fbpx

Whitman A Leader Of Third Party Effort

Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman will not be joining Governor Chris Christie on the campaign trail for Mitt Romney.

Whitman is a director of Americans Elect 2012, a PAC that converted into an educational group so that it would not have to disclose its donors.   The group wants Americans to nominate a “centrist” Independent presidential candidate via Internet voting. They are working to secure ballot positions in all 50 states.  So far they’re on the ballots in Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Utah.  There are reports that they’ve submitted petitions in California and Hawaii.

Despite their success in collecting signatures to get on ballots, there is a lot of controversy about the group that will likely hamstring their efforts going forward.  There is a clause in their by laws that allows the group’s directors to disqualify “America’s” candidate.  They’ve got a rule restricting how their nominee selects his/her vice presidential candidate.  The group says it doesn’t support or oppose any particular candidate at this point, but Whitman has been promoting Jon Huntsman as a third party candidate and Mark McKinnon, another director of the group, said Mitt Romney doesn’t have the cojones to be president.

Sounds more like a three ring circus than a third party.  Besides, the Republicans look as though they are going to nominate a centrist in either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.  

As an aside, how long will it be before a highly paid national pundit writes a column about what it means about America that the three front runners for president have weird first names?

Even without the other controversies surrounding Americans Elect 2012, Whitman joining their board should be a sign of that the group is doomed to fail.  Her legacy as New Jersey’s Governor and as Administrator of the EPA under President George W. Bush is beyond embarrassing. 

The messes that Governor Christie is cleaning up now….the broke pension system, broke transportation trust fund, broke unemployment insurance fund, Abbot and COAH, were all started or made worse by Whitman and her appointees.   Shortly after 9-11, EPA Administrator Whitman declared the air at Ground Zero safe to breathe, thereby sending clean up workers to slow deaths and long term disabilities.

It’s little wonder that candidate Chris Christie declared that he’s not a Whitman Republican.

Despite Americans Elect’s foibles, a third party presidential candidate might be a good news for those who want President Obama to be a one termer.

In modern times, i.e., during the lifetimes of anyone likely to vote in 2012,  there have been only two elected incumbent presidents denied a second term by the voters; Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.  Both had significant third party challengers during their reelection bids.  John Anderson, a Republican Congressman from Illinois ran against Carter and Ronald Reagan.  Reagan won.   Ross Perot, the populist Texas billionaire ran against Bush and Bill Clinton.  Clinton won.

The bad news, from a historical perspective, is that Carter and Bush 41 also faced significant primary challenges prior to being renominated.  Carter was challenged for the Democratic nomination in 1980 by Teddy Kennedy.  Bush was challenged for the 1992 GOP nomination by Pat Buchanan.

Reagan’s primary challenge against Gerald Ford in 1976, preceding Carter’s election, may indicate that an incumbent’s problems within their own party may be more of a detriment to reelection than a third party challenge.  Unfortunately, there is no Democrat seriously challenging Obama.

New York Post columnist John Podhoretz says New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is “clearly eyeing” a third party run for president.   A Bloomberg run might be America’s best hope of defeating Obama next year.   The Mayor has the resources to make a credible run and a nanny state record to appeal to enough dissatisfied Democrats and left leaning Independents.

Posted: December 4th, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 Presidential Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

The purpose of government is to do the things we have to do together that we can’t do on our own

By Michael Laffey

It was reported today in Politico that Bill Clinton attacked the Tea Party during comments to a group of reporters. His comment was as follows,

“We need to understand that one of the things that tends to tilt things toward the Republicans’ anti-government narrative is our country was born out of a suspicion of government,” Clinton said. “King George’s government was not accountable to us. That’s what the Boston tea party was about. When the tea party started out, at least they were against unaccountable behavior from top to bottom. Then it morphed into something different. If you want to go against that grain, you’ve got to tell people you understand it’s a privilege and a responsibility to spend their tax money, but there’s some things we have to do together. And that’s what the purpose of government is, to do the things that we have to do together that we can’t do on our own.”

I am confused as to why this was viewed as an attack.  I don’t think there is hardly a person in the Tea Party or in the Republican Party who would disagree with this. In fact I think this statement sums up the conservative philosophy.

The problem is that too many politicians and too many liberals don’t view it as a privilege and a responsibility to spend our tax dollars they view it as a right and they spend our taxes on things we can do for ourselves. 

Of course Bill Clinton is a very smart guy and he knows this.  He also knows that most people in this country if they really think about it agree with this philosophy of government.  What he is really doing is misrepresenting what Conservative Republicans and the Tea Party stand for.  This is all part of a concerted effort to make us look like the radicals.  There is a real danger that this disinformation campaign can work.

We must make it clear to the public that we know there are some things the government should do for us, things like provide police protection, provide for the common defense, maintain roads and infrastructure and protect public health.  Though some might disagree I would add provide for universal education and maintain public lands.

Then we need to ask people like Bill Clinton how subsidies to farmers and corporations (like solyndra) fit into his definition. How is something like medical insurance something we cannot provide for ourselves?  For that matter, why is retirement something we cannot provide for ourselves going forward?  Why should the government subsidize mortgages through Fannie and Freddie Mac? Why does government subsidize a TV station and artists and obscure museum’s in out of the way places. Why why why to thousands, maybe millions of government expenditures.

If the Democrats are going to play this game we need to turn the tables on them.

Posted: October 1st, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Michael Laffey | Tags: , , | 10 Comments »
Newer Entries »