Conservatives Can Relax: Trump Isn't Running

The announcement that all sane people on the American right were waiting for has finally arrived; Donald Trump is not running for President of the United States. Such an announcement has not come a moment too soon, and there are many conservatives breathing a huge sigh of relief.

It was always tempting to dismiss Trump as a joke candidate from the beginning who never had any chance of gaining the Republican nomination. This may or may not be true, but it doesn’t mean that Trump did not pose any danger to a Republican victory in 2012. He had already caused a great deal of damage by first pretending to speak for American conservatives, and then going off on a wild goose chase for Obama’s birth certificate; making conservatives look like a bunch of conspiracy believing loons. The media had lapped up the sideshow, and it seemed that Trump would take the spotlight from any other candidate until he was defeated at the primaries early next year.

By that time however, it could have been too late. It seemed like Trump was set to also go after Obama’s education records in order to prove that the President was not smart enough to have gone to Harvard, and that he was therefore a recipient of affirmative action policies. Even if such statements were true, it would hardly reflect badly on Obama (he didn’t ask to receive special treatment) and regardless of the outcome the issue would be used against conservatives to demonstrate that Republicans were more concerned with side issues than with the real problems facing the country.

Trump represents one of two paths that the Republicans can go down for 2012. In football terms, they can either play the man or the ball; and Trump would represent trying to play the man. Trump is certainly not alone in wanting to attack Obama instead of the issues; with other candidates such as the irritating Michelle Bachman standing strong with a fair amount of Tea Party support should she choose to run. Such a path is doomed to end in failure. Although his nastier side has come out over the last year, Obama is still seen by many as a likeable guy, and his personal popularity ratings are much higher than his ratings on the issues – which remain stubbornly low.

It is on the issues where the Republicans can win big. This has been proved already; the 2010 midterms barely made any personal references to Obama at all, and focused almost entirely on the economy. It resulted in annihilation for the Democrats at the polls, and one of the biggest swings in United States political history. A similar swing for the Presidential Elections in 2012 would not only hand the Republicans the Presidency, but give them a landslide as well.

Obama is not a steady President. Despite figures in the media telling us that Obama would receive a massive boost from the death of Bin Laden, there has been very little of this, and Rasmussen actually reports a drop in approval for Obama over the last week. With gas prices at a very high level, 1 in 6 Americans on food stamps, Obamacare extremely unpopular, and unemployment stubbornly refusing to go down, Obama’s go to excuse of blaming Bush is wearing thin and will not carry him into 2012. It is on the issues where Obama is weak, and he has run out of ideas.

In a generally conservative country like America (where Obama’s ideas were never particularly popular), the Republicans only need to make sure that they have a candidate that will draw attention to the issues, and also to Obama’s failure to deliver anything but warmed up socialism. They therefore need to pick a solid, upstanding candidate with no hang ups, strange beliefs (nothing weird on evolution, please), or obsessions with birth certificates and college transcripts. If they can pick someone who can stick to the issues, and not get drawn into conspiracy theories and personal attacks, then 2012 could seal Obama’s fate as a one-term President, and 2013 could usher in a fresh era of conservatism in America.

Should the Republicans fail to do this, Obama will not need to win the 2012 election – the Republicans will lose it on their own.

President Mitch Daniels?

What do you think?  Does President Mitch Daniels work? It has a pretty good ring to it I think!

I have just finished watching Mitch Daniel's speech to CPAC in its entirety (an extract can be found here), and I am extremely impressed.  His speech was hard hitting, yet jocular when it needed to be, and it labelled the US debt crisis as the new "red menace" which I thought was media savvey, and also very accurate, considering the scope of US debt.  There are a great many people saying that this guy could be an outsider for a 2012 Presidential run, and from that speech, it doesn't necessarily sound like a bad call to make!

I have said for a while that the problem with the current crop of potential Republican nominees is that they are either not conservative enough, or if they are, that they would (through no fault of their own necessarily) make the election about them, and not about the Obama agenda.

For instance, I love Sarah Palin, but if she were to be made the Republican nominee, the election would become all about Sarah Palin and whether she was "fit for office" as opposed to focusing on why Obamunism has been a complete and utter disaster.  The media would pick her apart like in 2008, it would quickly become about personality politics, and that is unfortunately always somewhere where the Democrats win - not because they have particularly great personalities, but because they can draw on their Hollywood resources to make said candidate look like a movie star.  Look at Obama, no personality, but everyone still seems to think he is a really nice, cool kinda guy.

This is why we need someone who has good solid conservative credentials, and has the ability to make sure that the election will be about Obama and American principles, and not silly personality politics.  Mitch Daniels seems to be a possibility for the nomination from this conclusion, even though he is very much on the outskirts at this point.  For me, he seems quiet yet funny, urgent but not ranty, clear but not condescending, and as someone who is very very likeable.  Plus, from a brief glance at his bio, and from what he has said in his speech, he seems to have solid conservative credentials.  He could be the candidate we have been looking for.

Am I sure about this yet?  Of course not!  I would need to see a lot more before I was ready to say "Yup, this is the guy!"  But I think at this point, conservative commentators need to be saying, "You know what?  Let's look at this guy a little closer and see what he is like under a bit of scrutiny."  Instead of engaging in constant debate about Romney and Mormonism, it is time to take a stronger and more intense look at some of the outsiders in the race.  It may be among the outsiders that we find our diamond in the rough!

I genuinely believe that if we can get out of the "Your choice is Palin or Romney or Paul and that's it" then we can have a really interesting primary season that will ultimately pick the very best candidate, and one who can beat Obama's lot in 2012.  That candidate may be someone who comes out of nowhere - like a Mitch Daniels - or it might be someone we have heard of for a while - like a Palin or a Romney.  But it is time to make sure that we do not get focused upon a select cadre of pre-selected candidates, and start looking for what we really want from a potential President.

I do think the right candidate is out there, but I am not sure if we have found them yet.  However, if Mitch Daniels can keep going in the same vein in which he made his CPAC speech, then it is possible that we may have just found the future President of the United States of America.

Cautiously Delighted about the Midterms

Is it possible to be cautiously delighted?  I'm not particularly sure but that is how I am feeling about last night's astounding win by the GOP in the House and Senate.  Although one might point to the fact that the Senate power didn't officially change hands, everything else is pretty much win-win.

As I said in my previous post as well, the Republicans essentially have power now in both houses, as the Dem side of the Senate now consists of a lot of either moderate, or scared Democrats.  They know that their necks are on the line, and if they vote as a bloc against repeal of healthcare, against tax cuts, or against spending cuts, then they will not be in the Senate after 2012.  A vote for Obama and against the GOP at the moment is electoral suicide, and they know it.  So I wouldn't expect too many problems as long as the GOP stick together in the Senate.  The House of course is about as red as it gets, and considering the Representatives have the power of the purse, we should be slowly saying goodbye to the era of big spending.

However, it is important not to get too excited just yet.  It is especially important not to underestimate Obama.  This guy has a lot of trick up his sleaves, and if you think that he is just going to roll over for the next two years, you have another thing coming.  This guy will play every card, use every tool at his disposal (including the media) to get the American public back on his side.

If the Republicans are not clear about everything they do, or if they abandon their principles, or if they get lazy, Obama will strike.  He might not turn it around by moving to the centre like Clinton, but he could turn it around in other ways that we might not be able to foresee right now.

Don't get me wrong, I am not overestimating Obama either.  The guy is NOT the wonderful, super-intelligent guy we have been told about.  He is a hard-left ideologue and ultimately that always comes back to haunt him.  I don't think that he will go back on his leftist principles by any stretch, but I do think that he will try and control the debate.  For instance, he will spend the next 6 months (trust me on this) saying that "Ok, well, if we want to reduce the deficit, we need much higher taxes!"

He will seek to control the debate, and it will be at this point when the GOP will need to jump in, shout just as loudly as Obama and say "NO!  That doesn't work" and explain why.  If it doesn't, then Obama will chip away at Republican support, both amongst the electorate, and in the House amongst the more 'moderate' Republicans.

The Republicans have the momentum, and unlike two years ago, 2012 is the Republicans to throw away.  If they do what they have promised, control the debate, and stick to their principles, 2012 will  be a success.  But if they implode, then Obama or another Democrat will take advantage, and we will be looking at another 4 years of socialism, instead of a fresh conservative new beginning in 2012.  Now is not the time to relax!

Obama has a Tantrum - Part XII

For all the chatter about how angry and hateful the Tea Party are supposed to be, we are seeing the anger amongst Democrat politicians rise and rise as November elections approach, and popularity plummets.  Today we have seen a fresh outburst by none other than the President.

I have always said that the President is an angry man.  Read Dreams of My Father, and you will see a great deal of anger about America come through, and this has been seen various times throughout his Presidency.  His political ideology comes not from love, or a passion for something good - instead coming from a hatred towards certain people, groups and countries (including the UK.)  It is mostly concealed, but comes out occasionally, especially when he goes off-message.

According to reports, he gave an interview for Rolling Stone magazine, where he by and large stayed on message.  He finished the interview, left and then burst into the interview room again, sat back down, and proceeded to rant about Democrat supporters who were unenthusiastic about November and who might not vote in the upcoming November elections.

He proceeded to blast his own supporters as "inexcusable" and "irresponsible", telling them to "buck up" and vote for him - failing to account for the fact that they might not want to vote for him.  Such a rant shows not only that the pressure has got to Obama, but also that he fails to understand just why he is so unpopular.

The reason people who voted him in 2008 are now unenthusiastic isn't because they are lazy, or stupid, or bored.  It is because they didn't get what they voted for!  He claims that they should stop bitching as he got 70% of his agenda through so far.  But that is precisely the point - people didn't vote for his agenda, they don't want it!  The reason they don't want to vote for him is because he got 70% of his hidden agenda through.

In the 2008 election, voters were fed a great deal of fluff about "hope" and "change", and how with Obama there would be no more red state and blue state, how he would reach across the aisle, and basically how he was the perfect moderate.  Stir in with that a widespread dislike of Bush, a fawning media, and the race card being played as often as it could be laid upon the table, and that is really the short story of how Obama was elected without ever really revealing  his hard-left tendencies.

However, in his arrogance, Obama seems to have thought that he persuaded America to turn into a socialist nation, and that because he has managed to proceed with 70% of a socialist agenda, Americans should somehow be grateful and turn out to vote for him again in their droves.  In his arrogance, I don't think that it has crossed his mind that people don't want it all.  They don't want Obamacare, they don't want a weak foreign policy, they don't want higher taxes, they don't want outrageous spending and they don't want mass nationalisation of industry.

The fact that he doesn't get that, and chooses instead to blame his own supporters for his problems shows just how "incredibly intelligent" the prodigy really is.  However, the fact that he doesn't get it and lives in his own little make believe world is a very positive sign for the Republicans in the November elections.  Because if Obama starts turning on his own supporters, and failing to take responsibility for anything that he has done, then the Democrats are really screwed - both in November, and in 2012.

So in the meantime...more tantrums please Mr President!

Hillary Clinton for 2012?

Pete Du Pont has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal about the prospects for Hillary Clinton's bid to be the Democrat Presidential candidate in 2012.

Du Pont notes that Obama is fast becoming a liability for the Democrat Party, with a growing perception that he is a socialist (55% of likely voters describe him as one.) No longer an opinion of "extreme" conservatives and tea-partiers, this has quickly become a mainstream opinion in America. Wisely, Americans don't really go for socialism, and this could spell disaster for the Democrats - both for this November, and in 2012.

Yet, despite Obama's raging unpopularity, the Republican's haven't really caught up as much as they'd have liked. While there is definitely an anti-Democrat and anti-Obama sentiment in the States, that

movement has not yet translated into a pro-Republican movement. This would open up the possibility whereby if the Dem's could dump the unpopular policies on Obama, and then throw him under the metaphorical bus, 2012 could still be a winner for the Democrats. All they need is a centrist leader to show how far they have moved away from the extremist policies of Obama.

Enter Mrs Clinton.

It is widely known that the Clinton's and Obama do not get along, with the sour battles of 2008 still very much in the mind of many voters. Although they have kissed and made up, no-one really believes them! Many commentators have noted that both Hillary and Bill have been noticeable by their absence. The media savvy couple have chosen not to spend too much time cosying up to the radical new President, despite Hillary being Secretary of State. One could easily speculate that this is because a Presidential campaign that distances her from Obama might be in the making.

A campaign from Hillary would essentially be a drive to the centre, attempting to snatch the vote of those who are both disillusioned with the leftist Obama policies but who are not enthralled with voting Republican again so quickly after the Bush years. With the Republican candidate likely to be a lot more conservative than John McCain, Clinton could be expected to dive right into the centre, attempting to catch the moderate vote - consisting of the Blue Dog Democrats, the centrist independents and some of the RINO (Republican in Name Only) voters who may be disillusioned with the party's lurch to the right. Du Pont argues that Mrs Clinton could be expected to run on a low tax ticket that also plans to deal with the deficit while aiding job creation. This seems reasonable, and in Du Pont's words it would create "a broad voter coalition."

I fully agree with the Du Pont article. From a conservative perspective, the best hope at the moment is that Obama remains in power. I think he is incapable of "doing a Bill" and dragging himself to the centre after defeat in the upcoming elections, and I believe he will stay hard left. If this continues, and the Republicans play their cards right, pick the right candidate, and fight on a "low tax, small state versus large tax, large state" ticket, 2012 should be relatively straightforward. Obama fits into the socialist stereotype, and it is one that the Republicans can exploit to their advantage.

Obama can no longer play the "moderate centrist" card that won him the 2008 election. "Hope" and "Change" have been shown to be "Tax" and "Spend." Clinton is not cursed with this, and can pick up on that challenge of being the moderate. She can paint Obama as the radical leftist, and whoever the Republicans pick as the radical right, with Hillary dropping in as the "reasonable" vote in the middle.

2012 is still a fair distance away, but it is important for conservatives to make it clear that what the administration is doing at the moment is not just Obama taking the Democrats for a ride, but that this is a Democrat administration as well as just an Obama administration. It is an administration that Hillary is part of, and it is enacting many of the policies she has argued for. As a result, to place all its failures on Obama's back and then to throw him under the bus would be grossly dishonest - but that is not to say that it will not happen.

Obama could be a real burden for the Democrats by 2012 - he is becoming one already. If Obama and the Democrats are shown to be part of the hard left, then 2012 is the Republican's election on a plate. However, if Clinton can distance herself from it all, and show herself to be the "moderate" as opposed to extreme Obama, then as Du Pont says, "that could turn out to be a slam dunk for her and the disgruntled Democrat Party."

Such a situation would be extremely treacherous for the Republicans, and it is important that it is avoided.