Temperature Check on GOP 2012 Candidates

Back in the spring I did an early analysis (premature, no doubt) on the likely GOP candidates for President in 2012.  I looked at the relative merits of Palin, Huckabee, Jindal, Sanford, Gingrich and Romney.  Things have, to say the least, changed.  It's about time for another premature temperature check.

Next week I'll take a look again at the possible candidates but I'd like to take this opportunity to point out some noticeable changes.  Gone will be Jindal and Sanford and Gingrich.  For various reasons, they are no longer viable candidates.  Of course that is arguable which I'll be discussing my rationale in this post today.  Added to the mix will be Tim Pawlenty and possibly Haley Barbour. Returing for re-evaluation will be Romney, Huckabee and Palin.

Why is Jindal out?  He delivered the Republican response to the first Obama State of the Union address.  It was flat and probably did a lot to torpedo his chances in 2012.  Jindal has a bright future in the GOP and in politics.  He's still young and will eventually surface as a candidate.  But I don't think it will be before 2016, and more importantly, I don't think he thinks so either.  Jindal may run in 2012, but if he does, he's a long shot at best.

Why is Sanford out? In case you missed it, an extra-marital affair in Argentina combined with a borderline missing person case when Sanford went missing for a few days to cheat on his wife.  I don't think that sort of thing will slip past the conservative base.  Unfortunately Sanford has some great conservative ideas and credentials, but he's doomed himself either to at least 2016 if he can repair his image over the long haul, or more likely, he's lost his chance permanently.

Why is Gingrich out? Scozzafava, plain and simple.  He backed not only the wrong horse, he backed a very liberal Democrat in Republican clothing despite the hue and cry from conservatives.  He stubbornly stuck to his I'm right on this attitude until Scozzafava, backed out of the race and then backed the Democrat.  That's not just egg on Newt's face, it's in his pockets, his shoes and all over his hair.  It doesn't seem on the surface like something that is as big as the right is making it out to be, but make no mistake in many quarters Newt is being pilloried for this.  Scozzafava is just the straw that broke the camel's back.  He's also hopped on board the global-warming-scare train.  He's cavorted with Hillary Clinton and in general, come to embody the watered down, beltway Republican that the party is looking to purge right now.  Centrist Republican or right wing Republican, civil war or not, no one wants a bunch of self-serving, unlistening representatives at any level of governement.  Newt, is toast.

Why is Tim Pawlenty in?  He seems serious about running.  He may fill the void vacated by Sanford and Jindal in terms of positioning.  Without Pawlenty and Palin in the race, we're left with Huckabee and Romney.  I don't think the base sees either of those as the second coming of Reagan.  Palin maybe could be. I know a lot of conservatives don't see that in her, but the question you have to ask yourself is why is CNN running polls on her viability for the Presidency and not on say Romney or Huckabee at this point?  But Pawlenty probably sees a real opening, especially if Palin is the favorite next time.

Why is Haley Barbour in? Just because he's been mentioned. I don't know if he would seriously consider running but he'd make another good alternative to have in the mix for the same reasons as Pawlenty.  But it's just speculation on him right now compared to the others who are likely candidates for a Presidential run.

Next Week - the assessments of Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty and Barbour.

Mark Sanford Situation Getting Ugly.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is trying desperately to cling to his job, invoked a couple of uncalled-for invocations. According to the Washington Times he's been quoted as saying that despite no GOP backing to save his job, he's going to continue to fight for conservative causes because it's "what God wanted me to do with my life."

Yikes. Governor, I'm pretty sure God DIDN'T want you having an affair. It might sound harsh to come down on Mark Sanford like that but it's fair. There's a lot to like about Mark Sanford's platforms and policy positions. But we don't need an empty suit. Our standards have to be higher than those of the liberal side of the aisle. We have to not only legislate what we believe, we have to live it.

Nobody is perfect, that is understood. I'm certainly not. We've all made mistakes. But you seem less than contrite right now and more concerned about power. You are a governor and you need to be closer to perfect than those you govern. In other words, a mistake is forgivable, but there are penalties associated with making mistakes and the higher up you go, the more likely those penalties become career-enders.

And it goes further. As if the invocation of the Lord wasn't enough, one could perhaps sense Sanford's desperation in the invocation of Sarah Palin.

"I think I now know what Sarah may have been feeling," Mr. Sanford told The
Washington Times.

Yikes again. Governor Sanford, Palin was under a scrutiny that could very well be described as malicious. She was scrutinized for imagined misdeeds and for her political beliefs. In your case, however, the deeds are neither imagined nor the intent malicious. It's an undeserved comparison. The scrutiny is not even at the same level Palin endured, let alone the validity of the reasons behind it.

You need to concentrate on setting things right with your family, and God, not your job. By all means this should not preclude you from Republican politics. You have some great ideas and beliefs. But as a result of your mistakes, you have likely, and justifiably relegated yourself to the role of advisor, think tank guru, or political operative of some kind. You've made yourself a backroom guy.

Maybe not forever, but certainly for now. To cling to your job is at least unsightly, likely unsustainable and at worst damaging to the GOP you purport to support.

If you are the fiscal and social conservative you claim wouldn't the order of importance go something like this?

• God
• Family
• Country
• Political party
• Self

By the time you have the first 4 points straightened out, you may have time before retirement to reconsider a front line political career once again.

[AUTHOR'S NOTE: I really liked what Mark Sanford stood for, and I do not wish him any ill. However, it's a mistake to believe that his clinging to power does anything to help the GOP. It looks like hypocrisy when you compare his trouble to say Blagojevich. If the GOP is trying to look trustworthy, this does not help. Therefore, while I wish Sanford and his family the best, and hope they heal their wounds, Sanford should not remain in the GOP in any capacity that requires election. Not now. Again, maybe in 15 years, but not now.]

The Good Sanford

This statement from wife of South Carolina Sanford speaks for itself.

"Statement from First Lady Jenny Sanford

I would like to start by saying I love my husband and I believe I have put forth every effort possible to be the best wife I can be during our almost twenty years of marriage. As well, for the last fifteen years my husband has been fully engaged in public service to the citizens and taxpayers of this state and I have faithfully supported him in those efforts to the best of my ability. I have been and remain proud of his accomplishments and his service to this state.

I personally believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is not the job I held on Wall Street, or the campaigns I managed for Mark, or the work I have done as First Lady or even the philanthropic activities in which I have been routinely engaged. Instead, the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recent actions of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.

I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband’s infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.

This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week.

I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.

Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.

This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.

-#####-"

Well said.

Mark Sanford "D'oh!"

Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, once a contender for the GOP nomination for President in 2012, just torpedoed his own chances, not to mention his own family by divulging that he'd had an affair.



Needless to say he's out for the GOP nomination. As he should be. Also needless to say is that this will get lumped in with the stupidity of Senator John Ensign of Nevada admitting to having had an affair last week, by the left of the blogosphere, not to mention NBC, CBS, ABC, and of course MSNBC (aka "The Mouthpiece" or "Mouthpiece NBC").

The problem with that is that the scandal is specific to Mark Sanford (as is Ensign's to him). The Democrats were wise to distance themselves from Rod Blagojevich and then Roland Burris (before they decided to embrace him and then re-distance themselves).

As conservatives, we need to distance ourselves from Sanford because he has betrayed our values. No one is perfect, and he may deserve to be forgiven if he truly works to fix the damage he has done to his family. But he does not deserve their forgiveness - they can forgive him if they feel the want to forgive him. Similarly he does not deserve to be a standard bearer for the Republican party or for conservative values. He has betrayed those values, regardless of whether he firmly believes them or not. Actions speak louder than words. Sanford's actions right now are drowning out anything he's ever said and his previous words, by this action have lost credibility. Let's not let the same thing happen to a Republican party by preaching family values and then ignoring them out of some sort of imagined convenience.

Let's also be clear - not every conservative is an adulterer just as not every Democrat is a tax cheat. This is a distraction from the real issues of the day - Iran, the economy, North Korea, deficits etc. Sanford was wrong, just as Jon Edwards was wrong. How we prove we mean what we say is by distancing ourselves from Sanford's behavior as opposed to the way Democrats for the most part remained silent on the Edwards affair.

That is the only way to move beyond this black mark on the GOP. And it will force Sanford to focus on reconciling with his family, which is something he should have been doing all along.

UPDATE: The Sanford and Hon fallout starts - Campaign Spot on National Review Online

Assessing GOP 2012 - Sanford

This is the fourth in a series of early analyses of potential GOP candidates.

Other analysis -
Mike Huckabee
Sarah Palin
Bobby Jindal
Mitt Romney

Mark Sanford is the Governor of South Carolina, and was a member of the Contract With America congress of 1994.

Experience: Mark Sanford was elected to Congress initially in 1994 and re-elected comfortably in 1996 and 1998. He did not run in 2000, having made a promise to serve only 3 terms in the House. In 2002 Sanford ran for Governor of South Carolina and won. In 2006 he won re-election as Governor. Total experience for Mark Sanford by 2012 - 10 years as Governor of South Carolina and 6 years of Congressional experience.

Grade: A+. It's hard to argue with a long track record like that.

Likability/Electability: Mark Sanford was the first Governor to formally decline stimulus aid from stimulus package approved by Democrats earlier this year. While it may have been rejected on principle alone, there is definitely a political impact as a result of the decision. Conservatives around the country are likely to applaud the Governor for his stand on principle - the money comes with strings attached (Jindal raised this concern), and the stimulus is full of pork. But in South Carolina, his ratings have apparently dipped from his election level of 55% to a post-refusal low of 40%. I say apparently because the poll was commissioned by the South Carolina Democratic Caucus and it isn't apparent how the questions were asked. So take that plummet with a grain of salt.

In the bigger picture, Sanford has positioned himself as an anti-pork, common sense style candidate, and has roots in populist positions on things like term limits (limiting his own Congressional tenure). His refusal of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money will have both positive and negative fallout.

Sanford's opposition to President Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and in particular his insistence on using up to a fourth of his state's stimulus funds to pay down debt or refusing it outright, has fast made him a folk hero to conservatives. To some, Sanford's opposition to the stimulus funds is an act of political grandstanding, a naked effort to sell out the poorest and most vulnerable South Carolinians in order to curry favor with a national Republican audience.

To others, he has struck a mighty and principled blow against big government. Whatever else Sanford has done, he has given conservatives a rare opportunity to return to their roots and to shake off the contradictions and compromises that have built up over the past 30 years.

When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, conservatism was a rigorous and demanding creed. Rather than promise tax cuts, Goldwater insisted on balanced budgets and sound money. After promising to get rid of any number of New Deal social programs, and after pledging to privatize the Tennessee Value Authority and other cherished infrastructure projects, Goldwater didn't promise anything material in return. No manna would fall from the sky in Goldwater's America. He simply argued that shrinking the federal government and reducing its power would encourage self-reliance, and that self-reliance would encourage the virtues of thrift and industry.

It is easy to see why the supply-siders later derided Goldwater's old-fashioned worldview as "root-canal economics," as it promised a lot more pain, at least in the short term. But Goldwaterism had the virtue of coherence and consistency.

That's not an approach that many people in this day and age will be comfortable with. People want pills to lose weight so that they don't have to exercise. Preaching fundamentals only appeals to true conservatives. Mark Sanford will have a much harder time reaching moderates than would a Mike Huckabee for example.

The common sense of his message will appeal to fiscal conservatives and his populist overtures will be a big plus in the primaries just as it could prove to be a slight negative in the general election.

Grade: C+. (This represents a split grade of A in the primaries and C- in the general election).

Foreign Relations: Governor Sanford's main area of focus is cleaning house domestically, and it's reflected in his vote on foreign policy matters which consist primarily of denying the flow of funds to overseas institutions or governments for concerns such as debt relief. That domestic focus is not a bad thing, as the United States needs to do some serious house cleaning that will be even more dire by 2012. But Governor Sanford has to have the foreign policy credentials to make his run for the Presidency viable. What so far, can we base our impressions on?

He has recognized the issues with China in that he voted against permanent normalized relations with China in 2000. Today given China's military bluster, and growing economic imperialism, seems to be even more prescient.

On Iraq, his position is more than interesting, it's anti-nation-building;

In Congress, he opposed Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo. And he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the 1998 resolution to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States. He says that it was a “protest vote” in which he tried to reassert the legislature’s war-declaring powers. When asked about the invasion of Iraq, he extends his critique beyond the constitutional niceties. “I don’t believe in preemptive war,” he says flatly. “For us to hold the moral high ground in the world, our default position must be defensive.”

From a voting perspective, this is an interesting position. Moderate voters and perhaps many Reagan Democrats may be more in tune with Sanford than they were with Bush. This is more of a historical position, and it's also a position libertarians can identify with as well. What's less clear is how conservatives view this positioning. Many conservatives have aligned with the spreading liberty ideas of the Bush administration. It's not traditional conservatism to adhere to that view. It does however square with the liberty angle and the anti-dictatorial positions of traditional conservatism.

What becomes tricky for Sanford is how he squares that position with the situation in Afghanistan over the next few years. Afghanistan will surely come to be viewed as Barack's war just as Iraq is to be viewed as Bush's war. If Obama mismanages it and there's a deterioration in Iraq after the draw-down there, there's room for a more hawkish candidate in the GOP primaries, which is a risk for Sanford. Conversely, he could position himself as considering Afghanistan a defensive war and be more hawkish. Or the American public could be sick of the war from a cost perspective if the economy continues to limp along. It will be viewed as less of a priority and a cost burden and that plays into Sanford's position on foreign affairs.

Grade: B- (there's lots of room for fluctuation on this mark, depending on how circumstances unfold over the next 3 years).

Economy: As a Congressman, Sanford voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to lower small business taxes and middle class taxes. He was in favor of welfare reform. He voted against the Kyoto Protocol. As Governor, he in 2006 he pushed to limit spending increases to population growth plus inflation. He is anti-deficit spending and it's impact on the value of the dollar, he supports a balanced budget amendment and a line item veto for the President.



In addition, he sponsored a bill for personal retirement accounts in Social Security in 2000, knowing it's the biggest problem coming in the next 20 years. He also voted to fast track free trade agreements. Those who favor such agreements would find it incumbent upon the businesses and citizens of a nation to adapt to the broader free market and continue to prosper accordingly. As a fiscal conservative, I'm inclined to look favorably on his focus on the basics on economics.

Grade: A (see my note above, there may be a bit of bias in my analysis).

Military: Sanford's focus on economic restraint will have an impact on defense spending. While he has a record of approval of defense appropriations and supported spending on SDI, the current economic climate will definitely have an impact on his future prioritization. Sanford will likely argue that painful changes are required across the board, including in defense in order to right the country economically. While that may be true, the world faces an emerging Chinese military threat, and an attempted Russian resurgence.

The American military may see cuts to new programs under Sanford, and existing spending will likely be capped to the extent that Sanford feels comfortable, given his somewhat dovish position on foreign relations. If he can find the right balance and spin the debate to requiring Europe to carry their own weight (whether it turns out that way or not), it does not have to be a negative for Sanford. However, this is not one of his strong suits and will likely be a detriment to him, at least during the primaries.

Grade: D+ (with room to push it up into a C+ range, assuming no changes to his fundamental positions).

National / Border Security: Mark Sanford is in favor of increased skilled immigration (as opposed to unskilled) and in favor of English as an official language of the United States. However, on more than one occasion he has voted against border enforcement (specifically putting troops on the Mexican border) and has voted predominantly pro-immigration policies that sometimes have been a little too dogmatic in nature.



Grade: D

Social Issues: Let's try the checklist approach here. The Governor is anti-abortion, anti-affirmative action (on college admissions), tough on crime, is in favor of prayer in schools, and in favor of school vouchers. His voting has been pro-family. In Congress he voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1 in 1999.

Grade: B



Conservatism: In the Atlantic, a libertarian view of conservatism, the following excerpt defines much of Sanford's conservatism;

Sanford's conservative credentials compare favorably to anyone else mentioned as a 2012 presidential contender. He calls the public-education system "a Soviet-style monopoly." He promoted school choice through tax rebates to avoid the appearance of government control. He passed a "Castle doctrine" bill that was supported by the NRA. He favors a law-and-order approach to immigration, but opposed REAL ID on civil liberties grounds. Though he avoids showy displays of piety, he is reliably pro-life.

But the governor edges closer to pure libertarianism at times. He rolls his eyes at the Columbia sheriff's department's zeal in investigating Michael Phelps's recreational pot use. And he criticizes Alan Greenspan's management of the "opaque" Federal Reserve. "If you take human nature out of a Fed, it might work," he explains. "But you can't. You can have these wise men. But who wants to turn off the spigot at a party that's rolling?"

Grade: B+

Overall: Looking back at the overall spread of marks on Mark Sanford, I'd have to give him a higher rating than I'd expected based on the ratings in each of the categories above.

Grade: B- for solid fiscal conservatism and experience. While Palin has more A's her two big spots in need of a boost are the economy and foreign affairs. Those are pretty big areas. Sanford would score higher if he were stronger on immigration and national security.

Bank Bailouts - HANDS OFF!!

To the Democrats: You chose to bail them out, which means you chose to allow them to act in what they believe is their own best interest. If you reward failure then failure will continue.

However, government bailouts should not come with strings. Either you believe lending money to financial institutions will help them to stabilize or you don't. The government does not run AIG, Citi or Chase. Nor should they. Leave the banks alone to manage their bailout funds or don't lend them the money. You don't own them and America is not a Soviet system. At least not yet. Government intervention does not solve everything, in fact it usually makes things worse.

To the banks: If you don't want the strings attached with the money, follow the examples of Mark Sanford and Bobby Jindal - just say no. Don't whine. Everybody just man up.