And then there were 4

Let’s talk delegates for a moment.  Wikipedia defines it this way:
The Republican Party of the United States utilizes a system employing pledged and unpledged delegates. Of the total 2,380 Republican delegates, 1,719 are pledged delegates, who as with the Democratic Party, are elected at the state or local level. To become the Republican Party nominee, the candidate must win a simple majority of 1,191 of the 2,380 total delegates at the Republican National Convention.

A majority of the unpledged delegates are elected much like the pledged delegates, and are likely to be committed to a specific candidate. Many of the other unpledged delegates automatically claim the delegate status either by virtue of their position as a party chair or national party committee person. This group is known as unpledged RNC member delegates.

The process by which delegates are awarded to a candidate will vary from state to state. Many states use a winner-take-all system, where popular vote determines the winning candidate for that state, while a few others use a proportional representation.  The unpledged RNC member delegates are free to vote for any candidate and are not bound by the electoral votes of their state. The majority of the unpledged delegates (those who are elected or chosen) are technically free to vote for any candidate; however they are likely to be committed to one specifically.

This is an important point when talking about the Republican Primary.  There are 661 Unpledged delegates who can vote for whoever they want.  That gives the “Republican Establishment” 55% of the votes needed to win the nomination.  In order for a non-establishment candidate to win the nomination, they must do it via landslide.

Mitt Romney: 31 Delegates (14 pledged – 17 unpledged)
            Big Government Establishment Republican

Mitt Romney has had the endorsement of the Republican Establishment for the last 4 years (as is evident by his vast majority of his unpledged delegates) and he has the support of the main stream media.  He is just about as vanilla as a politician can get.  He does not inspire.  He has no message.  If he had a message, he would not be running a negative campaign against his competition.  That’s the same strategy Obama is and will be employing in this election.  A Mitt vs Obama election will result in a mudslinging competition. 

When you ask people why they support Romney you get one of two answers:

He is the most electable.  I disagree.  The most electable person is one who inspires people to go out and vote for them, someone who has a message that resonates with people.  Romney does not have a message.  All he has as a campaign cornerstone is: “I’m not Obama”.  All of the Republican candidates have that going for them.  The major difference between Romney and his fellow nominees is that he has the most in common with Obama.  But in spite of all that, the Right wing talking heads are salivating over him like he’s the next messiah.  He can do no wrong in their eyes. 

He is the most conservative nominee: Really?  Does anyone actually believe that?  When he asked about Romney-care he defends it saying it was the best thing for his state.  He tries to say it’s not the same as Obama-care and that he will repeal Obama-care.  The question he never answers is what he would do AFTER he repeals Obama-care.  Answer: see current Massachusetts healthcare as an example.  Whether he would enforce a mandate or not, he obviously has a soft spot for government sponsored health care.  Is that what you want?  He raised taxes when he was governor, but he called them “fees” so that he could say he didn’t raise taxes.  To be fair, he did use that increased revenue to pay down the debt. 

Here’s what I don’t understand, the mainstream media is totally in the tank for Romney.  They were also totally in the tank for Obama.  Do we really want another president that the media picked out?  Also, the MSM is STILL in the tank for Obama.  So, logically speaking, if they support Romney wouldn’t that indicate he has the worst chance to defeat their guy?  I know if I was an Obama supporter I’d really want Romney to get the nomination. He stands the least chance of winning and, if he does win, he’s the least likely to change anything.

He represents more big government in the tradition of big government republicans throughout history.  He will not shrink the size of government.  He will not change the crony tax system.  He will not curb the national debt.  He will give republican zealots whatever they want.  It’s the reverse mirror image of Obama’s first two years in office.  Look for bans on gay marriage, expansion of Homeland Security powers and more violations individual liberties.  They will pass everything they’ve been begging for and forget to pass a budget(let alone balance it)  – just like the Democrats did. 

Recommendation: Romney did a great job righting the ship when the Olympics were failing.  When he worked for Bain Capital he slashed and burned and either saved companies or shut them down before they caused too much damage.  Should a republican win the presidency, Romney should be appointed head of a government waste task force.  He should be set the task of consolidating, streamlining and improving the efficiency of all federal government bureaucracies with a particular focus on finding whole agencies to eliminate. 


Newt Gingrich: 26 Delegates (25 pledged – 1 unpledged)
            Republican Outsider

Newt was speaker of the house from 1995 to 1999.  He was a leader in congress when congress last balanced the budget.  He is running on a message of fiscal responsibility and that is resonating with Tea Party voters.  The MSM seems to have forgotten that the Tea Party was a taxpayer revolt.  It was about a balanced budget, reduced spending and paying down the debt. 

He was not necessarily liked by his fellow Washington republicans.  He was despised by the democrats.  Yet he got the job done.  He’s the only one in the race who has actually ever balanced a federal budget and he did it with a democrat in the oval office.  I don’t necessarily agree with everything Newt stands for, but I believe he does stand for it.  I also believe he knows how to work with people who hate him, as is evident by his ex-wives.  No one is more versed in diplomacy than someone who has successfully raised children with an ex-spouse.  So far the only real “down side” I’ve heard about Newt is that he cheated on his wives.  I don’t really care.  I know some of you do, but I don’t.  I work in a world where your personal life does not reflect on your professional life.  I don’t care what you do on your own time as long as you get the job done on my time.

He also gets a lot of guff about his debate performances.  He does really well and the “experts” keep saying that’s the only reason he’s getting any support.  Well, you’re right.  That IS kind of important.  Obama beat Hilary on his debating skill.  Of course it didn’t help that the media would ask Hilary a really serious question about foreign policy and then ask Obama what his favorite color was (yes that’s a Sat Night Live joke).  But to think the media isn’t still biased would be naive.  They are still in the tank for Obama.  They will still do everything they can to make Obama look better than the republican nominee.  Kind of the same way they try to make Romney look better than the other candidates.  So Newt has already proven he knows how to face the media bias head on and come out ahead.  He will completely destroy the illusion that Obama is a super-smart intellectual.  That image will be so thoroughly destroyed when Gingrich is done with him that Democrats will be ashamed to vote for him and the term “Dumber than Bush” might actually be used to describe him on MSNBC before it’s over.

Recommendation: I’m leaning toward Gingrich for the nominee.  He can run on a record of fiscal responsibility.  He has a record of reforming Medicare so he’s credible against Obama-care.  He was not my first choice, but I can’t find a reason NOT to vote for him and he has the right message to bring in those independent voters.


Ron Paul: 10 Delegates (10 pledged – 0 unpledged)
            The Libertarian

I love me some Ron Paul.  He does not look presidential, but man he’s got some good ideas.  He straight up wants to shut down half of what the federal government does.  Because the constitution states the federal government does not have the right to do anything that is not specifically named in the constitution and Paul knows it.  He would significantly reduce the size of our government and balance our budget.  He has been completely dismissed by the media and the Republican Establishment.  Paul will likely not get a single unpledged vote.  Another benefit to Ron Paul is that he would attract the disenfranchised Democratic voters.  Seriously.  He would bring in many voters who vote democrat because they are “socially liberal”.  Believe it or not, the independent leaning democrats are fiscally conservative, but they refuse to vote for a theocrat.  Paul would bring a whole new attitude with him to the office. 

Alas, his biggest strength is his biggest weakness.  He would likely not achieve much of what he wants to do because big government democrats and big government republicans would come together and unite against a Paul presidency.  I also do not see him getting enough republican votes to override the 661 unpledged delegates to get the nomination.  I would love to see him get enough delegates to be able to bargain for specific policy changes or maybe even a VP slot though.

Recommendation: Federal Reserve Chairman.  Replace Ben Bernanke with this guy.  Put Paul in charge of the Federal Reserve with the stated purpose of bringing us back to the gold standard and restoring the US dollar to international stability. 


Rick Santorum: 8 Delegates (7 pledged – 1 unpledged)
            Big Government Republican Theocrat

The Republican Establishment has latched on to the term “Tea Party” and tried to make it into something it’s not.  The “evangelical” social conservatives keep claiming to be “Tea Party” candidates.  You’re not.  In fact, the Tea Party was a collection of Republicans and Democrats who came together under a Libertarian idea: “put social issues aside until we get the bills paid.”  My man Mitch Daniels said that exact thing and was ridiculed by Santorum who stated: “Anybody who would suggest we should call a truce on the moral issues doesn’t understand what America is all about.”  The Tea Party is the Independent Voter both sides need to win. 

Rick Santorum is not a “Tea Party” candidate.  He is an “evangelical” candidate.  He thinks its ok for the federal government to legislate his religious beliefs.  That’s all well and good as long as they are HIS beliefs.  There was a little thing that 13 colonies had in common; it was called freedom of religion.  If someone’s religion allows for gay marriage, and they were elected president, Santorum would have stroke.  No-no.  It’s ok for Rick to tell you what to believe, but not ok for someone to disagree.  How about the Federal Government stays out of it entirely?  It’s none of your business.  If I want to slaughter a goat in my barn as part of my religious beliefs, that’s my business – not the governments. 

He continues to claim he is the only “real” conservative.  He’s the only “Social Conservative” – yes.  But he is not a fiscal conservative.  His time in congress is filled with manipulation of the current tax code (credits here, fees there), but is mostly representative of his social agenda.  He’s just as big government as the rest of the republican establishment. 

Here’s Santorum’s “Real Conservatism” on display:

·         He supported the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act along with John Kerry, Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_Religious_Freedom_Act

·         The Santorum Amendment to “No Child Left Behind” which promotes the teaching of intelligent design in schools: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment

·         The National Weather Service Duty Act which tried to prevent the National Weather Service from competing with a Pennsylvania based campaign donor.  He even used Hurricane Katrina in his arguments to try and get this one passed.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service_Duties_Act_of_2005

Recommendation: Quit the race.  Quit the Senate.  Become a minister and spread the good word brother. 


Florida is another winner take all state.  It has 50 delegates at stake.  We are a long way from the 1191 needed to win.  I’m not particularly happy with any of these guys, but Newt and Paul currently has my support.  In a perfect world we would have gotten Mitch Daniels to run or maybe Herman Cain could’ve hung in there.  To the best of my knowledge none of these candidates support repealing the 16^th or 17^th amendments.  (two things I would love to see happen)

In the end I will choose the guy I think will succeed in making government smallest.  There’s time left.  Maybe Mitt or Rick could change my mind by fully embracing the Fair Tax as the centerpiece of their policy platform  – but then they couldn’t hand out favors via the tax code anymore and make government bigger, so that’ll never happen.  Good luck to Newt and Ron.