McDonnell could save the South for Romney

This is my second post about Mitt Romney and my second post about the 2012 Presidential contest in two days. Don’t worry, I’m not getting sucked under yet.

There was an interesting comment today from Governor Bob McDonnell on his monthly WTOP Q&A about a potential VP spot in 2012. He, of course, dodged the question the best he could but he didn’t rule it out.

From there, I started thinking about the what if, because that’s what I do and though of an article I read a few weeks ago about Romney skipping the south.

But if the populist conservatives are a tough crowd for Romney, they’re nothing compared with the Christian conservatives. After courting them doggedly without success throughout the 2008 cycle, it appears that, in 2012, Romney is going to try to win without them. That, in effect, means skipping the South.

You can hardly blame him. Of the 28 caucuses and primaries Romney competed in two years ago, he finished worse than second in only six — which also happened to be six of the seven Southern states in which he ran. (He managed to finish second in Florida, a less culturally Southern state that he had hoped to win.)

It hardly seems possible to win the GOP nomination without the South, which holds tremendous weight in the process. Forty percent of the pledged delegates to the 2012 Republican convention will come from 13 Southern states (the 11 seceding “Dixie” states, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma).

“I just can’t fathom the South not playing a role in picking the GOP nominee,” says LaRaja, adding that, if Romney were to win without the South, “It would be a phenomenal strategic success story.”

As a disclaimer, I don’t think he would do that. I think, honestly, Palin would jump on board campaigning for him even if she did run against him. That’s neither here nor there though.

My point is  - if you put Bob McDonnell on the ticket with Mitt Romney, the south isn’t in jeopardy anymore. McDonnell is a solid family conservative and would surely brush up Romney’s image south of the Mason-Dixon if he were the nominee.

McDonnell ran a spotless campaign last fall and is very popular in Virginia. He’s facing record deficits and has promised to get through them without raising taxes. He’s a family man without any baggage as of now. He has a record as Attorney General and hopefully in three year’s time, he’ll have a solid record as Governor.

Romney endorsed and campaigned for McDonnell last fall. I can only imagine the two being friendly on a personal level. They’re both young and energetic and have executive experience. As I keep going, I can’t think of one bad reason for them not to be on a ticket together.

It’s really early – like we’re still years away early, but this is still fun to think about.

Romney setting the stage? Or is the stage set for Romney?

After delivering what the Washington Post calls a ‘blistering’ speech at CPAC this weekend, it appears that Mitt Romney is setting the stage for another Presidential campaign in 2012. Or – is the stage set for Mitt Romney?

Glen Johnson at the Washington Post certainly thinks Mitt is setting the stage. But he’s not unique in that regard. Everyone who is anyone who has a finger on the American political pulse probably knows Romney is ready to run again.

I say, I’m all in. And it all starts with a book tour next month.

While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin sparks more passion among many Republicans and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee conveys more folksy charm, Romney is waging the most deliberate and methodical campaign of any GOP presidential contender in at least two decades for the nomination in 2012.

After spending the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency out of the public eye, Romney will launch a 19-state, three-month tour next week to promote his new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Included are speeches and appearances in the states that hold early contests in 2012, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The book’s subtitle might as well be The Case for Mitt Romney.

There are a number of reasons why Mitt Romney is the early favorite. He obviously was McCain’s best challenger in the 2008 primaries and he has put in his time, campaigning for McCain and working hard for other candidates.

Additionally, his economic background make him a solid choice when it comes to policy. He could counter President Obama in that field, if President Obama’s Keynesian style approach continues to falter.

On the note of countering President Obama – Mitt Romney has a J.D./MBA from Harvard Law and Business. President Obama has a JD from Harvard Law. It would be nice to see these guys in a real, scholarly discussion about substance and policy. Like the nitty gritty details and theories and all that jazz. I’m dreaming though.

We’ll see what Romney does over the next year to get ready, but no one should be surprised when he says he is in the race.

The real financial crisis

Isn’t in New York City – or even on Wall Street for that matter. Rather, it’s in the capitol city of every nation in the world.

Few rules govern how nations can borrow the money they need for expenses like the military and health care. The market for sovereign debt — the Wall Street term for loans to governments — is as unfettered as it is vast.

“If a government wants to cheat, it can cheat,” said Garry Schinasi, a veteran of theInternational Monetary Fund’s capital markets surveillance unit, which monitors vulnerability in global capital markets.

No reasonable expectation of privacy

The ‘right to privacy‘ debate was dramatically revived Thursday as news reports spread saying the Obama Administration was seeking a court ruling so they could track cell phone usage, including the time and location of placed or received calls.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department’s request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans’ privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

“This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century,” says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. “If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment.”

This begs the age-old question – does the Constitution afford a right to privacy? This also poses a dilemma for the GOP, who on one hand has countered for years that a very slim, if any, right to privacy exists – especially when it comes to a woman’s right to choose – and also in terms of warrantless wiretapping. On the other hand, they can’t very well come out and say ‘we support the Administration’s decision to seek authority to track every cell phone in America.’

It also seems a bit hypocritical coming from a Democrat Administration to say there is ‘no reasonable expectation of privacy’ afforded by federal statute or the Constitution. They have, opposite the GOP, for years argued the Bill of Rights creates a right to privacy out of the shadows of other Amendments.

We’re working on the ‘right to privacy’ in my Con Law class right now, so this is an interesting topic. I for one don’t think a right to privacy gives a woman the right to abort a child, even though I think the Framers definitely intended for some zone of privacy to exist when they wrote the Constitution. The principles within the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments are broad enough to create a right to privacy, regardless of the abortion issue. The Court endorsed this in Griswold many years ago.

Indeed, some of the Constitution’s framers were worried that by enumerating the people’s rights, some would interpret the Bill of Rights to be our only rights. I certainly think there are unenumerated rights not listed in the Constitution. I think those rights, like all of our rights, come from God and while not necessarily as unalienable as are the enumerated rights in the Constitution, they still deserve to be protected. I think a right to privacy is one of those rights.

The difference between the warrantless wiretapping that was endorsed by the Bush Administration and this should be noted. The Bush Administration sought to wiretap the phone calls of terrorists not protected by the Constitution as part of prosecuting a war. The Obama Administration has not made clear how tracking the cell phones of all Americans pertains to the War on Terror, if at all.

With that said, what stands out to me is blatant disregard for the same ‘right to privacy’ the left depends on to defend abortion.

The Future of the GOP

After browsing The American Blog today, I wanted to share a quote from John Fortier on the future of the Republican Party.

Make no mistake about it – the Democratic Party is growing. It’s demographics – hispanics, high-educated white voters – are growing and more and more young people are associating themselves as social liberals who care little for fiscal or economic conservatism.

That spells trouble for Republicans and according to Fortier it means:

The GOP needs more Bob McDonnells and Scott Browns, not wide-eyed, good government types or stodgy conservatives, but people with a mix of conservatism and at least a part of the populism that is mainstream in the middle class.

Fortier is addressing an original piece, which might be worthwhile to look at in part. Henry Olsen at National Review addresses what may lead to the downfall of the GOP.

My thoughts on the issue are fairly straightforward. The Republican Party needs to have a positive voice that advocates fiscal discipline, pro-growth economic policies and a strong national defense plan. The approach should be level-headed, involve moderation and seek pragmatic solutions to policy challenges.

We should concentrate first on balancing the federal budget by reforming the tax code and cutting unnecessary spending. Tax reform should create a more capital friendly environment that encourages small-business growth and corporate investment at home, not abroad. Entitlement spending should be near the top of the list when it comes to what needs reform. Our social programs cannot be responsible for bankrupting our nation. Underwriting the world’s security is expensive and unfortunately, we must make a choice between financing a modern welfare state or being the world’s most powerful – and most secure – country.

We should call for the continued reform and strengthening of our armed forces. Unfortunately for Congress, this may mean their districts will lose important government contracts.

Social issues like gay-marriage and abortion should be addressed at the state-level where the people can make their own decisions. We should recognize, however, the inevitable fact that the Court is more than likely to address these issues from an equal rights standpoint.

Our family first approach should advocate an egalitarian system and a business world that accepts women as part of the workforce and as mothers.

Health care and education also need serious reform. There are a number of other issues that deserve attention, but we must develop priorities.