More From Mark

Millions of dollars, thousands of speeches, hundreds of days.  Campaigning for the 2012 Iowa caucus has been going almost since the votes were counted in 2008, and now voters finally get to decide.  It’s been a rollercoaster ride that is about to come to an end, and with its conclusion begins the 2012 Presidential race.

No doubt you will hear a lot from me over the next 11 months, but for now you get to hear from someone else.  News 8 Reporter Jenna Troum is almost as big a politics junkie as I am, and she has kindly agreed to contribute to this blog.  Jenna’s first installment of many…..

———

What’s wrong with being a “career politician?”

It’s a term that’s been thrown around like an insult for years. Most recently, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney used it as a weapon against Rick Santorum in the days leading up to the Iowa Caucus.

Romney told reporters the former Pennsylvania senator “spent his career in government in Washington.”

It’s a term Romney himself has been dodging too. During last month’s Republican debate in Iowa, Romney and Gingrich were tossing the phrase at each other like a game of hot potato.

Now here’s my question. What is so wrong with being a “career politician?”

You wouldn’t complain about having a “career doctor.” Or, if you’d rather talk about a career in government, who complains about a “career police officer” or a “career soldier?”

So what is it about a “career politician” that seems dangerous to us? Some might say a person who makes a career out of politics is disingenuous and out of touch. And that certainly might be a reasonable concern.

But do we really want someone to lead the country who hasn’t made a career out of politics? Where does experience come into play? We complain when politicians don’t have enough experience; it was one of the biggest questions about Barack Obama back in 2008. But in using the phrase “career politician” as an insult, we complain that about having too much experience.

What do you think? “Career politicians”-good or bad?

It’s less than a week before the Iowa caucus and it’s finally time for a bold prediction.  I predict that no one has any idea what the heck is going to happen.  You heard it here first!

The most recent CNN/ORC poll out of Iowa shows more of the same, big changes.  Seriously, the GOP race has had more rollercoasters than Valleyfair.  Romney has a slim lead (25%) over not-going-to-be-nomiated Rep. Ron Paul (22%), which isn’t a surprise.  But the big change is the new comeback kid Rick Santorum.  He was polling at 5% when the month started, he’s now in 3rd place at 16%.

Do you know why Santorum has had such a big turn around?  Do you?  Because I HAVE NO IDEA!  He’s the latest in a series of candidates that seem to rise and fall for no other reason than they need to rise and fall.  Bachmann, Perry, Cain.  Even Newt Gingrich has his arms in the air yelling on the way down, dropping from 33% in the last poll to 14% today.  The only guy who has stayed consistent is Romney, who no one really wants to vote for.

If I have to make a prediction I would say we are going to have 3 different winners after the first 3 primaries (Paul in Iowa, Romney in N.H., and Gingrich in South Carolina), and then an all out sprint for the most delegates.  This race has the potential to last as long as the Dems back in 2008, when Hillary didn’t drop out until we were wearing shorts and t-shirts.

If you want a prediction on who will win it all, I have no idea.  Romney probably, Gingrich maybe, but don’t count out absolutely anyone else.

One thing I will take a shot at is the Democratic nominee, but then again I’m prone to making bold predictions.

More Later

We are just over a year away from the next Presidential election, and I’m not sure the next President of the United States is running yet.  The field of candidates doesn’t seem very strong or focused, and that goes for BOTH parties.

Starting with the GOP, the current frontrunner has stayed on top a lot longer then I thought he would.  Herman Cain is the latest contender to lead Mitt Romney in the polls, (Side note: After campaign for 4 years and trailing Cain, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Christie, Paul, McCain, and Huckabee, do you think Mitt cries himself to sleep?  I do) but Cain reminds me of the last 5 frontrunners, meaning this probably won’t last.

So that means Mitt will be in the lead again eventually, but does a guy who has trailed every candidate in his own party have what it takes to win a general election?  That’s a tough sell.  So who will be the Republican nominee?  Your guess is as good as mine, but I don’t think they have joined the field yet.

Speaking of tough sell, President Obama has an uphill battle if he wants a second term.  It’s going to be VERY hard to win re-election with unemployment above 9 percent.  When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 he had a big sign in his campaign headquarters that read “It’s the economy, stupid.”  He knew that whatever else he did, he needed to get the economy moving if he wanted to be seen as successful.  President Obama should take notes.

I know the President’s supporters will point to all of his other successes, but they mean almost nothing if people are out of work.  I know his supporters also point to how bad things were when Obama took over, but eventually a President has to FIX those problems.  Who wants to vote for a guy who is going to point out the previous administrations errors but not fix them?

A lot can change in a year so one of these candidates could find their stride, but watch out, a fresh candidate could be just what this country is waiting for.

Since the end of the 2008 election I’ve been running ”Pawlenty Watch”, a segment I thought would look great when Pawlenty was chosen as the GOP Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee.  Yesterday, Pawlenty dropped out of the race.  It doesn’t mean I guessed wrong yet, he could still be picked as a VP candidate (and I think there’s a chance he could), but it doesn’t look good right now.

Pawlenty dropping out doesn’t come as a surprise, but it should.  He, on paper at least, has what it takes to win the nomination.  He has experience, leadership, and the party string-pullers like him.  The problem?  He’s not flashy enough.  He doesn’t butcher history, doesn’t launch a campaign from a serial killers home town, doesn’t hold prayer rallies at mega churches, ramble on about Russia or pledge to ban pornography while promosing to uphold the First Amendment.  He’s a solid politician with a clear message, and that equals weakness in the Republican party.

Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll and currently leads many other polls, but my guess is like many other flashy conservatives before her, her rocket-like rise will be followed by a meteoric fall.  Why? Because voters like to be entertained until it comes to actually choosing who will lead them.  Just ask Palin.

Pawlenty has been running for President for almost 4 years so he’ll probably have a campaign hangover today.  But don’t be surprised if a flashy nominee comes calling, looking for a solid running mate to lean on.

More Later.

I voted in the primary today and oops, I accidentally left my I.D. in the car.  It didn’t matter though, they didn’t ask for it.  I was kind of disappointed, I wanted to see what would happen since the new Voter I.D. law is in effect.  Oh well, there’s always next time.  In case you are wondering, you CAN still vote without an ID until February.

Because it’s election day I should make a prediction, but this is a strange race and I don’t think anyone can say with any certainty who will win.  I THINK Rep. Shilling will win, but given the fact that she is running against a Republican it’s up in the air.  If the Republicans show at the polls in force, Shilling could lose.  That said, if I had to bet a dime, I’d put it on Shilling.

A couple of national notes…

I was commenting last week that Michelle Bachmann signed a strange pledge, I’m sure you’ve all heard of it by now.  What caught my attention was that the pledge has Bachmann promising if she is elected President she’ll uphold the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, but the same pledge has her promising to end all forms of pornography.  Can someone protect the first amendement by banning pornography?  That’s a tough needle to thread.

But that’s not what’s making the news today.  Before the ‘vows’ portion of the pledge there is a line that is getting Bachmann into trouble.  It says, “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”  I don’t think Bachmann believes children born into slavery were better off, but it’s clear she didn’t read this part of the pledge, because she probably shouldn’t have signed it.  The author of the pledge has since removed the line and Bachmann said she is glad it’s gone.

Pawlenty Watch:

There hasn’t been much to write in this portion of my blog recently.  The former Gov has kind of dropped off the map.  The only reason I can include it today is thanks to good old Conan.  He joked that Tim Pawlenty costumes probably won’t be very popular this Halloween.  A not-so-subtle jab at how boring the Presidential hopeful seems to be.  Pawlenty did appear on Face The Nation on Sunday and I thought he did pretty well, if anyone actually watched.

Back to work, there is a primary to cover today.  Did you vote yet?

More Later