Hoosier Governor has High Approval

English: Picture of the Indiana State House; Indianapolis, IN; 2006 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the Hoosier state, a lot of the political news has been focused on national politics, especially since our General Assembly (i.e. legislature) is out of session and the never-ending drama from DC seems to never abate, even just for a day.  He is a bit too conservative for my taste, but I definitely can’t say that he has been particularly partisan, especially compared to his fellow GOP governors.  For instance

Advertisements

Caucus, Caucus, Caucus, Primary, Caucus…ad infinitum (with Romney)

Do you think it’s getting a little boring always hearing how the race will be changed…and then it doesn’t. Rick Santorum (and Romney) ‘winning’ Iowa was definitely a little tardy, Ron Paul and Jon Hunstman way back in 2nd and 3rd place (behind Romney), Newt Gingrich winning S.C. (over Romney),  N.G. losing Florida (to Romney), Paul really losing Nevada (to Romney), Missouri is being staked out by Santorum (against Romney), R.P. working the Maine cacuses to win (in Romney’s backyard), N.G. working in M. Bachmann’s state (while denouncing Romney), and Colorado (something-or-other with Romney).  Yea, definitely said a lot of Romney because there is a lot of Romney in the polls, money, time, media, and everything important to winning an election.  I thought that the Democratic primary in 2008 was really great because the two sharpened each other for the better without being too nasty.  In this Republican primary, N.G. should get out with his bombastic statements and give it to someone like R.P. or R.S. who both have my respect if he really just wants to beat Romney.  The only thing that is definitely down is turnout in all states (and don’t include Iowa because there was no Democratic race).  I have not heard anything substantive from the candidates, except maybe from Paul and Santorum.  Romney is a been-there-done-that candidate who is so boring that he’ll beat Obama by pure boredom.  Like I’ve told many people, if the leader of America was a chief executive, then Romney should be the president; however, the president is also the head of state and needs to also inspire the people they govern and have something better than a (I’ll give it to him) great resume.

Related articles

• Romney favored, Santorum lurking as 3 states vote Tuesday (mercurynews.com)
• Nevada Caucus 2012: Mitt Romney Set for Win, Candidates Already Looking Elsewhere (ibtimes.com)
• A Hypothetical Conclusion to the Republican Primary (538refugees.wordpress.com)
• Mitt Romney Turns Attention to Santorum (Update 1) (thestreet.com)
• Romney Has Big Lead in Colorado, Is Tied in Minnesota (elections.firedoglake.com)
• Ron Paul’s Caucus Strategy Didn’t Work In Nevada (buzzfeed.com)

States with Too Much Influence

Do we really need to pick presidents because one state says so?  I realize that in our federalist system, states want to pick their presidents their own way, and that state parties in those states want to pick the nominees of their parties their own way, but why is it that Iowa has such an out-sized importance?  Yes, I also know that they have burdened themselves with doing the vetting process, but this person from California would like to vet them myself.  Why do Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina have to be the first nominating caucus, first primary, first-in-the-west, and first-in-the-south, respectively?  I know this post just has questions, but I really wonder why.  California, Texas, and New York should through their weight/population around to become more important just like Florida has.  Or there should be a lot more bonus delegates awarded to those later states, not just the offending states to

lose half its convention delegates and be subject to other penalties.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66550.html#ixzz1bZu0ZOPr

This might be a biased opinion, but I am just trying to show my concern for a process which would seem undemocratic to any other country.

Additionally, I think that it is hilarious that Nevada has been getting so much bad publicity lately.  Romney wanted to tether Nevada’s contest to New Hampshire so that they would presumably win two in a row after a perceived loss in Iowa.  There wasn’t this much trouble with two parties last year, and the fact that it’s really just one party fighting it out makes the Republicans look inept, or look like they’re playing politics dirty as suggested by the Politico article “Nevada’s 2012 Primary Calendar Chaos: A Guide”.  I really have to laugh because this is so ridiculous.  There has been so much airtime on the positioning of the nominating contests that it has detracted from asking the candidates about the issues.  And if Nevada just bowed down to mighty Florida, then everything might have been avoided (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66621.html).  Well, I’m sure something else would have come up in place.