SC GOP presidential debate field finalized

Dave Weigel reports:

Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza
Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas
Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania

Buddy Roemer and Fred Karger were denied access to the debate because they have not pulled 1% in five national polls. By excluding both Roemer and Karger, the South Carolina Republican Party probably avoided a lawsuit by the Karger campaign.

Yesterday I doubted whether Gary Johnson has polled 1% in five national polls. Here's what I've found from this year's national Republican presidential primary polling:

Fox News, 4/25-4/27: Gary Johnson - 1%
Gallup, 4/15-4/20: Gary Johnson - 0%
McClatchy-Marist, 4/10-4/14: Gary Johnson - not polled
PPP, 4/7-4/10: Gary Johnson - not polled
CNN/Opinion Research, 4/9-4/10: Gary Johnson - not polled
Fox News, 4/3-4/5: Gary Johnson - 1%
Gallup, 3-18-3/22: Gary Johnson - 2%
CNN/Opinion Research, 3/11-3/13: Gary Johnson - not polled
PPP, 3/10-3/13: Gary Johnson - not polled
NBC/WSJ, 2/24-2/28: Gary Johnson - not polled
Gallup 2/18-2/20: Gary Johnson - 1%
PPP, 11/19-11/21/10: Gary Johnson - not polled
Gallup, 11/13-11/14/10: Gary Johnson - 1%

Looking at this list, Johnson has been polled in six national polls, registering as high as 2% in one poll and as low as 0% in another. Gallup and Fox are the only polling outfits that have polled Johnson, with his average across those six polls at 1%. But he isn't being polled elsewhere and he is at 0% in the latest Gallup poll. By the rules of the SC GOP, Johnson is qualified for the debate. Of course in the same time frame that it takes to find five polls with Johnson at 1%, there are six other polls which don't even include Johnson. Obviously the SC GOP has excluded these polls from consideration of Johnson's average, but it certainly doesn't make for a strong case for Johnson being a viable, national candidate, with poll-proven following.

Given the field that they've chosen and the standards they've set forth, I don't have a problem with the SC GOP's debate moving forward. They're applying their rules evenly. But I do think the weakness of the field and the fact that the top five Republican candidates have not yet declared or, in Mitt Romney's case declined to attend, the entire debate should have been postponed, as the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation debate was postponed, due to the absence of a "full slate of candidates to participate." What the SC GOP will have instead is a field of small, unknown, unpopular, and uncompetitive candidates. Evidently that's good enough for the SC GOP, so who am I to disagree? Read More......

Approaching the SC debate with a weak field and arbitrary admission standards

The South Carolina Republican Party's presidential debate is in two days and so far the attendees are still up in the air. Pre-Trump front runner Mitt Romney will be skipping the debate, but making a trip to South Carolina later in the month. Peter Hamby of CNN reports on the expected attendance:

A source familiar with the debate planning said that former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson are likely to be on the debate stage in Greenville. Herman Cain said later Monday that he will also attend.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich originally said he would attend but his advisers have since backed away from the commitment.

Jason Linkins at Huffington Post also reports that Buddy Roemer has been allowed into the debate. Not included on that list is Fred Karger, who is trying to get into the debate, and the host of unannounced candidates. Michele Bachmann is also notably absent; she's formed an exploratory committee, but hasn't formally announced.

Karger's campaign is pushing the South Carolina GOP and Fox News to allow him into the debate, releasing a memo to the chair and ED of the SC GOP, as well as Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. In it, the Karger campaign writes:

I have been very encouraged about the news coming out of South Carolina regarding my participation in your Debate this Thursday. I am sure you saw the Fox News Poll on Friday that had me at 1%. Since Fox News is hosting and broadcasting the Debate, I would think that you agree that I have now met your threshold.

Buddy Roemer, who has reportedly paid the $25,000 fee and has been announced as a participant in your Debate, has not met the1% threshold in the most recent Fox poll or any others polls that we have seen. As I pointed out in my April 27, 2011 Memorandum to you, if you include Mr. Roemer and not me, my attorneys feel that would be a clear violation of the “objective criteria” requirement of the Federal Election Commission in determining debate participants. This would leave me no other choice than to take this matter up with the FEC.

By your use of “subjective criteria” to pick Debate participants, I cannot think of any reason to leave me out, other than the fact that I am gay. It truly makes no sense.

The Karger campaign is being disingenuous in the appeal to meeting the debate committee's threshold for participation. The actual requirements are the filing fee and polling 1% in five national polls. Karger has only polled 1% in the single national Fox News poll. Granted, Buddy Roemer wasn't even included in that poll and wouldn't meet that threshold either. Gary Johnson also polled at only 1% in the same Fox News poll. Previous poll performances include 0% in last month's Gallup poll and not being included in recent national polls by McClatchy-Marist, PPP, and CNN. I have to wonder whether Gary Johnson technically meets the debate committee's participation requirements as well.

I also don't know that the accusation of gay bias is going to be helpful to get Karger into the SC debate. The more likely explanation is that the bias is against candidates who have no path to winning the nomination, hence the national polling threshold. And yes, part of the reason Karger will not win the Republican nomination is because he is gay and Republican primary voters tend to not like gays. But the SC GOP needs to apply the electability threshold evenly. Either Karger should be allowed in or Roemer and Johnson should be prevented from participating. I think everyone is best served by having a more inclusive debate field, which would mean allowing Karger in before kicking other candidates out.

The real problem with any argument by the SC GOP against Karger's electability is the field of candidates in the GOP primary. To call them dwarves would demean patriotic dwarves around America. Right now the South Carolina debate panel includes only one arguably electable candidate, Tim Pawlenty, and he's polling behind Ron Paul and Herman Cain! The top five candidates according to polls are Huckabee, Trump, Romney, Palin, and Gingrich. None of them will be at the SC GOP debate. If the South Carolina GOP is fully invested in having a debate with no leading candidates in it, they should just let all marginal candidates in, without discrimination. Read More......

Hate & the Iowa caucus

Josh Dorner at ThinkProgress has an important look at how Republican presidential candidates are working closely alongside FAMiLY Leader, an anti-gay Christian group. While the group is maintaining an active schedule of pushing anti-equality legislation through the Iowa state legislature, they're also booking a rally with infamous bigot and former Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy Moore. Dorner points out that FAMiLY has hosted a series of events featuring Republican presidential primary candidates:

In addition to its anti-LGBT advocacy efforts, the FAMiLY Leader is also hosting an ongoing presidential lecture series for potential Republican presidential candidates, with Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich already scheduled to attend. (ThinkProgress has attended previous sessions with former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and Congressman Ron Paul.) By attending these sessions, Republican 2012ers not only increase the profile of the FAMiLY Leader but would seem to tacitly endorse the radical, hate-filled rhetoric of Vander Plaats and his associates like Moore.

Obviously anything having to do with politics in Iowa and winning credibility with Iowa's conservative Christian voters are import to Republican presidential candidates. But this is 2011. No Republican presidential candidate should get away with doing talks to hate-fueled groups. Maybe Buddy Roemer will take his newfound quasi-pro-equality stance and step up with an attack on his colleagues' appeals to discrimination, inequality and hatred. Read More......

Buddy Roemer is fine with gay marriage, just not in his state

Sam Stein of Huffington Post scored quite an interview with Buddy Roemer yesterday. The former Louisiana governor recently announced his candidacy, but it was his comments on gay marriage which are most interesting (because while Roemer is not going to win the GOP nomination, his stance on gay marriage issues turns out to be unique and important for his Party).

In an interview with The Huffington Post on Tuesday, the former Louisiana governor said that while he personally does not support gay marriage, he believes each U.S. state should be able to make its own decision on the matter.

“I’m a traditionalist in marriage,” Roemer, a self-described “southern Methodist boy,” said. “Here’s as far as I can go: I’m comfortable with the states having this discussion. And I’m all for -- in my extended family, not my wife or kids, but beyond -- cousins, that sort of thing -- we have a gay member. We honor him. He’s a great guy. He moved to California so he would be in a community where he would be more comfortable. And I love living in a country where gays are honored and esteemed, but traditional lives can continue as well.”

So if a state voted to legalize gay marriage or a form of civil unions, you’d be fine with that?

“That’s right,”said Roemer, who has been divorced twice. “[If] I was living in the state or was part of the debate, I would oppose it, I want to make that clear. But that’s why we have 50 states. They’re all a little bit different.”

This is certainly a weird take on equality. Basically Roemer is saying he's fine with civil unions and is fine with there being marriage equality in other states, just not where he lives. For a southern Republican running for President, that's quite a stance.

It's certainly possible that part of the reason Roemer is open to advancing gay marriage rights is that he himself, like Newt Gingrich, is twice divorced and on his third marriage. So while Roemer mentions traditional marriage a few times in Stein's piece, he doesn't actually know what a traditional marriage is based on experience, but instead relies on brochures found at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition convention hall for insight. I'd say it's more likely that Roemer is trying to avoid being painted into a corner with the rest of his party as being anti-gay. As we saw at CPAC, there is real tension within the Republican base about how they deal with teh gay. Many primary contenders avoided the convention because a single gay group was part of it. As with most everything else, anti-gay Republicans are on the wrong side of history. Over time, more candidates will take small steps, as Roemer has, towards supporting equality. Hopefully Roemer has the courage to stay with this stance and be an advocate for equality as it evolves within American federalism. Read More......