The American Spectator : The Kaleidoscopic GOP Primary, Part Deux

Text Size

A Further Perspective

The Kaleidoscopic GOP Primary, Part Deux

By G. Tracy Mehan, III on 6.16.11 @ 6:07AM

You still have to show up and play the game -- well.

The Republican presidential primary is only getting more interesting every day. That is, it is even more kaleidoscopic than I have previously noted on this site.

Mitt Romney, who has been kicked around pretty hard for Romneycare, flip-flopping on abortion, and, now, his views on global climate change or warming, won a head-to-head poll against President Obama among registered voters. He also seems to be raising beaucoup campaign cash. He is sticking to his game plan, e.g., avoiding a losing situation in Iowa, maintaining his equipoise, and definitely looking like a long-distance runner. He played it safe in the New Hampshire debate with a view toward not undercutting his strength rather than overreaching.

Tim Pawlenty has had an interesting ride, too. His unveiling of an ambitious tax-cutting plan generated reactions from supply-siders (Larry Kudlow, the Wall Street Journal editorial board) that can be fairly described as euphoric. To be fair, the Minnesota governor is also talking tough on spending cuts as are the supply-siders of which I consider myself one.

However, I was, in turn, impressed, then amazed, by Pawlenty's preemptive strike on Romney, just before the New Hampshire GOP primary debate, when he characterized the nexus between Obamacare and the Massachusetts version as "Obamneycare," and then running away from it in the St. Anselm's debate.

There are several rules of political polemics which were violated here. First, do not slap the king unless you intend to kill him. Second, a corollary, when you attack, attack in force and press it to the death. This is the military principle of concentration (mass, maneuver and surprise).

I understand that all the candidates, including Governor Pawlenty, wanted to make nice in the early public debate in New Hampshire, but the Pawlenty campaign has totally undercut what I assume was to be a major line of attack on Governor Romney. One cannot be both tentative and negative in a political campaign.

If Pawlenty was not prepared to engage in this line of debate, he should have held his fire until he was ready. Now he looks indecisive and equivocal.

I had originally viewed him as having a slight advantage over Romney given his excellent record in Minnesota, his ties to the social wing of the party, and his lack of political baggage relative to Romney. But you do have to show up to play the game and play it well. This brings us to Rep. Michele Bachmann, Pawlenty's number 1 Excedrin headache and the primary reason why his week has been mixed at best.

One has to assume that having a Congresswoman from Minnesota with excellent Tea Party and social conservative credentials, a native of Iowa, enter the race, is a major blow to the Pawlenty campaign which is banking on winning Iowa to slingshot their candidate forward. Thus, Bachmann's participation in the New Hampshire debate and the announcement of her candidacy for president, represents an existential threat to the Pawlenty campaign which can only be diminished by her participation in the Iowa caucuses.

Watching Bachmann on the debate stage with all those guys, all white but one, in dark suits and understated ties (Boring!), I recalled the effect the former Democratic Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm used to have when she was bracketed by the same monochromatic maleness. Both Bachmann and Granholm are attractive (can I say that?) and articulate women. Who wants to listen to what the guys have to say?

Bachmann seems to have performed very well in the debate according to most observers who seem to be surprised given some of her earlier goofs. She appears ready to play ball.

There is still a lot of clutter in this field. Newt has not yet come to grips with the fact that he is a dead man walking. Rick Santorum, an authentic and battle-tested hero to the Right-to-Life movement, has not provided a credible scenario for winning the GOP primary. Herman Cain brings energy and passion to the podium, but he and Sarah Palin have much to learn about the full panoply of national and international issues. Jon Huntsman, like Mitt Romney, looks like a presidential candidate from central casting, has the money and is a bit heterodox on the issues. However, my read is that he is basically setting himself up for a serious run in 2016, positioning himself in case both Romney and Pawlenty crater.

And then there is the inimitable Ron Paul, who is always stimulating but unlikely to move beyond his energetic libertarian base.

Conservatives are waiting, not for Godot, but for Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Theodore Roosevelt's political kaleidoscope continues to turn round and round as the Pachyderms choose their candidate to challenge an incumbent President weighted down by an anemic economy, lagging job growth, a weakening housing market and an erratic stock market.

The GOP primary is well worth the fight.

About the Author

G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (47) | Leave a comment

Kelly Staples, I| 6.16.11 @ 7:54AM

Tim Pawlenty is so nice he'd make a great Pubbie Speaker of the House. Meanwhile, we're told Mitt is the "front-runner." Just how stupid IS the Stupid Party?

SpiralArchitect| 6.16.11 @ 4:03PM

The only thing perculiar is how many people get so excited about someone being named a front runner a year & half from the election.

What a spectacle.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.16.11 @ 8:02AM

G Tracy,
good article except for the underhanded slap at Sarah.
How do you know she is weak on international issues?
In fact, energy is the hub of international issues these days. If it were not, we could then put a cyclone fence around the Muslim nuts and disengage. Sarah understands the international flow of energy better than any existing candidate.

SpiralArchitect| 6.16.11 @ 4:06PM

Nuclear & using domestic energy resources would completely resolve the issue.

Pay out to special interests is the only logical reason we do not tap our know how for usable & safe nuclear energy ( already exists!) & domestic resources.

SpiralArchitect| 6.16.11 @ 4:06PM

Nuclear & using domestic energy resources would completely resolve the issue.

Pay out to special interests is the only logical reason we do not tap our know how for usable & safe nuclear energy ( already exists!) & domestic resources.

Al Adab| 6.16.11 @ 5:44PM

Navy has been operating nuclear power plants for decades without incident. Perhaps what we need are many smaller, regional or localized plants of that size rather than big megawatt multi-reactor units. Heck a single Navy sized plant could power every town of what about 45K? I'm sure someone has the actual number.

Len| 6.16.11 @ 9:00AM

I think it speaks volumes that some of the candidates were actually quoting Ron Paul from he was saying during the debate. It also behooves people to note that during the 2008 debates other candidates were clueless when he was talking about fiscal issues and particularly that unconstitutional abomination the Federal Reserve, and now we see more and more how important monetary issues are.

On another note, concerning our over-enlargement of the office of the president, let's be reminded that he is supposed to be essentially the water carrier for the congress, not some great problem solver, not some great leader. The congress passes laws, the president carries them out. That is how it supposed to be, along with vetoing unconstitutional laws. Concerning the military, the US constitution says this.....The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. Got that? He actually does not lead the military until the congress declares war or we are actually being attacked.

David T| 6.16.11 @ 9:56AM

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I do know something about parsing a sentence. The modifying clause "when called into actual Service of the United States" refers to the Militia of the several States, not to the Army and Navy of the United States, of which the President is always, in peace and in war, Commander in Chief.

Len| 6.16.11 @ 10:11AM

Actually when parsing a sentence, the part that is in between the commas can be taken out and the sentence still stands.

Nonetheless, the congress makes the rules for the military.....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

and determines where they are to be stationed for common defense....To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Even Hamilton the monarchist understood this..Federalist 69....Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.

The framers and ratifiers were clear on this, that war was the health of government, AND the executive, and took measures to ensure that the executive would not be able to grow by controlling the military.

Dan Hirsch| 6.16.11 @ 10:39AM

Len;

You are obviously quoting: how about sourcing your quote, or is that you writing?

And, even Bill O'Reilly gets and appreciates 'pithy.' You might want to look it up.

Len| 6.16.11 @ 1:07PM

Dan, please look closer, I named the source, Federalist 69, written by Hamilton.

Len| 6.16.11 @ 1:11PM

I will provide a link to that...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

David T| 6.16.11 @ 2:14PM

"Actually when parsing a sentence, the part that is in between the commas can be taken out and the sentence still stands."

Ok, but I've seen the same Article ll, Section 2 sentence written by knowledgeable and competent writers with the second comma removed and also with the first comma removed and a second comma placed after "called."

So the question is not how to parse the sentence, but what did the framers intend with respect to the power of "Commander in Chief"?

The framers originally vested Congress with the power to "make war." Even in that early period, however, some recognized that Congress might not be flexible enough to react to events, and that the Executive must have the ability to respond quickly, i.e. to make war when necessary. So the framers chose the more passive "declare war" over the more active "make war."

In other words, the framers recognized that to effectively carry out his duties as commander-in-chief, the president had to have control of the army and navy, even in peacetime. They also recognized that, when called by him to the service of the United States, the state militias were also under the president's command.

The history of this country shows that the president leads the military in war and peace and calls it into service upon his command. He does not need to wait for Congress to declare war and hand over command and control of our forces.

Len| 6.16.11 @ 2:41PM

Um no, that is a lie. Often perpetuated, but the fact is there was no passive intent in the us of "declare war".

Your assertion concerning the CINC in peace is not supported by any proponents of the US constitution, making obvious the lie.

Go ahead, show me from one state debate, one proponent stating their understanding of the CINC as being able to direct the military at his discretion.

Len| 6.16.11 @ 2:49PM

I'll help you out here, if you care anything for the truth.

http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/

http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/417.pdf

David T| 6.16.11 @ 3:14PM

Don't care to read anything you have to say. History (and common sense) are on my side.

David T| 6.16.11 @ 6:16PM

Excuse me, but the framers recognized that "make war" meant to (actively) engage in hostilities. The Madison-Gerry proposal to substitute "declare" for "make" was to allow the president to "repel sudden attacks" while still granting Congress the power to declare war, that is, to change the legal status with another country from that of peace to that of war.

You can find much of this discussion on pp. 318-19 of "The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787" (Max Farrand ed., rev ed. 1966).

Also, in your fever pitch, you challenged me to provide an example of someone supporting the CINC as "being able to direct the military at his discretion." That was never the issue. The original question was who controls the military in times of peace? I said it was the president in his role as commander in chief. There are many references I could provide, but for brevity's sake I will simply refer you to "The Federalist" No. 70, at 391, where Hamilton says, "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks."

Al Adab| 6.16.11 @ 7:19PM

Read the Helviticus - Pacificus debate.

Jack in Wi.| 6.16.11 @ 11:15AM

Ron Paul is the intellectual giant pulling the whole Party along with him. He is also a very civil man who wants to discuss ideas and policy not engage in personalities. In the last 2 campaigns he has seen his ideas spread and grow so now they represent the most spirited group in the Party. Ron Paul may be like Moses and stop at the Moutaintop. But his ideas will lead us to the promised land. The winning ticket is Ron Paul for President. Rand Paul for Vice President. That solves all the questions about the age issue.

Dan Hirsch| 6.16.11 @ 11:36AM

Jack;

The nepotism thing would be overwhelmingly bad. It'd be "Are establishing a line of Presidential succession within a family?" I was never comfortable with GHWB and GWB even with Clinton in between...Teddy and FDR were cousins but as different as dawn and dusk, not night and day.

Nick| 6.16.11 @ 1:08PM

Yes, Jack, yes. I agree.

Ron Paul is just like Moses, and, he's pulling the WHOLE party with him. He'll show them all!!!

Especially about the strawberries!
Ahh, yes....the strawberries that's... that's where he has them. They laughed at the Paulbots and made jokes, but Ron proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with...with geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and the Paulbots would have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers........

Jack in Wi.| 6.16.11 @ 3:20PM

Ron Gets the most applause at every debate. He has by far the most committed followers, with the possible exception, of Sarah Palin. I don't think she is running and may endore Ron, as she did his son. He raises huge amounts of money. The whole debate is moving his way. The wars are very unpopular. The economy is in depression and only Ron Paul predicted it and has a program to end it. The whole Tea Party is based on Ron's ideas of small government that follows the Constitution. I watched the debate and saw all the other candidates moving Ron's direction. Even the people in the audience sounded like Ron wrote the questions. Ron has led in 3 national polls that show him as the best Republican against Obama. Two of those polls were on the front page of the Drudge Report. Get used to the fact that Ron or someone who sounds like him will be the nominee.

Clint| 6.16.11 @ 8:48PM

"Ignore the cable pundits. Trump's campaign was a joke. Gingrich's campaign was a farce. Palin will not run. I have said these things from the beginning. The real battle is not between Palin and Bachmann, but between Dr. Paul and Bachmann. Remember where you heard it. This will be a big story soon."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi.....-the-right

Nick| 6.17.11 @ 12:55AM

Yes, Jack, yes. I'm really with you.
Ron Paul is a legend in his supporters' own minds.

How many delegates did Paul win in the '08 primaries? What percentage of the vote did he get in the primaries? How many states did Paul win?

I'll save you the time:

# of delegates - 40
% of the vote - less than 5%, on Super Tuesday
# of states won - ZERO!

Ron Paul will NEVER be president.
His support is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Get a new hobby.

Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 2:45AM

And, of course, Ron is the Prince of Pork and the Duke of Dhimmitude. Two reasons why he'll never make a serious run for President.

Nick| 6.16.11 @ 1:21PM

Len,

"Got that? He actually does not lead the military until the congress declares war or we are actually being attacked."

Who, then, does lead the military when the nation is at peace?

RCV| 6.16.11 @ 2:51PM

Len's position on the CIC clause is ludricous, to put it mildly. The qualifier applies to the state militia, which do not fall under the President's command unless acually called into federal service. He is CIC of the national military forces at all times.

Len| 6.16.11 @ 2:52PM

The congress makes the rules, the president carries them out, that is not prerogative as is so often averred.

Have you actually bothered to read the US constitution? Try taking a look at the powers of the congress.

RCV| 6.16.11 @ 3:00PM

I've not only read the Constitution many times, but the Federalist Papers as well. In the Federalist 69, which you selectively quote, Hamilton makes quite clear the obvious fact that the qualifier in the CIC clause refers only to the State Militia, not the regular Army and Navy of the United States: "First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union."

Nick| 6.17.11 @ 12:28AM

Len,

Your answer is non-responsive. Congress' power to "make the rules" is not the same as leading the military.

Who orders carrier battle groups to patrol certain areas of the world? Not Congress. The Army, Air Force, Marines, and Navy can only have one leader, not 535.

For over two centuries the ships of the Navy have patrolled the world's oceans to protect U.S. trade with the nations of the world. They are constantly at-the-ready to wage war. And, the Commander-in-Chief has always lead them.

Separating the powers to declare war and raise an army from the powers of commander-in-chief was the Framers' solution to keep the president from having the powers of a king.

p.s. If you were asking me if I've ever read the Constitution, the answer is, "Yes." Have you ever studied it?

Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 2:51AM

Len, hmm. It's a funny thing, but the Marines make their Marines learn their chain of command. It always ends at the top with the POTUS.

I mean, I'm just a shrink, and not a Constitutional Lawyer with decades of experience like RCV. But the Army and Navy and Air Force and Marines are permanent entities. Orders must be legitimate and legal. Someone needs to be in charge. Are you arguing that in peacetime this is the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Do you realize how moronic that sounds?

(Once upon a time, I was a finalist in an American Legion Constitution Contest. I had a perfect 800 on my American History Boards. Yeah, I've read the dang thing a few times.)

Chuck| 6.16.11 @ 9:17AM

Tim Pawlenty had his golden chance to put Romney on the canvass for the 10 count but blushed and he's done, the post debate poll numbers show that. Bachmann's entry denies him Iowa hence he may as well pack up and head back to his Gopher hole. Rick Perry the big winner of the debate in abstentia. A Perry/Rubio or Perry/Bachmann ticket formidable. Romney anywhere and the GOP loses.

Vikki| 6.16.11 @ 10:45AM

I agree Pawlenty make a BIG mistake in not going after RomneyCare! However, I will disagree with you on Perry, I voted for him last time (while holding my nose) because his opponent was even worse, but I would NOT vote for him for President.

He's ben involved in the TTC and NAFTA projects and a bunch of his cronies are the ones profiting from the deal NOT the people of Texas.

Kristal| 6.16.11 @ 10:16AM

Has anyone noted that Pawlenty has a PERFECT first name, given his personality?

Call him TIMID Tim, or even worse,

TINY Tim.

And, let's never forget the other Tim, the Geithner at Treasury.

Dan Hirsch| 6.16.11 @ 10:36AM

Kristal;

CHEAP shot - CHEAP shot!!! Fie on you.

Tim Geithner is a known tax cheat and obvious incompetent at Treasury who was presented as the smartest guy available who would keep unemployment under 8%. The comparison of Governor Pawlenty to Geithner because they have the same first name is pathetic and stupid.

That makes as much sense as saying Michele Bachmann is the same as Michele Obama. Go to your room, try having a couple of sentient thoughts!

Kristal, that's one stupid post - we know you can do better. Straighten up! Fly right!

Kristal| 6.16.11 @ 7:40PM

I was getting on the Pawlenty bandwagon, given what he'd recently said he'd do, especially with the most NON-TIMID vow to end the ethanol subsidies.

Then, he has to go and do a McCain---that is, just like the latter, he failed to TELL THE TRUTH about Obameycare, just like the old pilot refused to out Obama.

Timid fits.

Al Adab| 6.16.11 @ 1:52PM

Is this simply about winning or winning with a purpose? Would there be any value in electing a Republican who is only marginally different from the current incumbant? The policy results would be the same and the GOP would get the blame for economic collapse and whatever new statist policies emerge.

Oldefarte| 6.16.11 @ 2:10PM

G.Tracy's thoughts are informative and defining, but I respectfully disagree with all this lamenting concerning Pawlenty. He may prove to be the lesser candidate, but any/all debate forums are not the primary stage on which to cast judgement. As stated, look at what he done [and what he says as a candidate] as governor and extrapolate a personal profile as to what he correspondingly do as president. Kennedy, Clinton and Obama are/were good debaters BUT LOOK HOW THEY TURNED OUT AS PRESIDENTS????????????

YeloStalyn| 6.16.11 @ 2:54PM

If he won't stand up to Romney and call a spade a spade when the chips are down... how is he gonna handle foreign leaders like the guy from Iran (I'm too lazy to look up how to spell it... sorry).

Oldefarte| 6.16.11 @ 4:24PM

It's is NOT a question of standing up to Romney, but one of what will a candidate DO when they actually have the political power to enforce right and wrong. Pawlenty declared in the debate what he did as governor relative to his declining to institute that very same thing in Minnesota that Romney did in Massachusetts. Compare his governoring record compared to Romney's. Pawlenty could have screamed and shouted regarding Romney's institution of Romneycare, but what would that have accompolished? The people of Massachusetts WANTED/DESIRED an universal/governmentally dominated atate healthcare system [and it was being politically pushed by Teddy Kennedy and the rest of the liberals in that state], and Romney caved into their pressure. Pawlenty's screaming about same would not change the fact of its existence and of Romeny's establishing it. The important/critical fact is that Pawlenty didn't do likewise in HIS LIBERAL STATE OF MINNESOTA AND WOULD NOT DO SO AS PRESIDENT EITHER!!!!!!!!

Mike| 6.16.11 @ 4:10PM

Day late with this analysis G. Tracy Mehan, III. All of this was said ad nauseam on Tuesday.

Mark Gilbaugh| 6.16.11 @ 4:17PM

I agree with Romney on one thig for sure. Anyone that was on that stage can do a better job than Brother Barry O'Bummer. However, this is the chance for the serious conservatives to shine. The country does not need another big govt GOP dork in the WH. We need someone with proven actions towards small govt, spending reductions, etc.

Oldefarte| 6.16.11 @ 4:26PM

Okay, I agree, so research and contemplate Pawlenty's conservative governorship of the liberal state of Minnesota and get an idea of what he'd do as president!!!!!!!

Occam's Tool| 6.17.11 @ 2:56AM

Pawlenty would be acceptable. He would not be my first choice, but he would be acceptable. I worked for the man, and he was the best state chief exec I've worked for.

I have worked for the Governor in Kentucky (CMHC), Alabama (Prison system, Lurleen Wallace), trained in Texas and California in State institutions, worked for the governor (indirectly) in New Mexico ( Bill was THE WORST), worked for the Government in New Zealand, and worked for Pawlenty in MN.

Pawlenty was the most rational. Not inspiring, but competent.

weddingdresses| 6.17.11 @ 5:31AM

Pawlenty would be acceptable. He would not be my first choice, but he would be acceptable. I worked for the man, and he was the best state chief exec I've worked for.