On the Western Banks of the Shenandoah

I’m not a trained historian, at least in the sense of one current presidential candidate. I do not hold a PhD or even a Masters in the subject. But I do consider myself something of an amateur historian and do possess some historical training and experience, as a former schoolteacher and museum employee. I read quite a bit on a number of historical topics. One particular interest of mine is the Cold War era. I particularly enjoy viewing this through the contemporary media and pop culture of the period.

In the 1980s there were a number of films that considered the after-effects or on-set of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers. Some were primarily focused on the aftermath: Threads and The Day After are two infamous films that look at the toll on society and individuals that would ensue after such an exchange. These films also looked at the conditions that might lead to such an exchange. They tended to have a largely anti-nuclear, left-leaning message.

One film focused more on the lead-up and did so in a fascinating way. The 1984 Canadian produced Countdown to Looking Glass, which originally aired on HBO on October 14th of that year, considers the scenario of an economic collapse leading to Soviet puppet states springing up in the Middle East, particularly Oman. The U.S. sends troops to Saudi Arabia and Oman responds with a blockcade in the Strait of Hormuz. Soviets deploy submarines in the region as shots are exchanged on a variety of fronts. Things come to a head when the Omanis and the US exchange fire, resulting in the loss of an Omani gunboat. A Soviet sub is tracked under the Nimitz, and eventually nukes are exchanged. We’re left with the President and his closest advisors boarding the Looking Glass, an airborne command center and the very real possibility of an all-out strategic nuclear exchange.

What makes the film so compelling is that the events are portrayed through a mock newscast. The producers purposely added dramatic scenes and used compressed time (i.e. several days of events presented over the 1 hour 26 minutes of the film), but the newscast aspect lends a great deal of authenticity and really captures the paranoia and anxiety of the era. They also used real pundits and politicians, such as Eric Sevareid and Senator Eugene McCarthy. It does a fairly good job of staying somewhat neutral while still capturing the immensity of the potential situation.

Also appearing in the film is a young, telegenic Congressman from the state of Georgia. At the time he was a right-wing back-bench bomb thrower who was quickly making a name for himself. A committed Cold Warrior, he makes numerous references to past history and hails Winston Churchill.

You might know him. It’s former Speaker and current GOP Presidential candidate Newton Leroy Gingrich.

It’s been a while since I viewed the film, but I believe Newt appears twice from what I remember He appears at around 6:20 in this clip from the first third:

And at about 6:42 in this clip from the last third:

Newt isn’t exactly a Hollywood star like, say, former Senator Fred Thompson. But he has appeared in a variety of films, mostly documentaries. But in 1995 he did have a cameo appearance in an episode of Murphy Brown. Check out the former Speaker’s full Hollywood credits here.

As an aside, I strongly suggest you check out Countdown to Looking Glass. It may not have the power it once did, but it still pulls up a whole lot of emotions.

In last night’s CNN debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney made mention that both Newt Gingrich and George Romney, Mitt’s father, were mentioned in The Reagan Diaries and claimed that Newt was mentioned only once and that Reagan thought he had a bad idea. Welp, I happen to have a copy of the Diaries, so here for you to judge for yourself is both the entry on Newt from 1983:

Monday, January 3rd
[Staff and NSC meetings; calls from congressional leadership.]
A tough budget meeting & how to announce the deficits we’ll have–they are horrendous and yet the Dems. in Cong. are saying there is no room for budgett cuts. Met with a group of young Repub. Congressmen. Newt Gingrich has a proposal for freezing the budget at the 1983 level. It’s a tempting idea except that it would cripple our defense program. And if we make an exception on that every special interest group will be asking for the same.

And actually TWO mentions on George Romney in 1984:

Friday, June 22
…..
In the Rose Garden after lunch I met with representatives of the Internation Youth Year Commission. Then a meeting with Sec. Schultz, mainly on the Soviet situation. No break through but further evidence that they aren’t quite sure which way they want to go. George Romney came by, he is heading up a part of our Pvt. Sector Initiative called “Volunteer.” He’s interested in possibly a special medal for outstanding volunteers. I’m rather inclined to think maybe they should be formally included in the presentation of Medals of Freedom. Did a portrait session with mike Evans & then off to  Camp David. Got there in time for a swim.

And on June 1986, there’s a mention that Reagan attended a luncheon for volunteer action group led by George Romney. Note that I only own the abridged edition edited by Douglas Brinkley–the Reagan Library sells the unabridged edition. There’s likely more on Romney there. In this edition, Ron Paul was not mentioned, nor was Rick Santorum, naturally, as Santorum was not elected to Congress until 1990, after the end of Reagan’s term.

I’m not going to go now and track down everything Ronald Reagan ever said about these four, if anything. Just wanted to clarify the historical record to the best of my ability.

UPDATE: Via Bearing Drift, it has been learned that Rick Perry has launched his own legal challenge. Actually, it’s beyond launched–the suit has already been filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia. Their argument seems to be that the requirement that voters be registered to vote or eligible to register in Virginia unconstitutionally restricted his ability to recruit signature gatherers. (Focus on seems to be–I’m not a lawyer) They cite a number of other cases in which registration requirements were struck down. We seem to finally have a number for Perry–6k signatures. This isn’t even close to the 10,000 valid required. We’ll see how this pans out–he may get relief from the court, but I imagine the jeers will be even louder from the blogosphere than they were before. Also, one correction–any legislative fix will require 80 delegates, not 60 as I wrote earlier. That means they’ll need 13 Dems to cross over (12 if Putney votes with the GOP).

This is a Virginia-centric blog, so of course, one would expect me to view the entire political landscape through the prism of the Old Dominion. And sometimes, that can be a rather jaundiced view. However, a funny thing happened over the weekend….Virginia became kinda important. Or at least we think we did, or maybe we became less important….at any rate, people were talking about us.

That came when, in the early hours of Christmas Eve, it became known that the ballot for the March 6th Republican Presidential Primary would feature only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Volunteers at RPV’s Obenshain Center had been working since the morning of December 23rd. Paul and Romney got through easily, but on that evening it was discovered that Texas Governor Rick Perry wouldn’t make it. That pretty much left Gingrich for those who don’t much care for either candidate, and the supporters of those two to root for Gingrich to fail. Facebook and Twitter lit up with conversation rivaling election night itself. Granted, some of this was likely due to the fact that “Ron Paul” is something of a fighting word for both Ron Paul detractors and supporters, but it was still pretty amazing for the night before Christmas Eve. Ultimately, around 3 a.m., word came out that Gingrich had indeed fallen short. Huzzahs rang out from those who don’t much care for Gingrich, while everyone else who doesn’t much care for Romney or Paul found themselves rather disgruntled. To add tragedy to all of this, one volunteer died in an automobile accident after a day of working to verify signatures.

So what now? Well, let’s first look at this close to home. The very first reaction to this was the first thing that comes to the mind of any loser (or to the mind of any candidate too lazy/principled to fill out paperwork *cough*AlAsbury*cough*): Write-in Time! However, despite the fact that it is discussed every time a primary comes up, write-ins are not allowed in Virginia primaries. Newt Gingrinch, a Virginia voter, was out of the loop on this, along with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who suggested such a thing in his post-Christmas newsletter. What’s left for Gingrich? Well, there could be a legal challenge, but the Washington Post talked to observers who suggest this as unlikely. The other possibility would be an emergency change in election law that would allow write-ins. But the RTD notes this too is a problem: the GA doesn’t convene until Jan 11th, and ballots must be printed by Jan 21st. Emergency legislation requires a supermajority of (updated) four fifths–32 Senators, and 60 80 Delegates. Those are high barriers, and with a very slim Republican majority based solely on the fact we hold the LG’s chair, very unlikely to be reached.

Read more…

Ah, the joys of campaigning. There’s many things to love about it….meeting new people, the rush of contacting voters, putting up signs and handing out bumperstickers. There’s one thing, though, I’ve never really loved: the quaddrenial rush of books from presidential contenders. There’s a few reasons I’ve come to loathe this. Largely, I feel bad for not reading them, even though most of them are just filled with ghostwritten pablum that differs little from the candidate’s stump speeches. I don’t read as quick as I used to, but with all these candidates, even if you are a fast reader, that’s still alot of time. Then there’s the whole thing of actually shelling out $30 if you want to read them before their author is little more than an afterthought in the race…..(I’m not on the Kindle train yet)

Apparently, somebody reads them, though. There was much ballyhooing about Cain’s book a little bit ago, how it appeared his campaign was more book tour than campaign. Now, the New York Times notes the same thing about Newt:

Even as he widens his lead in the polls, Newt Gingrich spends substantial time on an activity that raised questions about his ultimate motive when he was a back-of-the-pack candidate: selling and signing $25 copies of his books.

As his primary foe, Mitt Romney, and the White House intensify their efforts to negatively define Mr. Gingrich, his sole public event on Friday is at a bookstore in Washington. On Saturday he flies to Des Moines for a Republican debate but plans to squeeze in an afternoon book-signing.

Experienced campaign strategists cannot recall a top-tier contender devoting so much time to pitching products while seeking the White House. Mitt Romney, who also has a book out, has never sold it while stumping, his campaign said. President Obama, a best-selling author in 2007, did not incorporate sales events into campaign appearances, according to a spokesman for his re-election committee.

Mr. Gingrich’s devotion to book-selling, Republican strategists said, raises questions about the propriety of a candidate who is generating personal income while seeking the White House, as well as whether he is making the optimum use of limited campaign time.

There’s certainly plenty to talk about here, but let’s face it–Newt has spent the last twelve years or so as a political entrprenuer, starting organizations here, shilling a book there, appearing on this or that news network. I’m sure its a hard habit to break. And of course, Newt has always been a prolific writer (or the one whose name is on the jacket, at least), having written 21 some odd books throughout his career (some of which one intrepid New York Times Magazine author dared to read).

But what about candidates that are new to the writing game? Well, not so hot for Michele Bachmann (h/t Political Wire):

Michele Bachmann’s weak poll numbers may be showing up in slow sales of her memoir, Core of Conviction. In the two weeks since the book was released, it’s sold just 3,000 copies despite a media blitz and numerous book-signing events by Bachmann.

Those numbers come from Nielsen BookScan, which gets the information directly from Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble and most other retailers. The company estimates its sales numbers capture 75 percent of the book market although it currently does not get information from discount retailers Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club.

As of 5 PM ET on Wednesday, the book ranked 4,200 on Amazon’s bestseller list, although it ranked 62 on the site’s political bestseller list.

Ouch. It’s hard to judge how well her book is doing–sooooo many books are published in America that the average per book is around 500 copies (keep in mind that we’re talking about a really wide range of numbers here, so the average isn’t all that great of a statistic). But the fact that its not even intriguing readers of political books indicates that Bachmann’s book is not breaking through.

Honestly, not only is it not that important (trot out old “x’s don’t vote” trope here), but its not all that uncommon. If you really want to read any of these books after their shelf-life, I suggest in about nine months you head down to the Green Valley Book Fair, where they’ll be available for about $5/pound (ok, so they don’t sell them by the pound, but on average you’ll be paying about $3-5 per title)

Basically, there’s five kinds of political books

• The reporting/history book–usually written by a third party shortly after or around the time of the events in question (“What It Takes”). A subset of these books may fall more in line with the history genre (The Last Campaign, about either the 1948 Election or RFK’s 1968 campaign, depending on which one of these same titled books you pick up) but still are plenty interesting for politicos
• The kiss-off/tell all–written by an ex-administration official or someone who played a pivotal role in the events in question–you know, your Scott McCllellans of the world. Some my be polite, like Christie Todd Whitman, but even she had a critique in there
• The campaign book–written by people who are actively running for office or considering it. Most are ghostwritten (see above)
• The policy book–closely related to the campaign book, but written by someone who may not be seeking higher office in the near future but is trying to build support for their policies (Think “Young Guns” here)
• The memoir–written by former officeholders. Usually written by the subject, but likely polished by a professional author (“Decision Points”, “My Life”)

Again, very few of these books have a very long shelf life. Probably the ones that last the longest are the memoirs and the history books, because they’ll be of interest long after the fact. The others, however, don’t tend to lend too much to either political professionals or historians, so don’t be surprised if they don’t see additional print runs.

So what say you, dear readers? Add categories in the comments, and chime in with the polls below about your political reading habits.

I broke it–well, insinuated at the possibility by reading in to something, anyways–first, but Bearing Drift confirms: RPV Pat Mullins will be seeking re-election at next June’s State Convention. The State Convention will likely be lightly attended compared to 2008 and 2009, as no nominations for federal office will be at hand (well, other than the nominations for Republican at-large presidential electors). However, the Chairman is still an important position as RPV heads into 2012 and 2013.

Over the past few days I have started calling folks to let them know that I intend to seek re-election as Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia at the 2012 State Convention and to serve a full 4 year term. I hope to talk to you directly in the next few days or chat with you at the Advance about this decision.

When you first elected me Chairman in the spring of 2009 our party was deeply divided and reeling, as we had just come off our worse electoral defeat in a generation. Barack Obama had just won our electoral votes, the Democrats had just taken a 6-5 Congressional delegation majority, they held the Governor’s mansion, a state Senate majority, and both of our U.S. Senate seats.

I believe that because of this adversity, we all came together and worked together to change the direction of not only our party, but the Commonwealth of Virginia. We did it together.

In 2009, with your help and those of thousands of other grassroots activists, we elected Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Ken Cuccinelli and added six seats to our majority in the House of Delegates.

In 2010 we defeated three incumbent Democratic Members of Congress and came within a few hundred votes of defeating a fourth. We flipped the Democrat’s 6-5 Congressional majority to an 8-3 Republican majority which helped elect Congressman Eric Cantor as U.S. Majority Leader.

In 2011 we added seven additional seats to our majority in the House of Delegates and defeated two incumbent Democratic state Senators to gain control of the Virginia Senate.

And while the past three years have been some of the most successful our party has had, we cannot rest on our laurels. The elections of 2012, 2013, 2014 and beyond are critical for our party and our nation.

I am seeking to serve as Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia for another four years to keep the momentum going and to continue to elect Republicans who will stand strong for our shared principles.

Mullins has done a fantastic job as chairman. He’s one of the best judges of political horseflesh we have out there (and why not–the man’s occupation is insuring horses!), and it shows. RPV has one of the best professional teams its has had in years, and the proof is in the pudding–the Governorship, both lower constitutional offices, control of the GA, and a majority of the state’s congressional delegation. There’s still plenty of work to be done, but RPV is in very good shape right now. No major gaffes on Mullins’ part, and the man is a true workhorse (if not exactly a dynamo) on the trail.

Is RPV perfect? No. I think there’s still a great deal of work to be done. I personally would like to see more engagement with local units–not just providing resources but helping to create a culture of campaigning, with every single member of every single unit viewing their job not just as a sinecure that shows their “dedication” but taking an active role in every campaign, in whatever way they can or are best able to. RPV also has some work to do with winning the data war, as there seems to be a feeling that Voter Vault is not at all what it could be.

However, I think Mullins is the man to continue this battle, particularly as someone who has put in the time as a county chair. RPV has also done fairly solid work with helping party units on procedural matters. The only real issue that one could take with Mullins is on the perrenial “convention v. primary” battle–but even there, Mullins is not the one to “blame.” That’s a decision made by the State Central Committee writ large, some of whom are elected directly at the District Conventions, some who hold the position by virtue of election to head an auxillary organization, some by elected office, and others elected by the District Committees, which consists of unit chairs. If you prefer a convention system, this is the year to hold the individuals you elect to party office accountable on this issue. To punish Mullins for a decision reached by a whole swath of people directly and indirectly elected by party activists would be to take away a steady hand at the wheel, the one keeping everybody together.

Unless something happens on the road to the convention or a much, much more compelling figure arises (and they’re going to have to have a heck of a record), Mullins is my prohibitive pick for Chairman next June.

From the LA Times: Jon Huntsman: Herman Cain a distraction in GOP race

Speaking with the Boston Globe, the former Utah governor said he was again disappointed to see Monday night that a fresh report about Cain — the latest alleges an extramarital affair; it follows accusations of sexual harassment earlier in the month — was getting more attention than the major issues.

“What about a [financial] downgrade that is being anticipated? What about Europe? What about so many other issues out there that we ought to be talking about and that people ought to understand where candidates come down on those issues?” Huntsman said.

“Every time another accusation comes up, it diminishes our ability to stay focused on the issues that really do matter for the American people. And I think that’s a disservice to the voters,” he added.

Now, dear readers, before you think I’ve gone soft on you, let’s make a few things clear. I do NOT think Herman Cain should get out of the race. I do NOT favor Jon Huntsman for the nomination (he’s not even on my top five list…..). And I DO think that this is not a high minded appeal by Huntsman for the media to be more civilized but rather pure jockeying on his part to become “the thinker” in this race.

Here’s what I DO agree with Huntsman on: the media spends far too much time on the personal part of the campaign and not the policy part. Honestly, this is nothing new (look to the 1800 campaign when both candidates were labeled as godless heathens, depending on if you were reading a Federalist or Democratic-Republican leaning newspaper), nor something limited to national politics (there’s nothing more the local political media loves to cover than a “debate over debates”). The fact of the matter, though, is when it comes to politics, the hierarchy of reporting goes personal information, campaign tactics and strategy, and somewhere in the basement, policy talk. It’s what we really WANT the system to be about: voters choosing the candidate who will put into place the policies they want, a debate over the direction of our community and nation.

But that’s never how it plays out. And honestly, its not all the media’s fault. To quote Megadeath, “Peace Sells, But Who’s Buying?” It used to be all about sold the most papers–nowadays, its more about who gets the most clicks. But it all comes down to the same thing–public interest, which under most media schemes, leads to revenues. Even with bloggers in the mix now who aren’t operating on a revenue based schema, they’re still interested in getting people interested, because that leads to clicks, and that leads to access, and that leads to more clicks. Of course, with many bloggers now hosting advertisements or pursuing lucrative mainstream media careers, the distinction is ever more blurred–if it ever really existed at all….but that’s a book for another time.

Ultimately, though, people are interested in this sort of thing. There’s an undeniable strain of prurient interest in the human race. Also, schadenfruede and jealousy play a role as well……there are some people who just love to see the “big guys” taken out, even if they weren’t always the big ones. And moral issues ARE important….the problem lies in how important they are to each individual, to say nothing of the fact that some things are clearly moral to some and clearly immoral to others. Or maybe ethics is the word I want to use…..see how I turned that around? That’s the problem–in elections at the national level, you’re trying to appeal to the worldview of some 100 million odd people. A good chunk will always choose you, another chunk will never choose you, and the battle lies in the middle. But all of those are individuals….each with their own thinking on all of the issues a presidents faces and their own views on how a president should act.

So my point? Yes, I do think that America faces some big, big problems right now and THAT’s what we need to be talking about. We can sort this all out about Herman Cain, and if it is true, well…..it would certainly give me pause about him. But the great irony is that Cain would not be in this position were it not for the fact that he was a candidate that electrified the conservative base with a clear, appealing message: the now infamous “9-9-9″ tax plan. Once he got to the podium, to the surprise of the media’s wagging tounges, they just HAD to know who he was….and so did a certain chunk of the electorate. Now we know more about him, and there’s lots of questions, justified questions….but we’re completely away from the very thing that brought him to us in the first place, the issues.

There needs to be balance. That much I know–unfortunately, the best I can do is encourage voters to consider everything equally and not be drawn into the horserace. I just don’t have an answer to how change how elections are covered–and as a student of politics, I’m not sure anyone ever will.

Man, that was exhausting. My MacBook struggled through, but I think an update is going to be in order once I get some money flowing in…..but that could be a while (and yes, when it happens, it may even be a PC). For now, you’ll have to settle for my C-List punditry as I can do it. But right now, I didn’t win debate coverage by any stretch

10:29–Cain and Pawlenty had really canned statements, but for some reasons, Cain’s was alot more soaring. Could be something to his gift of oratory.

10:29: Santorum just pointed to DeMint, a guy who should probably be up on the stage.

10:24–Each candidate is being asked about one other candidate. TPaw on Huck, Paul on Bachmann, Cain on Romney, Santorum on Gingrich, and well, we ran out, so Johnson on Trump.

10:18–Johnson–I’m of the belief that only Republicans can solve our current economic situation. But on all the other issues, well……

10:17–Santorum: I know how to beat Democratic incumbents. Yes, and you also know how to get beaten big.

10:17–Cain is coming off this well.

10:13–Shoot, I think I just missed the most compelling part of this debate. Did Fox News make a weed joke at Johnson’s expense?

10:08–Santorum asked about “It Takes A Family” and his views on working outside the home.

10:06–Chris Wallace pulls out an ad Pawlenty made for the Environmental Defense Fund re: cap and trade. Pawlenty says he was just studying it and the study showed it was a bad idea. Booing first, though, but Pawlenty says he’s made a mistake. He says if anyone’s perfect they should be running–gets strange reaction from crowd.

10:06–Chris Wallace pretty much just announced this is the “gotcha” round–wherein they specifically ask questions that could cause problems down the line.

10:05–Did Pawlenty really want to tout his union credentials or to get away from the creationism issue?

10:03–Paul and Cain scoring well on the Unions issue, though I’m afraid their appeal will be stuck to the managerial class.

9:59–Santorum is asked about Mitch Daniel’s call for a truce on social issues, and says any candidate who calls for that doesn’t “get” America and goes on to preach

9:58–Pawlenty says he backs adult stem cell research only.

9:56–Johnson questioned on abortion–supports abortion up to viability, gets boos, explains that he opposed partial birth abortion, supported counseling….pretty much conceded pro-life vote.

9:55–Paul started with saying that government should be out of marriage completely, then says the states should have their say. Huh?

9:39–Santorum on immigration and his opposition to path to citizenship and bilingualism. Santorum points to his own roots, saying his father never taught him his native tounge because “he was an American.” Interesting take, but is that too old school for some?

9:39: Oooo, this could be fun: Immigration. Cain vs. Paul. Another tweeter was right–crap, scratch that, Cain likes Rules of Three, but he added four this time. Still, he likes lists and “pointed plans”

9:37–I’m a few minutes behind, but highlights: Ron Paul getting EVERYTHING he stands for it one answer (nonintervention, gold standard, constitutionalism), Gary Johnson complaining about being left out, Cain defending fairtax

9:23–Going back a bit, I think the opposite of what we expected is happening. Instead of Paul and Johnson ganging up on these guys, the other three are putting baby in a corner.

9:22–I think Pawlenty and Cain are pulling off the best soundbites, but the substance, I’m afraid, may be going to Santorum. Santorum defends Medicare expansion as underbudget and driven by the private sector.

9:21–Ok, NOW is Cain’s time to shine. He gets his first applause on having a real energy independence plan. Could he take the wind out of Gingrich’s sails by being the first to hit this?

9:19–Pawlenty is going for “I’m one of you” on economics. Asked about Bush Tax Cuts and why unemployment is still up, but now he’s berating the NRLB.

9:18–Moving onto economics. Johnson asked about his ideas to remove a ton of programs. Pretty rational answer, but dry.

9:18–First bit of contention with waterboarding. Cain uses the moment to say he’d protect Americans. o….k…..still dramatic, though, and that’s what counts

9:14–Mr. Baier, don’t get flustered. You should’ve known.

9:13–First real battle between candidates–Paul asked about Pawlenty’s weakness quote, says that openness is key and we should expect for others what we would.

9:12–Santorum asked about Islam in context of the Middle Eastern Spring. I was at UVA when he drew sharp criticism for a speech he made re: radical Islam. Points that we can’t leave the ideological battle in the background.

9:08–Johnson’s up. He seems alot clearer than Paul on this, and goes back to his opposition to Iraq. Says he believed in Afghanistan at first but that our mission was pretty much done in the first six months. Also opposes Libya.

9:07–Cain asked about his lack of Plan on Afghanistan. He says the mission is not clear and that we need to ask ourselves just why we’re there and how we would win. Pushed on what winning means, he goes back to saying that the Generals would be his source of decision. Spoken like a true businessman–this highlights why businessmen make weak candidates on FoPo.

9:05–Paul is asked about his troop withdrawal policy on Afghanistan. Answers that Bin Laden wasn’t even found there and now we’re still engaged in nation building there. Big applause, despite requests to do so. Still, he didn’t really answer if he would’ve continued the mission to capture Bin Laden.

9:04–Santorum says Obama’s best FoPo decisions have simply been

9:03–Ah, the classic hand raise. Cain would NOT release photos of Obama.

9:02–Starting out with FoPo. Hitting Pawlenty with q regarding his comments that Obama was weak in light of Osama killing. Pawlenty answers with Libya.

9:01–Juan Williams, Chris Wallace, and Shannon Bream are the panel. Bret Baier is the lead.

Unpublished update: I wrote part of this article on Friday, with Ron Paul still “thinking.” Then boom, Monday he gets in. So some of this should be taken with that in mind–I’ve edited it since, but in my mind Paul is just “getting” in, so I haven’t completely made the transition. So I must say something I would have never said in 2008: Paulistas, I apologize.

It’s official: Gary Johnson will be seeking the Republican nomination in the 2012 primaries.

Gary who?

Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico. It’s alright if you don’t remember him–his term ended in 2003. You may recall, though, a governor of a smaller western state being one of the highest ranking Republicans (and indeed, official of either party) to call for the decriminalization of marijuana. Yeah, that was him. So why am I getting excited over a candidate that would seem, at face value, to be little more than a historical footnote?

Well, for starters, I see Johnson as the first serious candidate to officially enter the race. Now now, I know what you’re thinking–don’t Tpaw, Mittens, even the Donald have a better chance at this point? Perhaps, but as you’ll hear me belabor over the next six months while I continue to write on the ebb and flow of the race, because, hey, even an unpaid blogger seeks good copy, things change. Nobody could beat George H.W. Bush in the early part of 1991. Nobody.

But when I say serious, I don’t mean an attitude of a candidate that’s “in it to win it.” What I mean is a candidate that is serious about their ideology and has put forth or presents real solutions to the problems facing America. Newt may have once stood on the edge of being that candidate, but nowadays, he’s more “anti” than anything else. Romney, well, we’ve already discussed Romney’s issues–in that there are really few he hasn’t flipped or flopped on. Huckabee, too, is largely a Tea Party cheerleader these days. And although I’ll admit that I’m anxiously awaiting Pawlenty’s alternative budget, right now, he seems more focused on shaking the perception that he’s just too dull to take on the One.

Read more…

Right now, there’s plenty of ink and binary characters being spilled on both parties chances in 2012. Some are comparing this to 1992, others to 1996 in terms of the incumbent’s chances. Some have the Republicans on an unstoppable comeback, others have the GOP nearing implosion. However, we all know that few elections are an exact replay of the one before it. What exactly constitutes a swing or marginal state can change from election to election. Why, in 1980 Hawaii was thought to be winnable for the GOP, as it was in 2004, if only momentarily. Same with Maine in other elections. With that in mind, 2010 did at least give us an idea of which states may still be marginal, given Republicans winning it last year but the Democrats in 2008, often by similarly large margins. And so we present to you Dr. Larry Sabato of UVA’s first projection for 2012.

There’s plenty for both sides to take exception to–Republicans would say New Mexico is much closer to being a marginal state and two straight landslides (thanks to VA’s unique position on the electoral cycle) should put the Old Dominion in the leaners category, while Democrats would argue that Montana at least leans a little closer to them and that there’s no way they lose Maine.

Regardless, however, the map shows just how tricky the math is for Republicans. The fact that New York and California are almost completely out of Republican reach means that Democrats start with a big built in advantage. If you give each party their “leaning” states, Democrats start with 247, while Republicans have just 180. One interesting way to digest these results is to input them into 270towin.com, a fun site that presents an electoral college calculator. Color each state the way you think it will go, and the site will calculate the number of ways, if you give both parties less than 270 votes, the number of ways to get to the magic 270.

The big problem for Republicans? If you input this map into the site, giving both parties their leaning states, there are 14 different combinations that lead to a Republican victory. The problem? All of them require Florida. Again, both sides will have their talking points. Republicans will point to congressional pickups and Rubio’s win in 2010, while Democrats will point to Rick Scott’s cratering approval ratings in the state. However, the fact of the matter is that Republicans just don’t have the same sort of EC base built in that the Democrats do, largely due to the fact that their safest states are amongst the largest. In fact, Texas is the only red or “reddish” state that has more than 12 electoral votes.

That said, 2010 was a positive movement in that Republicans made important gains in PA, WI and MI, as well as North Carolina and New Mexico. The last two aren’t as important–if you give both to the GOP, FL is still a neccesity. However, take any of the first three out of the Democratic column, and a Floridaless path to victory emerges. Again, this is all just the analytical talk of shooting the breeze for the time being. We have quite some time to go in this cycle–more than a year, in fact. However, it should point to the importance of a) nominating a ticket that has a wide personal appeal to a large swath of Americas, both suburban and rural, and b) running on issues that appeal to pragmatic, more centrist voters that do not betray our core principles.

But, until we have a better idea of who those candidates might be, kill some time and come up with your own path to victory. For the record, I’m not 100% on the above, so if you can find a Floridaless path to victory that does not involve MI, WI or PA, by all means, please share! But do note that the the site won’t calculate scenarios where there are more than 12 states in play, as the number of possibilities increases exponentially. Again, many of these are far fetched, but hey, welcome to life with the electoral college!

Today’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley saw the start of the showdown we’ve been waiting ag….well, weeks for: the GOP’s moderate-cum-conservative businessman with a thin political resume (Romney) versus the the GOP’s more moderate-cum-even more conservative businessman with a even thinner political resume (Trump). Granted, it was Ms. Crowley who started the action, but the Donald took up the challenge with his usual gusto.

Highlights include Trump calling Romney “essentially a small businessman.” I consider myself a small businessman, and I need to check my accounts to be sure, but I’m not sure that its all that close to Romney’s estimated $200 million in net worth. However, when you get to Trump’s heights, perspectives change, so really I suppose I’m arguing over semantics here…..

Also amusing: Trump responding to Crowley’s question if he considers himself a “better” businessman, he replied that he’s a “much bigger businessman.” Of course, as we all know, bigger does not always equal better. Wikipedia has a pretty good overview of Trump’s various legal and business woes throughout the course of his career. I admire business success, but I also admire consistency and good judgment. The fact that Trump decided first to go after Romney on the scale of business activities highlights the tone we’ve seen throughout Trump’s nascent campaign so far: rather than go after Romney’s political positions, Trump went for style. That’s, ultimately, my biggest fear of a Trump candidacy: Style trumping (God save me) Substance.

Of course, I really shouldn’t be troubled by Trump’s views on Romney. In fact, Trump, so far, really hasn’t made his business experience the centerpiece of his campaign–he’s far more focused on the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. That’s all well and good, and I suppose one way to unseat the President, but in the event that strategy just doesn’t work, shouldn’t we want a candidate talking about their ability to lead in a more substantive way than just saying they’re “bigger”?

I will say, though, that Trump had some good points near the end of the interview about America’s current “backseat” view of foreign policy, taking orders from other countries on when to take moral action. But then I’m reminded of Trump’s views on China and Iran, vowing pretty drastic unilateral action. I agree we need to be strong, but I also understand that we’re dealing with two sides here, and even if we’re going to make a stand, we have to understand that foreign policy actions have consequences for both sides. Overall, when Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, not exactly noted moderates, are doubting the man’s tactics, well……I think we may have a problem.

All this said, this should not be read as an endorsement of Romney. I remain skeptical of Romney for the same reasons as I did in 2008 (guns, abortion, health care), and on probably the biggest issue so far in the campaign, health care, Romney just keeps digging himself a bigger and bigger hole. However, I’m still waiting for a candidate that matches my views on the direction the Republican party needs to take and yet shows they have the leadership to turn politics into policy. I’m looking for a candidate of principle, not opportunity.

Romney’s switches on the issues trouble me on that front. He couldn’t escape it in 2008, and it may be even harder to escape in 2012 given that Democrats passed a federal law largely based on one he passed in the state he led (and indeed, trumpeted by some of the very same people that advised on his). Even more troubling, though, is that Trump has already flirted with running once….in a different party, has already said he’d be willing to exploit sore loser laws to run as an independent if he doesn’t get the nod, and has not even donated to a plurality of Republicans in federal elections. In fact, only 23% of the federal candidates he’s backed have been Republicans. I understand the desire for a new face, but….does loyalty have no virtue these days?

But that could be a whole other series of posts, or even a book, on the virtue of parties in American democracy. Perhaps a simpler way to frame Trump’s integrity. The nearly billion dollars in debt he ran up in the 1990s.

UPDATE:

Looks like the Donald may have a healthcare problem of his own. From Political Wire:

Dave Weigel digs up this quote from Trump’s 2000 book, The America We Deserve: “We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.”

Trump added that the goal of health care reform should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. “Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork.”