Huntsman Message Can’t Be Boring

Former Governor and Ambassador Jon Huntsman (R)

By: Brian Sikma

Mitt Romney is probably feeling pretty good right about now. He’s been running for President long enough to be the de facto front runner which carries more downsides than upsides at this point. A persistent problem he’s had to face is that he’s just too boring. The reaction of a typical crowd of the GOP faithful is something mixed between “sure, he’s smart but he’s also distant,” and “yeah, he sounds conservative but how long is that going to last?” To be fair, Romney isn’t a far leftist even though he’s not been a consistent conservative in the past.

But just why might he be feeling good? Well, he’s no longer the most boring candidate in the race. That distinction must be awarded to Jon Huntsman, a yet-to-be-defined candidate surrounded by some of the top veterans of McCain presidential campaigns. Huntsman has a particular allure right now because he’s a fresh face, someone who’s not been publicly working for the past 6 years on a national campaign. However, when it comes to frankly nailing down the issues and explaining where he stands, Huntsman needs to switch from diplomat mode to candid fellow American. It’s certainly an image his jean jackets and Reaganesque campaign announcement venue are trying to reinforce.

In a smart move the Huntsman campaign has placed videos on the campaign website’s homepage featuring the candidate talking about important issues. People don’t care about reading white papers, and short videos are a great way to share where you stand on the issues. But, in those videos you’ve got to connect with voters and use the language they use. In tackling the biggest issue of the 2012 cycle, Jobs, Huntsman starts his video with the following line:

“Jobs will be a function of our relative competitive position as a country. . .”

Uh, what did he just say? (I actually went back and replayed that first line when I watched the video for the first time.) Jobs will be a function of our relative competitive position as a country? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? The average American catching that on the move during their busy day is going to ask “Okay, does that mean I will or I will not get my job back if you are our next President?”

I’m not underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Far from it. What Huntsman said is true as an academic description of one of the challenges we face as a nation in creating jobs. But as a prescriptive statement offering a solution, or as an identity statement sharing voter sentiment, it’s worthless.

The American people are right now looking for a candidate who 1) understands their problems, and 2) has a pointed message about solving that problem. They are not ripe for demagogues to dupe them into believing shallow solutions exist for deep problems (recent elections have proven that), but they want something simple and straightforward in a candidate.

Huntsman is a new candidate on the national scene, and there is reason to expect that his message about jobs and other issues will sound less wonkish and more straightforward in the future. But until a major candidate is able to smartly identify themselves with the problems of the American people and address them in a way that sounds like their neighbor talking about solving a problem in the neighborhood, Republicans are going to lose valuable message time and opportunity. The message in 2012 can’t be boring if conservatism is to make a comeback and carry the White House.

 

Courage Plus Conviction Equals Conservative Change

By: Brian Sikma

Much ink has been spilled over how Republicans and conservatives have handled Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to reform Medicare. No one, not even the most liberal Democrat, believes that Medicare does not face a real problem. The program is spending more than it takes in, and will not last for much longer unless serious reforms are implemented. However, the when, what and how of reform is certainly up for debate.

Unfortunately for the American people, an entire political party has refused to put forward a real plan for reforming Medicare. Similarly unfortunate is the fact that the other major political party is split over the issue. It is true that any time you put forward a specific plan with specific numbers attached to it, you are taking a political risk. That is the nature of politics, and it’s not a particularly bad thing.

What becomes a problem is when an issue becomes so overhyped with apocalyptic rhetoric that reform in any direction is viewed as an attempt to undermine what is good for the American people. Conservatives are facing such a problem now. Liberal Democrats have consistently failed to address the problem of entitlement reform. Whether it was President Bush’s attempt to reform Social Security in 2005, or the present Medicare debate, the standard liberal tactic has been to label any attempt to reform these programs as a direct assault on the future of the American people.

Click here to continue reading the full article posted at the Madison Project.

 

After Kagan Endorsement, Lugar Shouldn’t Run

Ms. Kagan

By: Brian Sikma

Ahead of the full Senate’s vote to confirm U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Senate Richard Lugar has declared that he will vote in favor of President’s nominee. Lugar joined South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham in becoming the first two Republican Senators to publicly support Kagan, who has a thin record of judicial experience but a very well-documented record of political maneuvering, and is arguably the most liberal individual to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court.

As disappointing as it is that Lugar would heartily back President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, it should have come as no surprise. In the early months of his administration, the President nominated federal district judge David F. Hamilton, then serving in Indiana, for an opening on the federal appellate bench. Hamilton made a name for himself several years ago when he ruled that prayers uttered in the name of Jesus Christ in the Indiana General Assembly violated the establishment clause of the 1^st Amendment. Hamilton’s reasoning was obtuse, his use of precedent horrendous, and eventually his ruling was overturned by the very appellate court on which he now sits. Despite that, however, Lugar still praised Hamilton effusively when the President picked him as his first judicial nominee.

Lugar’s stated reasons for backing Kagan are that she is “clearly qualified” and that she has a “distinguished career in both education and public service.” Ms. Kagan is the least experienced judicial nominee in perhaps the history of the court. She has never served on the federal bench and has absolutely no prior experience anywhere as a judge. Her most extensive work experience that could apply to her new job is her recent work as Solicitor General, where she has only argued cases before the Supreme Court.

The “distinguished career” that she has amassed includes vehemently opposing military recruiters on the campus of Harvard Law School, and working in the Clinton White House to carefully review important legal matters through the lens of political calculation. At various points in her past she has expressed acceptance of the idea that U.S. courts should look beyond the Constitution and towards international legal norms (established by the U.N., European Union, and others) for guidance in their decision-making.

The bar for what constitutes “clearly qualified” has been significantly lowered if, in the eyes of Sen. Lugar, Ms. Kagan is just that. Micah Clark, of the American Family Association of Indiana, said, “If this is the new low standard for ‘clearly qualified’ to be one of just nine members of the highest court in the nation with enormous power to control our lives, our system of government and a lifetime appointment to boot, then we are really in trouble.” Clark is right. Unfortunately, Lugar refuses to set aside his thinking that Congress somehow owes it to the President to confirm his judicial nominees.

Those like Lugar and Lindsey Graham, who argue that they must vote for any and all judicial nominations out of respect for the President, or just because they personally deem them to be “clearly qualified,” are disengaging from their job. Just as Presidents win elections and thus the prerogative to appoint whomever they wish, Senators are sent to Washington to be a check, not a rubberstamp, on executive power. In easily passing favorable judgment about Ms. Kagan’s nomination, Sen. Lugar failed to do what the people of Indiana sent him to Washington to do. Further, by so quickly and uncritically embracing a judicial nominee who is nothing more than a left-wing lawyer-activist, Lugar failed his own Republican Party.

In 2012, Senator Lugar should pass up the chance to run again; he should retire and leave the field open for a stronger, more vigorous, more conservative candidate who will not uncritically accept the dictates of Washington as direction for how he should fulfill is personal responsibility. Indiana, and Indiana Republicans, deserve better than Richard Lugar.