Hope is Not a Foreign Policy

February 13, 2011 at 5:06 pm

Why Sarah Palin Can’t Win the Presidency

Posted by Tom Skypek in 2012 Elections, American Politics, Conservatism, Economy, National Debt, Tea Party, The American Presidency

I’m going to catch some slack from my conservative brethren for writing this, but I don’t believe that Sarah Palin can win the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. If you’re trying to analyze objectively a candidate’s presidential prospects, you need to think in terms of electoral votes. More specifically, ask yourself, “Which states does the candidate need to win in order to get to the magic number of 270?” But Sarah Palin isn’t the only potential candidate who would have trouble getting to 270. Like Palin, conservative favorites Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul don’t seem to have a viable path to 270, either. To beat Obama we will need to win a number of independent voters and both Palin and Gingrich are absolutely toxic with independent voters. The real question for conservatives is: who is the most conservative candidate with the most viable path to 270?

Below is a map of the 2008 presidential election. As we all painfully recall, Obama captured several states that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 including Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Nevada, Virginia, and, of course, Florida. Obama also captured Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio which voted for Bush in 2004. At the end of the day, Obama captured 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173.

To defeat Obama in 2012, the Republican candidate will need 270 electoral votes. This will require the Republican candidate to hold every state McCain won in 2008 and pick up Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and win either Colorado, Nevada, or Iowa. This is certainly not any easy task but it is very possible and reinforces the fact that, with the right candidate, Obama is beatable. Republicans have a good shot of picking up Colorado, Nevada, or Iowa; New Hampshire may even be in play based on Obama’s margin of victory in 2008. Here are a few plausible scenarios in which the Republican candidate would defeat Obama in 2012 (I used the great site 270toWin.com to explore these ”what-if” scenarios).

Win all of McCain’s states plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and Colorado = 275/263
Win all of McCain’s states plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and Nevada = 272/266
Win all of McCain’s states plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and Iowa =272/266
Win all of McCain’s states plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and New Hampshire =270/268

The good news for Republicans and conservatives is that Obama will be playing defense in 2012, especially considering the largely favorable reapportionment figures. The bad news is that Obama can hemorrhage 95 electoral votes from his 2008 totals and still win a second term. So the question for conservatives is which candidate can hold the states McCain won in 2008 and pick up Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and either Colorado, Nevada, Iowa or New Hampshire? This is the question conservatives need to ask themselves as the Republican nominating process begins. It makes no sense to nominate a candidate who has no chance of getting to 270 electoral votes in the general election.

Sarah Palin is an incredibly effective fundraiser and has an impressive ability to rally conservatives. However, as I mentioned earlier, when it comes to independent voters her numbers are not favorable, and you absoutely need to win independents in order to win the presidency. Unfortunately, the media has done such a number on her favorability ratings that a major reversal is no longer realistic at this point. Looking at the electoral map it is unclear to me how she could win enough states to get to 270. I think there are several prospective candidates who have a realistic path to 270 including Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and possibly Haley Barbour. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul do not seem to have viable paths to 270.

Palin could, however, do well in some of the early Republican primary and caucus states. While I don’t believe that she has a clear path to the nomination, she could win or do very well in some of the early states including Iowa and South Carolina. The objective of this article is to prompt conservatives to think about the general election now. Nomination contests are ugly as passions always run high. Everyone believes that their candidate is the one. We can’t lose focus, though, of our ultimate objective: to make sure that Barack Obama is a one-term president. To realize this objective, we need to put up a candidate who can get to 270. This doesn’t mean that we have to compromise our principles of limited government, but it does mean that we need to nominate a candidate who is conservative and electable at a national level.

6 Comments Tags: 270toWin.com, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty |

February 12, 2011 at 11:28 am

Why I Like Mitch Daniels

Posted by Tom Skypek in 2012 Elections, American Politics, Conservatism, Economy, National Debt, Tea Party, The American Presidency

Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers. King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared. Winston Churchill set aside his lifetime loathing of Communism in order to fight World War II. Challenged as a hypocrite, he said that when the safety of Britain was at stake, his “conscience became a good girl.” We are at such a moment. I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying “I told you so” or “You should’ve done it my way.”

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, speaking at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)

I like Mitch Daniels for a variety of reasons including his laser beam focus on the national debt and his suggestion that we’re overextended abroad. There were a lot of great things in Daniels’s speech at CPAC last night but his allusion to the Buckley rule was perhaps the most important and something that conservative needed to hear. Conservatives must support the most conservative candidate who is electable. At the end of the day, conservatives need to realize that our fundamental objective in 2012 is to ensure that Barack Obama is a one-term president. Ideological purity is idealism at its worst and idealism is not conservatism. You will never find a candidate with whom you agree 100% of the time. Pragmatism and prudence are core elements of conservative thought. As Daniels said, “I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying ‘I told you so’ or ‘You should’ve done it my way.’”

The 2010 Delaware U.S. Senate race is instructive. Christine O’Donnell defeated the much less conserative Mike Castle in a stunning primary upset and then proceeded to lose the general election to the very liberal Chris Coons. In a perfect conservative world, O’Donnell would have defeated Coons, but the world is not perfect. That’s one important distinction between liberals and conservatives–conservatives are supposed to be realists and understand the true character of human nature.

Let us say for the sake of argument that had O’Donnell been elected she would have voted for limited government 100% of the time (maybe). Mike Castle would have voted for limited government 70% of the time. Chris Coons votes for limited government 15% of the time. Do the math. If the electoral reality places an O’Donnell general election victory at a low likelihood but a Castle victory at a high likelihood, then if you’re a conservative you ought to support Castle. Or you can support O’Donnell, lose the general election, and watch a liberal Democrat grow the scope and scale of government. But you can sleep well at night knowing that you supported the most conservative in the primary.

1 Comment Tags: Christine O'Donnell, Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Mitch Daniels, William F. Buckley |

February 11, 2011 at 11:18 pm

U.S. National Debt is new “Red Menace,” says Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

Posted by Tom Skypek in 2012 Elections, American Politics, Conservatism, Economy, National Debt, Tea Party

From the WaPo’s Aaron Blake:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said Friday that the nation’s growing debt amounts to a new “Red Menace”, equating the country’s fiscal situation to its Cold War fight with Russia.

“It is the new Red Menace, this time consisting of ink,” Daniels said at his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference. “We can debate its origins endlessly and search for villains on ideological grounds, but the reality is pure arithmetic.

The Soviet threat during the second half of the 20th Century was the main theme of Daniels’ speech, which lasted just over a half-hour and was chock full of dense rhetoric and almost devoid of applause lines.

Daniels made no mention of his own political plans in his address — and remained silent when the Fix asked him directly about it earlier in the night — but did lay out a broad platform for conservatives heading into 2012 with a near-singular focus on reining in the nation’s debt.

Daniels said reelecting President Obama could be a “fatal last dose of statism” for a country that needs another period of significant economic growth in order to get on its feet.

“We don’t have a prayer of defeating the Red threat of our generation without a long boom of almost unprecedented duration,” Daniels said. “Every other goal, however worthy, must be tested against, and often subordinated to,” that goal.

Daniels repeatedly hit on the idea that the country was on the road to socialism — a popular sentiment among Republicans activists who reject the growth of the federal government under President Obama.

Daniels noted the National Basketball Association’s flirtation with increased revenue-sharing, noting that Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl (Wis.), the owner of the small-market Milwaukee Bucks, had been pushing for big-market teams to help teams like his.

“At a coffee break, [Mikhail] Prokhorov, the new Russian owner of the New Jersey Nets, murmured to my friend, ‘We tried that, you know. It doesn’t work,’” Daniels said — in a Russian accent no less!

Daniels’ made no specific mention of social issues, dodging an opportunity to explain his past comment that people should agree to a “truce” on those matters until the nation is back on its fiscal feet.

He did, however, make a not-so-subtle reference to the idea that ideological purity should not be the goal for the party. “Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers,” Daniels said. “I for one have no interest standing in the wreckage of our republic saying ‘I told you so, you should have done it my way.’”

I like the Cold War analogy. I think it’s quite fitting. When the debt bubble pops, it will have cascading effects and has the potential to fundamentally alter the country. Daniels understands the debt crisis in a way other presidential hopefuls don’t seem to grasp, save for Ron Paul and a couple of others. Our national debt is a major national security issue; in fact, it is one of the primary threats to our country. Why? Because sustainable military power is dependent on a strong economic base.

No Comments Tags: Conservative Political, Mitch Daniels |

at 9:01 pm

Ron Paul Rocks CPAC, Again

Posted by Tom Skypek in 2012 Elections, American Politics, Economy, National Debt, Tea Party

Once again Texas Congressman Ron Paul has stolen the show at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Big government and establishment Republicans can’t stand him. This is only because he’s true to his principles and calls them out when they misrepresent conservatism or, worse yet, vote to increase the scale and scope of the federal government. Others, I think, choose to marginalize him because they simply don’t seem him as electable at the presidential level.

But Ron Paul is the father of the Tea Party movement; many politicians have capitalized off of the movement but it was Ron Paul’s limited government message during the 2008 Republican primaries that kick-started the grassroots juggernaut. Over the last year, as part of my fellowship with the National Review Institute, I’ve been reading tome after tome on the history of conservative intellectual movement in America. I am increasingly convinced that conservatism is libertarianism.

Paul’s critics focus on his quirks rather than the merits of his arguments, which I find pretty convincing. I pretty much agree with Ron Paul across the board. My views on foreign policy are different than his but only to a degree. Like Paul, I also believe, as I wrote recently in the Washington Examiner, that we have too many foreign policy commitments that are wholly unrelated to our national interest. Paul favors a higher degree of disengagement than I do, but we agree on the basic point of overextension.

While 2008 showed that he can raise money with the best of them, Paul has sought the presidency several times and has failed to make a dent in the primary contests. Electability is an issue for Paul but not because of the message. It is my sincere hope that the 2012 Republican nominee share many of Paul’s views on domestic and foreign policy. His prescriptions are exactly what this country needs.

No Comments Tags: Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Ron Paul |

at 10:14 am

Crisis in Egypt: Another U.S. Intelligence Failure

Posted by Tom Skypek in American Foreign Policy, Intelligence

Consider all the money we spend annually on intelligence in the United States (around $80.1 in FY10); now consider the fact that Washington was caught flatfooted on Egypt. It should prompt you to question the efficacy of our intelligence apparatus–even after the massive post-September 11 re-organization. Last fall, Paul Pillar wrote an outstanding article in which he argued that the reorganization (and establishment of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)) was more of a knee-jerk political response than a value added restructuring of a bloated enterprise.

The real deficiency is a failure to communicate and share information. “Information sharing” is a buzz word these days among the various executive departments and agencies, but the reality is that genuine information sharing is still rare; instances of effective information sharing can usually be traced back to established personal relationships rather than an institutionalized culture of information exchange among departments and agencies.

Bureaucratic politics and cultural barriers are the primary culprits. There is no standardization of information in terms of sensitivity and classification levels which can make information sharing across departments difficult. Bureaucrats are also reluctant to share information out of budgetary concerns. No one likes to open up their books to other departments and agencies out of fear that duplicative efforts will be merged and programs cut.

The establishment of the DNI, while well-intentioned, was a mistake. The DNI does not have the power of the purse over the other agencies and growing government by creating more bureaucracy usually doesn’t solve anything. It placates some individuals and gives politicians something to point to so they can say, “Look, we did something.”

2 Comments Tags: Egypt, Intelligence Community, Paul Pillar |

February 10, 2011 at 9:16 pm

The Donald at CPAC

Posted by Tom Skypek in 2012 Elections, American Politics, Tea Party, The American Presidency

I love American politics. You never know who’s going to come out of the woodwork and potentially run for president of the United States.

1 Comment Tags: Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Donald Trump |

February 9, 2011 at 8:27 pm

Appropriations Chairman Releases Partial List of Spending Cuts

Posted by Tom Skypek in Economy, National Debt, Tea Party

Today House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers announced a partial list of 70 spending cuts that will be included in the upcoming Continuing Resolution (CR) bill. This is a good start but we have a long, long way to go. Cutting budgets is never politically popular and the knee-jerk response of the left is to demonize those advocating the cuts; denoucning the “immorality” of the cuts is a favorite tactic. But how is it moral for the government to live beyond its means and spend money that it doesn’t have?

The List of 70 Spending Cuts to be Included in the CR follows:

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies -$30M
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -$899M
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49M
Nuclear Energy -$169M
Fossil Energy Research -$31M
Clean Coal Technology -$18M
Strategic Petroleum Reserve -$15M
Energy Information Administration -$34M
Office of Science -$1.1B
Power Marketing Administrations -$52M
Department of Treasury -$268M
Internal Revenue Service -$593M
Treasury Forfeiture Fund -$338M
GSA Federal Buildings Fund -$1.7B
ONDCP -$69M
International Trade Administration -$93M
Economic Development Assistance -$16M
Minority Business Development Agency -$2M
National Institute of Standards and Technology -$186M
NOAA -$336M
National Drug Intelligence Center -$11M
Law Enforcement Wireless Communications -$52M
US Marshals Service -$10M
FBI -$74M
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance -$256M
Juvenile Justice -$2.3M
COPS -$600M
NASA -$379M
NSF -$139M
Legal Services Corporation -$75M
EPA -$1.6B
Food Safety and Inspection Services -$53M
Farm Service Agency -$201M
Agriculture Research -$246M
Natural Resource Conservation Service -$46M
Rural Development Programs -$237M
WIC -$758M
International Food Aid grants -$544M
FDA -$220M
Land and Water Conservation Fund -$348M
National Archives and Record Service -$20M
DOE Loan Guarantee Authority -$1.4B
EPA ENERGY STAR -$7.4M
EPA GHG Reporting Registry -$9M
USGS -$27M
EPA Cap and Trade Technical Assistance -$5M
EPA State and Local Air Quality Management -$25M
Fish and Wildlife Service -$72M
Smithsonian -$7.3M
National Park Service -$51M
Clean Water State Revolving Fund -$700M
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund -$250M
EPA Brownfields -$48M
Forest Service -$38M
National Endowment for the Arts -$6M
National Endowment for the Humanities -$6M
Job Training Programs -$2B
Community Health Centers -$1.3B
Maternal and Child Health Block Grants -$210M
Family Planning -$327M
Poison Control Centers -$27M
CDC -$755M
NIH -$1B
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services -$96M
LIHEAP Contingency fund -$400M
Community Services Block Grant -$405M
High Speed Rail -$1B
FAA Next Gen -$234M
Amtrak -$224M
HUD Community Development Fund -$530M

1 Comment

February 5, 2011 at 3:10 pm

ABC News Interview with Sen. Rand Paul

Posted by Tom Skypek in American Politics, Current Events, Economy, National Debt, Tea Party

This is a good interview with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), in spite of the interviewer. Of course, the interviewer makes some foolish remarks, suggesting about 25 seconds into the interview that Paul’s proposed spending cuts amounts to “going off the rails.” How about spending $14 trillion that you don’t have? We went off the rails a long time ago. Paul should be commended for proposing serious solutions for a complicated problem. He has the political courage to speak the truth. The phrase “political courage” sounds hifalutin and is invoked too frequently but that’s what this is–political courage.

No Comments Tags: Budget, National Debt, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul |

February 3, 2011 at 3:11 pm

Stossel on the Budget

Posted by Tom Skypek in Economy, National Debt

Great piece by John Stossel on the budget. Read the entire piece but here are some highlights:

…eliminate the U.S. Education Department. We’d save $94 billion. Federal involvement doesn’t improve education. It gets in the way.

Agriculture subsidies cost us $30 billion a year. Let’s get rid of them. They distort the economy. We should also eliminate Housing and Urban Development. That’s $53 billion more.

Who needs the Energy Department and its $20 billion sinkhole? The free market should determine energy investments.

And let’s end the war on drugs. In effect, it’s a $47 billion subsidy for thugs in the black market.

I’ve already cut more than six times more than President Obama proposed in his State of the Union address. His freeze of nondefense discretionary spending would save only $40 billion.

But my cuts still total only $246 billion. If we’re going to get rid of the rest of the CBO’s projected deficit, we must attack the “untouchable” parts of the budget, starting with Social Security. Raising the retirement age and indexing benefits to inflation would save $93 billion. I’d save more by privatizing Social Security, but our progressive friends won’t like that, so for now I’ll ignore privatization.

The biggest budget busters are Medicare and Medicaid, and get this: the 400 subsidy programs run by HHS. Assuming I take just two-thirds of the Cato Institute’s suggested cuts, that saves $281 billion.

How about the Defense Department’s $721 billion? Much of that money could be saved if the administration just shrank the military’s mission to its most important role: protecting us and our borders from those who wish us harm. Today, we have more than 50,000 soldiers in Germany, 30,000 in Japan and 9,000 in Britain. Those countries should pay for their own defense. Cato’s military cuts add up to $150 billion.

All great points–especially on the Department of Education.

No Comments Tags: John Stossel |

February 2, 2011 at 8:20 pm

Victor Davis Hanson on “Obama’s 1979″

Posted by Tom Skypek in American Foreign Policy

Interesting article from Victor Davis Hanson on the parallels between the Carter and Obama administrations in the context of the situation in Egypt.

No Comments Tags: Egypt |