Early Odds for 2012

As we’ve done in cycles past, here are the odds for the Republican nomination on the likely challengers for the Presidential ticket with 17 months to the January 2012 SC Primary. These do not reflect my desire for any particular candidate, I'm genuinely undecided on that at the moment.

TIER I: The Early Favorites (5-3 odds; 60%)

Republicans have a long history of picking last times second hat as this times winner (see Bush Sr., Dole, McCain). There are a few folks who could answer to that description this time around.

(5-1): Sarah Palin (former Gov-AK) has been building national networks and national ID (positives and negatives) and a group of primary winners since her stint as McCains VP nominee. She has as strong a pull with the NASCAR voter as anyone in the field. NAGGING QUESTION: Will voters forgive her resignation after a half term as Governor of Alaska, and can Levi Johnston please go away?

(5-1): Mitt Romney (former Gov-MA) looks the strongest of the holdovers from 2008, with a strong economic message coupled with Wall Street experience and deep pockets. The rise of Glenn Beck may help, in that it may tamp down the anti-Mormon thing. Then again, if you couldn’t beat John McCain, we may question why we should elect you now. NAGGING QUESTION: Is the author of RomneyCare the right standard bearer for a party running on the repeal of ObamaCare?

(5-1): Newt Gingrich (former Speaker-GA) has been sounding themes that could capitalize on Tea Party type momentum within the Republican rank and file. He is clearly the most intelligent (from an IQ standpoint) candidate in the field, and will be fearsome in debates. NAGGING QUESTION: What’s the expiration date on personal baggage, and will party voters look past those indiscretions as well as the failures of 1996?

TIER II: The Governors (3-1, 33%)

Presidents usually come from the Executive Branch, not the legislative. With an inexperienced Legislator-President in office, a governor burnishing solid credentials as a successful executive can make the case for challenge more readily.

(10-1): Tim Pawlenty (Gov-MN) has already started web ads on key conservative websites around the country to get the word out. NAGGING QUESTION: Does he have the charisma to get noticed in a large field and handle himself in debates with a master communicator like Barack Obama?

(10-1): Mitch Daniels (Gov-IN) is similar to Pawlenty – maybe too similar. A Governor with a solid background, low name ID, and charisma that no one would confuse with Reagan, barring a side to his personality that we simply haven’t seen yet. Still, if he can make a strong case with the experience he has, from a Midwestern state, he’s got as good a chance to catch lightning in a bottle as anyone. NAGGING QUESTION: Did his comments (which he has since backed down from in great haste) that the party needed to leave divisive social issues behind doom this Presbyterian’s chances with social conservatives?

(10-1): Haley Barbour (Gov-MS) might best be described as The One Guy in Government During Hurricane Katrina Who Knew What He Was Doing. He’s a consummate party insider as former RNC Chair, who might still be able to reach out as an outsider Southern Governor with a history of competence in office. NAGGING QUESTION: Will Northeastern (NH), Midwestern (IA), and Western (NV) states vote for a Governor from Mississippi?

(100-1): Mike Huckabee (former Gov-AR) still has major pull within the evangelical community. Unfortunately, his TV show has done little to ease the concerns of fiscal conservatives who seem to be so motivated right now. The success of the TV show, combined with what appears to be a reversal of his earlier weight loss probably precludes the run, which is why I list him here. NAGGING QUESTION: How does he distance himself from the video where he begs the Arkansas legislature for tax increases in a year where fiscal issues are king?

(100-1): Chris Christie (Gov-NJ) is having one heck of a great first year in office to be on this list already. He’s taken on union power in New Jersey, and won. That’s incredible. But it’s important for his supporters to remember that he’s only been in office for 8 months. Let’s give him time to ripen in office. NAGGING QUESTION: Is one year in executive office enough for Republican Presidential Primary voters?

(100-1) Bobby Jindal (Gov-LA) is the youngest person listed here. He’s got an extremely bright future on the national stage, has a brilliant mind and a captivating personality to match. But he’s probably too young, could use that one more term of executive experience and has the added inconvenience of having to run for reelection as Governor just 10 weeks before Iowa. As such, I think he waits four or eight more years. NAGGING QUESTION: Is the Republican Party ready to nominate a non-white for President? (Editor’s note: yes.)

TIER III: The Legislators (14-1, 7%)

The main problem for this group is that Republican Senators who run for President don’t often win, even if they get the nomination (think Dole, McCain). It’s worse for Congressmen: we haven’t elected a member of the lower House to the White House since the 1880s. That’s unlikely to change.

(33-1): Jim DeMint (Sen-SC) has been building national name ID as the leader of the Senate Conservatives. He’s clearly as ready as he’ll ever be, turning 60 just before the ’10 season begins. He’s been coy answering this question because the Tea Party movement absolutely adores him, and he’d be a natural for them. Still, his long term plans may have more to do with being the leader of the new Republican Majority rather than running for the White House in a ten candidate field. My gut is that he works that angle as well as the “king maker” angle, seeking to unify SC conservatives behind a single conservative candidate. NAGGING QUESTION: Would you rather be the leader of the Senate or a Senator running for President?

(100-1) Rick Santorum (former Sen-PA) has a lot going for him. He’s a strong conservative across the board. He’s a great communicator. He’s got “that look” and presents very well on TV. NAGGING QUESTION: Is that enough to overcome the loss of the Senate seat in 2006?

(100-1) John Thune (Sen-SD) is nationally known as “The guy who knocked off Tom Daschle,” for which we’ll all be forever grateful. Earlier this year, this was the hot pick; six months later, the energy seems to have faded. NAGGING QUESTION: Will the TARP vote haunt him as much as it did other members?

(100-1) Mike Pence (House-IN) has become known as the leader of the House conservatives for the better part of a decade. He’s a phenomenal public speaker who has made the first rounds already to solid reviews. He’s very personable on camera and in person. NAGGING QUESTION: In addition to the historic House problem, can he raise the money (probably $25M) to compete early and stay in to Super Tuesday?

(100-1) Ron Paul (House-TX) has built one of the most effective grassroots networks in the country, culminating in the “Campaign for Liberty” that has his fingerprints at the moment. In the process, he has also alienated millions of likely Republican voters with foreign policy stances and proclamations well outside the mainstream (see 9/11 quotes). In the final analysis, though, no matter how talented or well organized, time takes its toll, and Dr. Paul will be a venerable 75 when the campaign kicks off. No President has even been elected a first term older than 70. NAGGING QUESTION: If Dr. Paul decides on a third party run instead, does he doom the country to four more years of Obama?

TIER IV The Pretenders (OFF, 0%)

I keep hearing General David Petraeus mentioned as Presidential material. Yeah, he does look good in a uniform, and his recent comments about listening to Enya may qualify as soccer mom outreach, but I still don’t see him taking on the Presidency for a first foray into politics. Eisenhower was a special case as a 5-star commander of the European theater; Petraeus is not so universally loved as Ike was.

I also have heard whispered that we’ll see the return of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Puhleeease. The guy who made New York a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants and sued the federal government to stop the line item veto has ZERO chance in this electoral climate. Personally, I think he knows that, and he’s going to stick to issues like the 9/11 families and opposing the Ground Zero mosque.

Finally, the saddest case – our own Governor Mark Sanford. 16 months ago, I was at his Coosaw Encampment with 300 other conservative state leaders. One person (who I will allow to remain unnamed) was wearing a “Sanford 2012” hat. He coulda been a contender, maybe even the favorite, with the happy marriage, the four boys, and the proven record as a fiscal conservative Governor. Within a month came “Soul-gate” and all that exploded. Yet, I’ve heard in recent days that he may try to revive his political career and run for office again. I list him here because of some connections that I know the Governor has with national level conservative donors, but I don’t personally believe this is where he will end up running. More time needs to elapse before he tries that comeback.

The Alien President and the Ground Zero Mosque

The radical Muslims are doing their dead level best to make trouble again. This time it’s the so-called “Cordoba Initiative” – a mosque on the edge of Ground Zero in lower Manhattan named for the center of the European caliphate in the 8th Century. Cordoba was a cathedral converted into a mosque, meant as the symbol of Muslim conquest in Christian Europe. The modern “Cordoba Initiative” laughably passes itself off as an “interfaith exchange;” the original Cordoba’s “interfaith exchange” was the tax that Muslims collected from the local Christian population. It seems, then, that the mosque idea is purely an exhibition of Muslim strength against the weakness of the West to stand up to Sharia extremism.

Muslims know this. Writing in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, two moderate Muslims called the mosque a “deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel.” They were arguing against the idea of the Ground Zero/Cordoba mosque as an act of “bad faith.”

Into this maelstrom steps what Robert Weissberg of the American Thinker has termed the “alien rule” of Barack Obama. Normally, a President could be counted on to stand up for American concepts, things like the hallowed ground of Ground Zero. But, it seems, this President is incapable of considering the concepts of “sacred” or “hallowed” ground, and yesterday, against all logic, the President came out in strong support of the Cordoba Ground Zero mosque.

In the Muslim world, this will be seen as an invitation to attack our weakness, a symbol of Muslim conquest over the weak Americans, building a mosque on the site of Islamist triumph in the United States. Building this mosque would be a greater victory for the jihadists than the destruction of the World Trade Center, in that it allows the victory to be celebrated and built upon.

This morning’s Canada Free Press terms Barack Obama as “the First Un-American President.” After last night, I fail to see how any other term fits.

What should Immigration “Reform” look like?

In a recent post, I talked about what South Carolina could do (as a state and individual communities) to fight illegal immigration from non-federal levels (in the absence of any solid federal leadership on the issue through the last six administrations…)

But that begs the question: If there is to be immigration reform, which virtually everyone agrees needs to happen in some form or fashion, what should those “reforms” look like? I’ve tackled this issue in a post for SCHotline about 4 years ago, but that blog is gone now, so let’s revisit with four more years to ponder it.

PRE-REFORM STEPS:

• ENFORCE THE BORDER

I’m not saying put tanks and fighter planes on the border, or issue shoot on sight orders. I am saying build a double fence the length of the southern border with enforceable points of entry. Then staff it properly. Border enforcement is a valid use of taxpayer dollars, but one that has been badly neglected by every administration since Carter. I’d much rather spend resources protecting the country from an invasion than on stimulus packages for bureaucrats and special interests. This is an act of will that simply requires a government willing to enforce the law and a Congress willing to pay for it. This should be a no brainer, but it never gets done.

• REFORM THE BUREAUCRACY

We need to take a hard look at the bureaucracies that have failed to date. I’ve heard horror stories from plenty of legitimate immigrant applications that take far too long to get approved. We need to make it harder to get here illegally, yes, but we also need to make it easier to get here legally or understand why an application has been denied. This is the carrot in the carrot and stick approach. Mandate that applications have to be dealt with in a certain amount of time, and then lets have Congressional oversight to ensure that those metrics are met.

• ENFORCE CURRENT LAW MORE EFFECTIVELY

Why have deportations gone down since Eisenhower was President? Has every President since simply not cared enough about the issue? No one is saying you can deport 20 million illegal immigrants all at once. Start by enforcing the law. The current Arizona situation proves yet again that when the laws are enforced a large number of people will self-deport. That’s a good starting point for this process.

REFORM COMPONENTS

• END AUTOMATIC BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

I know this will come as a surprise to some (since I’ve been a pretty vociferous critic of our Senior Senator over the years) but Senator Graham is absolutely right on the need to tweak the definition of the automatic birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment. You can do very little to fix to current mess without handling the Anchor Baby/Birth Tourism issue. Bob McAlister has done a great piece on this issue; The Heritage Foundation says it can be done with clarifying legislation (as opposed to another Constitutional Amendment) – and George Will agrees. What needs to be clarified is that only the children of citizens or permanent legal residents gain automatic citizenship; anyone else needs to go through the naturalization process – complete with application.

• GUEST WORKER PROGRAM

Short an overhaul of welfare reform that would stop subsidizing laziness in the general populace, we’re going to still need someone to do the jobs that are currently being done by illegals (in South Carolina, this is predominantly peach picking, chicken plucking, and construction). What we need is to be able to have these be done by people who are here legally, who will pay their fair share of taxes while they’re here, and who will go back home when they’re done. Such a program would involve employers being able to bring in workers to do specific jobs for specific time periods before returning to their home countries. Reforming the bureaucracy is a must before you do this because otherwise, no one will get to work on time. Ending automatic birthright citizenship is a must before you do this, as you want the guest workers to bring their families for maximum societal stability and economic gain without creating permanent anchors.

• NO AMNESTY – NO NEW PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR THOSE HERE ILLEGALLY NOW

There are plenty of paths to citizenship now. We don’t need to create more, and more importantly, we don’t need to reward those who have come here illegally by letting them stay. If they want to work here, they’ll need to apply under the guest worker program. If they want to immigrate here, they’ll have to go back to their home country and apply from there like everyone else, going through the background checks and fulfilling the application process along the way.

As an aside, let’s define amnesty. Amnesty is defined as allowing the criminal to keep what they’ve stolen. In this case, the illegal alien has stolen a place in the country. “Amnesty” is anything that lets them keep it – even with “fines, back taxes” or whatever other artifices are attached to the process. Put me down for no amnesty; it’s a perversion of the rule of law, and it should be unacceptable to a modern society based on law.

• INDEFINITE MORATORIUM ON IMMIGRATION FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES

Let’s face it, the current system invites more attacks. Until we can be certain that the jihadist threat is behind us (and it certainly isn’t yet), it behooves us to protect ourselves. This means no more student visas (like the ones used by 9/11 attackers) or permanent resident visas for those who are coming from high risk countries, unless they can certify a status worthy of asylum. This isn’t racial profiling – it’s religious profiling; it’s important to remember that our rights as a nation to survive outweigh the religious rights of non-citizens who seek our demise but want to live here in the meantime. The Constitution, after all, wasn’t a suicide pact.

OTHER POTENTIAL FACTORS TO CONSIDER:

Other things that I suppose could be included in an acceptable form of a “comprehensive immigration reform” might include changing the current system to more of a points based system (more points for a college degree or needed work skill, for instance). We also need to emphasize English only in our immigration system – if you want to live here, you agree to become part of our culture and that means communicating in our shared language. English proficiency (using forms printed only in English, giving tests using only English) should be mandatory for immigrating to the US and for citizenship.


Agree? Disagree? Want to discuss? Comments are open below…

On Censure Resolutions

I know a thing or two about censure resolutions. For those of you who missed it in June, I was the author of the resolution by the Lexington County GOP censuring Senator Jake Knotts for the “@*#&$%! raghead” remark (though, in truth, I’m just as angry about the “@*#&$%! pro-lifers” remark Knotts made at another Senator just off the Senate floor earlier this year…).

Last night, the Greenville GOP voted 61-2 to censure Senator Lindsey Graham over a litany of ills concluding with being not enough of a Republican. You’ve heard them before, and if you’re like me, you agree that Senator Graham was wrong on most, if not all counts: Judges Haynes (no), Sotomayor and Kagan (yes), amnesty for illegals, closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, supporting TARP, cap and trade, comments about Glenn Beck, comments about earmarks, etc.

The question is do these resolutions work, and do they matter?

Clearly I think there’s a place for them, or I wouldn’t have written the Knotts censure. Were I a member of the Greenville GOP, I would likely have voted yes last night.

But it strikes me that these resolutions eventually become whistling into a tornado.

Senator Knotts reaction was one of complete contempt. If the resolution was intended to force him out of office (it wasn’t), it failed miserably. If anything, Senator Knotts is more dug in than ever. Likewise, the reaction out of the Graham camp will likely mirror his performance at the Greenville GOP convention last spring – I won, I’m your Senator for four more years, get over it.

All that said, local County Parties have a right to express their displeasure with their elected officials, especially when those officials depart from the values they expressed when getting themselves elected. Senator Graham spoke to the Lexington GOP Convention in 2007 and talked about making sure President Bush got his pro-life judges. By the end of that summer he had put the knife to the Haynes nomination over the Guantanamo issue. For those of us who are conservatives who care about judges, that knife was lodged in our backs, too. Good on Greenville for holding his feet to the fire.

There’s one more thing that makes Greenville’s censure interesting, different, and bold. The Greenville GOP added one last clause that puts some teeth into the resolution that others may wind up copying. They barred the Senator from addressing Greenville County GOP meetings in the future. That’s about as strong as a County Party can affect within the boundaries of the law. We can’t throw people out of the Party (the law defining Party membership is too vague), but we can bar folks from meetings.

What the censures will eventually turn into (it seems to me) is fodder for primary campaigns against Knotts and Graham, assuming both men decide to run for reelection as Republicans. Graham has two more years to develop his response (and for the hoopla to die down) than Knotts does, but that’s also two more years for opposition to develop a gameplan. Either way, both men can probably expect mailpieces/TV ads blaring “Rebuked by the GOP” or something similar.

Whether those efforts succeed may rise and fall on whether or not we can finally change to a voter registration by party/closed primary system that protects the First Amendment Freedom of Association rights of party members. In a closed primary, Knotts or Graham would almost surely fail. In a system that allows Democratics to vote in Republican primaries, Knotts and Graham at least have a chance to survive politically. Time will tell.