Home > Federal, National > Future Pres. Gov. Romney, Please Meet Former Pres. Gov. Coolidge /and/ The Vice Pres. Choice- New Hampshire Senator Mrs Kelly Ayotte; runner ups Kyl, Jindal, West.

Future Pres. Gov. Romney, Please Meet Former Pres. Gov. Coolidge /and/ The Vice Pres. Choice- New Hampshire Senator Mrs Kelly Ayotte; runner ups Kyl, Jindal, West.

July 15, 2012

ON OUR NEXT PRESIDENT MITT ROMNEY, BUT FIRST: AMONG OTHERS, GOVERNOR WALKER HAS MET HIM, PRESIDENT REAGAN HAS MET HIM, NOW MR ROMNEY IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO MEET HIM.

Gov. Romney, Please Meet Gov. Coolidge

July 14, 2012 By Garland  Tucker

The  American public may be about to do something it has not done in 88 years: elect  a former governor of Massachusetts as president of the United States.  In  anticipation of this election, we can only hope that some of Governor   Romney’s advisors will introduce him to his predecessor,  Governor Calvin  Coolidge.

Coolidge  was one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history, but historians have  tended to underestimate his importance.  However, with the advent of Reagan  and the revival of conservatism, Coolidge’s place in history has been  re-appraised.  Historian Paul Johnson has called Coolidge “[t]he most  internally consistent and single minded of modern American presidents.”   Amity Shlaes has written recently that Coolidge believed his first  obligation was “to do no harm. His no harm rule came out of strength of  character. By holding back, Coolidge believed he sustained stability, so that  citizens knew what to expect from their government.”  Perhaps one of  Coolidge’s own supporters best summarized his record: “Coolidge never wasted any  time, never wasted any words, and never wasted any public  money.”

Before  meeting his predecessor, Romney might well consider the following Coolidge  administration  accomplishments:

  • Top marginal income  tax rates were lowered from 73% to 24%.
  • By the end of his term, 98% of the population paid no income tax at all.
  • The  federal budget was reduced by 35%.
  • Per  capita income increased over 30%.
  • Unemployment  averaged 3.3%.
  • GNP  grew at the fastest compound rate of any eight-year period in U.S.  history.

There  are some very important lessons that Mitt could learn from Silent Cal.   First and foremost, Coolidge was a man of character who embodied the  classic New England virtues upon which the Republic was founded: hard work,  independent thinking (“common sense” as he called it), lack of pretense, sense  of duty, perseverance, scrupulous honesty — in other words, the bedrock on  which Coolidge had been raised in rural Vermont and on which he built his  political career.  The 1920s made for a decade of rapid social change, but  Coolidge’s somewhat old-fashioned virtues resonated with the American  public.

How  could such a seemingly simple man as Coolidge, who adhered so closely to  traditional virtues and conservative, Jeffersonian government, have captured the  respect, admiration, and even affection of 20th-century America?   After pondering the Coolidge phenomenon for eight years, Walter Lippmann  finally concluded near the end of Coolidge’s tenure, “Americans feel, I think,  that they are stern, ascetic and devoted to plain living because they vote for a  man who is.”

Perhaps  that is still the case, Governor Romney.

Coolidge  believed that the role of government was appropriately limited by the  Constitution and was convinced of the creative power of individual initiative.   Like Jefferson, Coolidge harbored a very healthy distrust of government  and a strong conviction that government was appropriately limited by the  Constitution.  He wanted “the people of America to be able to work less for  the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their  own industry. That is the chief meaning of freedom.”  He consistently  resisted progressive efforts to expand the reach of government, and he  understood it was a moral — as well as an economic — issue: “I favor  a government policy of economy not because I wish to save money but because I  wish to save people.”  He deplored the dependency which accompanies  expanded government.

As  Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote  recently in National Review, “[t]his is  America’s road to serfdom. No death squads or goose-stepping thugs, just one  little compromise after another to the free enterprise system. Each one sounds  sort of appealing, and no single one is enough to bring down the system. But add  them all up, and here we are, on our way to becoming Greece. There’s only one  kind of argument that will shake people awake: a moral one.”  Our  current state of affairs would no doubt evoke moral indignation from  Coolidge.

It  may surprise Governor Romney to know that supply-side economics did not, in  fact, begin with Arthur Laffer and Ronald Reagan, but rather with Calvin  Coolidge and Andrew Mellon.  Coolidge termed high taxes “a species of  legalized larceny,” and he knew that the creation of jobs comes from the private  sector, not from government.  As Coolidge simultaneously slashed top income tax rates from 77% to 24% and reduced  government spending by over 35%, GNP grew at the fastest rate ever recorded for  any eight year period in U. S. history.

As  the public well knows, Governor Romney has had a distinguished career in  business and earned a reputation as a “fixer.”  Coolidge’s realistic  appreciation of the limits of constitutional government will probably sound  rather counterintuitive to an inveterate fixer like Romney, but Romney would be  well-served to consider its merit.  Coolidge’s secretary of commerce and  successor as president was Herbert Hoover, a highly accomplished businessman  with a penchant for fixing everything.  Referring disparagingly to Hoover  as “Wonder Boy,” Coolidge offered him this advice: “If you see then troubles  coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before  they reach you, and you have to battle with only one of them.”  Coolidge  was careful never to propose laws or regulation to address problems that would  be sorted out more efficiently in the free market.

Now,  lest Governor Romney mistakenly conclude that his predecessor was chronically  inactive, he should explore how Coolidge did in fact deal with a few of the one  in ten troubles that did not fall into the ditch.  In 1919, as governor of  Massachusetts, Coolidge was confronted with a bitter police strike in Boston.   He labored for weeks to avoid a showdown, but when the police union  leaders called a strike, he acted decisively.  He issued the following  terse statement that resonated around the country, swiftly ended the strike, and  catapulted him onto the national stage: “There is no right to strike against the  public safety by anybody, anytime, anywhere.”

President  Reagan cited these words sixty-one years later when he acted similarly in the  air controllers’ strike.  Coolidge did not require public opinion poll to  tell him what to think or how to act when action was necessary (nor did  Reagan).

Finally,  on a personal dimension, Coolidge was a politician of civility, and he also  possessed a well-developed sense of humor.  One of his guiding principles  was “I will not attack an individual” — and he didn’t.  Candidate Romney  should concentrate on President Obama’s record, while heeding Coolidge’s  admonition to avoid attacking the individual.

Somewhat  surprisingly, Coolidge was famous in his day for humorous one-liners.  His  humor was often self-deprecating and showed a keen sense of awareness of human  limitations and foibles.  To the society matron whose husband had wagered  that she could not get the president to utter more than two words, he replied,  with a wink, “You lose.”  Returning home from church one Sunday, Coolidge  was asked by his wife, “What was the sermon about?”  He replied,  “Sin.”

“Well,  what did the preacher say about sin?” she asked.  “He was against it,”  Coolidge replied.  At the end of his term, Coolidge observed to the press  corps, “I have found in the course of a long public life that the things I did  not say never hurt me.”

Coolidge  was one of our most photographed presidents.  He delighted in striking  rather ridiculous poses — e.g., donning full Indian headdress, fly-fishing in a  three-piece suit, pitching hay on the farm in a “farmer’s smock” and wingtips.   The public seemed to appreciate that he never took himself too  seriously.

Today,  the country is desperate for a president with character, vision, discipline,  common sense, civility, and humor.  So, before entering the White House,  Governor Romney, please meet Governor Coolidge.

And  let’s hope they become fast friends.

Garland  S. Tucker III is president of a NYSE-listed specialty finance company  and author of The High of American Conservatism – Davis, Coolidge and the  1924 Election (Emerald Book Company,  2010).

30th President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, and lessons for today

Lessons for SCOTUS, Congress, the President, and the whole of government in general: “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones”…

President Calvin Coolidge 

The words of “Silent Cal” lend credence to the modern movement in opposition to progressive-statism.  Take a gander:

Civilization and profit go hand in hand.

Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.

There is no dignity quite so impressive, and no one independence quite so important, as living within your means.

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.

Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business.

To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.

President Coolidge may be the most under-rated president in American history, but as we now recognize this and re-visit, and re-invigorate, his legacy; Today we must use his words, his actions, and his lessons to roll back the progressive machine and it’s modern destruction.

In Honor of a President Few Remember (yet everybody should)

by Alan Snyder

Ronald Reagan admired him  a lot. In fact, when Reagan was looking over his new house—the White House—shortly after his inaugural in 1981, he entered into the Cabinet Room.

On the wall were portraits of Truman, Jefferson, and Lincoln. The White House curator commented at the time, “If you don’t like Mr. Truman, you can move Mr. Truman out.” Even though Reagan, a former Democrat, had voted for Truman back in 1948, he made his decision: Truman’s portrait was removed and one of Calvin Coolidge was dusted off and put in its place.

Nowadays, in all the “right” (actually “left” or a/k/a “wrong”) circles [to be found primarily among the academic elite], the person of Coolidge is a source of amusement, if not outright derision. Why, he was a do-nothing president, someone who didn’t use the power of the office as he should have. Probably his most grievous sin, in their view, was the way he put the brakes on destiny: he was a foe of the progressive movement that was intended to reshape American government and culture.

Coolidge, whose administration spanned a good part of the 1920s, was a throwback to an earlier time. He was not a Woodrow Wilson; rather, he believed in the vision of the Founding Fathers and their concept of limited government. He remained true to the principles of self-government and the sanctity of private property. The rule of law was paramount in his political philosophy. No one was above the law, a belief that, if followed, would keep the people safe from the power of an overextended government.

During the 1920s, the continent of Europe experimented with socialism. What might larger government be able to accomplish? What vistas await us once we unleash the full power of government intervention? Coolidge stood opposed to this false vision of the future.

Historians also like to make fun of his approach to speechmaking. Coolidge preferred to say as little as possible. As he once noted, he never got in trouble for things he didn’t say. Yet when he did speak, he made some very significant pronouncements. His words conveyed key ideas for American success. Meditate on this paragraph, for instance:

In a free republic a great government is the product of a great people. They will look to themselves rather than government for success. The destiny, the greatness of America lies around the hearthstone. If thrift and industry are taught there, and the example of self-sacrifice oft appears, if honor abide there, and high ideals, if there the building of fortune be subordinate to the building of character, America will live in security, rejoicing in an abundant prosperity and good government at home and in peace, respect, and confidence abroad. If these virtues be absent there is no power that can supply these blessings. Look well then to the hearthstone, therein all hope for America lies.

Notice Coolidge’s stress on what he called the “hearthstone,” which is a designation for the family. He saw the family as the cornerstone of  society, the place where character should be developed. Note also his subordination of financial fortune to the building of character. Fortune may come, but only if character comes first: thrift, industry, and honor—qualities in short supply at the moment.

America was prosperous during the Coolidge years. The Great Depression was just around the corner, but it didn’t occur as a result of Coolidge’s policies of tax cuts and economic liberty. The Depression was more a result of misdirection from the Federal Reserve [low cash reserves in banks; easy credit]; its continuation throughout the 1930s was due to government actions of the New Deal.

If there’s one thing most historians can agree on with Coolidge, it’s that he easily would have won reelection in 1928 had he chosen to run again. Yet he voluntarily stood down. Why? What prompted that decision? He tells us what led him to do so in his autobiography.

It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness. They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exultation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.

Coolidge saw the problems associated with elected office. He knew that men often developed what might be called the “swelled-head syndrome.” He wanted nothing to do with that. If for no other reason, Coolidge should be honored for his willingness to set aside power and maintain his good character. Where are the politicians willing to do that today?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Moving on, Next up, the Vice Presidential Buzz, and important choices:

Veep, Veep: The Update

By on 7.10.12 @ 6:10AM

Cherchez la femme.

[Serious reputation as a Former Prosecutor and now member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who has broadened her national-security resume. Experience in both State and Federal government, and executive experience as State Attorney General. She is married to an Iraq war veteran and is the mother of two young children.]

…Finally, speaking of long shots (though that maybe and should be rapidly changing), there is one who continues to move up among veteran political observers. Despite her newness to the national scene, New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte might be a perfect target to sucker the Democrats. Why? Because the automatic temptation on the left will be to attack Ayotte in very much the same way they attacked Palin, with a fury and passion that are over the top. But Ayotte is far more prepared for such an assault than was Palin, who despite all her virtues was woefully unready for the scathing onslaught she received. Ayotte already knows federal issues very well; she also has the toughness of a former prosecutor, the executive experience of serving as her state’s attorney general for five years, and the respect from many of the same talking heads who bedeviled Palin and helped set the template for coverage of her. If the left tries smearing Ayotte the same way they smeared Palin, the result is likely to be a backlash just as heavy from professional women swing voters and others in the middle as it was among conservative activists for Palin. In short, the attacks will backfire.

Ayotte also offers the advantage of hailing from not one but two key swing states, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. She will have been vetted longer and more deeply than Palin was, with far more time available to plan the “roll-out” introducing her to the American public and following up with a longer-term strategy of capitalizing on her assets.

And as was put very well by the blogger Brad Porter at The Crossed Pond, “Ayotte has it all. And, most importantly, she brings it all to the table without significant detriments or lapses to her politicality. She can speak to kitchen table economic issues, without the baggage of CEO-ness. She can talk to new audiences without being radically different from them. She can add to Romney’s message in other areas without undercutting him. She can look qualified without being old hat. She can speak to the middle class family experience, and offers no real purchase for arguments about being out of touch or of a totally alien economic caste in the same way they’ll bury Romney alive with it. She can, in other words, add to the campaign, with no significant subtracting.”

So, I’ll be willing to bet that the list is down to these eight: Jindal, Ryan, Portman, Pawlenty, Santorum, Kyl, Rice, and Ayotte. If I were running the campaign, I’d pick Jindal or Kyl (for reasons explained here), with Ryan offering almost as good an option. (This is, of course, assuming that detailed, multiple polls and focus groups don’t indicate that one particular candidate offers tremendous, game-changing benefits. In that case, the data should rule as long as the private vetting doesn’t find jokers in the deck.) In the end, I don’t think Kyl, Santorum, Rice, or Pawlenty will prove attractive enough to the Romney team — and I’m betting (figuratively) that Romney ultimately will find himself agonizing between either Portman (indicating Ohio’s importance), Jindal, or Ryan, on one hand, and Ayotte on the other. Yes, Ayotte will continue moving up, and will make it to the very final cut. And if she’s chosen, she is likely to prove herself a champ.

Kelly Ayotte.  And that leaves me with Senator Ayotte.  Let’s run through her list:

1.  Woman. 2.  Young(ish) (~44) 3.  Represents a competitive state where she might actually make a difference (NH) 4.  From another important state (PA) 5.  Religion:  Catholic 6.  Attorney General of NH 7.  Foreign Policy / Veterans:  Serves on Committee on Armed Services; husband is Iraq War veteran 8.  Social Conservatism:  Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (personally argued for parental notification of abortion); resigned after same sex marriage laws passed 9.  Not rich

Ayotte has it all.  And, most importantly, she brings it all to the table without significant detriments or lapses to her politicality.  She can speak to kitchen table economic issues, without the baggage of CEO-ness.  She can talk to new audiences without being radically different from them.  She can add to Romney’s message in other areas without undercutting him.  She can look qualified without being old hat.  She can speak to the middle class family experience, and offers no real purchase for arguments about being out of touch or of a totally alien economic caste in the same way they’ll bury Romney alive with it.  She can, in other words, add to the campaign, with no significant subtracting.

Rubio, Cantor, Portman, Jindal, McDonnell and = Pawlenty all have pluses, but Ayotte is the only one with no real minuses.

But Romney can’t play it safe – at least not entirely safe. I think there are people he would like better – Rubio and Portman, chiefly – but I also think there is nobody better than Kelly Ayotte, who will be the next Vice President nominee.

Her prior Senate race: Many prominent GOP figures went to New Hampshire to help Ayotte in her 2010 campaign, including John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, and Rick Santorum. According to one senior GOP aide, “The addition of a Republican woman from New England who’s young, who’s a mom … all of these things broaden the Republican party’s appeal and say to different segments of the population, ‘This party has folks in it that are just like you.’”

As Senator Ayotte serves on the following: Committee on  Armed Services; Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Committee  on Small Business and Entrepreneurship; Special Committee on Aging.

Political positions:

Abortion- Ayotte is pro-life and believes that abortion should be prohibited except in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother.Where abortion is legal, Ayotte supports parental notification before abortions may be performed on unemancipated minors and opposes any federal funding for elective abortions in accordance with the Hyde Amendment. Ayotte has expressed her determination to be a vocal opponent of abortion in the U.S. Senate.

Gay marriage and adoption by same-sex couples- Ayotte opposes same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples which are now both legal in New Hampshire. Ayotte resigned as state Attorney General shortly after Governor John Lynch signed a set of three same sex marriage bills into law to which she was opposed, and shortly therafter made the decision to run for US Senate. “I absolutely support and believe in marriage as between a man and a woman, and I do think it’s unfortunate that our state has made a different decision on that. And I know that many of you who are out there working at the state level, running for state office, I commend your efforts to repeal that law here in the state of New Hampshire. And I think that’s very important. I do not think that we should overturn DOMA because absolutely, for states to decide marriage, we don’t want one state’s decision impacting another state’s. So I would vote against any repeal of DOMA because of that. And I wish you all well and I would love to help with any effort to get our law back in the right place on this”. —Ayotte at the June 5th 2010 Americans For Prosperity/NH – Cornerstone Action Senatorial Debate

Labor Unions/Minimum wage- Ayotte opposes passage of the biased, titled, and inappropriately named pro-union Employee Free Choice Act (a/k/a “Card Check”), a bill currently under consideration by Congress that proposes to amend the National Labor Relations Act to change the process by which employees decide whether to form or join a labor union.

Ayotte opposes passage of legislation that would subject the minimum wage to automatic cost-of-living adjustments. Ayotte opposes any increase in the minimum wage. Raising minimum wage in this current economic condition will worsen already bad unemployment, will worsen job creation, and will be an additional burden on already struggling small business, not to mention drive corporate America into more outsourcing as a matter of ability to compete and survive in many cases, our emphasis added.

Ayotte opposes passage of legislation that “mandates” that employers provide paid sick leave to their employees, which is in addition to standards already in place.

2nd Amendment Rights- Ayotte supports an individual’s right to bear arms and Second Amendment rights. Ayotte supported the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of the Washington, DC and City of Chicago gun ownership bans. As Attorney General, Ayotte fought against the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Immigration- Ayotte supports Arizona SB 1070, Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law passed in 2010, which SCOTUS has uphelp the most important provision thereof, and in their decision at least recognized that the federal government in neglecting it’s proper duties. Ayotte believes that the Arizona legislature was justified in their passage of this law. Ayotte supports the enforcement of all existing immigration laws and is against the granting of amnesty to any illegal immigrant.

Climate change- Ayotte questions the findings of scientific societies that human activity has caused significant climate change, and especially to the extent that massive government spending programs and regulations will have any discernible affect on the issue, yet which will have a very dicernible negative affect on American’s freedoms and American’s economy. Ayotte says that “there is scientific evidence that demonstrates there is some impact from human activities. However I don’t think the evidence is conclusive.”

Health care- Ayotte opposes a single-payer health care system. Ayotte opposes restrictions on purchasing insurance across state lines, supports a ban on insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and supports tort reform. Ayotte supports the adoption of electronic medical records and processes that coordinate patient care. Ayotte supports state administered healthcare programs such as SCHIP and federal tax credits that serve to reduce the number of uninsured. Ayotte has pledged to sponsor and support legislation to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “ObamaCare”).

Social Security- Ayotte has stated that she is open to raising the Social Security retirement age for younger workers. It is a matter of necessity in relation to the poor fiscal condition of the current program.

U.S. Supreme Court- Ayotte has stated that she is in favor of increasing the diversity of the court by including candidates from the Executive branch of government such as former Presidential cabinet members or candidates who have held elected positions to avoid having a Supreme Court composed exclusively of former lower court judges.

Ayotte opposed the confirmation of Justice Elena Kagan, stating that Kagan was unqualified among other issues. Ayotte has said that she probably would have voted in favor of confirming Justice Sonia Sotomayor (and we don’t have a problem with that, quite frankly politically speaking that is an overall positive for Ayotte). We’ll also mention two very important occurrences illustrating a major difference between the two justices; Sotomayer recused herself, and rightfully so, from the SCOTUS immigration case. Kagan on the other hand did not recuse herself from the SCOTUS Obamacare case, and that continues to be an outrage!

Congressional term limits- Ayotte is in favor of congressional term limits. She has vowed to serve no more than two terms (12 years as a Senator) in office.

Government spending- Ayotte favors passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ayotte favors ending any additional spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the”Stimulus Bill”) and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“TARP”). “I wouldn’t have supported the TARP or the bailouts,” Ayotte told a reporter. “Let the market adjust and pick the winners and losers. I do not think we should have bailed out the private sector. You start a business and when you succeed, the fruits of that is profits and when you fail, you pay the price.”

Ayotte believes that Congress should end the process of earmarking.

To counter the federal government’s debt and deficit problem, Ayotte proposes that every government department cut its budget by 20 percent from current levels, though “some may cut more, some may cut less”. “We are on the path to bankrupt the greatest nation in the world”.

Taxes- Ayotte supports an indefinite extension of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 which cuts the federal taxes paid by all taxpayers including the wealthiest, saying: “to increase taxes on anyone is the wrong approach”, and “[I] fully support extending the tax rates the way they are now for everybody in this country”. Ayotte supports the permanent elimination of all estate taxes, an immediate cut in payroll tax rates, additional income tax cuts for all corporations, cuts in capital gains taxes and reduced tax rates for small business owners who file individual income tax returns, accelerated depreciation for investments in equipment by small businesses and a “simplified tax code”.

Financial regulation- Ayotte opposed passage of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law on July 21, 2010. Ayotte’s opposition to the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is based on the Act’s failure, in Ayotte’s opinion, to directly address the “problem of” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Ayotte’s belief that the Act imposes additional regulatory burdens on “community” banks.

Al Qaeda-  Ayotte believes that Al Qaeda and its affiliates are foreign enemies that have declared war on the U.S. and that the U.S. must treat all members of Al Qaeda and its affiliates as enemy combatants regardless of their nationality and location. Ayotte believes that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is an Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist, and that Abdulmutallab should be treated as an enemy combatant and not as a criminal. Abdulmutallab is the Nigerian man who unsuccessfully attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan in 2009. On January 6, 2010, Abdulmutallab was indicted by a U.S. Attorney in the Federal District Court in Michigan on six criminal counts, including the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and the attempted murder of 289 people. Ayotte believes that Abdulmutallab should have been held in military custody and tried before a military commission, a process whereby Abdulmutallab would not be accorded the rights accorded by U.S. law to defendants in criminal proceedings. She opposes a civilian criminal trial for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City, and bringing Guantánamo detainees onto U.S. soil.

NEXT UP:

Arizona’s U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, who also earned a mention from National Review‘s Ramesh Ponnuru. Kyl speaks more impressively — with better intonation and cadence, better specificity, and better focus — than Pawlenty. He has a longer record as a conservative; better strengths where Romney is less experienced (defense/foreign policy, law-and-justice); and, importantly, does not create the heir-apparent problem of depressing a conservative movement that wants one of its own in either 2016 or 2020 and who might chafe at the prospect of a lengthy Romney-Pawlenty regency.

Plus, politically he makes more sense than one would ordinarily think. This is a guy whose roots are in Iowa and in the inland West; he knows how to walk the right lines on Western issues. It may be surprising, but it’s still true, that Romney can win a tie vote in the Electoral College, and eventually the presidency, merely by sweeping the south, plains, and inland West (without New Mexico), plus Alaska, without a single Rust-Belt state except for the traditionally more conservative Indiana. In other words, Romney could basically assign Kyl the job of heading up an Iowa-Colorado-Nevada effort while Romney focused his efforts on the Rust Belt and New Hampshire (and Virginia, if he’s still worried about it). Kyl won’t hurt anywhere, but he really could help nail down swing voters in the West and thus provide the ticket a key firewall. (In fact, if he could help Romney nab New Mexico as well, the firewall would create an Electoral majority, not just a tie.)

AND:

Moving on, let’s consider Ryan andJindal. The arguments for both are that both would enthuse conservative activists, and both can explain Republican proposals on hot-button issues (health care, entitlements) in ways that most voters can understand without being scared off. Both have the chance also to appeal to younger voters, and neither is likely to turn off professional women/soccer moms who often swing fairly dramatically back and forth between parties. Both are proven vote-getters; and Jindal adds superb crisis management to the mix while Ryan, like his mentor Jack Kemp, knows how to reach into non-professional ranks (union workers included) and speak the language of “opportunity” in a way people can understand. Ryan also presumably could help deliver Wisconsin to a GOP presidential candidate for the first time since 1984. (Careful polling and focus-grouping would be needed to confirm this supposition.)

The biggest drawback for both is something that in ordinary circumstances would be a benefit, not a detriment — namely, that they are policy wonks with a proclivity towards policy specificity. As long as the specificity is matched by effective political sales pitches, most campaigns would thrill at such abilities. The question here is whether it fits in with the sort of campaign — safe, rather vague on details, unadventurous, coldly calculated not to provide any hard “targets” for opponents to slam — that the Romneyites seem determined to run.

Then again, if this is the sort of thing that scares off the campaign honchos, well, shame on them. It will mean they are playing small-ball, in an election that calls for boldness.

Now, on the possibility of and all this buzz about, Condoleezza Rice, let’s be clear: It isn’t going to happen nor should it. We may have a lot of respect for Rice, she’s an incredible lady, and normally would be a good choice, but for various reasons not this time, and the number one reason why: The DNC and the Left Media will suddenly go brain dead and forget that President Bush was not a black woman!

Condi: I’m Still Not Interested in VP Slot Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s name surfaced briefly as a…

Finally:

Let’s not forget Congressman West, see below-

Palin to Romney: ‘Light Our Hair on Fire’

Wednesday, 11 Jul 2012 07:52 AM  By Greg McDonald

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says Mitt Romney has the right message on the economy to win the White House this year, but needs to do a better job of connecting with independents and the party’s “base supporters,” who want the presumptive GOP nominee to “light our hair on fire.”
“He’s already got the right message,” the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Tuesday. But Palin added, “There are a lot of his base supporters — independents — who are saying, well, light our hair on fire, then! Remind us how important it is that we get engaged in the presidential election because it is the election of our lifetime.”
The Fox News contributor encouraged the former Massachusetts governor to be more “courageous and bold and passionate” in presenting his case, a point that many GOP and conservative leaders have been making over the past couple of weeks.
Palin also ventured a guess on what Romney is looking for in a vice presidential running mate. Recalling her own controversial ride in the 2008 campaign as Republican nominee John McCain’s partner, Palin said, “I think Gov. Romney will probably play it safe, relatively speaking, in terms of finding someone who is a known commodity — so that the media doesn’t do to them what the media did to me.”
As it should be, bless his heart: Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum went out of his way to bury the hatchet with the man who beat him for the Republican nomination, as he stumped for Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania on Saturday.

Please Vote in This Urgent Poll
Note: Senator Kelly Ayotte is on this list of choices (and of course is our choice as explained above)

Here at CCRofNY we rank em like this: #1 Senator Ayotte, #2 Senator Kyl, #3 Governor Jindal, #4 Congressman West
allenwest041612Do not discount Congressman Allen West. In addition to being extremely popular and a fundraising powerhouse in a key state like Florida West’s Fundraising Total Nears $10 Million, he is also an American hero with extensive military experience, exhibits Constitutional fealty and stands on principle in addition to unabashedly articulating his positions, and delivering remarkable speeches. He has had the courage to reject such things as the divisiveness and agenda of the Congressional Black (progressive) Caucus. He has shown great leadership as a conservative member of the US House, is a role model, is a family man, and has an overall broad appeal.
~~~

Share your thoughts with Gov. Romney directly

click to visit
Advertisements