Literally. It's been 3 months or so since I had a post on here. But recent events have stirred up my political mind. At the forefront these days are the changes being made to the HOPE Scholarship here in Georgia. I am going to be very upfront about this: I have been extremely reluctant to criticize Governor Deal and the choices/tweaks he has chosen to make. This was a completely lose-lose situation. No matter what he did, there was no easy way out. But it seems like he did choose a bit of a tougher road than what was necessary. In a press release by former Governor Roy Barnes, Deal was criticized for not simply reimplementing the salary caps that HOPE was established under. That seemed like the fairest choice in my opinion. Governor Deal, however, chose to put the harder part of the burden on academics, and not on need. Which is his prerogative; but it's really going to suck when the super-intelligent kid who can cure cancer, but comes from an underprivileged home, can't afford to pay the extra cost. This move simply benefits those already able to afford college (who just happen to be kind of bright too...not to mention there is a correlation between family socioeconomic status and college entrance test performance...but the devil's in the details I guess). In my opinion, the original intent of the scholarship was to pave the way for those who couldn't AFFORD college and were bright; not those who were bright and already had the bankroll to go. But alas, elections have consequences. Speaking of which, besides that little rant there, I don't have anything terrible to say about Governor Deal. I've actually been quite impressed with his candor and job performance up to this point. He suggested that the state was wasting money by continually locking up drug offenders, instead of actually helping them (the whole "what's the point of prison" debate: incarceration or rehabilitation?) and I was pleased to hear him make that statement.
Speaking of those making bold statements, I caught a couple of articles recently about Mike Huckabee boldly talking where few Republicans have talked before (for now). In the first, he blatantly called out a likely rival in former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and asked him to either "apologize" for RomneyCare in the Bay State, or to "own it." And he makes a good point. Romney's Achilles Heel will be healthcare if he decides to run for President in 2012. He will never live his plan down, and to some Republican voters, there is nothing he could ever say to explain it away. It simply looks too much like the current President's healthcare measure for them to even consider voting for Romney in a primary. Mr. Huckabee also came to the DEFENSE of First Lady Michelle Obama and her campaign to get kids active to combat childhood obesity. This plan has been viciously criticized by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, who've each called it "big government." They claim the First Lady is attempting to control our dinner plates and the food we eat, and I was pleased to see Governor Huckabee say he completely supported the campaign of the First Lady, and if she could get kids active and involved, and losing weight (or never gaining it), he seemed to question who in their right mind would be against that? Governor Huckabee seems to be walking a particularly fine line that nobody else in the potential primary field is even able to walk: maintaining conservative credentials, while not being combative, misleading, extreme, or polarizing in the statements he makes. He is already appealing to moderates and independents; the question is: is it too early to do that?
Which brings me to the third and final big thing for the night: the 2012 Presidential Election potentially heating up. We're seeing more and more potential candidates giving speeches and making names for themselves and appearing on television/book tours in order to "test the waters." Tim Pawlenty is the big one. He's going around to every Tea Party convention that will have him and giving barnburning speeches...but he's highlighting the different approaches that each candidate can take while he does it. Governor Pawlenty is the perfect foil for Governor Huckabee. Huck is out on book tour, doing television and radio shows, talking about principles of small government, fiscal responsibility and family values [all Republican buzzwords], however, he's sticking to the content of the issues. He never goes after the First Lady/Family (calling the President an excellent role model as a father), he doesn't yell or scream, or prey on the fear of uninformed Americans. Which seems to be the route Mr. Pawlenty wants to take. He's going around to Tea Party conventions, whipping out birth certificate jokes, and banter about religion, and conspiracies about the current President all in an effort to get a laugh and some applause from Tea Party members (sadly it works most of the time). Governor Pawlenty WAS a sensible, intelligent man, talking of balanced budgets, and limited government as recently as last year; but when he chose to run in 2012, and I think he already has, he took a sharp turn to the right and apparently has now pulled into the parking lot at some kind of Birther Comedy Club. Someone should tell him that he's just not that funny. But with each differing tactic, we have a field forming. It seems as though Mitt Romney would be crazy not to give it a shot, though he'll struggle in the South. Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich all seem poised to run, though I don't think they'll all announce anytime soon. Maybe one or two of them. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has been all over the place talking about the economy. He's the boring, intelligent, sensible, but sometimes hard to keep up with (or stay awake with) potential candidate...the "Bob Dole" of 2012 if you will. Of course everyone asks about Sarah Palin. And quite frankly, I don't care. I think Republicans will have a difficult time with her if she tries to run, because she's so popular. I think a Sarah Palin candidacy is the only guarantee of an Obama second term. Herman Cain has became a Tea Party favorite, though I view him as a flash-in-the-pan, Ron Paul type, with a dedicated following that just isn't large enough. Haley Barbour can't seem to remember what the 1960s were like in Mississippi, claiming that he didn't remember things in Yazoo City where he grew up being that bad. I actually believe him. They weren't that bad...for him...because he's white. Nothing was that bad for him in Mississippi in 1960, someone just needs to nudge him and tell him it's about time to take off the rose colored glasses when it comes to those who weren't white. Odd how people just sometimes "forget" history, isn't it? In my mind, he poses no challenge to the Southern vote for Governor Huckabee. Haley Barbour represents everything that Southerners don't want other people to think about the South: plantations, privilege, cotton fields, and a Moonlight and Magnolias view of Southern history. Mike Huckabee is the true story of the emerging South. He grew up on the poor side of Hope, Arkansas, with much of the black community. He's self made, devoutly religious, and can be quite resentful of the "Old South" power structure that Mr. Barbour came from. I loved this article about their two backgrounds: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/27/mike-huckabee-and-haley-barbour-a-tale-of-two-souths/ But I figure the field looks something like this: Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Daniels, Gingrich, Barbour, Cain, maybe Palin, maybe Ron Paul again. As I've said to many people, many times, it would be foolish of me to say that I have already made up my mind and that I'm definitely, 100% voting for President Obama in 2012. I am actually pretty moderate, and fairly reasonable, and there ARE a couple of candidates in that list that I could vote for if I feel disaffected with the current President in the next year. But I can promise you it won't be anybody who's questioned/joked about his citizenship or religious affiliation, it won't be an extreme neo-conservative who votes party line for no reason other than ideology, and it won't be anybody who couldn't pass a basic history test. Which, sadly, only leaves about 3. Let the guessing games begin.
