m

Monday, November 09, 2009

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.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, February 21, 2009

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.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Historians to Bush: the Worst President?

One of the things I learned in the pursuit of my history degree is that the subject requires a long term perspective. There should be some time between the person and his or her impact on society before historians size them up. Many of my professors at Abilene Christian University -- conservative or liberal -- would say that if they are sizing up a President's impact before his time is done, they are political scientists, not historians. Many of those same professors would say "and, after all, political science isn't a real discipline."

Seriously though, these words of wisdom are being largely ignored by historians today. According to a recent US News & World Reports, "President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can't be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history."
The worst ever? I'm sorry, but I was just talking to someone today about applying for a cashier job at a grocery store and stood in a line that went all the way around the corner. There were two openings at that store. During that time when President Carter was in charge, 13 countries fell to Communism, we had hyperinflation by US historical perspectives, and we were a laughing stock around the world. During that time, we were told by Carter that it was America's fault for being in such a sorry state. We no longer believed in ourselves, we were told.

We didn't stop believing in America, just the politicians running this country. It lead to a mandate going to Ronald Reagan and an American Renaissance. I come from a multi-generational family of Democrats and Carter single handily changed that view. With that, I'm not even sure if Carter was the worst (although he was certainly on the short list of such), but he makes Bush look absolutely brilliant.

In a recent blog post I discussed how the media has altered our perceptions of the economy. We have been fed recession garbage for years and are starting to believe it. Economist John Lott, Jr pointed out that our economic numbers are generally better than a decade ago when Clinton was President -- a period described as economically prosperous. I expect some of the average news consumers to buy into this media propaganda, but not serious historians.

George Bush will not be one of my favorite Presidents, I am sure. His failure to promote free enterprise and its success in the 2006 Congressional races haunts us today (and likely will in 2008), his expansion of government in several areas has been damaging, his inability to articulate the case for the war, and his haphazard and often liberal answers to our current credit crisis leaves much to be desired. But this is a man who presided over the country on September 11th, 2001 and helped restore confidence in this country that lead to a 17 percent growth of the economy under his tenure and remarkably low unemployment. The best President? No. The worst President? Give me a break.

Historians should know better and give history time to judge Bush and leave, what appears to be political agendas to political scientists. After all, they don't know any better.

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.

Labels: , , , , , ,