachmann’s run for President and that of President Obama in 2008.  Both worked their way up from their respective State Houses to national office and announced their Presidential intentions while not having leadership positions in Congress.  Both capture the attention of their base while also serving as anti-establishment (remember, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was the “establishment” candidate for the Democratic Party leading up to the 2008 primaries).  While I am not sure there is an “establishment” candidate within the GOP at this point, it is very safe to say that Rep. Bachmann will not hold that mantel unless she is the ONLY candidate.

While I am not personally a fan of Michele Bachmann (as you can see if you follow me on Twitter or have read this on the blog) I can certainly understand the appeal she has for those within the Tea Party and Social Conservatives.  She is a powerful fundraiser for not only herself but for the candidates and colleagues she support (much like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, another Tea Party favorite).  However, even with all of those positives, I don’t see her winning the GOP nomination in the end.  She currently enjoys high favorable ratings among Republicans because, in part, she has only been attacked by Democrats.  Once the primary battles truly begin and comparisons and contrasts are drawn, the fact that she has never been “the one, only one of”, along with her outspoken ways, will keep some voters from supporting her.  In a weird way, I think the Presidency of Barack Obama, something she is trying to end, will keep her from accomplishing that.  I do see her as a logical Vice Presidential choice (depending on the campaign rhetoric) as she has a national profile right now that would aid a more centrist candidate in retaining those who count themselves as members of the Tea Party.  On the other hand, if she does not get the Republican nod, I could also see her being encouraged to split off from the Republican Party and helping to establish the Tea Party as a true 3rd party and running as their nominee.  This race will be interesting to follow as I think there are more questions attached to Michele Bachmann than to any other person currently seeking the Republican nomination

GOP WH2012 – Jon Huntsman

We are going to start doing some intro profiles on the 2012 Candidates and I thought it appropriate to start with Jon Huntsman as he just “announced” this week.  These are just some initial thoughts, no doubt we will delve deeper into some candidates and/or their stances on certain issues as the race evolves.

Jon Huntsman has a very interesting resume when you compare it to the other GOP candidates in the 2012 field.  He is one of a handful of former Governors in the race – something that is becoming a rarity as we continually (and unfortunately) look to those already in DC to lead our nation.  I feel strongly that in order to be an effective President you need to have held a leadership position before – Governor, CEO, or Vice President.  You cannot have been “1 of 100″ and even more so cannot be “1 of 435″ (the exception to this rule is Speaker of the House – a leader of 435 certainly qualifies as a true leadership position).  Utah is a pretty conservative state and Jon Huntsman was not only elected there, but re-elected to the position while enjoying high approval ratings among his constituents.  He did not finish out his second term in Utah, in fact, he only barely started it before becoming Ambassador to China.  This is both a feather in his cap and a damning move at the same time.  On one hand he has immense foreign policy experience – he has a relationship with basically the only other country on earth that has similar pull to the United States in China.  However, he left his position of Governor at the request of the man he is now running to replace.

While Huntsman can hang his hat on fiscal conservatism, his social record is one that will not play well in states like IA and SC as he is being dubbed the “Moderate” option by most media circles.  I would not completely discount this strategy as MI Gov Rick Snyder moved to the center in a Right dominated primary battle in Michigan and came out on top.  If the primary system in our country was different, I would say the strategy had legs, but with the way it is now I am hesitant to endorse such a move.  Huntsman has gained a student following though with the previously dubbed “Students for Mitch” moving over to his side after Gov. Daniels decided not to run.  If Ambassador Huntsman can capitalize on a youth movement he will set himself apart from other POTUS candidates even more.

Some articles I have read state that Jon Huntsman jumped too early his best time would have been in 2016 with a wide open field and less baggage of being associated with President Obama.  Right now, I am tempted to agree and maybe this is a way to do just that.  I can’t get over the feeling that with his contrast and lack of focus on IA and SC he might actually be running for VP, not President.  As a VP option, he certainly carries significant weight given all that was stated above.  It will be interesting to see how his campaign evolves.

 

The Push for a Presidential “Popular” Vote

For as long as I can remember, there have been complainants about the Electoral College – America’s system for officially selecting its President.  Without going into too much detail about the Electoral College (click on the two links) each states gets a certain number of votes equaling their representation in Congress – 2 for the Senators and 1 for each Representative (so each state is guaranteed at least 3 electoral votes).  This system was settled upon by our founding fathers as a compromise between those who wanted a popular vote (large states like Virginia  New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) and those who wanted equal say regardless of size (smaller states like New Hampshire, Georgia, Delaware and Rhode Island).  Essentially, it was an extended outcome from the decision to have a bicameral legislature – which had the exact same arguments.  Since the 2000 election when Al Gore won the “popular vote” but George W. Bush won the Electoral College, the cries for the popular vote determining the Presidential Election outcome have seemingly increased.

In the past few months, this movement has gained momentum once again.  While it takes a constitutional amendment to formally change the election process, some states are trying to circumvent the process by passing bills in their legislature which dedicate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how the citizens of their state voted (example – President Obama could take 65% of the vote in Oregon, but if Oregon passed a bill like this and the GOP candidate had won the National vote, then Oregon’s electoral votes would go to the GOP candidate, not the person who the state’s voters actually voted in favor of).  That actually seems somewhat backwards – an ANTI-popular vote measure created out of the popular vote group-think mentality…”it doesn’t matter what you think, people of our state, everyone else has spoken and our votes have to go to this person, regardless of how you cast your ballots”.  Members of both parties are embracing this renewed movement although neither party has officially sanctioned it.  Saul Anuzis, a prominent Republican from Michigan and one-time candidate for RNC chair, is a proponent of this plan and details it in the Washington Times.

Unfortunately, in their quest give people a greater voice in our election process, they could end up doing the exact opposite.  By ceding all of a state’s votes to the winner of the overall popular vote you give more strength to the political parties and their turnout models.  Candidates will continue to ignore the “fly over states” in search of larger media markets they can populate with TV  radio and print ads.  While every vote is technically “in play” with this method, the overall scheme doesn’t change because under our current method, every vote is “in play”.  Yes, you can point to some weirdness that has transpired the past couple of elections with the popular vote totals and not adding up with the electoral votes.  However, the method being discussed further minimizes the less populous state in favor of the top-tier like California, Texas, and New York.  using past election result disparities to advocate for a complete overhaul is faulty logic.  Candidates campaign for electoral votes currently and the popular vote is merely byproduct, not the true intended result.

If we really that the Electoral College is antiquated, then I suggest updating it rather than killing it off in favor of something that is ultimately untested in our National History.  I had thought of and idea which would give more power to our smaller states, essentially redistributing the Senate allotted electors from our top 25% to our bottom 25% thus balancing out the population inequities between some states in my belief that while our President should represent all American’s it is more important to fairly represent all of America instead.  After thinking this over though, it simply is not feasible – the outcry from our larger states would be too great and in the end it is essentially a partisan ideal as states like Wyoming and Alaska tend to be more GOP friendly than California and New York.  When talking with my wife about this the other evening, she brought up another idea I had toyed with awhile ago and which is based on a plan that has worked very well throughout our history – the Congressional District process.

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, have each electoral vote tied directly to the outcome of the Presidential Race results within each Congressional District and have the winner of the popular vote within the state take the two votes tied to the Senate.  So, if the GOP candidate won the Nebraska 1st by 10K votes and the 2nd by 2K while losing to the Democrat in the 3rd by 13K votes, the GOP would get 2 electoral votes while the D got 3 electoral votes.  While the Republican won a majority of the districts, the popular vote swayed the outcome to give a majority of the electoral votes to the Democrat who won 1 district.  If the Republican had either closed the gap in the 3rd a bit or widened it in the 1st or 2nd, they would have received all 5 votes.  Where a concept like this gets really interesting is when you get to larger states where it would be mathematically possible for a candidate to win the popular vote in the state but have a minority of their electoral votes.  Of course, that leads us into a discussion about Congressional District mapping and how it could/would/should be overhauled (we will cover this another time, don’t worry).

The example of Nebraska shows us that this type of system allows for a more competitive field by doing away the winner take all system and showing the truer reflection of the will of the people.  States that would be overlooked in the past because the majority of the state is Republican or Democrat now is in play as Congressional districts are a draw.  In my opinion, if we are going to overhaul the Electoral College, a system like this makes a lot more sense than a straight popular vote where urban areas and large media markets would continue to enjoy the overwhelming presence that already do in today’s Presidential General Election Seasons.

The eventual rebirth of Detroit

Every so often the media likes to remind us that Detroit is a shell of the city is used to be.  If there is a story about crime, Detroit is probably used as a comparison.  If there was a pictorial magazine about urban blight, Detroit would be the centerfold month after month.  The Detroit Free Press ran an article about how the GOP has been quick to bash Detroit recently (note: lets ignore that the article counters the GOP assertions with one source, a professor who perfectly captures Detroit – died in the wool Democrat who no longer lives in Michigan).  My response to this is…yeah, and?  Detroit is a city synonymous with labor unions, Democratic office holders and a generation of economic failure.  Of course the Republican Party and its candidates are going to bash Detroit, they would be silly not to.  However, just because it is the obvious thing to do does not mean it is the right or correct.

While we can blame Detroit’s problems on the traditional GOP adversaries, we could look to Chicago to see a similar time of Democratic Party control with a strong union presence, and yet that city that continues to thrive.  One main reason has little to do with politics, Detroit was/is essentially built upon one industry - autos - while Chicago is a hub of international commerce and the transportation center of America.  Therefore, Chicago was in a much better position during the economic downturns that America has encountered the past 50 years than Detroit.  The reliance upon the auto industry, and the subsequent mismanagement of the Big Three Automakers (GM, Ford and Chrysler – if you somehow didn’t know) coupled with recessions are what ultimately caused the downfall of Detroit.  Where we can blame the elected leadership of Detroit is their failure to…well, lead.

Throughout the past 50 years Detroit has continued to spiral downward and its leaders have let that happen.  They have failed to re-invent the city by attracting new business and industry or significantly develop areas in despair.  However, that may all be changing in Detroit.  The current Mayor, Dave Bing, is showing the leadership Detroit has lacked by telling his citizens the honest truth – if Detroit continues any further down its current path, it will cease to exist.  Detroit is going to take steps towards a massive makeover, one that will be analyzed in urban planning classes around the world regardless of its success or failures because of the sheer magnitude of the undertaking.

So, while we are right to point fingers as the citizens and leaders of Detroit for what the city has become, we must also look to them for hope as to what the city will hopefully be.  While Republicans look upon the city with scorn they should at the same time offer rays of hope with plans of economic renewal and civic engagement.  Detroit will eventually become a city of prominence once again.  I am not sure it will ever be the city it was in the first half of the 20th century, but it doesn’t need to be.  Detroit doesn’t need to be Chicago or New York, it just needs to be a city that has a positive economic impact on its state and a place that families of all backgrounds want to call home.  The rebirth of Detroit is going to be a long and arduous process; that process can be speed up with Republicans and Democrats working together for the common good to rebuild what once was a shining beacon of American Spirit and Ingenuity, rather than finger-pointing and politicking.  Some things are more important than political ideals and personal profit, one of those things is city of Detroit.

quick update

I apologize to our 5 readers. Work has been very busy and I really don’t want to post on social issues (which seem to be ruling the day once again).

Items I am thinking about tackling soon – Social Security, The Debt, Taxes, and the perceived gameplan of the GOP.  Stay tuned!

-Sam the Eagle