Romney Wins New Hampshire! GOP Makes History!

Yesterday was a historic day for the Republican Party.

Let’s start with the main headline.  Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary and became the first Republican non-incumbent candidate in history to win both Iowa and New Hampshire.  And unlike his narrow victory in Iowa; this time Romney won big.  He won among conservatives, evangelicals and moderates.  He won among those who placed fixing the economy as a priority and those who said electability was paramount.  He is well positioned to move into South Carolina and sew up the nomination with a victory. 

South Carolina will be a tough slog.  Unlike Iowa and New Hampshire where the economy is decent and unemployment is low, South Carolina voters live in a struggling economy with unemployment higher than the national average.  Romney will have to make the case that that he understands their plight and has the plan to fix their economic problems and create jobs.

Ron Paul came in second and Jon Huntsman a disappointing third.  (For those keeping track; we thought Huntsman would do better and we just finished eating our breakfast of crow.)  All of the candidates have pledged to remain in the race and challenge Romney in South Carolina.  As long as the Romney’s opposition is spread out among a host of also- ran’s his normal polling of 25% will probably be good enough to win the state.

The other historic event yesterday was when the former Republican Speaker of the House and the sitting Republican governor of the second largest state in the union went to extraordinary measures to criticize Romney by attacking some of the basic tenants of capitalism.  Both Speaker Newt Gingrich and Governor Rick Perry loudly criticized Romney’s work as CEO of Bain capital.  They painted him as a predator that took over companies, picked them clean for huge profits and walked away with millions as the companies filed for bankruptcy and the workers lost their jobs.  Perry referred to the process as “Vulture Capitalism”.  Gingrich cited an example wherein:  “Romney and Bain invested $30 million into a company but instead of taking out $60 million, which would have been a nice return; they took out $180 million and then stood by as the company went bankrupt and people lost their jobs.”  Newt Gingrich suddenly has a conscience about making money?  Who knew?Gingrich has already started to run $5 million in TV/radio radio ads in South Carolina attacking Romney’s tactics while running Bain Capital.

This attack on Romney is of historic proportions because here we have two conservative leaders running for president attacking another for implementing the basic tenants of capitalism.  Investors take risks and are entitled to be compensated for that risk.  You can argue that Romney’s tactics were excessive and perhaps even ruthless.  But that is a moral question.  As long as Bain was operating within the scope of the law they have the right to make as much money for their clients as they can.  Survival of the fittest!  At least that is what conservatives would typically argue in defending the free enterprise system.  Gingrich and Perry sound more like members of the Occupy Wall Street crowd.  Fueled by their tangible hatred for Romney, the other candidates have successfully formed a circular firing squad. 

Back in Washington President Obama and his chief campaign advisors: David Plouffe and David Axelrod will be watching as Newt’s $5 million dollar campaign research program plays out on TV.  No doubt they’ll be pressing the “Record” button on the remote.                 

New Hampshire Is Up For Grabs

One of the more underreported stories in today’s New Hampshire primary is the role that Independents will play in deciding the winner.  Independents are allowed to vote in this primary and 40% of New Hampshire voters are registered as Independent.  And if you listen to the reports of informal canvassing of the man on the street one word keeps being repeated over and over again…undecided.

New Hampshire has a history of being very different from the rest of the electorate.  They take the right to vote very, very seriously.  They educate themselves about the candidates and the issues.  Name recognition doesn’t matter in New Hampshire; the candidate’s history, experience and position on the issues are what matters to New Hampshire voters.

Another thing about New Hampshire voters is that they are very unpredictable.  All you have to do is look back to the last Presidential election.  When New Hampshire primary voters went to the voting booths in 2008 Barak Obama held an 11-15 point lead in every poll.  When the votes were counted Hillary Clinton had pulled off a major upset that legitimized her candidacy and catapulted her into a long fierce battle with Obama.

Romney is the current frontrunner and is expected to win his virtual home state.  But Romney was polling at 41% less than a week ago and is now at 33%.  The battle for second is anybody’s call.  Huntsman is gaining momentum with most of his surge coming from those pesky Independents.  He appears poised to make a run at Romney in South Carolina.  But then again this is New Hampshire so who knows.

The voting in New Hampshire has already begun. 

Dixville Notch is a little town in northern New Hampshire just 20 miles from the Canadian border.  The town is famously known for being one of the first places to declare its results during presidential elections and the New Hampshire primary.  In a tradition that started in 1960 the town’s 9 residents (yes, 9) gather at the voting place to cast their ballots…and announce the results one minute later.  Since 1968 the town of Dixville Notch has correctly predicted the winner of the Republican nomination.  Not this year.  The votes have been cast and for the first time in history there is a tie.  Mitt Romney and Jon huntsman each received 2 votes with Paul and Gingrich each getting 1. The nine voters registered as 4 Independents, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats.

Forget the polls…this race for the Republican nomination is wide open. 

If you don’t believe us just ask the folks from Dixville Notch.          

   

Huntsman Deserves Respect For His Service...Not Criticism

This past weekend’s debates were advertised as must see TV.  The pundits were all frothing over the anticipated attack that a seething Newt Gingrich would wage against Mitt Romney.  We are not sure what any of this has to do with being qualified to be President, but there it is.  At any rate we tuned in to see the show.

Saturday night’s ABC debate was a snooze fest.  There was very little said to or about Romney that had not been said before. 

Sunday morning’s Meet the Press debate provided some of the better lines.  Newt’s chastisement of Mitt for his false reasoning for deciding not to seek a second term as Massachusetts governor; Newt called it “pious baloney”; was pretty good.  And a couple of the other candidates who had shied away from attacking the presumptive front runner took some shots...or was that Saturday night.  In the end it was all “much ado about nothing. 

Rick Santorum failed to take advantage of his Iowa victory.  Shouting down 17 year old girls who can’t even vote because he didn’t like their question won’t help.  Jon Huntsman, who we have said for months gives Republicans the best chance to defeat the President, made some big strides and could place a distant second.  He is gaining in the polls. But Huntsman has lived in New Hampshire for weeks and has exhausted most of his funds.  So unless Jon Huntsman senior feels his son’s showing in New Hampshire warrants a $50 million dollar donation to sustain junior’s campaign; Huntsman’s days may be numbered.  In the end Romney will win New Hampshire by a comfortable margin and head to South Carolina with a real chance of securing the nomination very early in the campaign.

There was one moment during the debate that for us was perhaps the most poignant moment in the campaign.

Romney took a shot at Huntsman for serving as Obama’s ambassador to China.  Romney said it was inappropriate for the Republican nominee to be someone who said that the President demonstrated great leadership skills and who served as ambassador for a Democratic president.  Huntsman responded: “this country is divided, and it is divided because of attitudes like that.”

Governor Huntsman is correct.  If you try to express yourself as a solutions oriented individual, willing to listen to and consider both sides of an argument, you are attacked by the extremists on the left and the right.  It is this ideological food fight that has caused gridlock in this country and driven us to these depths.

Governor Huntsman was asked by the President of the United States to serve his country.  Governor Huntsman put his politics aside and served his country well.  He should be applauded for his efforts and thanked for his service; not vilified for political gain.           

Boehner: Republican's Golden Goose

We would like to think that our political campaigns are all about issues and policy and a candidate’s qualifications to hold office.  But the truth of the matter is that they are about money.  Raise enough money and you can blanket the airwaves with your message; reaching more voters in 30 seconds than you could ever hope to reach shaking hands and kissing babies.  Raise enough money to run those ads over and over and over again and you can swamp your opponent.  The candidate that wins the fund raising race goes a long way toward winning the political race as well.

And nobody raises money like John Boehner.  That’s right; Speaker John Boehner is a fund raising machine.

According to Boehner’s hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, Boehner single handedly raised $46 million dollars for Republican candidates in 2011 and expects to raise at least that much in 2012.  Boehner headlined or hosted more than 100 fund raisers in 2011.  He pulled in more than $12 million through his Boehner for Speaker Committee and another $21 million at fundraisers for individual lawmakers or the Republican National Committee.  “We have never had any speaker in the Republican Party who has been as integrated into the fundraising needs as John Boehner” said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Want to know why Boehner was elected to the Speakership by is caucus?  It’s because he is responsible for helping many of them win their seats.  They may criticize the effectiveness of his leadership but they will never turn their backs on the mountain of money that he pours into their coffers. 

Like it or not; money talks in politics.  And John Boehner is the golden goose of the Republican Party.        

Time To focus On Policy Not Personality

As the Republican primary season gets into full swing and the pretenders are winnowed from the contenders we think it is time to focus on the policies of the candidates rather than their personalities.  Romney's flip-flops, Newt's lack of discipline and Paul's vision form outer space all make for good copy but; but they don't tell us where they would take the country.

As you listen to the various speeches and debates you will hear certain phrases, labels and buzz words repeated over and over again: fiscal conservative, small government conservative, tax cuts, job growth, job creators, intrusive regulations, immigration reform and last but not least…repeal “Obamacare”. 

Let’s focus on the four policy issues that all the candidates seem to dwell on the most…lower taxes, less regulation, job growth and the repeal of Obamacare.

Lower taxes - The Republicans say that we need to cut taxes; particularly taxes on the rich and the corporations that create jobs.  The current tax policy is the one implemented by Republican President, George W. Bush.  It includes the lowest tax rates in our country’s history. The tax structure is such that it contains loopholes that allow the wealthiest Americans to pay a smaller percentage in taxes than the help who service their needs.  In spite of statistics showing that many corporations are now making record profits; corporations use these same tax loopholes to avoid paying any taxes at all.  Some corporations not only do not pay any taxes but they get government subsidies to help their “struggling” bottom lines.  Our question is…how much lower can you reduce taxes than zero? We need more revenues to get out of our economic malaise.  Simply cutting taxes won’t solve the problem.

Intrusive Regulations – Republicans say that businesses are not prospering because of intrusive regulations that hamper business.  We wonder how intrusive theses regulations can be when, as previously stated, corporations are posting record profits. Republicans have successfully blocked the President from initiating many of his reform policies so the regulations currently in place are the same ones that were operable during the Bush years.  Need we remind Republicans that the lack of regulatory oversight is what allowed the predatory banking practices that trashed the economy to go on?  Are they suggesting that we allow those practices to continue?

Job Growth – The Republicans say that the President’s policies are killing job growth.  This statement is simply false.  The Bureau of Labor and Statistics states that we have had 24 months of continuous job growth under Obama after losing jobs at a rate of 740,000 per month under George Bush.

Repeal Obamacare - Republicans want to repeal Obamacare.  We agree that the President’s Affordable Health Care Act needs work.  However, repealing it will discontinue some of the provisions that are wildly popular such as: no cancellation for pre-existing conditions, the ability to take your coverage with you if you change jobs and the ability to allow children to remain on their parent’s policies until the age of 27.  When asked what their solution to Obamacare would be they say increase competition by allowing insurance companies to market across state line.  This increased competition will lower costs.  If Republicans would do their homework they would know that insurance companies can already market across state lines.  They must simple agree to abide by the laws of the individual states in which they do business.  States Rights!!!...a concept Republicans hold dear.   This position is admirable; but as proven by the out of control increase in insurance costs prior to the passing of Obamacare…ineffectual.  Rising health insurance costs are still a huge problem in this country.  Obamacare did not go far enough; and Republicans have no solution to fix the problem.

So as we watch these primaries unfold and we listen to the candidates criticize the President we should ask them this simple question:  what is your solution to the problem?  If their answer is a return to the policies of 2000-2008 we have definitive proof that that won’t work.  The free spending, deregulatory policies of the Bush years are what led us to this mess.

Therefore, when analyzing the policy solutions offered by the candidates always remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.     

 

Numbers Show Obama Policies Working

According to the just released Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the country added 200,000 private sector jobs in December;  bringing the total number private sector jobs added in 2011 to 1.6 million.  The report also states that the unemployment rate dropped to 8.5%; the lowest in three years.

Republicans have been telling us for years that the President’s economic policies have killed job creation in the private sector.  They have said that the uncertainty brought about by this President has frightened off the job creators. 

So let’s set ideology aside and look at the facts.

When President Obama took over the White House the country was losing private sector jobs at a rate of 740,000 per month.  The country had been continually losing private sector jobs since 2007.  Since this President began implementing his policies the country has witnessed two consecutive years of job growth: 836,000 in 2010 and 1.6 million in 2011.  While these numbers are not strong enough to guarantee that the economy has righted itself they are certainly a huge reversal from the decline of 2007-2009, and a positive sign that the economy is moving in the right direction.

So what caused the turn around?  Was it the stimulus, the bank bailout, the auto industry bailout, the passing of “Obamacare” or perhaps the draw down in Iraq?  Republicans argue that each of these events were little more than an intrusion on our lives by big government and that each in their own way contributed to the decline of the economy.

We would argue that the government saw the economic decline and understood the disastrous effects it was would have on the American people if it were allowed to continue unabated.   Unlike the administrations holding power during the Great Depression, this administration chose to do something about it.  The steps they took weren’t pretty and they flew in the face of traditional capitalistic values.  No all of the policies implemented by this President worked as planned; but the job numbers and economic growth indicators indicate that they did what they were intended to do…stop the bleeding and right the ship.

Republicans say that the government should only do those things that the private sector cannot do.  That is exactly what this administration did.  By implementing their economic policies the Obama administration stopped the economic freefall, stabilized the banks, saved 3 million jobs that depended on the auto industry and curbed the unfair practices of the health insurance industry.  But  perhaps most important of all these practices instilled confidence by showing the American people that the government would not stand by and allow the country to crumble even at the risk of interfering with the hallowed principles of the free enterprise system.  Private industry could not have accomplished those things.

Make no mistake the country is far from being where it needs to be economically.  But if not for the vision and the economic policies of this administration the country would be in far worse shape than it is today.

The Republicans are wrong on this one.  The President got it right.  The numbers prove it.        

Viewing The World From A Windowless Room

“This (Defense Plan) is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America.  The President has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense.  This strategy insures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs.”

Republican Representative Buck McKeon (CA.)

Chairman, House Armed Services Committee

Such was the Republican response to the President’s plan for a smaller, cheaper and more efficient military.

The President, unlike his detractors, understood that the country, plagued by a lagging economy, increasing debt and a war weary electorate, no longer had the money or the stomach for the unbridled expansion of our military capabilities.  The President also understood that Iraq and Afghanistan signaled the end to massive land assaults carried out by hundreds of thousands a boots on the ground.  Future wars may need to be waged but they will be carried out by drones in the air and Special Forces and Black Ops on the ground.

In formulating this strategy the President listened to the oft repeated advice of his Republican foes: “listen to the generals.”

“It is a sound strategy.  It assures that we remain the pre-eminent military power in the world.  It preserves the talent of the all-volunteer force.  It takes into account the last 10 years of war.  Our strategy has always been about our ability to respond to global contingencies whenever they happen.  This does not change…wherever we are confronted and in whatever sequence, we will win. ”

General Martin Dempsey

         Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

The United States maintains the largest most expansive military force in the world. Our military capabilities exceed those of our nearest competitor by tenfold.  Our military superiority will continue under the President’s plan.  What will change, as recommended by the generals, is the manner in which we defend ourselves.

Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility.  They demand that we reduce the size of government and cut government spending.  But if you talk about cutting the military they sing a whole different tune.  It’s ok to cut entitlements, welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, aid to the needy and other social programs on which hundreds of millions of poor and middle class people depend.  If you cut those programs you are fiscally responsible.  But if you try to cut the military you are unpatriotic and hate America

One could say that Representative McKeon and his Republican colleagues are out of touch with reality.  One might describe them as residing in a windowless room from which they view the world through a crack induced haze.  But that would excuse their reckless and irresponsible behavior.