GOP 2012 Update – “Top Tier Candidates” skip Fox South Carolina Debate, follow 1999 Examples

Out of the Pack of "Top Tier" candidates: Huckabee, Palin and Trump (not pictured) yet to commit to run - image: freedomslighthouse.net


Fox News held the first GOP debate last evening in South Carolina – the debate featured Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Tim Pawlenty – absent the field of “GOP Potential Candidates: Huckabee, Romney, Palin, Bachman, Trump and Gingrich. The prevailing theory is that the Fox hosted debate was more of a loss for Fox News, rather than the GOP field, as those Top Tier “Candidates” have not yet announced. The question remains, when will these much ballyhooed candidates decide? The answer obviously is when they are ready pending current obligations and strategy.

From Politico: Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told a group of freshman congressional representations this past week that he had not yet decided one way or the other and would make his decision this summer. The prevailing theory is that with Huckabee, Palin and Trump particularly, there are media contracts in place which would prevent them from announcing sooner, unless these contracts were dissolved.
What’s the rush? The debate process a mere decade ago began in the later end of 1999 - George Bush, who went on to win the GOP nomination, skipped the first two debates which begin in October 1999, and although he announced an exploratory committee in March of that year, did not firmly commit until the summer. Bush went on to win the nomination, after announcing later than McCain, and skipping two of the first debates – he had to work harder on the ground in the primary states, but was able to raise funds and observe the other candidates, plain strategy. The early debates and announcements began in 2007 with the emergence of Barack Obama as a candidate for the Presidency, prior to that, the announcement, exploratory and debate process got off to a later start.

Does it really matter when Huckabee, Palin or Trump decide to run and formally announce? Not in the grander scheme of things. A question asked at the Fox debate of the attending candidates was (Paraphrasing): There are certain (people, groups) who feel that Barack Obama is unbeatable, do you feel that he is vulnerable in any way? The answers, resoundingly from those present were – yes, and the main reason, the economy.

It will be the economy, the lack of transparency, the appearance of indecisiveness and the inability of the administration to get any story straight, regardless of the import, or lack thereof, that has both left and right thinking American’s thinking strongly about the alternatives. There are polls which show the President’s job approval rating at all time lows, polls that contradict whether or not he got a “bounce” from the Bin Laden incident, and polls that indicate the birth certificate issue is still alive. The fact that so many are now questioning whether or not the demise of the Al Queda leader, Bin Laden was “staged” is, in a word, stunning. Therefore, it does not really matter if one announces in March or in August, it really does not matter if they have the “billions” the President is hoping to have in his “war chest” for reelection – what will matter is that the individual who breaks from the “pack” by September or October of this year, is one who is decisive, has a clear understanding of the economy and who is less “Washington” - being able to convince the general public, not just the Republican’s and Republican leaning Independents, that they are capable and additionally willing (key word) to take on the task of running the nation as the top CEO. It will be someone who comes across as Decisive, and that is, if nothing else at this point, any one of the ten or so individuals announced and unannounced.

The fact that the news organizations,ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox included, are pushing so hard for the sake of ratings, has little to do with the final choices made by the candidates and those who support them – It may be Donald Trump who ends up leading the field (he appears, despite the naysayers to be a serious candidate), it may be Mike Huckabee, or Sarah Palin, or it may be a soft-spoken, decisive Governor from Minnesota, one Tim Pawlenty, or a perennial presidential candidate Ron Paul, who takes the lead. It will, in this opinion, however, be a candidate who is decidedly not connected to Washington – which has become synonymous with greed, indecision and a quest for power, not service. Therefore, when the field of contenders finally forms this summer (and that is when all will know for certain who is in and who is out), then the debates will draw ratings, the speculation and dirt will fly, and the 2012 election season will get underway. What is hoped is that should Trump, Palin, Romney and Huckabee all enter the race, that this debate season, equal time will be given to those who, although considered by the “pollsters” to be less likely to win a nomination, be heard.

Minnesota Senate Passes SF509 – Voter ID Requirements – Offers Free ID’s – The Quest for the Pure Election.

Previous Ohio Voters - image and article Sandusky Register.com

The Minnesota Senate passed SF 509 (see page 16 PDF for text), a bill requiring voters present a valid photo id prior to casting a ballot in the State of Minnesota. There was a party line vote, followed by the usual hue and cry regarding “disenfranchisement of voter”, by the mere act of asking someone to identify themselves prior to casting a ballot. The argument that many voters do not have photo identification cards has been made moot by the bill, which also requires that those without a photo id be issued one “free of charge” .

U.S. Citizens, one would think, who are of an age to vote, would have some sort of photo identification, which is required for almost everything, from high school and college ids to ids required at amusement parks, drivers licenses, and photo id’s issued for those who do not have a desire to drive or passports. Most are based on: a social security number, which, granted, can be stolen or forged, however, this may definitely be a step in the direction of fraud at the voter booth when it comes to charges of “deceased or ineligible voters (those who have moved out of state), somehow voting in certain state elections (See 116,000 plus voters on Massachusetts roles, which apparently does not concern the MA Secretary of State, Democrat William Galvin – nationwide over 16 million voters in 2010 were either deceased or had fled high tax states (editorial), with Massachusetts continuing to hold a large number on the rolls. The refusal to clear these rolls by the MA Secretary of State, is part and parcel of the “course” in the “Bluest State” (or a contender for that moniker with California, etc.), where no photo ID is required to vote, one must merely state one’s address and name, and get granted a ballot.

The fact of the matter is that when one votes, it is a right and a privilege as a citizen, and when one votes fraudulently or casts a fraudulent ballot, it makes a mockery of the system, and disenfranchises those who are actually eligible to vote. In States where political parties trump rules and the rights of the individual, regardless of party, are cast aside for the maintenance of “power”, it is a crime (literally) and, at the same time, shows no confidence in that political party by those who are in power. If one believes in their base or political ideology as perfect, then it follows that one would believe that their fellow citizens would be inclined to agree and vote a straight party ticket. That is of course, if those who have the ability to leave the dead to vote, and oppose voter id, had faith that their party would survive with an honest voting system.

Therefore, Kudos to the Minnesota House and Senate for putting together a bill that requires each vote count, while ensuring those who are said to be “disenfranchised” (or too poor to buy an identification card) receive a voter ID card, free of charge. This should be the rule in each and every one of the fifty states and those territories (Guam and Puerto Rico) which vote in general elections.

Currently out of 50 states, only 4 (previously 3) require a photo id when voting , (Pew), however, those who cannot show photo ID are allowed to cast a “provisional ballot”, which is then judged eligible or ineligible by either a board, a town clerk, or other method. It appears that Minnesota would have few “provisional ballots cast, if any, given that Free Voter Id cards would be available. This further cuts the potential for fraud.

Oh Canada! Conservative Pro-Business, Anti-Tax Party Takes the Helm, Largest Supplier of Oil to U.S. will Not Block Northern Gateway Tanker Traffic.

Why both nations have the ability to stimulate economies quickly...

Canadians held elections on Tuesday, putting the conservative Tories Party firmly in control of the government. According to Reuter’s, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, now has a Party majority in the Canadian Parliament, and plans on moving forward with a pro-business agenda, starting with oil.

Canada’s oil industry should benefit – The oil sands industry has “massive resources” in Alberta, and has realized a “surge in income” with rising crude prices (Globe and Mail).

Canada, according to the Reuters report, is the largest exported of oil to the U.S., and interestingly, there are seven provinces where oil and natural gas are produced.
U.S. Domestic Production in Alaska, has been stalled by the EPA, and although the U.S. has imposed bans on drilling, an article form Institute for Energy Research.org notes that other oil producing countries are not following suit – including Mexico, China and Cuba, with the later drilling within 40 miles of the U.S. Coast.

The largest Oil Producing States in the U.S. are Texas, North Dakota (who’s recent surge in crude production places is bound to overtake production in both) Alaska and California (Alaska Daily News).

Understanding that between the Canadian and the hampered U.S. oil Industry, (which is capable of being self-sustaining), the need for importing crude from the Middle East is questionable. Should the U.S. bans on drilling (offshore, shale fields etc.) be lifted or modified to allow for production, and should the U.S. invest in more refineries, the price per barrel would fall dramatically. Referring to the pre-2008 election in the U.S. when oil prices had skyrocketed (not as severely as today) several Texas Republican House Members stayed in session while the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership, shut down the house, and literally shut off the lights, as the days then weeks went on, the Speaker called the house back into session, and began discussions on lifting of oil drilling bans. The result, within a week, prices has fallen, based on the speculation that oil would be flowing through the U.S.

What the Canadian’s apparently understand is business and national survival are part and parcel, while the United States is, at the present time, apparently less concerned about the price of gasoline pushing past $5.00. Although Canadians do pay more for gasoline, it is, one would suggest, a lack of refineries in both nations that presents the biggest problem. Though one can hardly blame those in the oil industry who would build more refineries, as the ability to drill for oil, and then refine and shore up supplies of gasoline (driving down the cost at the pump), may not be in their financial best interest given the fickle nature of the governments ban on drilling, when the mood suits - the fact remains we need more refineries online.

As the U.S. focuses on “Green Businesses”which are yet proven to be capable of meeting consumer demands, We currently have 137 oil refineries online (EIA.DOE.gov), and the only new refinery planned (or funded by the U.S. Government) is in Columbia (the nation to our south) Apparently, no new refineries have been built in the U.S. Since 1976 and without the ability to refine the oil into gasoline and other products, the prices will remain sky high.

Canada, however is not standing still, with the latest planned refinery in Edmonton approve this year, as they have far fewer refineries than the U.S. at 10 total,one would think that between the two nations oil supplies, it would behoove both to boost refinery capacity in order to really stimulate the economies – instead of laying off refineries and exporting the oil elsewhere: as of 2008, the U.S. was exporting 1.8 million barrels ad day.

More drilling, more refineries, less exports, more domestic stimulus – Perhaps our Northern Neighbors will get it right, and in some perfect universe where the EPA and the minds of the Congress and a pro-economy Executive branch meet, so will the U.S.