Is There a Deadline for Entering the Presidential Race?

Recently people have been agitating about Sarah Palin. "Why won't she declare that she is running?", they ask. "Why doesn't she bow out and endorse someone in the race?", they demand. I sense what "they" mean is why doesn't she get out of the way of my preferred candidate. To all of the various plaintive cries for her to decide immediately, I say what's the rush? Why are all these people rushing in to a race that is so far off? Other than Gov. Rick Perry who just declared last Saturday, all of the GOP candidates jumped into the fray way too early. At this point in 1951, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was still serving as Supreme NATO Commander in Europe. When did we start making a presidential campaign a two year process? If my memory serves me, it is a recent phenomenon of starting active campaigning prior to January of the election year. Why are candidates deciding to enter the fray earlier? In the 2008 campaign Fred Thompson was criticized for supposedly starting late. The complaints about Thompson's entry into the race centered on the notion that money had already been committed to other candidates. I could be wrong, but the money issue may not be as critical to a potential Palin campaign. A lot of campaign funds go towards staff and administrative concern (travel, etc), but by far the largest expenditure is on advertising to get the candidate's name out to potential voters. With her strong base of support and very active presence in social media Palin may be able to overcome some of those concerns. If Palin chooses to enter the race for the GOP nomination I have no doubt that even if she makes her announcement in October she will quickly raise enough money to wage an effective primary campaign.

Bottom line: people need to just relax. Sure, we all want Obama out of office. However, starting the primary season earlier doesn't bring the election or the next inauguration any sooner. Clearing the field for a nominee immediately just allows the extreme left wing media more time to undermine our nominee. Look how Perry has been treated since his announcement. Media attacks the one in best shape to beat Obama. Notice the media is not attacking Romney as he is their preferred candidate against Obama.

Regardless of who ends up our nominee, we need to ensure we have properly and fully vetted the candidate well ahead of the general election. Dem's and their complicit allies in the media will be doing opposition research and we don't need any October surprises (Bush DUI for example). Right now Palin is the only GOP candidate who has been vetted. Thoroughly check out the rest. They are applying for an important job so we need to give them a serious review.

A Vigorous Examination of Candidates During a Primary is a Good Thing

Recently, I've heard a lot of comments on Twitter and at various blogs that run along the lines of condemning any criticism of someone else's preferred candidate as a sin of Republicans eating their own. There is some element of validity to that sentiment. It would be nonsensical for me to call anyone not 100% in agreement with me on the issues a RINO. I also think there are lines that shouldn't be crossed and things that shouldn't be said in an attempt to run down someone in your own party to bolster your preferred candidate. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with an open, honest fight for the nomination. You are not trashing Gov. Rick Perry by bringing up his stance on immigration as shown by the Texas version of the DREAM Act. You are not unfairly trashing Mitt Romney by bringing up the similarity of his health care plan to Obama-care. A candidates voting record is fair game. If that makes things difficult for people with long legislative careers, so be it.

There are some things that should not be regular parts of your case against a candidate. A candidate's religion or ethnicity should be off limits. I'd also say lay off Huntsman's service as Ambassador to China in Obama's administration. If the president asks you to serve our country and you can do so without compromising your values you should answer that call. A candidate's weight or appearance shouldn't be a disqualification and obsessing on it reflects poorly on those who do. For the most part the candidate's family shouldn't be fair game.

The better informed the electorate is about the candidates hopefully the better outcome we will get from elections. Let the people decide at the ballot box how relevant things are to fulfilling the duties of the office. Some may believe Perry's college grades are a big deal. Personally, if I'm hiring a 60 year old man for a job I'm looking at his accomplishments not his college grades from decades ago. Every knock on a candidate should be weighed in that manner. Each voter has to decide for themselves what matters most to them and vote accordingly. After the primary season is over the differences must be forgotten.

Please use the comment box to elaborate on this subject. What is appropriate or inappropriate in your opinion?

Palin on the Rising Cost of Gasoline

Today, Sarah Palin had a Facebook post regarding the rising cost of gasoline and how President Obama's actions/decisions are contributing to the rise. Ever the optimist, Palin referred to Obama as "The $4 a gallon president." I say optimist because based on his stance on domestic drilling and past comments about preferring more expensive fuel to encourage greater reliance on mass transit, Obama is aiming for a price much higher than $4. Here is the opening paragraph, click the link above for the rest.

The $4-Per-Gallon President by Sarah Palin

Is it really any surprise that oil and gas prices are surging toward the record highs we saw in 2008 just prior to the economic collapse? Despite the President’s strange assertions in his press conference last week, his Administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

The evidence of the President’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see. The following is not even an exhaustive list:

Is it 2012 yet?

Today's Political Comedy

In an article about who a New Hampshire Republican party official will support in 2012 we get this snippet:

“He’s a nice guy. But there’s a number of guys I’d vote for. He’s not one of them,” Wrobleski said of Pawlenty. “I don’t think he’s conservative enough.

So, Wrobleski, a supporter of Mitt Romney, in explaining his reasons for not voting for Tim Pawlenty says he's not conservative enough. Pawlenty is not charismatic. He's not exciting. He's probably not one of my first choices, but Pawlenty is about as conservative a candidate as you're going to find from Minnesota. What makes this funny is the comment coming from a Romney supporter. However Romney is selling himself these days don't let anyone fool you into believing he is an arch-conservative. Heck, when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate he tried to position himself to Kennedy's left on some issues and then as governor of Massachusetts he led the way to enactment of a state health care overhaul used as a blueprint for Obama-Care. You can support Romney for various reasons. Whether you like his business acumen or you think his competent demeanor would be a sharp contrast to President Obama, there are legitimate reasons some might choose to back his doomed run for the presidency. However, claiming his potential primary opponents are not conservative enough will just get you laughed at as a fool.

On that point, if, as it appears, the health care nonsense is going to be a key issue in 2012, then Mitt Romney would be the worst candidate for the Republicans to run. How will House and Senate candidates reconcile support for the national ticket with hammering their opponent on their vote for HCR. It is very difficult to beat an incumbent president, but you don't pick a nominee who will undermine down ticket candidates.

Need Another Example Why Some Republican Senators Need to Face Primary Challenge?

Some say it is unproductive to challenge incumbent GOP Senators. I could agree if a senator got the great majority of votes right, but differed from my point of view on one small matter or another. I get the concept of building a large tent party. However, a minimum standard for admission to the tent has to exist. I would hope we can agree that our party should be opposed to further expansion of the federal government. With that in mind how does reconcile the fact that 15 Republican senators voted for a massive federal power grab. I'm referring to Senate bill 510 - FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

Spanning some 150 pages, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act would authorize the FDA to dictate how farmers grow fruits and vegetables, including rules governing soil, water, hygiene, packing, temperatures, and even what animals may roam which fields and when. It would also increase inspections of food “facilities” and tax them to do so. And, fulfilling the dream of a long line of agency officials, the bill grants the FDA unilateral authority to order recalls.

In addition to the inevitable costs to consumers, expanding the agency’s regulatory reach would require additional spending of $1.4 billion between 2011 and 2015, according to the Congressional Budget Office.[1] The costs to the private sector have not been calculated but would likely reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. (Ed. I'm quite certain that these estimates like all estimates of damage caused by legislation is vastly under what the eventual costs will end up being)

While there have been a couple of very high profile cases of food borne illness in the last year or so, the truth is the actual number of cases has decreased markedly over the last decade.

This (like a lot of nanny state BS) brings to mind a quote from the late H.L. Menken:
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."

Oh, you want to know which 15 Republicans think now is the time for a massive expansion of the federal government? Here is a list of the sorry wretches:

Alexander (R-TN)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Collins (R-ME)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH) *
Johanns (R-NE)
Kirk (R-IL)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Snowe (R-ME)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH) *

Two are retiring in a month or so, the rest need to be retired when their current term expires.

UPDATE:

Want another reason? From the Foundry.com:

Republican Sens. Bob Bennett (UT), Thad Cochran (MS), Dick Lugar (IN), Susan Collins (ME), Jim Inhofe (OK), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Richard Shelby (AL), and George Voinovich (OH) all just voted against an amendment in the Senate that would have banned Congressional earmarks. This is terrible public policy for their states, for their constituents, and for our country.

Harvard research shows that states that experience an increase in earmark spending suffer from decreases in corporate capital expenditures and employment. Earmarking also robs money from local government transportation priorities to pay for Senator’s vanity projects.

You'll notice several names on both list of mistaken votes.

Memo to Establishment Republicans

Here is some free advise to former senator John Danforth and other establishment Republicans: You are not helping your friends when you say they shouldn't face a primary challenge because they've been in DC for decades. Being in DC for decades is a major reason to kick a politician to the curb. What precipitates this post is a New York Times article praising Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN). Of course, if the NYT praises a Republican it must mean he is taking positions at odds with other Republicans. In the article, we get this statement that is very revealing about the political mindset:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Funny thing is, before reading this I would have laughed at the idea of Lugar facing a challenge. Now, I expect he will not only face a challenge, but the challenger will be raking in donations. While the Tea Party movement is thought to be mainly against the excessive government spending, which it is, it also has grown to be against the entitlement mindset of career politicians. For decades people have complained about not having a choice in elections. Between gerrymandered congressional districts, establishment backed candidates getting all the funding, and primaries being decided before your state gets to weigh in, people had valid complaints, but no recourse. The 2010 elections showed the electorate they can have a choice if they demand a choice. Prior to seeing Sen. Bob Bennett lose in Utah, I assumed that absent a major scandal no incumbent senator could be beaten in a primary. Shortly thereafter, Alaska Republican voters decided Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn't deserve their nomination. All incumbents need to understand they are subject to performance review and dismissal if warranted.

REMINDER: Don't give one thin dime to the national Republican apparatus. Whether it is the RNC, NRSC, or NRCC the goal of all is the same - Incumbency protection. Public service in elected office should not be a career!

Tomorrow's Election

Tomorrow's election and the impact of the Tea Party movement can be summed up in one simple thought:

More Government = Less Freedom
Less Government = More Freedom

Our problem of excessive government did not happen over night. No, it developed over decades. Every time something bad happens and people respond by saying "government ought to . . . . " it leads to a government response that grows government and reduces freedom. Government has legitimate roles to play. Government is a necessary evil to do collectively what we need but can not do individually. Interstate highways can't be built by individuals. National defense is not a personal responsibility. However, much of what our federal government has decided to do and fund are not federal responsibilities. Tomorrow is the first step to fixing the problem. Some of the people elected tomorrow will fail. They are human and human beings make mistakes. The concerns of the Tea Party movement are not getting different people elected, but rather about changing the culture of spending in congress. The Republicans will be the majority party in the House in the next congress and will have between 48 and 52 senate seats. If the Republicans don't fight all wasteful spending then a lot of them will face primary challenges in 2012.

Gov. Daniels No Longer a Presidential Contender

Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has shown up on most "short lists" of contenders for the 2012 Republican nomination for the presidency. He just fell of my list with his recent comments:

Daniels told the conservative publication the next president "would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues."

"We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while," by casting social issues like abortion aside so the next president can focus on fixing the beleaguered economy.

Many politicians will take positions based on calculations over how it will play with the electorate. I'm sure that is true of some "pro-life" politicians. The easiest way to tell how strongly a politician holds a position is by seeing how quickly they modify their stance. If Daniels believes we "just have to agree to get along for a while" on an issue that decent people consider a grave evil and as great a stain on our nation as slavery then I doubt he was ever pro-life except out of political expediency. His contention that social issues like abortion should be put on the back burner because of economic concerns does not hold water. Economic troubles will come and go. True beliefs would not be put aside over temporary issues.

Good thing we didn't have someone like Daniels instead of Lincoln. Could you imagine Lincoln saying "I'd really like to confront evil in our time, but gee unemployment is at 11%. How low does the unemployment rate need to be for Daniels to hold true to his "beliefs?"

South Carolina Governor Out of Running for 2012 Nomination

Mark Sanford the governor of South Carolina was frequently mentioned as a potential 2012 Republican candidate for president. Well, it was reported yesterday that he was missing or out of touch with his office. The first story was with the legislature out of session he was secluded writing. Then we were told he was hiking. Either of those explanations were fine. Most of us could understand a politician getting burned out and needed to get away for a few days to recharge his batteries. However, it turns out the first few explanations were lies to cover up an affair. He just held a news conference to admit he has been in Argentina spending time with a woman with whom he's having an affair.

There is more to how this story came out. State Sen. Jake Knotts (R-West Columbia), a political rival, pushed the question of Sanford's whereabouts the last couple days. Knotts would not have raised the issue if he didn't have reason to believe there was more to the story than a simple hiking trip. Someone benefits from Sanford's fall. Whether it is someone aspiring to be the next governor or someone clearing the field for 2012 Republican nomination is unknown.

Personally, Sanford was dishonest and unfaithful to his wife and family in having an affair. Politically, Sanford was an idiot to believe he could have an affair and keep it quiet. He isn't exactly an unknown traveling salesman. Add it all up and you have a picture of someone who is dishonest, unfaithful and stupid - not exactly traits I look for in a candidate.

As a Republican, I'm just glad this came out now instead of in the summer of 2012.