Premiere GOP 2012 Debate

     Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party teamed up last Thursday, May 5, for this election cycle's first GOP primary debate. Their rush to be the first debate resulted in a less than stellar cast of debaters, with Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, and nearly every other big name skipping the event (apparently, even Boehner couldn't be bothered to watch). This first debate with candidates Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson opened up no new issues, produced few interesting soundbites, and will likely have no impact on the outcome of the primaries. But, at least a couple of these candidates have a chance at nomination, so here's an overview of the debate, along with commentary on how each candidate fared.

     The subjects of the questions were about what you'd expect: the economy, foreign policy, a little bit of social values, etc. For the most part, each candidate sounded like a conservative republican, some more extreme than others, except for Gary Johnson. The former two-term governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson stood out as easily the most centrist candidate on the stage. His Republican credentials come from the fact that he is a staunch believer in the free-market, saying that because of this he is absolutely opposed to all tariffs (in response to a question about Trump's idea to tax Chinese imports 25%). He also supports eliminating the corporate income tax (claiming that it is redundant) and the federal minimum wage.  It's his socially moderate views that likely won't mesh with the Republican primary electorate (that and nobody has ever heard of him). For instance, Johnson is pro-choice, though he made sure to explain that he supported late-term abortion bans, parental notification, and counseling. He also supports the legalization of marijuana and openly admits to having used it in the past. He has a peculiar stance on immigration reform compared to other republicans: Johnson wants to make it far easier for immigrants to enter the U.S. on work visas, and wants to allow a grace period for undocumented workers to obtain a work visa, but not citizenship. In a debate filled with applause breaks, Gary Johnson got few.

     Ron Paul's performance was typical: all of his answers could have been guessed in advance by anyone familiar with his principles. Paul will always vote for a tiny federal government, voting no on nearly all government spending, leaving most decisions up to the states, and ending foreign intervention. When asked if he would vote for federal tort reform, he said he wouldn't because tort law is a state matter; when asked about Israel, he said that Israel is too dependent on the U.S. and that we should end foreign aid to the state and all other nations; when asked about gay marriage, he said that the federal government should remove itself from marriage altogether and leave it to states and churches (he defended his vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act as one that protected states rights). All in all, Paul's participation in the debate could be summed up as follows:

Questioner: "You believe in a very small federal government, but what about this case?"

Paul: "Even in that case, I believe in a very small federal government."

Nothing new there.

     Herman Cain disguised his relative lack of ideas with specific-sounding-yet-actually-vague multi-step plans. His plan on lowering gas prices is to "demonstrate that we're serious" about pursuing energy independence which would cause lower oil speculation. He said that every foreign intervention must have a clear strategy before going in and an exit strategy. Though he failed to say anything out of the ordinary, he was surprisingly well-recieved. If Cain can sharpen his views and become more specific, he may go farther than expected.

     Rick Santorum views himself in this race as the warrior of social conservatism. Asked about Mitch Daniels call for a "truce on social issues" in order to focus on the economy, Santorum made a case that family values were integral to the structure of this nation, being careful to define a family as one with both a mother and a father. He was also asked to clarify a quote from his book "It Takes A Family" that accused "radical feminism" of making women feel that it is more "socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children" (Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06244/718122-177.stm#ixzz1LtVw2Koy) He claimed to not support the choice to stay at home any more than the choice to work, but that he only intended to criticize society of preferring working mothers to home-makers. He was asked to clarify a couple of times, and got a little worked up over it (and other pushy questions). The crowd responded well to his family values, but his hard-line ideological views on the economy (Medicare vouchers immediately) and foreign policy (Pakistan is either with us or against us, though he didn't give any practical outcomes of this except "serious talk") makes him completely unelectable to the general public.

     And lastly, though certainly not least, is the one candidate on the stage that anybody believes has a shot at the nomination: Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty did indeed sound the most presidential, but only because of his need to backtrack on some previous public views. His former public support for Romney's Massachusetts health care plan was explained as being a state matter. He also had to explain former support for cap-and-trade, which he simply said he regretted and no longer favors. He tried to position himself as being in the midst of current events, saying he was the first one to call for a no-fly-zone in Libya (on March 7) and that if it had been done then, Gaddafi would have fallen instead of digging in.


     The next GOP debate is scheduled for September 14 at the Reagan Library in California and will be sponsored by Politico and NBC. Their debate was scheduled to be the very first (May 2nd), but thought better of it given the lack of candidates officially in the race.

A Brief History of Third-Party Candidacy

Something is happening in the Republican party. The Tea Party has gone a bit rogue. From the very beginning of the movement, those identifying as "tea partyers" have insisted that it was a grass-roots movement independent of any political party. But their basic ideology of cutting government means they were bound to ally with the Republicans for seats in government. Now that they've been elected, true to their own feelings of independence, they don't fall in line with the party quite as much as the Republicans had hoped. Boehner had some trouble early in the session to whip his freshmen into shape, and Tea Party organizations are making clear that they plan on following their ideals and not letting Washington water-down their beliefs. Now that the 2012 cycle is -- ever so slowly -- getting under way, the question is whether the eventual Republican nominee will live up to the standards of the Tea Party and other far-right Republicans. If not, we may see a viable third-party or independent candidate get into the general race. Donald Trump has said explicitly that an independent run is a possibility for him (though I loathe to take the man seriously). Considering this possibility, I started to wonder about the history of third-party candidates and their frequency and reasons for running. What I found is a precedent that goes much farther back than Ross Perot and Ralph Nader of recent memory, and while none of the candidates actually won, many got a significant amount of votes. What follows is a brief history of the most important third-party and independent candidates in U.S. history.

The first case of a third-party candidate was not so divisive as some others. William Wirt, a former US Attorney General, was nominated by the Anti-Masonic Party to campaign against the incumbent Democrat Andrew Jackson in 1832. He did not intend to be a third party candidate, however, as he and the party had hoped that the National Republican Party would back him for a nomination. When the Republicans nominated Henry Clay, the campaign became Jackson vs. Clay, with William Wirt and the Anti-Masons left to sit back and take a loss. In the end he received 7.8% of the popular vote, equating to 7 electoral votes. Andrew Jackson won handily, receiving far more electoral votes than Clay and Wirt combined, so Wirt's candidacy had little to no effect on the outcome. 

In 1860, we see the first example of party disunity leading to a third party candidate. In the lead up to the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln campaigned as the Republican nominee against the Democrat's Stephen Douglas. But there were two others in the race: John C. Breckinridge and John Bell. It is John C. Breckinridge who is our focus. At the Democratic National Convention in 1860, there was disagreement over slavery among the delegates. Those from northern states were either against slavery or supported "popular sovereignty" in which new territories would be allowed to vote on whether or not to allow slavery (this was Stephen Douglas' position). Democrats from southern states naturally supported the legality of slavery everywhere, and became so frustrated with the proceedings at the Convention that most southern delegates walked out. They reconvened at their own convention and nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge as the "Southern Democratic" candidate. In the end, as we know, Lincoln won, and the southern states seceded shortly after. The runner-up, however, technically was not  Stephen Douglas. Though he received the second-most popular votes, he came in last for electoral votes, behind Breckinridge in second and Bell in third. Though Breckinridge and Douglas' electoral votes combined still do not beat Lincoln, they do come close. It's not outlandish to guess that if the Democrats had unified behind a single candidate that the election, and our country, may have turned out quite differently.

Our next party-busting candidate was trust-buster Theodore Roosevelt. After serving 8 years as President, Roosevelt chose William Howard Taft to succeed him in the party, and Taft was indeed elected as a Republican in 1909. During the course of Taft's term, however, Roosevelt felt that Taft had strayed too far from the party, and that he should vie for nomination in Taft's place. Though Roosevelt had many supporters in the party, Taft now had more, and Taft won the nomination. Roosevelt, then, not one to give up, formed his own Progressive Party (or the Bull-Moose Party). However, due to lack of defections of his former allies, and the strength of the Democrats Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt came in second to Wilson (though handily beat Taft).

In 1948, the Democrats saw another split, again between the north and the south, this time over Civil Rights. At the Democratic National Convention that nominated incumbent Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey gave a speech in which he said that Democrats should "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." This was not taken well by southern democrats who again stormed out of the convention to hold their own under the banner of the States' Rights Party, or Dixiecrats. The disgruntled southern democrats nominated Strom Thurmond, who came in a distant third behind Truman and the Republicans' Thomas E. Dewey. While Thurmond's candidacy itself had little impact in the numbers, the split in the Democratic party caused nearly every prediction to go to Dewey winning, and Truman's victory -- not realized until the morning after the election -- was a surprise.

George Wallace is famous as the desegregationist governor of Alabama, stating in his inaugural address his support for "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Nominally a Democrat, his pro-segregation views didn't mesh with the contemporary Democratic Party on a national level. So, in 1968, he ran as the candidate for the American Independent Party, on a platform of continued segregation, states' rights, and "law and order." Wallace would come in last, but received a substantial amount of southern votes and carried five states. His appeal to blue-collar workers and middle class whites would be replicated by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and would help shape the evolution of the modern Republican Party. Wallace would be the last candidate independent of the two major parties to receive any electoral votes (he got 46).

So you see, third party candidates are much more a part of US history than novelties like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader (though their influence can be debated). Will the Republicans split? It's impossible to tell at this point. So much can happen between now and the primaries. The Republicans and the Tea Party could drift farther apart if the Republican candidate is too moderate, or they could come together around their desire to oust President Obama. But what is clear is that the possibility is unprecedented, and you could say the country is due for another strong third-party player.

Coming Soon

Likely within the next 2 weeks, I will be putting together the basic candidate articles and organizing the site. This layout will change dramatically. Here is what I'm planning for the content:

• A page for each candidate that lists their basic information, and also a short section on their background (education, political and business experience, etc.)
• Each contender's current status (Confirmed Running, Likely to Run, Unlikely to Run, Declined to Run, Dropped Out)
• As the campaign season progresses, each page will show the articles tagged with the candidate.
• Likely a Twitter and/or Facebook feed for each candidate
• Polling data showing up to date information on where each candidate stands to win the nomination and/or the presidency

In these early stages, I will have a page for every candidate listed on Politico's "2012 Live" page as possible contenders. As candidates confirm their candidacy or non-candidacy, updates about them will likely stop, though their pages will remain.

Any and all of this content is subject to change and open to suggestions. Right now I'm putting together the basic information for each candidate, with my first major article slated to be about the May 5th Fox News GOP Debate.

Please stay tuned!