Gingrich Clearly Wins South Carolina Debate

Newt Gingrich clearly dominated the South Carolina GOP debate last night. He received two standing ovations and his statements were often followed by loud, lengthy applause. The former US House Speaker needed to do well after he allowed the negative ads run against him in Iowa to affect him and his campaign, and he did so.

Former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Image via Wikipedia

Gingrich won the debate by dealing in specifics. Other candidates, President Barack Obama comes to mind, do better when they are allowed to make broad, gilded generalities that have less substance than a cotton candy hologram. Gingrich revels in applying the lessons of the past to the present and it's one of the reasons most people believe that Gingrich would destroy the sitting President in a debate.

Gingrich started slowly, having an uneasy time defending his attacks on former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's stint at Bain Capital. He muddled through eventually, though.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum cleaned Romney's clock in an exchange about the attack ads run by the superPAC that supports Romney. Santorum forced Romney to admit that his state of Massachusetts had a more liberal law than the one Santorum voted for and that the representation in the ads did not fairly depict Santorum's position. Santorum failed; however, to look at Romney and add the killer line that I expected: "In fact, Governor Romney, the position your superPAC accuses me of having is identical to the one you tolerated as Massachusetts Governor, isn't it?"

Romney's Southern Problem: The "M" Word

- It's Not What You Might Think -

For all of the pundits who are putting a spit-polish shine on Mitt Romney's coronation-ready, GOP crown; slow down. The fat lady is still in the wings running through her scales.

I'm actually seeing predictions that Romney will win Iowa, win New Hampshire, and then win South Carolina. I would rate those projections as obviously possible, almost certain and simply not going to happen.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
Image via Wikipedia

I can see Romney winning Iowa or at least finishing second in Iowa. He should win his neighboring state of New Hampshire; anything else would be a major upset. As for South Carolina - listen to me, well-meaning Yankee pundits - it's not going to happen. It's the "M" word.

What? "Mormon"? No, get real; you guys are far too quick to project your prejudices on others. There are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints all through the South and while they may not be ultra-active in politics, they are viewed as being good people and good neighbors. They are walking examples of the "family values" that the Republican Party endorses so heartily. Mitt Romney's "M" word problem is Massachusetts.

Why 2012 is Dangerous to the Republican Party

- And Why the United States Senate Will Be Responsible -

There comes a time when promises must be met with actions. Words and sentiments, even sincere sentiments, are not enough and additional words are nothing but insults to the listener.

For the past three years, the Republican Party has promised to reduce government, reduce taxes and listen more carefully to the wishes of those who pay their salaries. Their excuse has been that the Democrats have controlled the White House and the US Senate. For the first two of those years, Democrats also controlled the US House of Representatives.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Image via Wikipedia

Republicans took control of the US House at the beginning of 2011 and have fought a strong rear-guard action to slow the Obama Administration's assault on the US Constitution. It's slowed the non-stop push from the left, but it has not reversed it. This brings us to the 2012 election.

The Republican Party can satisfy the more reasonable members of its base because it has not had the power to make things better. At this point it appears that the GOP may win both the US Presidency and the majority of the US Senate to complement their US House majority. Then they must deliver.

If I am correct, those victories may be the bane of the Republican party. The reason is a combination of history and expectations.

The GOP's Circular Firing Squad

Ken Carroll's Eleventh Rule of Politics: "If you’re an incumbent, the election will nearly always be about you. If you are a challenger to an incumbent and the election is about you, then you are nearly always in trouble.”

The Republican Party and its faithful followers have formed a circular firing squad around its potential presidential nominees and are rapidly loading and firing. Some on the outskirts of the group, apparently fearing that the massacre will be over before they can make their way to the front, are calling for more candidates to step forward.

It's Still the Economy, Stupid!

It appears that that the 2012 US Presidential Election is destined to be about the economy. It's certainly the pressing need, and with the killing of Osama bin Laden, the war on terror will be much less of a concern for many voters. It also appears there will be no standard-bearer for the social conservatives with the ability to make front page news.

Image via Wikipedia

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

The most obvious social conservative candidate was the former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee. When Huckabee announced that he would not run, following Mississippi Governor Hayley Barbour's similar announcement, it left a void in the Republican field of candidates.

Barbour had tremendous credentials and was a social conservative without question. Many saw Barbour's announcement that he would not run for the presidency in 2012 as a confirmation that his close friend, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, would run. That has now been disproved with Governor Daniels's announcement that he will not seek the Republican nomination. This leaves former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum as the only remaining candidate with a primarily social conservative message.

I discussed Senator Santorum's problems in the South Carolina debate in "Why Herman Cain Won and Rick Santorum Lost the GOP Debate". Having said that, Santorum is the obvious beneficiary of the decisions of Huckabee, Barbour and Daniels to not seek the GOP Presidential nomination.

Why Herman Cain Won and Rick Santorum Lost the GOP Debate

The South Carolina Republican presidential debate was held last night and featured five GOP candidates that Democrat pollster and Fox News analyst Doug Schoen described as “the B team”. Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum showed up and delivered an energetic, friendly debate that generated some noteworthy video clips and sound bites.

“Winning” the debate is an obvious goal, but candidates had more important things they needed to achieve. Both Herman Cain and Gary Johnson needed to increase their name recognition and prove they could stand on the stage with the competition. Though Johnson is a former New Mexico governor, he is unknown to a vast majority of people and in the South is probably less known than TEA Party icon/businessman/radio talk-show host Cain.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is well-liked in the media. He’s well-spoken and his positions are mainstream. Unfortunately for him, some are not mainstream for Republicans. Pawlenty needed to convince voters that he’s not simply a more articulate, wrinkle-free version of John McCain.

Texas Congressman and libertarian darling Ron Paul had a difficult task. During this campaign, he has to convince a lot of people that what they “know” about him isn’t accurate. Paul has been painted as a “loony” and “dangerous” by political opponents, even though he holds a medical degree from Duke University and was first elected to the US House in 1976. In addition, the Congressman can come across as professorial when discussing economics and his foreign policy is not supported by most mainstream Republicans.

Finally, there is former US Senator Rick Santorum. I was surprised when Chris Stirewalt’s analysis on the Fox News website offered up Rick Santorum as the winner. I didn’t see him as the winner and after further reflection, I still do not see it. With his experience and relatively high profile, Santorum needed to show he was the class of the debate and consequently, was the only one who actually needed to win.

Pennsylvania’s Santorum has a well-earned reputation as a conservative. He is openly patriotic and has shown he will go to the mat for conservative causes. He would like to be the heir to Ronald Reagan, but his visible lack of comfort and  joy prevents him from being the next incarnation of Reagan’s “Happy Warrior”.

Santorum, presented as a checklist of positions and as a squeaky-clean public servant should chart high with conservatives. Santorum’s personal presentation though was stiffer than a plank and his expression was wooden, as well. The Rick Santorum who was first elected to the US House of Representatives at the age of 32 was joyful, passionate, and witty. Speaking during “Special Orders” in the US House, he demonstrated his thoughtful support for the conservative cause with a real smile on his face. If that Rick Santorum does not reappear, along with his missing smile, then this Rick Santorum should simply go home because voters will not support a man this difficult to like.

Gary Johnson came across as a smart man with a sense of humor, but his attempts at using cost-benefit analysis as a platform did not score with the audience. Tim Pawlenty got points for his kind treatment of absent colleagues, but was entangled in his former position on Cap and Trade legislation. Neither completed the needed tasks.

Ron Paul held his own and his supporters were enthusiastic. He got some significant applause lines and laugh lines, but his task is a long-term one. He has to convince voters that his ideas aren’t crazy just because they are different. He certainly lost no votes because he stayed on message and his candor may have brought some new listeners, but he did not dominate the debate. The unanswerable questions at this time are, “Was it enough?” and “Will his message begin to resonate with a broader audience?”

The big winner was Herman Cain. Cain clearly won the debate on two levels: his performance and his accomplishment of what he needed as a candidate. Last night Herman Cain proved he belongs on the big stage and that his message has an audience. Pundits may dismiss Cain and we must remember it is a long campaign, but anyone who thinks Herman Cain won’t be around is going to be proven wrong.

Dance with Who Brung Ya – The GOP and the TEA Parties

The complicated dance between the Georgia GOP and the TEA Party groups will continue on the morning of March 12th when all counties hold their county conventions at 10 AM and even earlier when smaller counties hold their mass precinct meetings at 9 AM. This is a great opportunity for the GOP that will eventually play out across all 50 states, but some are worried about who will call the tune.

The GOP meetings are open to all legally registered voters of each county who believe in Republican principles. This would, in almost all instances, include TEA Party members. Some in the Republican Party are concerned about this, but there is no reason to worry.

The TEA Party people are here. I don’t believe they are going anywhere anytime soon. The only question is if they will operate from inside the Republican Party or from without. There are a lot of advantages to having the TEA Partiers within the GOP.

For county chairmen who want to grow their parties, this is a great opportunity. For county chairmen who are worried more about personal control than growth of the party, then it may be time for someone else to take the reins. It’s about leadership, not control. Welcome these folks aboard, do a good job and they will likely allow you to lead them. Block them or attempt to diminish them and you may find yourself the leader of a lifeless party or even outside looking in.

You can’t shake hands with a clenched fist; let go and clasp hands.

Why the Tea Party and GOP Did Not Swap Valentines

Some pundits have now determined that the time has come to discuss a marriage between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. While this is an interesting notion, one has to wonder if they should even date.

Well-meaning conservatives have pointed out that there might be benefits to such a romance. The Tea Party contains many energetic, grassroots people new to politics but the group lacks structure. The Republican Party is structured and offers necessary organizational and political knowledge but needs more energetic people who connect well to the grassroots. Sounds good, right?

Life is rarely as straightforward as theory and this situation follows that normal pattern. There are good reasons why the Tea Party-GOP merger will not, and should not, happen. It would be bad for both and the “fit” between the two is largely illusory and the imaginary product of those who understand neither group.

First of all these are not two political parties. The GOP is a political party, but the Tea Party is a movement. Like most movements, the Tea Party is a single issue cause. While the definition of that cause will be more narrowly defined by some, in order to include all branches of the Tea Party, the only accurate working definition is “to increase personal freedom by a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government.”