Columnist.
It is one thing to be an alarmist about potential problems, to which I readily plead guilty. But it is another thing to feel genuine fear for our future as a nation while the news and talk shows devote what seems to be nearly all their airtime to one wiener. Make that one Weiner, as in New Congressman Anthony Weiner. I've written about them before, and sure enough, the past week brought some pivotal developments not only for the present, but for the 2012 elections, as well. Since I wrote in my column last week about the coming economic slowdown, things have only gotten worse. Now the stock market is stalling out, the Federal Reserve is sending out gloomy predictions concerning future economic growth, and Congress has yet to address the issue of the debt ceiling.
They've tried over and over, the media and government elites who know so much more than the rest of us. They've doggedly done their best to persuade us that, months ago, the economy already had turned the corner back to emerging prosperity. In February, I wrote a column called "Prepare for the Economic Meltdown." I wasn't then and I'm not now a psychic, or even an economist. Even so, and as I noted in that piece, I used scientific public opinion data to help me read where the economy was going.
The latest InsiderAdvantage survey of potential and announced Republican candidates for president suggests that two figures mainly ignored up to now, Rep. Michele Bachmann and businessman Herman Cain, are, for at least the moment, capturing a reasonably strong share of the vote among those who say they plan to vote in their states' primaries or caucuses. The Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage survey, which was also exclusively released for television through ABC's Atlanta affiliate WSB-TV, showed Mitt Romney still atop the potential field with 16 percent of the vote. But Bachmann demonstrated surprising strength, coming in second place at 12 percent. With the exit from the race of populist and/or conservative names such as Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump, it is clear that the most dissatisfied and active part of the GOP electorate is moving toward candidates who are most viewed as "tea party" conservatives.
Last week, I was driving down a busy neighborhood street near my home when I spotted a fashionable-looking dog darting about in the busy traffic. Suddenly, she charged head-on into my car. What would you have done? I stopped, put on my flashers and scooped up the dog to take home with me. She appeared not to be too badly hurt. But I have no dog of my own, so I had to improvise in finding "treats" to soothe her.
Trust me, when it comes to the 2012 race for the Republican presidential nomination, I am going to be fair in assessing the candidates. Already I have polled for NewsMax, and my early polls placed former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich in fourth place among announced or potential candidates. But before I go into my harsh analyst mode -- which once in a while leads to an "I'm hurt" email from Newt -- let me share my personal feelings about the man who has just announced that he will seek the presidency.
I'm a nonpartisan pollster, but I'm also a columnist with a strong Republican background. So let me be clear right from the start: I believe President Barack Obama and his national security team performed admirably in the near-flawless effort to capture and kill Osama bin Laden. It's disingenuous and just plain silly for anyone to say otherwise just because the president is a Democrat or because they disagree with his other policies. The snuffing out of the world's top terrorist demonstrated the power and determination of America and its leaders.
A recent NewsMax/InsiderAdvantage scientific national survey of likely voters in Republican presidential caucuses and primaries to be held next year provides a clear view of one fact: Any major candidate could win the GOP nomination, if -- and it's a big if -- they follow the right strategy. Let's look at the potential candidates for 2012 and use the poll to tell us what they need to do to make it to the GOP convention in Tampa.
I've listened over the past few weeks as the mainstream GOP establishment and pundits have tried to demean the possibility of a presidential candidacy by Donald Trump. Mr. Trump, take it from me, someone who has run for and held elective office, and has been involved in more campaigns, from presidential on down, than I care to count: They are scared of you. Let's look at some of the criticisms of a Trump candidacy that have been leveled.
In most, if not every, state in the nation, there are two instances in which a trial requires a 12-person jury: When the death penalty is at stake and when private property is being taken from an individual. One case in Florida is the epitome of government ineptitude, bureaucratic stubbornness and unnecessary costs to the taxpayers. It's an example of why people want government out of their lives.
Once again, Florida legislators are pushing to upend things by moving their state's presidential preference primaries up to the front of the pack among states. Imagine that! One of the largest states in the nation -- and one that may best represent the American electorate as a whole -- wants to be ahead of comparatively small states such as Iowa and South Carolina. And how has that Iowa gig been working out for the GOP? Oh, that's right, they voted for Mike Huckabee in the last presidential nomination process. Now he's on TV, playing a banjo or whatever. And unless my memory is shot, I believe the Iowa GOP didn't even give the nod to Ronald Reagan in 1980.
I can't believe what I'm watching. Nation by nation, the hotbed of the world is melting down. It started with Egypt, now Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and others. A tumultuous region is getting more tumultuous. Is this a cheery debutante's ball for emerging democracies? No way. Anarchy and directionless armed conflict benefits those who are up to no good. Show me a riot, and I'll point out the looters. Find a deadlocked election, and I'll find you some stuffed ballot boxes.
This past week, I've seen or read plenty of news analyses suggesting that the Republicans have a weak field of presidential hopefuls for 2012. Not so. I believe that many of the potential candidates who might seek the GOP nomination have strategically strong paths to the White House, assuming that President Obama is still vulnerable next year. Last week in this column, I put forth an explanation as to why Newt Gingrich is a stronger political force than many imagine. This week, let's consider the Republicans' other potential major candidates for the White House.
ATLANTA -- The media filled the office of Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal. Reporters were already buzzing about how crazy the week's worth of press stories had been. There had been assorted reports that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would announce the formation of an exploratory committee for president -- and do so in Deal's office. Then came word that he wouldn't announce yet. Then that he would, and then that he might. Both the national political media and the press in Georgia, Gingrich's longtime political home base, have been none too pleased with the way they believe they've been led to water by Gingrich but not offered anything to drink.
In 2006, I examined a series of surveys we conducted nationwide and then predicted a collapse of the housing market. Plenty others followed with similar forecasts and postmortems over the following months and years. But my column was among the first. I've made predictions about other slowdowns in the American economy. I've been mostly correct, although in 2010, I suggested that the stock market ultimately would plunge. Turned out that it climbed instead of descending. The fact is that it's easier to predict the weather next month than to get an accurate read on the future of the stock market.
It sounds harsh and cruel, but U.S. House Speaker John Boehner's threat to shut down all but essential federal government services if the Democrats on Capitol Hill can't actually reign in spending is not only the fiscally responsible approach, it is also one that would be popular with the public. Enough with the gamesmanship of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the silliness of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. It's time for Republicans to let America know that the GOP means business -- cut the budget deeply, or shut her down!
Liberals and Democrats go nuts whenever any columnist dares to suggest that John F. Kennedy had more in common with Ronald Reagan than he did with, say, Kennedy's brother Bobby during the latter's bid for the presidency in 1968; or with another brother, Ted Kennedy, during most of his career in the U.S. Senate. Partisans of the political left will argue that John Kennedy was a liberals' liberal. They will say he subscribed to an entirely different political philosophy than Reagan and that the various points of comparison between the two ex-presidents are taken out of context.
With the celebration of Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday now in full swing, I find myself reflecting on the despair that so many of us felt at the midpoint of his first term in office. By "us," I mean those who had worked in GOP campaigns in 1980, felt the euphoria of Reagan's nomination and then worked in the House or Senate in those early days of the Reagan Revolution. But after two years in office, Reagan's approval ratings were in the tank. It seemed they would never rebound. Readers must remember that although conservatives were on the rise in the early '80s, there was no Fox News to balance out a generally liberal media establishment. Reagan was pummeled by the then-"Big Three" TV networks on a nightly basis; and also by The New York Times and The Washington Post. In many ways, his situation had gone from one of great promise to one that looked likely to end his presidency after four short years.
Much ado will be made this week over a vote in the U. S. House to repeal the so-called "ObamaCare" law. And rightfully so, given that it passed with almost no scrutiny and has tons of hidden traps and government red tape stuck inside it. Of course, it is unlikely that a repeal would pass the Senate, and compromise will not come easy. The best method the House has to deal with this monster of a law is to carefully shred it apart at the appropriations level, and that's exactly what I expect. Cut the lifeblood of money off from the new law, and make it unenforceable.
We've already heard or read nearly everything that can be said or written about the shooting tragedy in Tucson, Ariz. this past week -- and about the left-of-center's effort to politicize it. Let's turn history around on the more liberal side of the media and government. Let's cite another example of a well-known "liberal" -- as self-defined by his song lyrics, among other things -- who himself might have heightened political or social tensions in his day by means of his "rhetoric." I'm talking about the late rock star, the Beatles' John Lennon.
Been there, done that. An angry electorate reacts against a liberal president, so Congress vaults over the castle gate to establish itself as America's new frontline leadership. We're seeing this phenomenon again. Over the past few days, I've heard many a pundit and new member of the GOP majority in the House say that this Congress won't repeat "the failures" of the 1994 GOP revolution and its class of 1995. They say that new Speaker John Boehner won't "operate" as ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich did. The new members won't be "co-opted," as were those who took the House for the first time since the 1950s with the 1994 Contract With America. This group will "get more done."
