Does the GOP Shares Blame for Obamacare?

Besides the occasional Republican either voting for socialized medicine or preventing a filibuster of it, the guilt of the association with the proposal that passed the Senate and the GOP is very deep. In fact the recent bill, without the public option (but will force people into public care) looks increasingly like the failed experiment of Massachusetts.

Michael Tanner, a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute recently noted that the primary highlights of Obama's health care program as it leaves the Senate mirrors the Massachusetts program that has become a nightmare. In particular, the final bill will likely include an individual mandate, a weak employer-mandate, middle-class subsidies, and increased insurance regulation.

The sweeping legislation passed in Massachusetts in 2006 set the stage for a dramatic shift in the role of government when it comes to health care. Critics warned at the time that the program would become more bureaucratic, more expensive, and less user friendly. Tanner believes that, three years later, that is exactly the case today.

Tanner notes that the problems with the program are significant and numerous:

• In spite of practically bankrupting the state in order to get maximum participation among residents to get health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured.
• The state requires every resident to have health insurance, yet that mandate seems to play only a small role in the number who get covered (evidenced by those who still remain without coverage). The real force behind insurance enrollment is due to the state's generous subsidies for the middle class.
• If cost containment was an objective, Massachusetts has failed miserably because health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. In fact, since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. An increase in demand that comes with expanded numbers of those covered always leads to either higher costs or greater shortages (or both).
• Insurance premiums have actually risen by eight to 10 percent annually. This is nearly double the national average. The "lower rates" we hear about in the political debate today are driven by smoke and mirrors and promise to be very short term.
• New regulations and government controls are actually reducing consumer choice and adding to health care costs. The government found itself in a powerful position once Massachusetts passed this measure. With that power the government only continued to expand controls at the expense of consumers.
• Program costs have exploded in spite of significant tax increases. To counter this, the state is considering a freeze on insurance premiums, reductions in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of implementing a program that would essentially ration health care. This promises to chase insurance companies and doctors out of the state, which only leads to higher prices and more shortages. A vicious cycle for the people of Massachusetts.
• As a result, there has been a shortage of providers, combined with an increase in demand, leading to increasing waiting times to see a doctor. As physicians find it more profitable to practice elsewhere, this situation will only increase.
  

Anyone seriously considering the health care bill navigating through the Congress should do so with great caution in light of the lessons that we have learned from Massachusetts.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The GOP may have a race of three

If you listen to the mainstream media, the race for the GOP nomination is pretty much a dead heat between three candidates: former governors Sarah Palin of Alaska, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. No one else needs to apply. Most would argue that John McCain was too old and certainly too moderate in 2008. Nothing has changed since then and, according to the pundits, these three are the only ones with the name identification, revenue sources, and organization to be taken seriously. Thanks to the media, they have done the vetting for us. Thank goodness, because I certainly did not want to do any of the heavy lifting.

Seriously though, is the race already history? Do we need to not get behind a candidate but simply wait for one of these three to rise to the top? I have seen several articles on the subject and although there are some times additional candidates are thrown in, the reoccurring theme includes these three candidates. Of the articles, one of the most interesting was by Paul Bedard in Washington Whispers from US News & World Reports.

Bedard recognizes there are other players in consideration for 2012, including one or two that are not on his top three lists and he already places them in the "also ran" department. These include Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. He points out that the Republican Party is not much for surprises and is big on those who have paid their dues being rewarded, noting that "In a party that allows for only a handful of big names in the primaries and favors those making a second try, the room is getting full." But this is not just the opinion of a journalist, but even among professional observers of the Party. GOP pollster Bill McInturff stated that "We already have a relatively mature field." Those that are considered most "mature" or established" include Palin, Huckabee, or Romney.

"I always talk about oxygen in a presidential primary race, with the amount of oxygen being finite, meaning attention and coverage," McInturff is quoted by Bedard. "If Governor Palin does run, it is difficult to imagine how a new candidate gets the oxygen needed for a breakout," he says. "In this way, it accrues to the advantage of already established candidates like Palin, Huckabee, and Romney."

The race is certainly not over, but the GOP is extremely cautious in its choices of candidates. I think the writer hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that "the Republican camp generally likes to nominate somebody who has run before." Call it what it is, but this is good old fashion due diligence, which is the type of approach that is common in the Republican Party. I think many, if not most, Democrats wish they had done a little more homework in its choice of a President in 2008.

The one thing that is not being included in this "conventional wisdom" is the role of the Tea Parties, which are maturing and demanding more on a daily basis. The "good old boy" network and the "get along gang" are not nearly as popular as they use to be. Of the three candidates considered in the top three, Palin is certainly the most interesting to those who consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement. I, personally, am keeping an eye on Governors Daniel and Barbour as well as her. I think the Tea Party could change all of the rules on Presidential politics and 2012 could be an interesting year indeed.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Obama Wants to Restore Welfare "As we Knew It"

Hidden in the media coverage about Barack Obama is the eloquent argument being made by Republican Governors regarding their concerns over the stimulus package. The media believes that these politicians are jockeying for higher office. The truth is, most are opposed to the massive growth of the federal government and are particularly concerned about the bill's various "hitches" designed to force states to take positions that they are opposed to. Worse than being critical about these governors, many in the mainstream media are ignoring them entirely.

Robert Schlesinger has noted at US News and World Reports that the New York Times reviewed the views of GOP candidates and their thoughts on Obama's stimulus package and stated that "in terms of presidential politics, the most notable name in the Times piece is Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who campaigned with Obama for the stimulus package last week. Glaringly absent from the Times piece were governors like South Carolina's Mark Sanford, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, Mississippi's Haley Barbour and Alaska's Sarah Palin—all governors recently named in the Washington Post's excellent 'The Fix' column as being among the five most influential and powerful voices in the Republican Party (the other person named was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney). Palin and Jindal are often named as contenders in 2012, and Barbour gave 2008 a long look before passing on it. Sanford is chairman of the Republican Governor's Association."

Haley Barber has been particularly persuasive in discussing his concerns, stating on Fox News that the Obama measure would force states to allow people to receive welfare, even if they are not willing to work, if they want to enjoy the complete package. For example, Barbour notes, that if the state of Mississippi wants to receive $54 million in increased unemployment benefits, they will have to expand the benefits to those not actively looking for employment or willing to take it if offered. If Barbour doesn't take it, he will receive less than $4 million of the expanded benefits.

We haven't seen this kind of pressure on the restoration of the Welfare State since Bill Clinton and Republicans in Congress led the efforts to reverse many of the damaging policies that led to multi generational poverty. I consider that to be one of the the greatest policy achievement of the 1990s. This achievement is threatened as the Obama policies are implemented in the states.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

McCain Makes His Choice for VP

Days before the official announcement I predicted that Barack Obama would choose Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his running mate. The article enjoyed a great deal of traction outside of my blog and now I am getting pressure to do it again when it comes to John McCain. This may not be as easy.

Picking Barack Obama's choice was relatively easy because his weaknesses are so obvious (and Biden was a great balance to them), he is very predictable and actually resistant to change (and the Delaware Senator is very "safe"), and Obama is perceived as an elitist by many because of his Pro-Europe rhetoric and statements viewed as anti-American by many, plus his $4.5 million in income last year alone (Biden, on the other hand, is considered one of the poorest members of the Senate).

So who will McCain choose? We hear about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as Conservative favorites. But Romney does not have a history of conservatism to make anyone on the Right comfortable and Jindal has been very clear that he doesn't want the job. It is too bad, because Jindal is young, very conservative, and being of Indian descent, he could certainly bring some excitement to the ticket in terms of making history. Another commonly mentioned "safe choice" is Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Recently the chatter has been very strong in his direction, but few can cite what he can bring to the ticket.

Then there are the "bold" choices. These include Sen. Joseph Liberman, Secretary of State Condi Rice, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Many believe that although none of these choices are very conservative, they are the kind of candidates who could pull votes from the Democrats while the rank and file Republicans will overlook their lack of right wing credentials because of their concerns over Obama.

One of the latest ones being mentioned and is quickly rising is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX). Although considered a moderate, she is one of the more conservative females in either Houses of Congress. In fact, she voted the GOP position 89 percent of the time. She brings the female appeal that could attract many disenchanted Hillary Democrats, yet she doesn't scare off traditional Republicans. Another often mentioned female is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She is solidly conservative and knows about energy. She would certainly defend the domestic drilling case being pushed by Republicans.

In my Obama/Biden piece I was a little bold. I said it was going to be Biden. Period. I am going to hedge my bets a little and name the top four. However, I will stick my neck out there and place them in the order of likelihood.

Number four on the list is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. I don't believe this a "good" choice by any measure. Yes he is attractive and articulate, but he can't bring in the voters and he became a conservative too late in life for the comfort of most. Furthermore, the Democrats will have a field day providing film footage of the bitter fighting Romney and McCain had in the primaries.

Number three is Condi Rice. She may very well be the best choice. It is true that she is largely unknown when it comes to domestic policy, but she is solid in many national security areas. Furthermore, she is an African-American woman. That covers many voters who are interested in history. The down side is that she and McCain are both considered foreign policy experts. Someone with domestic policy strength could help the ticket.

Number two on the list is Gov. Bobby Jindal. You never know, he might even accept it from a hurricane center in his state, showing "hands on" leadership. Jindal, more than any other candidate in my opinion, combines a bold move for independents and comfort for the conservative base that is crucial in getting Republicans elected.

Candidate number one and the one I believe McCain is going to choose is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas. She has fifteen years of experience in the Senate, and a substantial voting record that people could judge (it is moderate-conservative), she is a woman (which will help attract disgruntled Hillary supporters), and she is from the South (crucial for the GOP to win elections).

In the end, this is what I am expecting and not hoping. Jindal would be my choice, if I could call it. But Hutchinson could very well be the right compliment, at this time, to get McCain elected.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

Conservatives Fear of Obama Gives McCain Room for a Bold VP Choice

The choice of who will be the Republican Vice President nominee will likely be unusually important this election cycle. Typically the mantra is "do no harm." This year, because of the incredible move of the Democrats with Obama and the very boring presence of McCain, Republicans better go bold. The question is, how bold? Will that be measured by ethnicity? Gender? Skin color? Religion? Those are the questions Republican strategists should be asking. However, the list of most commonly mentioned candidates for the VP post makes me wonder.

My favorite choice, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, has largely taken himself out of consideration. It is too bad, because he did so much for McCain. He is charismatic, young, being the first Vice President born in the 1970s, very conservative (shoring up an area McCain has proven to be weak), he would make history as the first Indian American and Asian American elected to Vice President. In spite of his young age, he actually has a more substantial career than Barack Obama. I do believe he can be persuaded. I hope that happens.

Another often mentioned choice is Mitt Romney, who knows how to spend money for votes, but doesn't appear to know how to collect them. I don't think I have ever see a candidate spend more per vote and have less to show for it. Romney is charismatic and financially very successful, but he has "matured" in his political thinking too late for most conservatives. In his first Senate race against Ted Kennedy he was a liberal Republican. When he ran for Governor, it was as a moderate. Now, he tries to position himself as a conservative. The reality is, Romney brings very little to the ticket. Conservatives and Evangelicals seem as suspicious of him as they are McCain because of his Mormon beliefs and shifting philosophy. The only conservatives that seem passionate about Romney are the same ones who wanted McCain to lose if he received the Republican nomination. The choice of Romney would essentially guarantee that.

Many conservatives look at McCain in a similar way as they did Bob Dole in 1996. Not a person to get excited about. However, Dole was running against a moderate Democrat in Bill Clinton. A person who "ended poverty as we know it" and in that policy achievement found at least a small spot in the hearts of hardened conservatives. Barack Obama, on the other hand, brings absolute fear in the heart of most rank and file Republicans. It isn't because of his race, his questionable religious background, or even his age and inexperience that they worry. Instead, it his "embarrassment" of the way the US is viewed by the rest of the world and his wife's view that the US is simply mean and for the first time now deserves her being proud of it.

I believe McCain can safely assume he will get conservative voters no mater who he has as Vice President. This is radical coming from me. I strongly wanted a true believer on the top of the ticket, so giving up both spots shows how desperate the situation has become. But it is just that. McCain needs to make some history of his own. Here are a few people that could help him do just that:

* Colin Powell. The former General and Secretary of State would give the American people a leader who inspires respect and authority, taking away some of Obama's thunder. He is "blamed" for the evidence that led to the war in Iraq, but he is respected by liberals and moderates alike. I believe the biggest concern that potential Obama supporters have is his inexperience. Colin Powell allows voters to have their cake and eat it too. With a respected and experienced black leader like Powell.

* Senator Joseph Lieberman. The American people have grown exhausted over the political division in Washington, DC. Lieberman, who would be America's first Jewish Vice President, is now considered an Independent, but has decades on his biography as a Democrat. I have little doubt that he would jump at the opportunity. On the down side, he is not particularly young or charismatic, but he is well like and would offer an opportunity for national unity (verses mere party unity) that we haven't seen in years.

* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. For conservatives, Rice is fairly solid on foreign policy and an unknown on domestic policy. She is attractive and articulate. She is black and female and would be a huge attraction for Clinton supporters who believe their standard bearer was mistreated. Meanwhile, blacks who have been concerned about how prepared Obama is would find Rice a safe bet. In fact, Rice could seal the deal for the huge percentage of female voters who say they won't vote for Obama.

If McCain is going to play it safe, he need to consider Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Huckabee would help shore up conservative voters (although he is no Reagan conservative) and did the best job of any candidate on his vote per dollar ratio. He is an excellent grass roots organizer who would do a great job in the McCain effort.

I hope McCain goes bold and electrifies his ticket with a VP who could mobilize the many independents who are planning on voting for the first time. He needs to go bold and go deep, his electoral success depends upon it.

Would you like to get a periodical email of the best of Kevin Price's political and economic content? Subscribe to the Houston Business Review at Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Dark Reasons Behind the Pro-Romney Crowd?

Many are advocating Mitt Romney for John McCain's choice for Vice President and it seems as though he is the one to beat. We are told that it is due to several factors:

* He is handsome and charismatic

* He proved an ability to get elected in very liberal states (he was, after all, governor of Massachusetts)

* He has an enormous amount of money and knows people with money, which will certainly help a campaign that is limping along financially

* he has done an effective job of marketing himself as a Conservative.

I'm not joining the bandwagon for several reasons of my own:

* Romney had been a liberal for years and "matured" on the issues rather late in his career

* In spite of spending as much as ten times more per vote (or more) than Governor Huckabee and Senator McCain, Romney had little to show for it as far as electoral success

* Romney is particularly weak when it comes to bringing in votes in the crucial Southern states, which have proven imperative in getting Republicans elected

What I find interesting is that the people who are promoting Romney are the media, who have made it clear they are largely supporting Obama in November and Conservative Republicans who implied that they wouldn't support McCain if he got the nomination. It appears with Romney on the ticket, they are guaranteeing the Republican Party's demise.

Tired of the plain old business news? Ready for practical information to change your business and even your life? Visit HoustonBusinessReview.com and sign up for this important weekly ezine.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Do Democrats Fear John McCain?

Do Democrats fear John McCain? According to the latest web commercial from the John McCain commercial, the answer is overwhelmingly, "yes." In the commercial, found at JohnMcCain.com, individuals see a series of quotes from individuals expressing who Democrats fear most in this election. Without exception, the answer is Senator McCain.

In my friendships and business relationships, I get a similar response. The prospect of a McCain candidacy keeps the Democrats up at night, I am told.

I'm not buying it. Sure, he will likely make the Democrats life difficult when he talks about national defense and terrorism. As a former POW and veteran, and heroic in many respects, he will be tough to tackle on those issues. Furthermore, he has been consistently right on the war from the beginning and the Democrats have become remarkably quiet about it in recent weeks. Why? Because Americans seem to be interested in winning again rather than merely getting out in a hurry.

However, on numerous other issues, there is a little difference between him and the Democrats. He has been terribly inconsistent on taxes, soft on spending issues, and has flip-flopped on immigration. My view is, if you have a choice between a Democrat or a Democrat impersonator, you will choose the original article.

I can't help but think that there is a little bit of reverse psychology in the quotes by these Democrat leaders in this commercial. Would they sincerely express who they really fear or would they give the impression they fear one in the effort to get the GOP to choose that candidate? My gut tells me that the latter is the case. By the way, those Republicans e.g., Robert Novak) who are saying the same thing in the ad are merely quoting what Democrats are telling them. The Democrats want McCain because he will likely do a poor job to motivate the Republican base that are so crucial in getting someone elected.

I believe that the Democrats fear Mitt Romney the most. Why? He has the important Governor credential that has been the most common characteristic of every successful Presidential candidate since the 1970s. In fact, only one candidate since Carter hasn't had that credential -- George H.W. Bush -- who sat from the lofty position of sitting Vice President. He has proven that he can win in one of the toughest states for Republicans in the country. This is no small accomplishment. Furthermore, McCain is on the brink of financial ruin. Romney has plenty of cash to sail smoothly into the general election. Romney, who does have his own flip flop problems, has the strongest favorable positions on the issues that motivate the Republican faithful. This will be crucial come November.

I am not sure any of these Republicans are worthy to cause the Democrats to be fearful. But if there is one, it isn't McCain.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Barometers Versus Leaders

I'm not a fan of a Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, or John Edwards. I disagree with Huckabee on most issues and Edwards and Obama on virtually every issues. However, at least these guys have been extremely consistent.

They have said from day one that they intended to be candidates of change. Unfortunately the only change that will likely be found is in our pockets after they confiscate huge amounts of income as they promote the tax legislation through the rhetoric (Obama and Edwards) and through the records (Obama, Edwards, and Huckabee).

The message for change is a sound one. There are certainly things that deserve a better approach. But more government and class conflict (popular themes of each of these candidates) are not a solution.

Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton took a different approach. Romney postured himself as a bastion of stability and a force for normalcy. Clinton mentioned change but, what you really got from her was "experience" (e.g., all the funerals she attended as First Lady). Now that the experience message isn't resonating, these candidates are making dramatic shifts toward populist rhetoric. Ironically, Clinton's shift may have worked in New Hampshire (that appears to be the case at the time of the writing).

Romeny and Clinton seem to make better barometers than leaders. They have sensed a change in the political weather and are trying to accommodate the storm rather than their principles. We need principled leadership and not mere gauges of temperament.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Mike Huckabee is Trying to Have His Cake and Eat It Too

Mike Huckabee is trying to have his cake and eat it too. This isn't easy to accomplish in an environment that is difficult to even get a fair break.

For weeks Mitt Romney has opened his deep pockets in an effort to derail the Huckabee Express. The former governor from Arkansas has gone from minor player to the man to beat over the last few months. With an attitude that nears entitlement -- Romney has paid for this nomination after all -- he is throwing everything, including the kitchen sink at Huckabee.

Huckabee has based his campaign on being a nice guy, which has played no small role in fueling his success, in my opinion. Further, his wit and wisdom has made him stand out in an often unimpressive crowd.

It appears, though that Huckabee has had all he can tolerate and he has decided to go ugly, creating an ad that puts him on the offensive. He looked at it and concluded that it wasn't the kind of ad that Huckabee should run. It had the potential of doing more harm to his reputation than help it.

He was probably right, but ruined his good intentions by having a press conference announcing he wasn't going to run the ad and showing the media the “offensive” commercial his team had designed. The purpose was to say, "do you see what I could have unleashed on Romney?"

I assume Huckabee was hoping that the media would run the spot for him and give him free advertising, but with arms length distance from the campaign. There has been some play of the ad, but at the expense of his "good guy" image. This is not the kind of approach that has made Huckabee the serious contender he has become. It seems to be the results of a "Tier 2" operation representing what has become a "Tier 1" candidate. He might survive it, but if such tactics continue the future will not be bright for Huckabee, in my opinion.

As an aside, since people interpret such posts as endorsements or oppositions, I don't support Huckabee. In fact, his views on economic issues are very disconcerting (I suggest reading the Club for Growth reports of Huckabee and other candidates). I continue to strongly lean towards Fred Thompson and wait patiently for him to give me more reasons to do so.

Kevin Price is the Host of the Houston Business Show, M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650. You can hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Read his opinions at BizPlusBlog.com. He is also the Publisher of HoustonBusinessReview.com.

See How They Run: Sizing up the Three Tiers of Republican Candidates

The current discussion of two groups -- the "Big three" (or is it four now?) and everyone else doesn't accurately size up the break down of the Republican Presidential hopefuls, in my opinion. The following is my spin on the eleven candidates for President, what tier they are in, and what chances they have (if any). Again, this is my perspective, I look forward to the comments of others.

Tier I (in alphabetical order)

Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's strengths are that he is attractive to libertarians who favor the war and traditional conservatives who are willing to over look his positions on social issues "for a time such as this." He would be unacceptable in 2000, but must be taken seriously today. His negatives are that he is untested on national issues, people will have reluctance about choosing a former mayor, and NYC mayor has a history of being a "dead end job."

My view: He has access to deep financial pockets. He goes in deep in the election and I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the ticket, some where.

John McCain. On the up side, he had a strong organization and high name identification. Furthermore, his strong position on the war is attractive to traditional conservatives who might other wise dislike him. On the negative side, he's old and sounds old. His total lack of understanding on tax policy is unacceptable.

My view: He is sinking fast, many supporters or going to be bailing out in the days to come. Check back next week, the "Big Four" could be a "Big Three" again, minus him.

Mitt Romney. Romney is attractive (maybe too much so?), was able to get elected in the most liberal state in the country as a Republican (can you say Reagan Democrats?), he is a former governor (historically one of the strongest positions to run for President), and has virtual unlimited access to money (like his own pockets). On the down side, he "matured" on issues too late in life to make most Conservatives comfortable, his religion makes many traditional Conservatives nervous, and he's from Massachusetts.

My view: His money will have him last quite a while in this race, but I don't see him ever "catching on" to the Party in general. However, if a Giuliani gets the nomination, he might be seen as a good balance on the ticket. He won't be, however, because Republicans will have a very difficult time winning without a Southerner on the ticket. This, of course, leads to...

Fred Thompson. Thompson (photo) has access to significant amounts of money, is a very solid Conservative, is from the South (crucial for anyone to win the Presidency these days), is a former Senator (meaning he has proven ability to win bigger races), and knows how to act like a leader. His negatives are less obvious, but I'm concerned about how he will do on the campaign trail. Also, the Senate is not nearly as strong as the governorship for getting elected President (the chief executive role seems to be very important).

My view; Fred Thompson is the guy to beat. Period. His numbers are stronger than people who have spent millions and he simply comes across as more Presidential.

Tier II


This is were I am sure I will get some arguments. All those who believe there guy should have been in "Tier II" will be upset. However, it should be of comfort to all of you, that "Tier II" dwellers won't likely get the nomination, unless something seriously wrong happens to the group above. Again, this list is in alphabetical order:

Sam Brownback. The Kansas Senator is, in my opinion, on the bottom part of the Tier II list. He is a fine as US Senator and should really do us a favor by staying there. We can use quality people in that body. He lacks the maturity and ability to relate to be a serious candidate. Furthermore, he seriously lacks access to money.

Jim Gilmore. The former Virginia Governor comes from the South (a big plus) and had that crucial chief executive role. These are two major pluses. Beyond these two big positives, Gilmore simply doesn't cut it. I think he may be running for an appointment in a new administration. He also seriously lacks money.

Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is a relatively young Southern (recently) former Governor, who comes from a state that has strong, Democrat roots. If you keep your observations to this brief overview, he looks excellent, but his chances are really quite poor. He has a mixed fiscal record as Governor, very limited access to money, and doesn't come across as particularly Presidential. He's on the high end of the Tier II and could pull off a miracle if the top Tier implodes, but don't hold your breath.

Tommy Thompson. I like Thompson, personally, although he is not Conservative enough and he fails to come from a region that has produced a popularly elected President in decades. Thompson is innovative (his views on Iraq are very interesting, in my opinion) and he is a former Governor, which is very important in politics today. His down sides include limited access to money and a weak connection to voters (he's something of a technocrat). In many respects, running for President of the US is more like running for "class president" than virtually any other political office. He simply doesn't get the popularity factor.

Tier III

This is the group that would do us a collective favor by getting out tomorrow. These three candidates are two traditional right wingers (Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo) and a libertarian (Ron Paul) and they are only diluting the support of the real Conservatives in the upper tiers. I wish there were a couple liberal or moderate Republicans in this group.

I could easily dismiss these three for one simple reason -- they are members of the US House of Representatives. We haven't elected a US House member since 1880 (James Garfield who was assassinated just a few months in his office) and I honestly think we are less likely to elect someone from that spot now than then. The office doesn't give potential supporters much hope that he can muster the national support essential to win. They have extremely limited access to money, poor organization, and simply don't look serious.

Duncan Hunter. The California Congressman is actually an old friend of mine (I mentioned that to a campaign member and they now count me as one of his supporters). When I was involved with a think tank I helped to start in DC, he served on the Advisory Board and had a study I wrote with Dr. Larry Adams (who is now with the University of Virginia) published in the Congressional Record. I like him, but I can't support him. He doesn't have a prayer and I believe he is too pessimistic on economic policy to be a successful President.

Ron Paul. I was an early member of Young Conservatives of Texas (back when I made my first vote for Ronald Reagan) and Ron Paul was a very good friend to that organization. I believe he has a great deal of personal integrity and I have liked his position on many domestic policy issues. However, his "blame the US" views on foreign policy are a disaster that discredits many of his positions on the economy. I wish he would get out, but I'm afraid we might see him running as a Libertarian again. He's a sad story, in my opinion.

Tom Tancredo. Tom seems to me to be a single issue candidate -- immigration -- in a party that is still divided on the best approach to that issue. In many ways, he is just like Duncan Hunter, but if you put the two together you still wouldn't have a dime. He's a fine Congressman, I wish he would stay there.

That's how I size up the candidates, I look forward to seeing the comments of others.

See How They Run: The Debate After the Debate

Last night's South Carolina debate sponsored by Fox News for Republican candidates was very rough and tumble. It showcased the struggle the leading candidates are going to have because of how weak their conservative credentials. It demonstrated why the second tier candidates are called just that and I believe many of them will soon be gone. Here are a few of my observations:

* Ron Paul (photo) needs to get out as soon as possible. I've known Paul for years and he's highly intelligent and articulate, but he is far more libertarian than Republican. The Republican Party is not a party of appeasement, as Paul likes to argue, it is a party of Peace through Strength. Paul is now involved in the most extreme liberal blame game, claiming that September 11th is America's fault (because of our activities in regards to Iraq after the first Gulf War). That isn't going to fly in the Republican Party (and it isn't true). Republicans need to remind people like Paul that "the terrorists are over there, because we over there." Let's keep the terrorists over there.

* McCain and Romney are not going to make it. These guys spent the entire night letting out their frustrations on each other. Continuously accused of flip-flopping on the campaign trail, they had to do the exact same thing to each other. McCain doesn't understand tax cuts, Romney, was pro-abortion and converted too late to trust, etc., etc. These guys suffered the most, in my opinion.

* Giuliani was the big winner. He looked very Presidential and thoroughly slammed Ron Paul for blaming the US for September 11th. His remarks, calling Paul irresponsible and demanding a retraction, reminded me of Ronald Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" in the 1980 New Hampshire Primary debate that many called a turning point in that campaign. It may not be that significant, but it was an excellent moment.

The debate, above all things, demonstrates there is a long way to go. Ten candidates now and a few months there will likely be less and even different ones in the running. Fox News did a much better job than MSNBC in conducting the debate, but in the end, the current format remains weak. I'm eager to see how the pruning process eliminates candidates and allows us to get to know the eventual nominee better.

See How They Run: Observations on the First 08 Republican Debate

The first debate is over and the political season is only beginning. I found Thursday's debate interesting on a couple of levels and walked away with numerous opinions. Here are a few of them:

* The minor candidates really need more forums such as this. It allows them to project an image of equality and most of them are as well informed and articulate as the major contenders.

* Two of the major candidates -- Giuliani and McCain -- were harmed by this debate. They were surprisingly rough around the edges, not the person whom you want on a platform with world leaders representing our interests, and simply did not come across as presidential.

* One of the major candidates, Mitt Romney, definitely benefited. He was articulate, smooth, and poised. If anything he was "too much" of those things. But I believe most were impressed.

* I believe the concept of "who won" is largely contingent on who you wanted to win. I really didn't care. Although I know some of the candidates and am old friends with Duncan Hunter (R-CA), I wanted to see who would win. After the debate I notice I had an article open on one candidate on the Internet and another window on his web page. His answers were the only ones I remembered. That was former Secretary of Health and Human Services and former Governor, Tommy Thompson (photo). He was one of the only candidates who was extremely specific on the issues, offered innovative (even memorable) reforms, and seemed to be more interested in policy than politics.

Thompson reminded me of a candidate I supported in 1988, Pete du Pont (the former Republican Governor of Delaware), who offered "damn right solutions" to the problems America faced. I believe he was right then and if we had listened to him then, we would be in a much better situation today. Unfortunately, most people are interested in politics than policy. Personality more than leadership. I don't think Thompson will catch on any more than duPont, 20 years ago.

So who won Thursday's debate? I believe the answer to that is in the eyes of the beholder. I know who I liked, how about you? I would love your comments.

See How They Run: Reagan Impersonators?

The first debate of the Republican candidates for President will be on hallowed ground -- the Reagan Library (image) in California. Ronald Reagan is an icon that was larger than life when living and he casts a huge shadow in death. For 20 years, Republican candidates have tried desperately (and unsuccessfully) to fill those shoes. Tonight, they meet at the Reagan library to debate and I assure you his name will be mentioned early and often.

I have known many of the candidates for years and many are excellent at what they do, but few are even Presidential timber, let alone worthy of being spoken in the same breath as Reagan. The list of candidates include Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jim Gilmore (former Republican Governor of Virginia), and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California. There are a few others that you may have never heard of before. Seriously though, it is a huge list of unheard of candidates and the "big three" (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney) appear to be on a roller coaster ride and are having difficulty getting traction.

One of the most popular Republican candidate, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, hasn't even declared he is running and will not be participating in the debate tonight. Described as "Southern Fried Reagan," he has many of the characteristics necessary to win the election. A solid (but reasonable) conservative, Southern (a virtual prerequisite it seems), and high visual and name ID (because of his movie and TV career), many Republicans are waiting for him to jump in.

There is no Ronald Reagan in the lot, even with the entrance of a Fred Thompson. I'm not sure if we will ever see anyone of that stature again. But if the Republican Party is going to be taken seriously, someone like Thompson is going to have to get in this race.

See How They Run: The Potential for Precedent

The 2008 election for President is full of potential firsts. There is the possibility of the first female President with Hillary Clinton, or first African American with Barack Obama, or the first Mormon with Mitt Romney (see photo, left). Clinton and Obama are considered the two Democratic front runners and Romney is considered (barely) in the top tier of Republican candidates.

What are their chances?

* Hillary Clinton isn't likely to win, in my opinion, and many rank and file Republicans hopes she gets her party's nomination in the belief that she will spell defeat for Democrats in November. She is considered one of the most polarizing politicians in the US today. She has the highest negatives (and, ironically, positives) of all the major candidates. Winning the campaign for President is predicated on candidates picking up voters as other candidates pull out of the race. I believe that those who will support her, are largely supporting her now. The defeat of other candidates will find their voters going elsewhere.

* Barack Obama's biggest problem is that he is simply too liberal to be President of the United States. He wants to dramatically increase taxes on wealth creation, he promotes socialized medicine, and he generally behaves as though the US is the single biggest problem on the world scene. Obama is even having problems among African American voters with many from that natural base going to Clinton (thanks largely to the popularity of her husband). I believe Americans are ready for a person of any race, but not this particular African American. This isn't due to skin color, but due to the content of his beliefs.

* Mitt Romney is the most likely of these three candidates to break precedence. The former governor of Massachusetts is getting some harassment because of his Mormon religion, but in the end I think he will over come those objections. Romney is charismatic, comes across as very Conservative (although his positions have evolved over time), and has an excellent family life (very important to the crucial Evangelical voters). There are things in the Mormon theology that should be of concern to the general Christian population. But most Americans, even Evangelical voters, don't study theology. If he looks, acts, and talks like a Christian -- which he certainly does -- he will be embraced by most of them. His beliefs are certainly more attractive to the Conservative base than those of Guiliani or McCain.

In the end, I have my doubts that any of the above are going to pull it off. I believe the next President will probably be a former or sitting Governor and from the West or South. I say this based on the population changes we have seen over the last several decades and the fact that virtually every candidate has fitted that bill since 1960. There are lots of months elections between now and 2008, it should be an interesting race.