GOP Presidential Candidate

Here’s my prediction for the 2012 Presidential Race
by Charlie Leck

It’s a long way out to be making predictions about the final candidates for the Republican nomination for President, but (what the hell) it’s great fun to take a run at it. You can put this blog away somewhere safe and pull it out again next summer, after the Republican Convention, and whop me over the head with it if you like.

There are three possible final candidates as far as I’m concerned. One of them makes me tremble. One makes me yawn. The other could actually be a pretty damned good President.

Newt Gingrich
makes me tremble. This guy is a brilliant George W. Bush. He constantly runs at the mouth, but with a touch of brilliance in his oratory. I think Gingrich has a strong touch of the libertarian in him. Programs that protect the poor and the elderly would suffer under him. He frightens me because he has raised an enormous amount of money for his effort and he has the ability to raise an awful lot more. When the Koch brothers alone are hinting that they’ll throw far more than 50 million corporate dollars into this campaign (thanks again, Supreme Court), you just know they wouldn’t mind putting it behind a guy like Gingrich. Gingrich could win an election. His weakness will be his personal life. Remember how harsh he was on Bill Clinton for having a number of sexual dalliances while in office. Well, Newt was carrying on in a big way himself – at the very time he was so harshly attacking the President. However, America has changed a great deal in the last generation and this kind of stuff doesn’t seem to affect the voter as much anymore. One of Gingrich’s weaknesses is his real gaff-potential. He does make mistakes and say dumb things – as does almost anyone who runs so hard and fast at the mouth. There would be a stark, detailed difference between the presidential candidates if Gingrich is in the race. The people would have a real choice to make and the Democrats would have a good chance of winning.

Richard Cohen, opining in Washington Post (May16) really nails Gingrich on his tendency to hyperbolize and out-right fib:

“This core dishonesty is what separates Gingrich from the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, committed or not-quite-yet. Some of the others say things that are untrue — Sarah Palin’s “death panels,” for instance — but these untruths spill out of the mouths of ditzes. Not so with Gingrich. He is a former history professor with a doctorate, someone who knows his way around the stacks. He talks in neon, using gaudy words such as socialism not because they’re true but because they’re ear-catching. He employs the ugly language of demagoguery not because he is oblivious to its history but on account of it. He mimics. He was, however, brilliantly original in explaining to the Christian Broadcasting Network why he had committed adultery. It had to do with “how passionately I felt about this country” — a genuine contribution to the annals of sexual fibbery.”

Political candidates these days seem to get away with such chicanery, however. Lying has become a part of the political campaign routine.

Cohen explains exactly why I tremble at the thought of Gingrich being President.

“There is more than a little Richard Nixon in Gingrich — the same lack of place, the same keen intellect, the same petty fights and imaginary enemies, the same hallucinatory grievances, the same willingness to lie, exaggerate and smear. On a given day, Newt Gingrich could be a brilliant president. On any night, he could be a monster.”

Mitt Romney
puts me absolutely to sleep. I guess he’s not a bad guy. He’s more moderate and closer to the middle of the road than Gingrich for sure, but he’s simply as boring as all-get-out. He’s loaded with personal money and he’ll be able to raise a significant amount of other money also. I think he would be a less vicious opponent for Obama than Gingrich. Romney is more of a statesman and more diplomatic. I’d be surprised if the GOP, in the end, gives him the nod just because he’s so damned boring.

Lots of people think Romney should apologize for signing into law in Massachusetts a health care bill after which the national health care law was patterned under Obama. To Romney’s credit, he wouldn’t do it.

“I presume that a lot of folks would think that if I did that [apologize] it would be good for me politically. There’s only one problem with that. It wouldn’t be honest. I did what I think was right for the people of my state.”

Romney seems like a decent guy – boring, but decent.

Mitch Daniels
would make the best President of these three. Daniels has a lot of the same statesman-like characteristics that Romney has, but not in such a boring way. Daniels actually has a strong wit and very subtle sense of humor. He knows how to laugh at himself. He also knows himself. He’s a strong, intellectual conservative. He’s thoughtful enough to listen to the opposition and he’s flexible enough to occasionally compromise on issues. He’s not an exciting orator, but he’s a solid, thoughtful speaker. He’ll be tough in debates. Money would not be a problem.

As conservative writer Reihan Salam said…

“I can’t help but think that a common-sense conservative like Daniels would be the perfect match for Obama.”

Daniels is only 5-7 (that’s in significant heels) and he appears a bit unsure of himself in mannerisms. He is balding and it appears he tries to hide it with a funny combing job. He couldn’t ever be called charismatic. Yet, he has a strong sense of confidence and he’s extremely bright. He speaks with confidence and he speaks well. He also has a record of significant achievement in government while running Indiana.

The Indiana Governor has been clear on some things the federal government should do – like raising the retirement age, reducing Social Security for the rich and rethinking our military expenditures and commitments. In Indiana he wanted to raise taxes on those making more than $100,000 but his own party wouldn’t go along.

Daniels is the darling of many of the GOP’s wealthiest backers. In the end, I don’t think Romney or Gingrich would beat Obama. Daniels might! He’s undecided about running, but, if he does get in the race, he’s my prediction as Obama’s opponent. And, he’ll be a tough opponent. He’ll also be an honest one and there will be real and meaningful debate.

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Return to the days of Yesteryear

Mitch Daniels gives the Republican Party a chance to return to its grand old, respectable roots!
by Charlie Leck

By now, those of you who are my regular readers know that I don’t often go around recommending conservative columnist David Brooks to you. A few days ago, however, I did (A Solid, Sensible Republican). And, now here I am suggesting again that you read one of his columns – and, it’s on the very same subject. In his 14 February 2011 column, Brooks gives us a more complete and tantalizing introduction to Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana.

Run Mitch, Run!
It sounds like the Indiana Governor would be a compelling and strong candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Brooks is pushing it because he’d like to see a real and sensible conservative in the office – and he’d like to see and listen to the solid and interesting debates that an Obama/Daniels race could produce.

“The historic moment calls for someone who can restrain debt while still helping government efficiently perform its duties. Daniels has spent his whole career preparing for this kind of moment, and still he’s thinking about not running.”

And Daniels believes that the system in the country needs to give people at the lower end of the economic ladder the opportunities to climb higher and succeed more regularly.

Now I’m not saying I would vote for him; the earth would likely tremble should I not vote for a Democrat. I sure would like to be given the opportunity to consider it though.

Wouldn’t it be exciting to see a respectful, honest and distinguished campaign between two thoroughly qualified candidates for the office of President?

It’s something I can barely imagine!

[If you want an introduction to Mitch Daniels, this NY Times report might be interesting to you!]

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

A Solid and Sensible Republican

I remember the days when a Republican and a Democrat could have sensible, calm and helpful conversations about political matters. Really!
by Charlie Leck

I recently read a very interesting piece by conservative columnist, George Will [And now for a few words from Mitch Daniels), and it got me thinking and remembering the days when progressives and conservatives respected each other and could have meaningful and productive conversations.

George Will wrote of a recent speech by Daniels at a Conservative Political Action Conference and about the audience that suddenly “realized they were hearing something unconventional – that they were being paid the rare compliment of being addressed as reflective adults – they reciprocated his respect with quiet attention to his elegant presentation of conservatism for grown-ups.”

Oh, my!

“‘The regulatory rainforest through which our enterprises must hack their way is blighting the future of millions of Americans.’ And Daniels thinks conservatives’ ‘first thought’ should be about ‘those still on that first rung of life’s ladder.’

“‘Upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise, and the stagnation of the middle class is in fact becoming a problem, on any fair reading of the facts. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it, but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some.”

Oh, my! Now that’s a gentleman with whom it would be enjoyable to sit down and have a chat.

My late father-in-law, Lyman E. Wakefield, Jr., was a solid and proud Republican. I had a lot of respect for him and his positions and he expressed them with such politeness and logic that I enjoyed listening to him. Mind you, we rarely agreed, but we’d hear each other out. That was not an uncommon thing a few decades ago.

Lyman never called me an idiot or a socialist and he never doubted my patriotism and devotion to country. Though we rarely found it, both of us believed there might be some kind of middle ground upon which we could meet and agree. But again, that’s the way politics worked when I was a younger man.

Lyman was a staunch Reagan guy and I was a Bill Clinton backer. It never drove a wedge between us. He’d still invite me to come down to the Minneapolis Club for lunch and we’d inevitably end up talking politics. He’d also invite me to his house when he had a gathering of Republicans. It was great fun.

I never thought much of Ronald Reagan; however, he was a President with gonads and he raised taxes when it was unpopular but necessary to cool down our national debt.

I wonder what Lyman would think of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. I wonder how he’d react to the Tea Party. Oh, my! I miss talking to him.

Lyman had a bunch of really great Republican friends and I got to know them also – guys like former U.S. Senators Rudy Boschwitz and David Durenberger, and Wheelock Whitney, George Pillsbury, Bill Frenzel, Rod Graham, Doug Head and Vin Weber. My progressive attitudes were respected by them and we talked about it together – though sometimes quite jokingly, it was never disrespectfully. It was an honor to get to know these gentlemen and most of them I wouldn’t have met had it not been for Lyman.

One time, back in the 70s, I was asked to serve as the master of ceremonies at a Republican Fund Raiser – a fashion show put on by the wives of most of the guys I mentioned above. Those who asked me knew I’d have fun with it and that my humor would be a bit biting, but it made for an extraordinary evening and we all had an enjoyable time with it and the whole shindig ended with hugs all around.

Today, I can’t imagine kidding around with Michel Bachmann – and I definitely can’t imagine hugging her!

Lyman, I miss you! I miss you every single day! I wonder if I could get to know Mitch Daniels. I know, if you were alive, you'd arrange it.

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.