Huntsman's Chances

Every four years pundits from throughout the country and around the globe focus as lasers on the voters in New Hampshire.  A few weeks in most believe they have a solid grasp  of what makes the Granite State's electorate tick.  Reporters and talking heads pontificate at length as to why one candidate is sure to emerge as the winner of this quadrennial event called the presidential preference primary.  Sometimes they are right, often they are wrong.

The proliferation of poll results are reflective of a revolving door.  They are supposedly conducted by questioning potential primary voters, yet their reliability has proven questionable.  There are certainties in this season's Republican race, not all of which are reflected in polls.

• There will be a winner and more than one loser.
• The winner will not necessarily be the party's eventual nominee.
• Despite what the candidates say about competing in all 50 states, it won't happen...never has, never will.
• Once again, New Hampshire will prove to be the great winnower of the field, narrowing it to no more than three viable contestants.
• The second place finisher will go on and prove that it isn't necessary to finish first in the drive to  carry the party's banner toward the 2012 election in November.

As it stands today, former Massachusetts Gov. Willard Mitt Romney will be the number one choice of New Hampshire Republicans.  Of the two spots remaining of the viable three, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will likely fill one of the spots, and don't be surprised if one of the national media's least covered, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, sneaks into the number two spot.

One thing my years of covering politics in New Hampshire taught me is that the Granite Staters are cagey, seldom showing their hand before entering the voting booth.  Remember Jimmy who?  When the little known governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, was campaigning he was given little shot at winning the state's primary and going on to capture the White House.  Like it or not, he emerged atop the Democratic Party's pile in 1976 and survived a challenge within his own party four years later.  Winning the GOP nod in New Hampshire but failing to gain their party's nomination were such notables as Pat Buchanan in 1996 and John McCain in 2000.  Bill Clinton failed to win over the state's Democrats in 1992, finishing second, and neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama got the state's endorsement.  Both Bush and Obama proved that finishing second wasn't a bad thing.

So, what about Huntsman?  He seems to be running a stealth campaign, flying just far enough below the radar that the only attention he gathers is that of the people who really matter, the GOP voters.  He has said on more than one occasion that he will be quite happy finishing second, and I for one will not be surprised if he meets that goal.  As for the darling of the state's largest newspaper, Gingrich, the harder Gingrich campaigns and the longer it drags on the better for everyone else in the contest.  As for the remainder of the crowded field, forget about it; maybe in another four years.

Wait four years?  Most likely.  See, Mr. Ego, Donald Trump, is so bent on ousting President Obama that he has made it perfectly clear that if Republicans don't nominate someone of his liking, he will strongly consider running as an independent.  If he choses to do so, the only beneficiary of his candidacy will be Obama.  So the President's team must be looking forward to The Donald's entry into the fray.  It would be Christmas in November.

Trump This!

I suppose it would be easy, maybe even sensible to ignore the proposed December 27 Republican presidential debate in Iowa being promoted and moderated by the ultimate huckster of our time, Donald Trump.  I mean, really?  Trump, who hasn't totally ruled himself out as a potential candidate for the presidency moderating a sideshow that as of this writing has only two announced candidates agreeing to be part of this vaudevillian exercise - Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum - taking part?

Now I can totally understand former House Speaker Gingrich leaping at the opportunity to pontificate on why he's the smartest person in the room, if not the planet.  Though he's leading in some polls at this point, he is in desperate need of campaign cash.  And if he's able to impress the equally egotistical Trump, perhaps the cash register will ring up sufficient coin to carry him through the primary season.

As for Santorum, he has nothing to lose.  His candidacy is about as insignificant as The Donald himself.  Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have wisely said no thanks to participating, and Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are said to be mulling over their course of action.  The latter two are also fast becoming irrelevant in the crowded field of GOP contenders, as is Rep. Paul.  Former Massachusetts Gov. Willard Mitt Romney says he's unable to fit the show into his schedule, that he will be busy campaigning for votes in the Iowa caucus.

So it appears that the debate will be between Gingrich and Santorum.  The egotist versus the wannabe, questioned and moderated by the carnival barker.  Will it be interesting and informative?  Probably not.  The only thing that could save the show (let's face it, that's what it is) is if at the conclusion one of the two candidates (or maybe even both) simultaneously points directly at Trump and utters the words "You're Fired".

Now that, in the words of Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry, would make my day.

Truly Outside the Box

I read an interesting, though as the writer suggested, out-of-the-box idea this week.  It was written by Scripps Howard New Service columnist/editorial writer Dale McFeatters, and suggested that the Republican Party’s best hope for defeating President Barack Obama is none other than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who just happens to be a Democrat.  Really?

McFeatters goes on to note that a Time magazine poll had her topping all leading GOP candidates by an average of 22 points.  But all this would mean Secretary Clinton would have to switch parties and do it quickly if she were inclined to take part in the not-to-distant primaries.

The party switch wouldn’t be the first for her.  In 1964 she was a volunteer for the late Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater in his unsuccessful bid for the White House, and in her college days at Wellesley she was a member of the Young Republicans, a group of Rockefeller-types, and was a supporter of the late mayor of New York, John Lindsey.  She was also a supporter of former U.S. Sen. Edward Brooke, a Massachusetts Republican.

It is said that her ideology changed during the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, and she jumped onto the bandwagon of the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, D-Minnesota.  She even embraced the ill-fated candidacy of Sen. George McGovern, D-South Dakota, an outspoken critic of the war in Vietnam.  Actually it was Richard Nixon who pushed her over the edge to the Democratic Party, because of the way he chastised Nelson Rockefeller and the 1968 GOP convention's alleged racist messages.

There is no question Clinton has a strong following eager to right what it believes was a wrong when she was denied the White House by Democratic Party leaders who favored Obama.  And there is little doubt these supporters would be on board quickly should she choose to launch a campaign.  But switch back to the party she abandoned?  I doubt it.

But since we’re talking outside the box here, how about this: Hillary Clinton as an independent candidate?  Now that’s what I call really thinking apart from the mainstream.

Foolish thinking?  Maybe, but consider the following.

Secretary Clinton has no financial backing to jump quickly into the primary races, though she certainly has a following that would come to her aid in time.  She is married to one of the more popular former presidents since FDR, William “Bill” Clinton, who labeled himself the comeback kid.  And, lets face it.  None of the GOP candidates to date are loved by the Bush family, which has demonstrated a great fondness for Bill Clinton.  Romney?  He's shaping up as the hold-your-nose and vote pick.  Herman Cain?  Yeah, like that will happen.  Rick Perry?  Please.  There are limits to reason.

Clinton has viewed her self as, in so many words, a fiscal conservative and social liberal.  And as U.S. senator from New York, she demonstrated an uncanny ability to work successfully across party lines.  Let's not overlook also the fact that she is known and highly regarded worldwide.  Not a bad asset for a president.

An independent candidacy would allow time for the dust to settle on the two major parties, and avoid the costly and probably unsuccessful primary wars.  And as things are shaping up now, we’re headed for one of the more boring presidential elections ever between Obama and whomever the GOP anoints as its flag-bearer…probably Willard Mitt Romney.  Secretary Clinton has openly called herself a morally and fiscally conservative and a social liberal.  Nothing wrong with that.

Outside the box?  Sure.  Way outside.  But maybe, just maybe it is time for a different approach to government, one that only a true independent can offer. 

Hijackers Getting Hijacked

It's hard to argue with the initial mantra of the Tea Partiers: cut govenment spending.  But somewhere along the way their message was translated into: just say "No" to anything supported by the Democratic Party and the Obama administration.  How it happened is anyone's guess, but I suspect in the Tea Party's campaign to control the Republican Party - which it has succeeded in doing to this point - found its only target was the White House and anyone aligned with the President.  And it found a willing, albiet weak, co-conspirator in House Speaker John Boehner.  The staid old Republican Party had been hijacked.

Now, Boehner is a nice enough fellow, but it is obvious the overt threat of ouster from individuals behind the resulting Tea Party movement has diminished his ability to seek compromise, which has long been the basis of good government.  The late Republican President Ronald Reagan knew about the art of compromise and was successful largely because of his ability to work with the powerful House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, Democrat of Massachusetts.

The Tea Party masterminds have now found themselves facing a dilemma that they could not have predicted: their own hijacking.

When the whacky season known as the presidential nomination process began, the Tea Party GOP believed it had the ideal candidate in U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann.  She had the looks, was a woman running for an office held until now only by men, and was not afraid to air her ultra conservative views, including:

• The movie The Lion King should be considered gay propaganda.
• If the minimum wage were abolished, jobs would be created.
• A visit to Iraq was not unlike a trip to the Mall of America.

Those are only a few, which now have her on the verge of elimination from consideration, even from those within the Tea Party leadership who initially supported her candidacy.  In the interim, it had a second candidate it could wrap its arms around: Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Then came Herman Cain, the outspoken former CEO of a pizza chain and a proponent of most things Tea Party.  Things were beginning to look up again when Cain emerged from Florida the winner of a straw poll among GOP attendees at a September gathering.  Bingo!  The Tea Party had two potential saviours, particularly with its most active supporter, Sarah Palin, opting to sit out the campaign.

Now the story comes out that Cain was involved in a sexual harassment suit.  His attempts to distance himself from the story have not gone well, tripping over his explanations on more than one occasion.  And revelations of this sort cannot set well with those who were eager to jump onto his bandwagon.

So where to turn for the Tea Party?  It would seem Perry is the party's only hope of taking on President Barack Obama, dim as that prospect seems.  Former Massachusetts Gov. Willard Mitt Romney?  There is no chance the perceived architect of a health care policy that is universally despised by the ruling body of the Tea Party can obtain their blessing.

Perry has a long uphill battle to upend Romney's campaign for the nomination.  The true test will be New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential preference primary.  And Romney is viewed as a favorite son of the Granite State because of his summer home on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee, in addition to the fact that none of the other candidates have resonated with the voters of that state.  He's as well known in New Hampshire as in Massachusetts where he lives.  There's a lot to be said for familiarity.

Romney is clearly the only choice of GOP traditionalists, many of whom are eager to reclaim the party that they saw hijacked in the off-season elections of 2010.  Speaker Boehner seems to be considering a more moderate stance, as evidenced by a reported unofficial agreement with Minority Leader Nancy Peolsi on deficit reduction.

As noble as the Tea Party experiment might have been in the beginning, the party of  "No" might just have worn out its welcome.  At the very least, perhaps it will re-examine itself and consider a less threatening, more moderate approach.