Category: 2012 Election

It looks like Rick Santorum is gearing up to be the Huckabee of 2012. I’m sincerely hoping it ends in the same manner. What a disappointing primary. I thought it couldn’t get worse after 2008, and it turns out I was wrong. When Ron Paul starts looking like a reasonable choice, things have seriously gone off the rails. Santorum is just not acceptable to me at all. I’ll show up in the primary just to vote for Romney if that’s the only choice I have left by the time Pennsylvania’s primary rolls around.

One of the factors in determining the outcome of the 2012 presidential election will likely be how excited 2008 Obama voters are to get out and vote again. Think the Occupy movement knocking on doors and registering voters. Yeah, that will be fun.

But, with all that hate toward Republicans, how are those former Obama voters feeling about their guy this election? This might be one clue:

The uncontested primary of an unchallenged incumbent doesn’t mean much, but it can perhaps be taken as some kind of measure of intensity, partisan loyalty, or simple willingness to show up to and be counted.

And by those measures, George W. Bush handily defeated Barack Obama in New Hampshire last night.

The story compares the uncontested primary for Bush to the uncontested primary for Obama. But, there are also many data points lacking in the article. For example, how did each compare to the percentage of registered party voters? Regardless, we’ll have lots of points to compare once the primary really gets going.

Have any readers been visited by campaigns yet?

I am starting to think that the message Ron Paul wants to send is that leadership under a Libertarian is best described as, “I didn’t personally do it, so you can’t blame me!”

First, we have the newsletter debacle. He made money off of them, and he signed his name to the mailers, and he knows who was writing them, but refuses to name them. But since he says that he didn’t actually pen the words, he has no responsibility to be held accountable for things printed under his name and in his business.

Now, we have the Twitter crap. What Twitter crap? Well, Ron Paul now says he can’t be held accountable for things published on his verified campaign Twitter account.

When pressed about the fact that the message was sent under his official Twitter handle, Paul said, “I have some help on tweeting,” and continued to dismiss the whole episode as “irrelevant.”

When a former colleague posted this on Facebook, a jokester decided to give us some insight into Ron Paul’s leadership style in the White House: “‎I have some help with the missiles. Someone else launched that one. I wasn’t involved.”

If people are serious about a libertarian message, these missteps should be alarm bells blaring very loudly. I do realize that you can’t blame a candidate for every bad decision an underling makes, but the candidate still needs to step up and accept responsibility for the problem. A real leader would also explain whether they have actually addressed the problem. Personal responsibility doesn’t mean an end to leadership, especially when you’re running for the White House.

With the Iowa Caucuses well underway, I feel it’s time to weigh in a bit on the 2012 GOP primary race. I am mostly despondent, a state of which I am quite familiar with when it comes to GOP politics. But, but, RON PAUL!!! How could I possibly be despondent?

Sorry, never liked the guy. I don’t think he’s a good libertarian standard bearer. I share Ilya Somin’s view that Gary Johnson would have been a better candidate, from an ideological perspective. I share Professor Somin’s disdain for the now infamous Ron Paul Newsletters. Probably the best account that covers the topic of Ron Paul’s craptacular candidacy can be found over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

Clayton Cramer notes:

There is not even a pragmatic argument for refusing to condemn white supremacists–we are not talking about a significant fraction of American voters, even in the Deep South. For every white supremacist that might sit out the election if Ron Paul condemned their views, there would likely be a dozen voters who are charmed by Ron Paul’s blunt speaking and in love with his foreign policy approach who would be more inclined to vote for him. My guess is that Ron Paul is not as hostile to those offensive ideas as he pretends.

That disturbs me as well. Roger Simon thinks Paul’s actions border on blatant racism. I’m not sure I’m willing to go that far, but I’ve never gotten excited about Paul. Like many politicos, he strikes me as any other panderer, and he’s certainly not been above bringing in the pork for his district to stay elected. That certainly isn’t a mortal sin, in my view, being a politician, but a lot of folks seem to be convinced that he isn’t your ordinary politician. I am less convinced.

Paul needs to answer for the material in the newsletters. If it were me, I’d disown them all. I wouldn’t want that kind of support. But Paul has not done that. That tells me he’s not really any different than other politicians, and you don’t get to claim you’re my savior when that’s the case. So count me out as a fan of Ron Paul. I’m not going to endorse Mitt, by any means, at this stage in the game, but I’m not liking my alternatives.

Jim Geraghty is on a roll this morning looking at the truth behind the Iowa caucus numbers and why they should be no more relevant than any other small state. I can understand the sentiment because I know many gun owners never felt like they had a say in the GOP nominating process in 2008 once some contenders dropped out after fairly early primary runs. With the ups and downs of various candidates in the last few weeks, it’s a shame Tim Pawlenty called it quits after a freakin’ straw poll.

Putting aside the quirkiness of Iowa, caucuses are an awful method for picking candidates for a variety of reasons — suddenly the secret ballot doesn’t matter anymore? — and high among them is low participation. The turnout at the 2008 Iowa GOP caucus: 119,000. Turnout at the 2000 caucus: 87,000. Turnout in 1996: About 96,000. Turnout in 1988: About 109,000.

Turnout has never surpassed 23 percent of all eligible Republicans, and even that low threshold was last met back in 1988. The GOP frontrunner is determined by a group roughly the size of the crowd at a University of Michigan football game. If the Iowa caucus turnout matches its 2008 level (though it could be higher), it will equal 16 percent of the average population of one congressional district.

At least in primaries, many more Republicans (and in open primaries, independents) get to weigh in. In 2008, 234,000 Republicans and independents voted in New Hampshire, and 445,000 Republicans and independents voted in South Carolina.

In his morning newsletter, he also notes that a certain segment of the few caucus-goers will make up their mind based on these last minute polls released showing candidates they like not doing so well or candidates they hate doing too well. This is particularly relevant as some may be responding to the perceived swell of Ron Paul support and flocking to Romney out of fear of a Paul win. That’s the same kind of motivation that drove some states to vote for Huckabee in 2008 – he was the only alternative to McCain at a certain point in the game. It didn’t mean those states actually like Huckabee, they just didn’t want to vote for McCain.

UPDATE: Someone questioned what an ideal map would look like for Geraghty, and he responds with a plan that sounds quite feasible. My only issue is that he left Oklahoma off the calendar.

Newt Gingrich is not a fan of judicial review, and thus takes up one of most insidious conservative crusades I just find utterly lamentable. If anything, I believe the courts don’t do enough to reign in the other two elected branches of government. Keep in mind the courts have no power to make law, only to interpret it, which includes the Supreme Law, known as The Constitution. Unfortunately, over the course of the post-New Deal period, the Court has done much to undermine its own legitimacy. Professor Glenn Reynolds notes:

On the other hand, who can seriously argue that the constitutional law that comes from the Supreme Court is in fact very closely related to the text of the Constitution itself? I mean, if the Court were doing such a great job, would we see strange bedfellows arguing for a constitutional reset? Indeed, I was talking to a fellow lawprof the other day, and one who’s certainly no right-winger, who said he’d hate to have to teach Constitutional Law because of the hash the Supreme Court has made of things over the past 50 years or so. I was surprised to hear that, but it suggests a certain shakiness to current foundations.

I also agree with his conclusions of Gingrich as a candidate. He’s just the latest anti-Mitt. That doesn’t mean he’s got winner written all over him. Glenn Reynolds also notes:

A Democratic Congressman asks his constituents to seriously question the authenticity of Second Amendment support of a Republican candidate he’s not even running against. The Congressman? Leonard Boswell. The candidate? Mitt Romney.

Speculate as to the motivation behind this piece to your heart’s desire.