Polling predicts Romney landslide

As the presidential election enters the home stretch, the race is still tight according to the polls. Most recent national polls now give Mitt Romney the edge. Gallup shows Obama trailing by five points nationally. According to a new Rasmussen poll released today, Romney leads 49-47 percent.

In the swing states, many races are trending towards Romney as well. In Florida (29 electoral votes), the majority of polls show Romney in the lead. This is also true in North Carolina (15 votes).

The swing states of Virginia and Ohio remain a statistical tie. In both states, however, President Obama is polling at less than 50 percent, a bad sign for an incumbent. In Virginia (13 votes), Real Clear Politics average of polls shows the president with an average of 47 percent. In Ohio (18 votes), President Obama gets 48 percent. The most recent poll in Ohio is a Rasmussen sample that shows Mitt Romney leading 50-48.

Historical precedent shows that undecided voters usually vote against the incumbent. Polling Report studies found that over 80 percent of the time, undecided voters chose the challenger. The Incumbent Rule holds that incumbents rarely get a higher percentage of the vote than they receive in pre-election polls. This means that Mitt Romney will probably win in both Ohio and Virginia. These victories would give Romney 266 electoral votes, four short of the 270 required to win the White House.

There are many opportunities to win the extra four votes. In six states, President Obama leads in the polling, but with less than 50 percent. These states include Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. A win in any of these states along with victories in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia would seal Mitt Romney’s victory. Current polling suggests that he may win all of them. Currently polling also suggests that Oregon, where the president is polling at 48 percent, may be in play.

The situation is discouraging for Obama because the states in play are all states that he won in 2008. There are no states that voted for McCain in 2008 that are trending toward Obama this year. Several possible swing states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) are normally solidly Democratic.

The only swing state in which President Obama is polling at 50 percent or more is Nevada. Polls there have showed the president with 50 to 51 percent according to Real Clear Politics. This suggests a one to two point victory over Mitt Romney.

If the Incumbent Rule holds true, Mitt Romney will win the election with 331 electoral votes to Barack Obama’s 207. You can view the Atlanta Conservative Examiner’s prediction of the election’s outcome in detail on 270towin.com. You can also create your own electoral map.

Mitt Romney will also win the popular vote, avoiding a repeat of the divisive aftermath of the 2000 election in which George W. Bush won the electoral vote by winning Florida, but lost the popular vote to Vice President Al Gore. Based on current polls, Romney should win approximately 53 percent of the popular vote.

The idea of a Republican landslide in the presidential election is also supported by Gallup’s party identification poll. At this point in 2008, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 34 to 33 percent with 32 percent considering themselves independent. In 2010, Democrats still outnumbered Republicans, this time by 32 to 29 percent. Independents had increased to 36 percent. The most recent data, from September 2012, shows 28 percent Republican, 32 percent Democrat, and 38 percent independent. This is almost identical to 2010, when the Republicans won a congressional landslide.

Additionally, the Associated Press reported last week that Mitt Romney had closed the gender gap with President Obama as well. At one time, Obama had a 16 point advantage among women. The recent AP-Gfk poll now shows the two candidates tied at 47-47 among women. Previous polls have shown the president losing support among black voters and young voters, two core constituencies from 2008.

Barring a successful last-minute October surprise, it seems almost certain that Mitt Romney will not only win the presidential election, but that he will do so handily. What was a close race throughout the summer now seems to be trending toward a landslide.

Originally published on Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/article/polling-points-to-romney-landslide?cid=db_articles

Why you should vote for Mitt Romney

Recently Examiner made the case against Barack Obama’s reelection. There are a multitude of reasons to vote against Obama, but that is only half of the equation. There are many reasons to make a positive choice to vote for Mitt Romney.

First, when it comes to the economy, Mitt Romney is the anti-Obama. Obama’s plan, only unveiled on October 23, is to raise taxes, increase regulation and spend even more. On the other hand, Mitt Romney wants to reform the tax system by lowering rates and eliminating loopholes that favor the wealthy. He wants to replace burdensome regulations like those in Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank finance law with rules that reflect market realities and common sense. Romney would immediately reduce spending to 2008 levels. Romney proposes to cut spending back to 20 percent of GDP (from its high last year of 24.3 percent) by the end of his first term. In spite of Obama’s claims in the debates and on the campaign trail, Romney does provide specifics. You can find the details of his plan on his website.

Romney’s economic plan is based on history. Tax rate cuts have led to economic growth at several points in U.S. history, most famously under John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Higher taxes and higher government spending has the opposite effect. These policies led to the Great Depression and the stagflation of the 1970s. The same is true in other countries as well. When Ireland cut its taxes and government, it went from one of the poorest nations in Europe to one of the most successful. When Japan tried to stimulate its way out of a recession it led to a “Lost Decade.”

Romney is also the anti-Obama on many social issues. Where President Obama negotiated a UN small arms treaty that threatens American Second Amendment rights, Mitt Romney promises to respect the rights of gun owners and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association. Where Obama presided over the erosion of religious freedom, Romney has a long record of supporting religious liberty. Where President Obama is out of the closet as a supporter of same-sex marriage, Romney favors an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Noted evangelist Billy Graham told Mitt Romney, “I’ll do all I can to help you. And you can quote me on that” according to the Washington Post. Graham also took out several full page newspaper ads urging voters “to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the Biblical definition of marriage….”“

The second reason to vote for Mitt Romney is his choice of running mate. Paul Ryan is the most serious reformer in Congress. Ryan is the only person of either party to put forth a credible plan for saving Medicare and balancing the budget. Ryan’s plan, the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” preserves Medicare and Social Security in their current form for seniors while giving younger Americans more choice in their health care and retirement planning. Ryan’s plan also does not raise taxes. By choosing Paul Ryan to be his vice president, Mitt Romney showed that he is serious about reforming the federal government.

Third, a recent Pew poll profiled in the Los Angeles Times indicates that a majority of Americans feel that Iran is a major threat and want the United States to take a “firm stand.” President Obama and Vice President Biden don’t seem to take the threat seriously. In the vice presidential debate, Biden said that he wasn’t worried about an Iranian nuclear weapon because “they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point.” The Wall Street Journal points out that building a weapon is the easy part. Iran is currently working on the hard part: amassing enough enriched uranium to explode one or several nuclear bombs. The Obama Administration resisted sanctions and issued waivers to Iran’s largest trading partners including China. Under Obama’s watch, Iran’s rate of enrichment has tripled according to the Washington Post.

As he made clear in the foreign policy debate, Mitt Romney wants peace not war, but realizes the danger to the United States that a nuclear Iran poses. Romney would make the sanctions even tougher, although time for sanctions to work is rapidly slipping away. Romney also pledges to support the Iranian opposition, noting on his website that President Obama missed the opportunity to support Iran’s Green Revolution in 2009. Romney says on his website, “Only if Iran understands that the United States is utterly determined when we say that their nuclear weapons program is unacceptable is there a possibility that they will give up their nuclear aspirations peacefully.”

Fourth, voters should not be concerned about the fictitious war on women that the Democrats allege that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are engaged in. In reality, the president does not have the power to end abortion, no matter how much he opposes it. In reality, no one has proposed banning contraception. In reality, the Democratic position is that taxpayers and employers should be forced to pay for contraceptive and abortifacient drugs, regardless of whether they want them or not. The issue isn’t the freedom to use contraceptives; the issue is the freedom to not purchase them.

The fifth reason to vote for Mitt Romney is because he isn’t a wild eyed, out-of-touch radical as the Democrats have led voters to believe. As Americans saw in the three debates, he is an intelligent, personable man with a command of the facts and issues that confront the United States. He is generous, having donated nearly 30 percent of his income to charity in 2011 according to the Wall Street Journal. His record in business and as governor of Massachusetts is one of building teams and getting things done.

When Americans go the polls on Nov. 6, they have a real choice. The two candidates differ on almost every issue. Americans must choose between a return to the policies that made the United States an economic powerhouse and the envy of the world or a continuation of the Obama Administration policies of the past four years. Choosing President Obama might very well lead to an American Lost Decade and a loss of liberty as well.

See reasons to NOT vote for Barack Obama

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-you-should-vote-for-mitt-romney

Why the economy is in trouble no matter who wins the election

The United States might well be headed for a double-dip recession regardless of who wins the presidential election in November. Two years ago, President Obama convened a bipartisan commission to examine ways to deal with the ballooning federal debt. The Simpson-Bowles commission recommended a variety of fixes including spending cuts and tax reform, but Congress and the president could not agree. The result of the stalemate was a compromise in which automatic spending cuts and tax increases were slated to go into effect on January 1, 2013 if Congress did not act. Now, three months away from the deadline, it appears likely that the doomsday plan will become reality.

It has been called “the tax cliff” or “Taxmageddon.” Regardless of the name, the approaching tax increases represent a significant threat to the already fragile economy. According to a new report released this week by the liberal Tax Policy Center, nearly every tax cut passed since 2001 will expire at once leading to double or triple digit increases on January 1. Taxes will go up an average of $3,500. Nine out of ten Americans will see their taxes increase.

First, there is the expiration of the low Bush-era tax rates which will increase income tax rates for almost all Americans. The top marginal rate will increase from 35 to an effective rate of 39.6 percent. Without action from Congress, rates for lower tax brackets will also increase so middle and lower income taxpayers will also see increases. Many Americans who currently have no tax liability would have to start paying taxes again. The marriage penalty would return.

Second, the capital gains tax will increase from 15 percent to 23.8 percent. This is an increase of more than 38 percent. History has shown that the increasing the capital gains tax discourages investment and businesses seek tax shelters to protect their cash. According to the Wall Street Journal, rate reductions in the capital gains tax in 1978, 1981, 1997 and 2003 helped fuel the tech boom of the 1980s and 1990s and spurred the growth of companies like Wal-mart, Home Depot, Apple and Google.

Third, the dividend tax is slated to increase from 15 percent to 43.8 percent, the same rate as ordinary income. This means that the tax rate for dividends is increasing by a margin of 192 percent in spite of the fact that dividends have already been taxed as corporate income. The U.S. corporate tax rate is already the highest in the world. The dramatic increase in the dividend tax will be a shock to the economic system that will discourage investment in American companies.

Finally, the death tax will increase from 35 percent to 55 percent, a 57 percent increase. The increase in the death tax includes a double whammy since, at the same time the tax rate increases, the exemption for gift and estate taxes will be lowered from $5.12 million per person to $1 million. This means that not only do heirs and recipients have to pay a higher rate on gifts or inheritances, but more of the money in question is taxable. The death tax also represents double taxation since money in an estate or given as a gift has already been taxed as income, capital gains, or dividends.

If Mitt Romney wins the election, his tax reform plan calls for lowering tax rates across the board and simplifying taxes by eliminating some deductions that favor certain categories of taxpayers or businesses. Romney would keep the current 15 percent rate for capital gains and dividend taxes and would eliminate the death tax entirely.

President Obama would keep current rates for the middle class and lower income taxpayers, but would increase rates on taxpayers who earn more than $217,000. The president’s plan would also increase taxes on dividends, capital gains, and estates. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, President Obama would increase the dividend tax rate to 43.4 percent, the capital gains tax rate to 30 percent, and the death tax to 45 percent.

The rub lies in President Obama’s desire to raise taxes on the wealthy to help pay for the increased spending of his administration. Republicans as well as many Democrats believe that increasing taxes would destroy the recovery and plunge the country back into recession. While some Democrats have indicated a willingness to compromise to avoid the tax cliff, others, including President Obama, have drawn a line in the sand against extending the current low tax rates for the wealthy. Some Democrats have even spoken in favor of allowing the automatic tax increases to go into effect for Americans of all incomes.

Most analysts believe that a compromise to stave off the looming tax increases is unlikely before the election. The Republican base will not accede to any tax increases while the Democratic base is adamant about the need to force the wealthy to pay their “fair share.” Fears of alienating supporters mean that neither side is likely to budge until after the results of the election are determined.

Compromise may be elusive even after the election. President Obama will still be president and the Democrats will still control the senate for almost three weeks after the tax increases go into effect. If President Obama and the Democrats win the election, they will not see a need to compromise since they will be able to hold out and then craft their own bill. Likewise, if the Romney and the Republicans win the election, President Obama and the Democrats may see the doomsday tax hikes as their only means of getting the tax increases on the wealthy that they spent the last two years pushing for. If the tax hikes go into effect and the economy crashes, they can blame President Romney and the Republicans who will be taking office just as Americans are feeling the effects of the Taxmageddon.

Recent reports in the New York Times indicate that congressional leaders are hoping to work out a compromise in the post-election “lame duck” session. By then it may too late to avoid much of the damage however. The Washington Post notes that uncertainty and the inability to plan for the future is already having a negative impact on businesses. Investments and expansion plans are being postponed until the true shape of the tax climate can be determined. More and more businesses are deferring investment until after the election or the first of the year, making a significant recovery unlikely for months.

 

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-the-economy-may-tank-no-matter-who-wins-the-election

SCOTUS ruling not the end for Obamacare opponents

President Obama finally got some good news today.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld most of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate, today. In a stunning proof that judicial activism can cross ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s liberals in finding that the individual mandate is constitutional under Congress’ authority to tax.

There was some good news for those who oppose Obamacare as well according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. The Court decided that the federal government could not expel states from Medicare if they refuse to comply with the law. The Court also limited abuse of Commerce Clause by stating that the Affordable Care Act was not permitted by Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

Following the Battle of Bunker Hill, British General Sir Henry Clinton wrote that it was “A dear bought victory, another such would have ruined us." The same is likely true for President Obama of today’s victory.

Obamacare was not popular before it passed. It took parliamentary tricks and bribery to pass the law over strong public opposition, even with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. The Cornhusker Compromise and the Louisiana Purchase will long be remembered with scorn. The deal that pro-life Democrats won from President Obama to keep federal money from funding abortion has already been forgotten as new mandates force all insurers to cover abortifacient drugs. Many Democrats who voted for the law are no longer in Congress due their violation of the public trust. Next January, there will be even fewer.

Obamacare is still not popular. Immediately after passage 55 percent of Americans favored its repeal according to Rasmussen. Forty-two percent were opposed. Last week, Americans still favored repeal by 54-39 percent. President Obama and the Democrats went to the wall to fight for a law that Americans oppose by a landslide.

In Georgia, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, Gov. Nathan Deal and Attorney General Sam Olens issued a joint statement on the ruling. Deal said, “Today, the highest court in the country let the American people down.”

Olens agreed, ““I disagree with this decision. Congress explicitly said this was not a tax. I call on Congress to act swiftly, repeal the law and replace it with real reform that respects the Constitution as written.”

Americans don’t like to be told what to do and they don’t like to be lied to. The Democrats have committed both sins. Most Americans know that the law was passed on lies. Americans were told that Obamacare would cut insurance premiums. Since the law was passed, premiums have risen even faster than before according to Forbes. Americans were told that Obamacare would decrease the deficit and be revenue neutral. A new study by the Mercatus Center says that the law will add more than a trillion dollars to the deficit. Americans were told they could keep their insurance and that everyone would have coverage. The Congressional Budget Office says that the law could cause 20 million Americans to lose their insurance. Barack Obama promised that there would be no tax increases for the middle class. In reality, the Heritage Foundation points out that the law includes $500 billion in tax increases, much of which will be borne by the middle and lower classes. While portraying themselves as anti-corporatists, the Democrats were secretly working with the health insurance companies to pass the law according to emails published in the Wall St. Journal.

Most glaringly, Americans were told that the individual mandate was not a tax. President Obama himself told CBS News that “I absolutely reject that notion” [that the individual mandate is a tax] when queried. "What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore," Obama continued. "Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase."

Yet that is how the government presented its case in court. That is how the Court interpreted the law in order to find it constitutional, even though the law itself structured the mandate as a penalty, not a tax. It is obvious that President Obama and the Democrats lied.

Today’s defeat is not the end of the opposition to Obamacare. The law will ultimately be defeated. One effect of the ruling will be to fire up opponents of Obamacare for the November election. Mitt Romney will likely succeed President Obama and the Republicans will likely gain control of the senate. If the Republicans control both Congress and the White House, Obamacare’s days will be numbered.

Even if the Republicans are unable to repeal the law, it will almost certainly collapse under its own weight. Obamacare is too complex and unwieldy to succeed. It ignores market realities in exchange for centralized mandates and does nothing to control costs. The trillions that it adds to the deficit will add to the risk that the United States economy will collapse in the same manner of the European countries. Obamacare will not work any better than the stimulus or Obama’s other economic initiatives if it is allowed to take effect.

Even if repealed, the lasting legacy of Obamacare will be that it fundamentally and irrevocably changed the relationship between the American people and their government. Until today, the government had no power to coerce its citizens into engaging in commerce. Now, with the Supreme Court’s blessing, the federal government has no practical limits on its power as long as it can configure its mandates as a tax. Obamacare has left a gaping hole in America’s constitutional protections.

The Democrats will certainly expect to use that precedent to expand their power if the voters allow them to. After the arrogance, disregard for the law, and blatant lies of the Democrats and the Obama Administration, Americans should think long and hard before ever letting liberals near the levers of power again.

Georgia Republican primary too close to call

It is now less than one month until March 6, when Georgia and nine other states conduct their Republican presidential preference primaries. Thus far, the only constant in the Republican primary is that there is no constant. There have been a multitude of frontrunners and the states that have conducted primaries and caucuses so far have been split between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.

In Georgia, Newt Gingrich has held a commanding lead for the past several months. The most recent poll by Survey USA was conducted February 1-2 and showed Gingrich leading Mitt Romney by 45-32 percent. This was similar to a December poll by Mason Dixon that showed Gingrich leading Romney by 43-21 percent. A series of Insider Advantage polls from the summer shows Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, both now withdrawn from the race, leading last summer and fall.

Although the most recent two polls show Romney rising by 11 points, the real story may be Rick Santorum. As late as December, Santorum garnered less than two percent in the Insider Advantage poll and one percent in the Mason Dixon poll.

Santorum eked out a surprise victory in Iowa on January 3, even though his victory wasn’t known until two weeks later. In the meantime, he placed a distant third in South Carolina and Florida. It was at this point that the Survey USA poll was taken that showed Santorum had jumped to nine percent. Since then, Santorum pulled a hat trick, winning all three of this week’s primaries in the states of Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.

In the weeks remaining until Super Tuesday, there are only four states holding primaries or caucuses. Arizona and Michigan hold primaries on February 28 while Maine caucuses on February 11 and Washington on March 3.

It remains to be seen whether Santorum’s victories this week will increase his popularity in Georgia and the other Super Tuesday states. If so, he may be unable to keep up his momentum in the weeks until Super Tuesday with few elections and debates.

As Newt Gingrich’s campaign sags under the weight of his personal baggage and high unfavorability ratings, it is likely that he will not receive anywhere near the 45 percent of the vote that he received in the most recent poll. It is most likely that Santorum will be the beneficiary of disaffected Gingrich supporters as the new alternative to Romney.

At this point, factoring in the recent events, the Georgia primary is too close to call, with Romney at 32 percent and Gingrich and Santorum splitting another 60 percent, Romney looks to be the favorite. Ron Paul is unlikely to go much higher than 10 percent. The big question is whether Santorum’s rise will cause Romney as well as Gingrich voters to defect.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/georgia-republican-primary-too-close-to-call

Romney is more charitable than most, tax returns show

When Mitt Romney released his tax returns earlier this week, most of the attention was on the tax rate that he paid on his income. Romney paid less than 15 percent of his income in taxes due to the fact that his money comes from capital gains and dividends rather than from a salary, but he still pays a higher rate than most Americans.

The real surprise in Romney’s tax return is that the Republican presidential candidate is more charitable than most Americans. The Wall Street Journal states that Romney gave 13.8 percent of his income to charity in 2010 and more than 19 percent in 2011. This means that Mitt Romney is giving more to private charities than he is giving to the federal government.

In dollars, Mitt and his wife, Ann, earned $21.7 million in 2010 and $21 million in 2011 according to an analysis by CNN. They paid $3 million in taxes in 2010 and $3.2 million in 2011. They donated $2.9 million to charity in 2010 and $4 million in 2011 according to the WSJ figures.

In comparison, the Journal notes that Barack and Michelle Obama gave 13.6 percent of their income to charity in 2010. This was a marked increase from previous years. Between 2005 and 2009, the Obamas gave between 4.6 and 6.2 percent to charity. Before Obama became a national political figure, the rate was much lower, between 0.4 and 1.4 percent.

In another incident last week, Romney put his wallet where his mouth was. On January 14, ABC News reported that an unemployed woman asked Romney for money while he was meeting voters in South Carolina. Romney pulled out his wallet and gave the woman “a wad of cash,” later estimated to be about $50-60. Romney also introduced the woman to Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina, and the state treasurer, Curtis Loftis. Loftis reportedly gave the woman $150 to pay her light bill. The woman, Ruth Williams, told ABC that God directed her to Romney’s campaign bus and told her to follow it. She has reportedly been volunteering for the Romney campaign since meeting the candidate.

The Washington Post reported that the Romney’s action was not filmed, but was witnessed by an ABC News print reporter who later interviewed Williams. The Post writes, “There was no indication that Romney’s cash gift was calculated or anything more than a spontaneous reaction to one woman’s story of personal struggles.”

Contrast this with President Obama’s reaction when Henrietta Hughes asked him for help at a rally in February 2011 being filmed by Fox News. Hughes was unemployed and living in a car and asked for help finding a house. On live television, Obama responded, "We're going to do everything we can to help you, but there are a lot of people like you."

Hughes did get a house. A local NBC affiliate reported that a couple who owned a vacant rental house had donated its use to Hughes and her family “for as long as she needs it.” The house belonged to Nicholas and Chene Thompson. Nick Thompson is a state representative. They are Republicans. There is no evidence that Obama or his staff ever followed up with Hughes.

These figures may be surprising, but they are not atypical. The 2006 book, “Who Really Cares,” examined giving trends in America. Its author, Arthur Brooks, found that on average conservatives gave more to charity even though liberals typically earned more. This may be partly due to the fact that conservatives tend to be more religious and both Christianity and Judaism encourage charity (Proverbs 14:21, 2 Corinthians 9:6-7).

The difference between Obama and Romney underscores the different philosophies of liberals and conservatives. Where liberals believe that it is the role of government to help people like Ruth Williams and Henrietta Hughes, conservatives see it as their personal responsibility. The liberal philosophy is one of waiting on the government for help while conservatism empowers individuals. Obama made vague promises that help was on the way while Romney and Chene Thompson actually worked to make a difference. Conservatives like Mitt Romney believe that charity, like the economy, is better left in the hands of individuals than delegated to government bureaucrats.

It is obvious that many, if not most, conservatives do not deserve their reputation as heartless moneygrubbers. After all, is it really giving when it doesn’t come out of your own wallet?

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

Republican presidential candidates for 2012

Hucabee (David Ball/Wikimedia)

In spite of the weaknesses of President Obama’s policies and his growing unpopularity, Republican challengers in 2012 may well have a tough time winning the presidency.  The likely slate of Republican challengers all have significant weaknesses that would lead to a difficult campaign. 

One of the leading Republican challengers is the man who won Georgia’s Republican delegates in 2008.  Mike Huckabee is a former governor of Arkansas and current television host on Fox News.  Huckabee is also a former pastor and author of several books, including the recently released A Simple Christmas.  Huckabee is a solid conservative, in spite of being denounced by several other candidates and talk show hosts as a “populist” and liberal.  Huckabee is a charismatic campaigner who stole the show at the 2008 Republican debates.  Huckabee is a supporter of the Fair Tax.

Huckabee’s chief weakness as a candidate is his record of pardons as Arkansas Governor.  Critics have pointed to the number of Huckabee pardons, the suspicion that many of them were issued based on jailhouse conversions, and the fact that several of the people to whom he gave clemency returned to a life of crime.  The most infamous of these was Maurice Clemmons, a juvenile prisoner in Arkansas, who moved to Washington State and murdered four police officers after being granted clemency by Huckabee.

Mitt Romney (Wikimedia/Steve Jurvetson)

Huckabee also made headlines recently on two occasions.  In one instance, he commented on the Michael Medved Show that Natalie Portman’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy sent a “problematic message” to young Americans.  In the second, he misspoke about Obama’s childhood and said that the president grew up in Kenya. Huckabee is currently the host of a talk show on Fox News.

A second Republican favorite was also a star of the 2008 GOP primaries.  Mitt Romney is a former governor of Massachusetts, but a native of Detroit.  Romney had a successful private sector career as a business management consultant and executive.  Notably, he was largely responsible for the success of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.  He was elected Massachusetts Governor in 2002.

Like Huckabee, Romney also has some less than desirable attributes to overcome.  The largest skeleton in Romney’s closet is Romneycare. The Massachusetts state health plan, which is widely described as a prototype of Obamacare, is increasingly unworkable and expensive, just like the federal version of universal health care.  Romneycare has many of the same features that conservatives find so unappealing in Obama’s reform law, including a mandate that everyone buy health insurance. 

Romney has other problems as well.  In his past political career he has held positions on social issues, such as abortion and gay rights, that many Republican voters would find objectionable.  His socially moderate (or liberal) positions may have helped him in Massachusetts, but hurt him nationally.  Additionally, Romney’s Mormon faith is controversial for some.

The third of the top three Republican figures in 2012 election speculation is Sarah Palin.  Palin, the former governor of Alaska, burst onto the national political scene in 2008 as John McCain’s running mate.  The “Mama Grizzly” was widely popular among conservatives, but was widely unpopular among the country at large.  Although more experienced than Barack Obama (and in the supporting role on the ticket instead of the lead), she was widely portrayed as a political neophyte.  Saturday Night Live skits mocking her (“I can see Russia from my house”) and she became a laughingstock in the media.

Sarah Palin (Wikimedia/Therealbs2002)

Palin went a long way toward redeeming herself in the 2010 elections.  Even though she was not a candidate, she played the role of Tea Party kingmaker in several races (but endorsed several losing candidates as well, notably in Delaware and Nevada).  She has also authored a book and hosted a cable television reality show.  Recently, Sarah Palin was voted the second most admired woman in the US (right behind Hillary Clinton).  She remains a favorite target of the left as her recent spat with comedienne Kathy Griffin shows.

Palin has two serious problems.  The first is that, although she was a popular governor of Alaska, she faced a number of charges of ethics violations.  Ultimately, she was cleared of all wrongdoing (although only after the 2008 election).  The deluge of ethics complaints was a factor in her decision to resign her position as Governor of Alaska.  Her resignation lends credence to charges of inexperience and doubts about whether she is tough enough to be president. 

More troubling is Palin’s abysmal approval rating.  The leftist hatchet job on this successful conservative woman may have done permanent damage.  Her unfavorable ratings are very high, even among Republicans.   In a March 2011 Quinnipiac poll, Palin was the lowest ranked Republican and scored just above Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  This means that Palin would be starting with a significant disadvantage in a campaign.

Two Georgians are also likely contenders in the race.  Newt Gingrich, former Clinton-era speaker of the House of Representatives and architect of the “Contract with America,” hinted strongly that he is considering a presidential run.  Since he left congress, Gingrich has served on several national security and health care commissions.  He has authored many fiction and nonfiction books.  Gingrich has set up foundations for health care reform, restoring America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, and for seeking bipartisan solutions.

A Gingrich candidacy would face problems as well.  Gingrich has a long history of personal and marital problems, including divorces and affairs.  Like Sarah Palin, he has a high negative rating and was unpopular when he left office after a showdown with Bill Clinton that led to a government shutdown.  Nevertheless his leadership of the House helped to balance the budget and generate surpluses in the 1990s, a development that President Clinton took credit for.

Herman Cain (Wikimedia/Gage Skidmore)

The second Georgian is the only one so far who has formally declared his candidacy.  Herman Cain has vast experience in the corporate world.  He was an executive at the Coca-Cola Company, Pillsbury, Burger King, and as CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, a company that he rescued from bankruptcy.  He also led the National Restaurant Association and was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.  Today he is host of the Herman Cain Show on Atlanta’s WSB AM-750, where he often is also a frequent guest host for Neal Boortz.  Cain was emcee at 2010’s Douglas County Tea Party in west Georgia.

Cain’s biggest negative is his lack of name recognition.  He does not show up at all in many polls, but is starting to gain traction after winning a Tea Party straw poll in Phoenix in February.  He has never won a campaign.  He was defeated in a 2004 bid for Georgia’s GOP senate nomination.  Finally, even though he has extensive leadership and financial experience, he lacks the foreign policy experience needed in today’s world.

Donald Trump has also hinted at a possible candidacy.  The real estate tycoon and reality television star recently spoke at CPAC and told crowds that he might enter the race.  Trump has considered running before in 1988 and 2000.  He is well known, but it is questionable whether votes would seriously consider him as a candidate.

There are several other potential Republican candidates who suffer from lack of name recognition.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is engineering a turnaround of the Garden State, but, like many other potential candidates, is virtually unknown to most of the rest of the country.  Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, has a conservative record and cool nickname (“T-Paw”).  Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour’s campaign may have ended before it started with an unfortunate remark about segregation.  Mitch Daniels, the two-term governor of Indiana, is also rumored to be considering a run for president.  He is also relatively unknown outside his state, but recently angered conservatives by proposing a truce on social issues, even as the left-wing assault on marriage continues.  Jon Huntsman, Jr., the current ambassador to China and former governor of Utah, is also thought to be a possible candidate.  Finally, Rick Santorum is a strong social conservative who is well known as a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.  However, Santorum suffered a landslide loss to Democrat Bob Casey in the 2006 elections that will not be easy to overcome.

Former candidate Ron Paul rounds out the list of likely GOP candidates for 2012.   Paul is a libertarian-leaning representative from Texas and has a loyal following around the country.  He previously ran for president in 1988 and 2008, but failed to win the nomination.

In spite of his dedicated following, Paul has many negatives.  Most obviously, Ron Paul is a year older than John McCain.  In 2012, he will be five years older than McCain was when he ran against Barack Obama in 2008.  As a libertarian, Paul also has taken a number of positions that most Republicans do not agree with.  He opposed the Iraq War and is somewhat of an isolationist.  Likewise, Paul’s call to end the Federal Reserve will probably sound a little too extreme for most voters.  In 2008, he failed to win a single state and never got more than 25% of the vote.

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/republican-presidential-candidates-for-2012#ixzz1GIrrgSS1">