With the Presidential primary season well under way, we are now being treated to candidates going from state to state almost every week in an effort or convince voters that they are the right person to lead the country. If you are wondering when the candidate train stops in New Jersey, well I have some bad news. Last September, the Lieutenant Governor signed a bill approved by the Legislature, which moved the New Jersey 2012 Presidential Primary from February (when it had been held in 2008 on the 5th of February aka “Super Tuesday” ) to June 5, 2012. In 2005, the Legislature had voted to move the 2008 primary which had normally been held in June, to February in an effort to try to give New Jersey voters more influence in picking their party’s Presidential candidates. In 2008, despite the fact that New Jersey’s primary was held on the same day as those in over 20 other states, several candidates did campaign in New Jersey despite it not getting as much of a national focus as had been hoped for. Over 1.1 million residents voted in the 2008 New Jersey Democratic Primary which was won by Hilary Clinton over Barack Obama. In the Republican contest, over 500,000 people went to the polls in an election that saw the party’s eventual nominee John McCain almost doubling the amount of votes received by the 2nd place finisher Mitt Romney. It was estimated that the cost of moving the primary from June to February was $12 million.
What makes the participation numbers interesting is when you weigh them against the number of voters taking part in the first two caucuses or primaries this year. Roughly 122,000 people voted in the Iowa Republican caucuses with approximately 250,000 people voting in the New Hampshire GOP Primary. Although there was a Democratic caucus in Iowa and a primary in New Hampshire, they were not competitive races with President Obama virtually unopposed for his party’s nomination. With several Republicans dropping out of their party’s contest just before, during or right after these races, the amount of influence these states have in choosing a party’s nominee is hugely out of proportion to the numbers of voters who take part. Contrast these participation numbers with those of the 2008 general election where close to 130 million voters went to the polls.
So the questions that beg for answers are 1) How can New Jersey residents become more influential in the process of picking their party’s candidate (besides moving to Iowa or New Hampshire for a few months every four years)? 2) What can be done to make the choice of each party’s nominee less dependent on voters in one or two states where they clearly have to much power and contain voters whose views are not always representative of the majority of voters in other states. Note that major issues in Iowa where farm subsidies, ethanol, religion/faith and social issues. One thing is for sure, none of those three would be the top issues for the majority of New Jersey voters. There are no easy answers to question #1. The major party’s threatened loss of convention delegates to States which were going to hold their primaries too early in the 2012 process. One idea for 2016 would be for the state to revert to the 2008 model and possibly schedule its primary in mid/late February or early March of 2016 (This also depends on party scheduling rules that can change.) As mentioned above, this change does come with additional cost ($12 million) and there is no guarantee that the nomination for one or both parties would not have been secured by that date.
The other idea which has been debated for several years, is holding a series (4-6) of regional primaries in the early March to early June time-frame. The order of these would rotate every four years. This would give more states greater influence in picking the eventual nominees. Even if Iowa and New Hampshire kept their traditional places at the starting gate, they would not have the same importance or as great a focus on by candidates.
Since 1976, only 3 of the 18 nominating contests were so close that almost every delegate mattered to the eventual nominee. A couple of interesting historical facts about New Jersey Presidential Primaries are:
In 1972, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm won the states Democratic Primary. Rep. Chisholm was the first woman to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination and the first major party African American Presidential candidate.
In 1976, in an unsuccessful effort to stop Jimmy Carter from obtaining the Democratic nomination, a slate of uncommitted delegates backing Senator Hubert Humphrey and then (and current) California Governor Jerry Brown, defeated Carter by a wide margin. Carter’s primary win in Ohio the same day however, cinched the nomination for him. I attended a campaign rally for Governor Brown the day before the election at Airport Plaza in Hazlet on June 7, 1976. The story was the lead in the next days Red Bank Register and can be viewed here:
Buoyed by his stunning victory in South Carolina, New Gingrich is preparing for a nomination process that could extend into the summer.
Calls have gone out to conservative activists throughout New Jersey looking for grassroots networks to get out the vote for the former Speaker of the House in the Garden State’s June presidential primary.
The Gingrich campaign is advertising on cable television in New Jersey.
But the Gingrich campaign may be getting ahead of itself. After leading the polls in Florida immediately after his South Carolina victory, Gingrich has fallen back to second place, behind Mitt Romney, in the Rasmussen Poll conducted last night.
According to Rasmussen, Romney has restored his lead in Florida back to where it was before Gingrich’s South Carolina win on Saturday. Romney is supported by 39% of likely voters to Gingrich’s 31%. Rick Santorum is favored by 12% and Ron Paul has the support of 9% of those expected to vote on Tuesday. Only 7% are undecided.
As a Ron Paul supporter, one concern I occasionally hear from potential voters is that they “like Ron Paul’s stances, except on foreign policy”. It’s a concern that is understandable and also one that I personally held until recently.
Ron Paul usually scores high marks with both republican and independent voters on taxes and spending. For decades, Dr. Paul has warned the American people of the dangers of the Federal Reserve system and of periodic government intervention in the economy. His strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution while in elected office is also something to be praised.
In fact, Dr. Paul has been praised by many of his colleagues who are currently running for President. Mitt Romney punted a question regarding the U.S. Constitution to Paul during a New Hampshire debate, bestowing the title of ‘Constitutionalist’ upon Dr. Paul. Newt Gingrich frequently compliments Paul on his fight against the Federal Reserve. Gingrich even went so far as to mention Paul’s Fed stance during his South Carolina victory speech. Ron Paul’s economic platform has slowly entered the mainstream of the GOP political discourse, and has finally broken through with great reception from conservative voters.
Without Ron Paul, the gold standard, the federal reserve, the dangers of a fiat currency, and a nation continually saddled with debt would have gone by un-raised. At least until it was too late.
What drives a big chunk of conservatives up a wall is the mention of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Many syndicated ‘conservative’ pundits label Ron Paul’s foreign policy as ‘extreme’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘isolationist’. With this context in mind, it’s easy to see why many establishment republican voters would turn their backs on Dr. Paul. The position of bringing the troops home along with talking heads like Hannity and Beck, jumping and screaming about Paul’s apparent ‘isolationism’ would strongly encourage many conservatives to not take a second look at Ron Paul and dismiss him entirely.
First and foremost, Ron Paul is many things. However, an isolationist isn’t one of them. An excellent example of an isolationist country would be North Korea. The ironically named ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ has closed itself off from the rest of the world. There is no trade. There is no diplomacy. There is no immigration or emigration. Being isolated from the rest of the world is the antithesis of what Ron Paul believes, and the notion that he is anything close to an ‘isolationist’ should be expelled from any informed voter’s mind.
Non-interventionism, the foreign policy of Ron Paul, put’s America’s needs and concerns first, instead of the needs of other nations. It is important to know that at present the United States has over 900 military installations in over 130 foreign countries.
The overreach and spreading thin of our troops throughout the world leaves our home front vulnerable. One has to look no further than the United States’ own borders, which are seriously undermanned and without any protection whatsoever for many miles. Another example closer to home is the recent shut down of the Fort Monmouth Facility in Monmouth County. The federal government shut down the base late last year as a means of cost savings.
The simple fact that we’re closing bases in New Jersey to open new bases abroad does not make me feel safer as a United States citizen.
The United States military currently has:
◦52,440 military personnel in Germany.
◦35,688military personnel in Japan
◦28,500military personnel in Korea
◦9,015military personnel in the United Kingdom
◦9,660military personnel in Italy
America’s fighting men and women should only be sent overseas when our nation is at war. Our nation should only be at war when the Congress, representing the American people, passes a Declaration of War, as mandated by our Constitution. These used to be conservative principles that our nation held dear up until recently in our history. Since our founding and up to 1945 we declared wars, won them, and the troops have come home. This has been due to our government picking its battles carefully, and only entering conflicts with clear, concise objectives, and naturally, voting on the war in the congress.
As President, Ron Paul has made it clear that he would not hesitate to go to war if necessary, but only as a last resort. The war would obviously have to be legitimized by a vote in the congress, as stated in the constitution.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is approved by the most important pundits of all, the troops. Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty military personnel than all the rest of the candidates, including President Obama, combined.
If you listen to the troops (particularly those who support Ron Paul), they’ll tell you that the United States Military is creating enemies faster than they can kill them overseas. The troops would tell you, that bringing them home and building our defense here would be more profitable than sending our money and young men and women to the sands of some foreign land.
Military veterans like Adam Kokesh and active duty Cpl Jesse Thorsen have been speaking out about the dangerous foreign policy that the U.S. Government currently engages in, and they offer Ron Paul’s foreign policy as a clear alternative to the lunacy that exists today.
The extreme fiscal expense that the United States incurs by stationing troops around the world will leave our treasury bare and we’ll have nothing to show for it. It is a fiscally conservative position, as well as a constitutional position to support a strong national defense and a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which is the position Paul holds. We can either elect to withdraw from our international installations now, or we’ll be forced to leave in a few years when our government can no longer afford anything and we’ve run out of creditors.
I can’t imagine how someone who considers themselves to be a fiscal conservative can possibly support the fiscally liberal position of excessive spending to subsidize other nations’ defense. Not only do the troops like Ron Paul, but defense employees from companies like Lockheed Martin contribute to Ron Paul as well because they know Dr. Paul would build up our national defense, not engage in careless militarism abroad. Under Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America, we’d still spend four times more than China on Defense and reduce all other budgetary obligations to 2006 levels. The total savings from rethinking our defense and other careful cuts would result in $1 Trillion of savings in the first year. This would effectively save social security and medicare, without touching promised benefits to seniors or the less privileged. Sounds pretty fiscally conservative to me.
Yes, there was a GOP presidential debate last night. Mitt Romney tried to go after Newt Gingrich. Gingrich brushed off the shots, calling them lies, and referred the national audience to his website for his rebuttals.
The entertainment value has been on the under-card; the battle among the front runners’ surrogates. Chris Christie called Newt Gingrich an “embarrassment to the party” and an “influence peddler.” Sarah Palin responded by calling Christie a “rookie” with his “panties in a wad.”
Palin went on during her appearance on Fox Business to call Christie an embarrassment, citing his use of a State Police helicopter to attend his son’s baseball game last June.
Christie doesn’t think much of Palin. He kept her out of his 2009 gubernatorial campaign and let it be known to 2010 Republican congressional candidates that she was not welcome in New Jersey if the GOP candidates wanted his help on the trail.
But Christie can’t restrict Palin on the national stage and he can’t respond to her in-kind. Gender sensibilities prohibit Christie from commenting on Palin’s underwear or taking another personal shot at her. A woman can get away with taking a shot like that against a man, but not the other way around. Palin, and Gingrich, know that.
For his own political future, and for his present role as a Romney surrogate, Christie needs to come up with a way to neutralise counter-punches coming from Palin. He needs to do so in a way that increases his standing with both women and men, while diminishing Palin’s.
A telephone survey conducted Sunday of likely voters in the Florida GOP primary has Newton Gingrich leading Mitt Romney, 41%-32%, according to Rasmussen Reports.
Two weeks ago Romney lead by 22%.
Romney is leading among those who have already cast their votes by 11 points. Gingrich leads by 12% among those who have not yet voted. 14% of likely voters have already cast their ballot.
Governor Chris Christie went on Meet the Press this morning and called Newt Gingrich an embarrassment to the Republican party.
“I think Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time,” Christie said. “Whether he’ll do it again in the future I don’t know, but Gov. Romney never has.”
“We all know the record, I mean he was run out of the speakership by his own party, he was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy that’s had a very difficult political career at times and has been an embarrassment to the party. I don’t need to regale the country with the entire list again … but sometimes, past is prologue.”
What do you think MMM readers? Is Newt Gingrich an embarrassment to the Republican party or will Governor Christie being singing a different tune come August?
A couple of weeks back, in between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, presidential contender Rick Santorum was subject to claims that he wanted to outlaw birth control.
During an interview with FoxNews’s Brett Baier, Santorum explained that as a Catholic he believed that birth control is wrong, but that he would not support his religious belief regarding birth control becoming law. With regard to birth control, Santorum is able to be both a political conservative and a religious conservative. The position is politically conservative, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, religious freedom and personal liberty. His choice to strictly follow the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding sex and procreation is religiously conservative.
Political conservatism and religious conservatism are not the same thing.
Actually, neither of them are “things.” They are abstractions. Philosophical constructs. Values. They are not things.
Political conservatism and religious conservatism are not the same distinction. Santorum demonstrated in his interview with Baier that, in the matter of birth control, he is both politically conservative and religiously conservative.
In a follow up Baier asked about marriage. Regarding marriage, Santorum’s religious conservatism trumps his political conservatism, it seems to me. The former Pennsylvania senator is able to think, to distinguish, between his political conservatism and religious conservatism, with regard to birth control, but homosexuality is too much of a sin for Santorum to distinguish between his religious convictions and the law of the land.
Why that is doesn’t really make sense to me.
The Catholic Church teaches that practicing birth control is a mortal sin. If a faithful heterosexual married couple bumps uglies with a barrier, physical or surgical, or with the use of a chemical, that prevents conception, they are going to hell if they die before they get to confession. If they bump the uglies in the wrong holes, like homosexuals do, and die before confessing, off to Lucifer they go for eternity. That’s OK with the politically conservative Santorum and many, many others.
If a faithful same sex couple bumps uglies in the wrong holes and die before going to confession, they are also going to hell, according to Catholic teaching. But while their queer souls are here on earth, in the United States of America, Santorum and many other religious conservatives want them to have different political rights and responsibilities than the heterosexual couple.
I don’t get how that is politically conservative. Why is same sex marriage different than birth control in the minds of Santorum and so many “conservatives?”
Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman seem to be engaged in a perverse contest to be the Republican presidential candidate to say the most asinine thing about Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm at which he served as chief executive, helped turn around a number of failing businesses, and, in the process, produced magnificent profits for his investors and for himself. Mitt Romney ran a firm that invested in struggling businesses, made money, and never asked for a bailout — and Romney’s rivals apparently expect Republican voters to regard that as a liability.
We are largely immune to the charms of the CEO who promises to sweep into Washington and run the government like a business, mainly because the government is not a business. At the same time, private-sector expertise and experience is an invaluable thing in a chief executive, and Romney has nothing to regret on that front. Would that we could say the same thing of his tin-eared declaration that he, too, once feared getting the dread pink slip. Suffice it to say that the multimillionaire/CEO/governor son of a multimillionaire/CEO/governor does not fear losing his job in quite the same way as the typical American worker does.
Newt Gingrich’s risible super-PAC factotum has gone to the length of producing a feverish little film about Romney’s tenure as a “corporate raider” at Bain. Governor Perry, for his part, told a Republican audience: “If you are the victim of Bain Capital’s downsizing, it is the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain — he caused it.” To appropriate Governor Perry’s favorite adjective, that is the ultimate in populist pandering, or something close to it.
Huntsman’s private-sector experience consists of having served as an executive at the firm owned by his billionaire father. Gingrich and Perry have between them about eleven minutes’ worth of relevant private-sector experience — Perry being subsidized by the federal government to farm cotton, Gingrich subsidizing himself by farming his political connections — and therefore may not know (or care) what a private-equity firm such as Bain does. (Gingrich might consider asking his friends at leveraged-buyout firm Forstmann Little, where he was on the board.) Bain is involved in, among other things, leveraged buyouts, meaning that the firm and its investors borrow money from banks to acquire companies, usually firms that are in trouble but believed to be salvageable. These firms generally are bought on the theory that they represent fundamentally sound underlying business enterprises that are for one reason or another performing deficiently, usually because of incompetent management. Strong, thriving companies rarely are targets for leveraged-buyout acquisitions — if things are going well, there is no incentive to sell the company. If the firms are publicly traded, they often are taken private, their stocks delisted from the exchanges, and then reorganized. Once the company has been returned to profitability, it is taken public again or sold to a private buyer, in the hopes of turning a profit on the deal.
As you can imagine, companies that are buyout targets often are in very poor shape, and reviving them is no small thing. Many of them go into bankruptcy. Product lines are discontinued, retail locations are closed, assets are sold off, and, almost inevitably, jobs are lost. Some never recover. When the restructuring is successful, reinvigorated firms expand, add locations, develop new products, and create jobs. That is the creative destruction of capitalism. Staples has 2,000 stores instead of one store because of a Bain investment. And, as Herman Cain is well-positioned to appreciate, Burger King was severely underperforming when Bain and a group of franchise owners acquired it from corporate parent Diageo in 2002. The restructured burger chain, which went public a few years back, is now valued at more than $3 billion. Household names from Dunkin’ Donuts to Guitar Center have been among Bain’s projects.
Bain’s business is high-risk and high-reward. Romney made a pot of money — by investing in real businesses, which, it bears noting, employ many thousands of real Americans. Governor Perry likes to brag about the jobs created in Texas during his tenure: Perhaps he should subtract from that admirable sum those positions at companies in which Bain invested, for the sake of his intellectual integrity.
Romney also is being roasted for saying that one of the things he prefers about the private sector is that when it comes to the incompetent or the unsatisfactory, “if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.” Choice — including the choice to fire a non-performing employee, or to fire your bank if you prefer another one — is the essence of the free market. In education, health care, and any number of other spheres of American life, more choice desperately is needed. An education system in which incompetent teachers could be routinely fired would be a real improvement over the current regime of tenure and “rubber rooms” — and Romney has nothing for which to apologize in connection with that remark, nor for taking on the thankless task of explaining the goodness of profits to an Occupy Wall Street heckler. Huntsman mocked Romney for the remark — but whoever the next president of the United States is, he should be provided with a very long list of people in the federal bureaucracies who need firing. If Huntsman does not have one, he has not thought hard enough about the issue.
Wall Street has its share of miscreants, and they should be recognized as such when appropriate. But to abominate Mitt Romney for having been a success at the business of investing in struggling American companies, connecting entrepreneurs with capital and producers with markets, is foolish and destructive. Republicans ought to know better, and the fact that Gingrich et al. apparently do not is the most disturbing commentary on the state of the primary field so far.
Governor Chris Christie will be interviewed by David Gregory Sunday morning on the NBC show, “Meet the Press.”