“The RNC will significantly restructure our digital strategy, moving to center the RNC around digital and data, and fully integrate within the entire organization,” RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski announced Tuesday.

May 1st has come and gone, and it appears that this deadline was missed, but, there have been three names floated for this position: Katie Harbath (Manager, Public Policy for Facebook), Rob Saliterman (Senior Account Executive at Google), and Mindy Finn (Head of Strategic Partnerships, Politics & Advocacy for Twitter). Whereas these three candidates are most assuredly highly talented individuals in their fields, and they do possess the a top tier web company pedigree, they don’t appear to have the skills necessary to apply technology to impact the political landscape. At a minimum, the RNC should make sure that all serious candidates can address the following issues:

1. Data is the central asset to be created, maintained, and protected. How will the candidate create a data strategy that at a minimum incorporates information on voters, candidates, relationships among people, logistics/scheduling, legal/compliance issues, and campaign performance metrics. How will the candidate build systems to gather structured as well as unstructured data.
2. How will the candidate incorporate security measures to protect the data from hackers. How will the candidate structure access levels to balance security and access issues. How will the candidate make sure that the data and associated systems are highly available such that it can still respond while being hit with DOS attacks. Is the candidate familiar with DNS management issues? Does the candidate know how and why honey-pots are used?
3. Does the candidate have experience supporting or running SEM campaigns. How will the candidate use data mining to provide keyword guidance to campaign teams. How will data be used to determine if the SEM campaigns are being effective.
4. How will the candidate address dynamic scalability of the infrastructure such that the footprint is small during low usage, and scales much larger when it’s being heavily utilized during the later stages of the campaign. How will the candidate manage the costs associated with the infrastructure? Is the candidate familiar with cloud implementations and virtualization techniques?
5. What experience does the candidate have in building abstracted visualization models of complex data structures? Is the candidate comfortable managing teams generating user interfaces? Does the candidate possess any intuitive skills with respect to understanding data?
6. Does the candidate have any experience in SEO, so as to influence content pages produced by the RNC and partners to show up in search results for important keywords? Does the candidate know why this is important?
7. Does the candidate understand how the web interfaces with social media functionality?
8. Is the candidate familiar with Mobile Platforms (iOS, Android) including their strengths and limitations as platforms?
9. Is the candidate familiar with development methodologies like Agile, Extreme Programming, Spiral and Waterfall, and does the candidate have the ability to map appropriate methodologies to tasks?

The job of a CTO in this type of an organization is primarily building detailed specifications for systems, and then managing a collection of employees and contractors to deliver fully working systems in a timely manner. This requires an extensive experience base, which is critical for avoiding design mistakes as well as in completing projects successfully. It’s a really difficult job, and it can’t be farmed out to consultants, as we’ve experienced in the last election cycle.

This new CTO needs to deliver a system that is different than what the Democrats have, because Republican and Independent voters are substantially different than Democrat voters. Republicans don’t have an unlimited supply of paid election workers like the Democrats have (union workers), and Republican voters can’t be herded on buses like Democrat voters can, and Republican voters won’t typically sell their votes for cigarettes and lottery tickets. Republicans have to build systems that are smarter, systems that get micro-targeted information to voters that convince them in the importance of their vote and that demonstrate how the candidate matches their criterion. Also voters need to have timely micro-targeted information about voting logistics such that they are able to follow through and vote. The RNC raised the profile of this position with their bold announcement. It’s now time to deliver a quality hire that can significantly increase Republican/Conservative voter participation.

The Debt Ceiling “SLIM” (Start Limiting Increases Monthly) Plan is an approach that slowly reduces debt ceiling increases over time in a predictable and regular fashion. There is no cliff and no shock change possible with this plan. The plan provides the monthly debt ceiling increases for each month over a period of 10 years, with the increase for each month decreasing by a fixed percentage, say 2.5%, each month. Treasure has already indicated that they have the ability to be flexible for a period of 3 months, even if the debt ceiling isn’t raised on time, so there should be no problem planning for month-to-month increases. The plan needs to be implemented by one Bill that originates in the House, and that Bill covers all of the planned increases for 10 years.

This year’s budget deficit is expected to be approximately $1T, which is $83.33B every month. The SLIM Plan increases the debt ceiling by $83.33B for the first month, but, for the second month, the increases is 2.5% less than the first month, or $81.25B.  For the third month, the debt ceiling is increased 2.5% less than month two, or $79.22B, and so on. For the first year, the increases are:

• $83.33B – First Month
• $81.25B
• $79.22B
• $77.24B
• $75.30B
• $73.42B
• $71.59B
• $69.80B
• $68.05B
• $66.35B
• $64.69B
• $63.07B – 12th Month

The increases for the year total $873.30B, or $126.70B less than is currently planned to be spent. Over a period of years, this has a dramatic effect on lowering the increases, with the monthly rolled-up numbers presented yearly at:

• $873.30B – First year
• $644.50B
• $475.64B
• $351.02B
• $258.05B
• $191.18B
• $141.09B
• $104.12B
• $76.84B
• $56.71B – Tenth year

This is a reasonable plan that does not require negotiation with The White House or with Democrats. Pass the Bill in the House (it has to be an absolutely clean bill), and make it well known that this is the best deal that they will get. Then, let the President and Democrats decide whether or not they will sacrifice America’s credit rating by defaulting on the debt. They will have to justify why endless high debt increases are necessary, and they will look foolish in doing so. The President asked for a predictable long-term plan, and that’s what this is. He also says that his Tax Increases reduced the debt, and if that’s so, then the debt ceiling doesn’t have to be continually increased by $1T each year.

The comments that I’d like to see for this post are what are the best opportunities for Democrats and the Media to demagogue this plan? Also, if there are any market experts, what will the reaction from Wall Street be for this Plan? What will Rick Santelli say? How will Bond Trader react. What will Credit Rating agencies say? My guess is that it would go over pretty well.

Hillary Clinton has long indicated that she will not continue in this job past the election. If Obama is reelected, she will likely be replaced by someone who is much worse, somebody who has closer ideological and political ties to the Obama machine, somebody who will increase the danger to the US. So, as bad as Hillary Clinton has been for America, an Obama reelection will be much worse vis-à-vis the State Department.

Ed Klein reports that the rift between the Obama camp and the Clinton camp is growing, and that Bill Clinton is searching for ways to protect Hillary from the fallout from Libya. An argument could be made that helping Obama get reelected will provide the most support for Hillary, because Obama will have executive privilege power, the press will remain at bay, and Obama can use the power of the IRS and the Justice Department to intimidate anyone from an aggressive pursuit. But, this requires Bill and Hillary to trust Obama, and, as Reverend Wright and Van Jones have experienced, Obama is not trustworthy, even to his closest friends. Obama will focus blame on Hillary when he needs to insulate himself from taking responsibility for anything that goes badly, and with the world currently in chaos, he will need a lot of cover.

The most important thing for Bill Clinton at this point is to preserve Hillary’s reputation and the Clinton brand. Perhaps they are also interested in Hillary running for President in 2016, and maybe a political career for Chelsea. Regardless, the Clintons will do whatever it takes to get past this crisis. This raises the opportunity to explore a deal with the Devil.

I do not believe that Hillary deserves a pass for 4 dead Americans in Libya, and I believe that the families of the fallen deserve answers and the truth. Clearly Hillary had some responsibility to protect US interests in Libya, but, at this point, it’s unclear what other factors were at play. I believe that the following proposal should be floated to the Clinton camp, possibly through Lanny Davis. Hillary would have to meet with somebody like Ted Olson, which would afford her attorney-client privilege, and explain her level of responsibility vs. Obama’s responsibility for the mistakes in Libya. If it can be determined by Ted Olson that she wasn’t directly responsible for denying increased security (perhaps her request was denied by Obama), and perhaps also that she was pressured to perpetuate the “video story” (she did look like she was in a hostage video), then a deal could be made to provide her some insulation going forward, assuming that Obama isn’t reelected. If she couldn’t show some separation from direct responsibility, then, no deal.

I believe that Bill Clinton highly distrusts Obama. I also believe that Bill Clinton would trust the word of Mitt Romney and the Republican leaders in the House and Senate. The deal, again assuming that it could be demonstrated that the responsibility was shared significantly elsewhere, would be that Bill Clinton would use his influence to insure a Romney victory. Simply put, this involves Bill Clinton pulling in some favors from the Democratic machine in a couple of swing states to not steal votes, to have some mechanical problems in the buses that are intended to drive large groups of people to the polls, to limit the walking-around money on election day, and to slow the campaign donation money flow. In return, the Republicans investigating Libya would still solicit information/testimony from Hillary (perhaps in closed session instead of open session), but, not in a way that would destroy her politically, instead, focusing on other Obama officials.

This is a 3-rail bank shot, but, I think it’s possible to pull off. There may be an opportunity with the Libya debacle to put a nail in the coffin of the Clinton machine, but by doing that, it makes the Obama machine stronger in the Democrat Party. The question is, is it necessary to make a deal with the Devil to insure a Romney victory and to start to take initial steps in dismantling the Obama machine. Or, is the best approach to keep the hands off the controls and let destiny rule. I think it’s a 50/50 call, but, it’s worth exploring.

• Two-Term Governor of Louisiana with a high approval rating.
• Has faced crises in Hurricane Gustav (extensive evacuations) and the BP Oil Spill, and was widely seen as handling them competently.
• Puts New Jersey in play (in 2004, John Kerry only won by 241K votes), because it has a high Indian population that typically votes Democrat.
• Has experience in all levels of government, including both legislative and executive branch positions. He has been both a leader and a team member.
• He has expertise in Healthcare management, and can be instrumental in taking apart Obamacare.
• Solidly conservative on Abortion, Guns, Illegal Immigration, among other issues.
• He has experience dealing with Obama, i.e. he knows where Obama’s weaknesses lie first hand.
• His education credentials are impressive (graduated from college at age 20 with honors and a double-major, Rhodes Scholar), and he doesn’t just have “book smarts”, he also is intelligent on a practical level.
• Balances the ticket with respect to Geography (Northeast and South).
• Has worked in the private sector (McKinsey) as a management consultant.

Of course, he has a couple of negatives:

• He did a horrible job in the Republican response to the State of the Union Address in 2009.
• His Southern accent can be a little thick, and he sometimes talks like he has marbles in his mouth.
• He’s only 41.

I think that Jindal has worked on his speaking, and he may be only 41, but, he has been ahead of the game since early in his life.

We’ll find out soon, but I think Jindal would be a very smart pick.

Is it possible that the timing of this is intended to drop the unemployment rate before the election by removing a large number of welfare recipients off the “unemployed” list, thereby showing that Obama policies are “working”? You know that the media will trumpet a lower rate, regardless of the circumstances.

I know that liberals have long pushed for the removal of the work requirements, but, I think that the timing on this says that pandering to the base isn’t the primary motivation for this.

The Obama Administration and Democrats are following Europe’s lead, and are constructing a new straw man to try to influence the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations. You saw this being trialled on Fox News Sunday with Democrat Strategist Joe Trippi, who warned against the austerity approach by describing the death spiral of less spending resulting in lower government revenue, causing even less spending, causing even lower government revenue, resulting in economic collapse. With the media’s support, the Obama Administration position will surely dominate the discussion. Already, you’re seeing headlines like this: “Obama sees emerging consensus on global economic growth”. But, this false choice could not be more contrary to American ideals.

Recessions cannot be avoided by any economic system, but in the free market, recessions have the side effect of cleaning out inefficiencies in the economy. The free market approach has caused America to be able to rebound sharply from recessions, but this was not the approach taken by the Obama Administration in the current recession. The approach to the current recession was to bail out failing companies, which has left them with structural inefficiencies. Also, government spending dramatically increased, giving the federal government much more control of the economy. The new burdens placed on companies and consumers are causing both groups to take a defensive posture. The current approach, as judged by the tepid GDP expansion, has failed, but the Obama Administration is gearing up to push for more of the same.

America needs to lead the world out of this global recession by unleashing the power of the individual. This will only be accomplished by reducing government control and by encouraging people to take more risks in starting and expanding businesses. The Obama Administration has made it clear that they won’t take this approach, and the Romney campaign has indicated that they will. America now has a choice between the Austerity vs. Growth Scam, and America getting back to being America. The choice couldn’t be any more clear.

‎

Most people understand the value of a dollar. If you go into Dollar General Store, you will get a handle on this concept immediately. Most people also know the value of $20,000, in that this amount of money will buy a reliable car. Most people can deal with $150,000, as this will buy a townhouse or house in many parts of the country. Unfortunately, as the value gets to $1M, $1B, and $1T, the connection with understanding money evaporates. Our elected officials are getting away with thievery, because they are speaking in a language that is incomprehensible. Any new strategy to deal with the country’s debt needs to be brought back to the terms of the common American.

The Republicans in the House of Representatives initially had the right idea with respect to the FY2011 budget. The strategy was to produce short-term CRs that contained cuts that were difficult for the Senate to reject, and that would be difficult for the President to veto. Unfortunately, they abandoned this strategy, and, instead tried to put in riders that would never make it through the process. The result was unsatisfactory. I’m looking for real results, not political statements, even if I agree with them.

The best way to bring the debt into control is to put it in the face of the country frequently. The way to do this is not to extend the debt ceiling for a specific period of time, but, to extend it for a specific amount of money. I propose that the debt ceiling be raised by no more than $100B at a time. The $100B figure translates to about $325 per American, and, at the current spending rate, this amount of money would last for about a month. This is a convenient amount and time duration, in that everyone can see that the government is costing them an extra ‘car payment’ every month. Everyone will understand this.

In exchange for the $100B in debt ceiling increase, the Republicans in the House should add riders that will trim the budgets of various agencies and programs. These bills should not completely remove funding for things like NPR and Planned Parenthood, they should reduce the funding by a small percentage each cycle. Let’s have a 3% cut each cycle in the Obamacare $105B slush fund each cycle. Let’s trim the HHS budget and the IRS budget by 1% every cycle. Even if the percentage of the trimming is in the 1% range, it won’t take long for the compounding of the cuts to be meaningful.

Could the Democrats and Obama be successful in demagoguing this strategy and these levels of cuts? It will force them to cry wolf often, and Americans will never see the wolf show up. Will the markets gain confidence in that this problem is being addressed every month? I think that this approach builds far more confidence than seeing another $2T in debts accompanied only with a list of empty promises from the government. Will Americans tire of seeing a new “car payment” show up every month with no car to show for it. You betcha. Let’s measure the politicians by how long they can stretch out the debt ceiling increases.

What I liked most about the book was how Rand portrayed characters like Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon as passionate leaders of people. Like many of the great CEOs of today, they learned their businesses from the bottom up, they had the overwhelming respect of their better employees, and they displayed a passion and a will to succeed despite overwhelming obstacles. Dagny and Hank are roll-up the sleeves executives. The movie mostly missed this, placing Dagny in stiletto heels and a designer suite while on the job site, and showing these characters in opulent settings, detached from their employees as well as their business operations. They were disappointingly portrayed as eccentric elites, and most people will not identify with them or see them as positive role models.

I also liked how the book portrayed the non-contributors in society. It showed how the power-hungry people with no productive talents worked their way into positions of authority, and how they manipulated the system to ensure that society could not run without their involvement. It also showed how the “cultural” and “scientific” elites feel about normal people, and how they travel in their own sycophantic circles. If the movie had a strong point, this is where it was, but even this area could have been better.

What I liked least about the book was the way in which Rand had the characters convey their philosophy in speeches and tightly-scripted comments. It had the feel that she tried, in places, to merge a textbook with her novel. I felt that the story was strong enough to communicate the ideals without many of the speeches, but, the movie also adopted this style, and it made the characters feel stiff and robotic.

If you’ve read the book, it is worthwhile to see the movie. The movie successfully puts a face to many of the characters and it brings the concept of “Reardon Metal” to life in a gleaming rail line. You will also find fellow fans of the book at the theater. Despite the poor qualities of the movie, you will likely hear a cheer as the credits start to roll like I did at the showing I attended. I believe that this reflects the frustration many of us have with the current direction of society, and how excited we are to see anyone making an attempt, albeit a bad one, to help reverse that course.

President Obama believes that American citizens should be responsible for paying for the education of the people who violate the country’s immigration laws.

President Obama believes that his Wall Street friends are entitled to their big salaries because they work hard for their money, but that a Small Business owner or a banker at a local bank is a fat-cat who makes his or her money on the backs of poor people.

President Obama believes that anyone who is politically aligned with him (unions, big corporations) should receive handouts from everybody who is not politically aligned.

President Obama believes that raising the country’s debt ceiling is irresponsible, and he believes that raising the debt ceiling is the only responsible thing to do.

President Obama believes that anyone politically aligned with him is entitled to break the law, and he believes in transparency and accountability for anyone not potically aligned.

President Obama believes that authorities should first consider skin color in the enforcement of the law.

President Obama believes that you should be responsible for paying for your neighbor’s abortion.

President Obama believes that you should be responsible for paying for your neighbor’s mortgage.

President Obama believes that you should not be allowed to eat hamburgers and fries, but that it’s ok for him to eat hamburgers and fries.

President Obama believes that gasoline prices are still too low.

President Obama believes that America should import all of its energy resources.

President Obama believes that breeding Delta Smelt take presidence over starving California farmers.

President Obama believes that it’s important for the country to understand his thinking about the construction of his NCAA Basketball Tournament picks.

Interested in further comments about what Obama believes …

Looking to the 2012 election, I believe that the candidate’s desire-factor should be foremost in Republican/Conservative primary voters’ minds. More specifically that the candidate has a single-minded focus on the task, the energy to run the whole race, and the intestinal fortitude to raise a billion dollars. In a sense, a broken-glass-candidate (willing to crawl through broken glass to reach the Presidency).

Even though it is very early in the election cycle, there are some desire and stamina indicators that are apparent. At this point, you’d expect the serious candidates to have set up a PAC, have started to build a national organization, have built relationships by helping others Republicans get elected, and to be removing all unnecessary distractions. We can also look into a candidate’s background to get indicators on their ability to sustain a fight. It is through this lense that I’m screening the current list of potential candidates. I’ll worry about policy positions within the field of the highly motivated and capable candidates. The list of candidates (by order of PAC money raised):

Jim DeMint

• PAC: Senate Conservatives Fund, $1.1M cash on hand ($9.1M raised)
• Organization: Demint is a darling of the Tea Party movement, and would quicly garner their support if he ran. He has not done any significant organizing, though.
• Focus/Desire: Demint has explicitly stated that he is not running, with statements like: “It’s not something I desire”, and “No intention, no plans”. He seems to be focused on the role of kingmaker.

Mitt Romney

• PAC: Free and Strong America, $1.1M cash on hand ($3.6M Raised).
• Organization: Romney retains much of his organization from 2008, and is spending money on this further building this organization and on helping other Republican candidates. Romney has not made significant inroads with the Tea Party organizations (he backed Bennet over Lee in Utah), which may limit his 2012 viability.
• Focus/Desire: Romney’s singular focus seems to be on winning the Presidency, and he is working on this largely behind the scenes. He has no family distractions, he has enough money to be a full-time candidatee, and has not involved himself in other distracting activities.

Rick Santorum

• PAC: America’s Foundation PAC, $41K cash on hand ($2.6M Raised)
• Organization: Santorum is using his PAC money to build a national donor base, and to a lesser extent a national organization. His organization is focused on social and national defense conservatives.
• Focus/Desire: Santorum seems singularly focused on the 2012 Presidential Race, and is doing the majority of this work behind the scenes. He is young, and likely has the stamina necessary for a long race.

Sarah Palin

• PAC: SarahPAC, $928K cash on hand ($2.1M Raised)
• Organization: Palin has focused more on making political friends within the Tea Party movement, and increasing her public profile. She has focused less on building out a national organization or on building support within the GOP establishment.
• Focus/Desire: Says she’ll run if there is no other candidate who can carry the Conservative flag. This run-by-defaul position indicates that her heart isn’t fully engaged yet. Palin has added more distractions: FoxNews contributor, Television Show, books, and providing commentary on almost every topic through Facebook. It seems that she is focusing her efforts on bolstering her family’s finances at a pace that would be consistent with preparing to run in 2016. If she does decide to run, she has demonstrated that she has the stamina for a long race (frequent trips to the lower 48, survived a book tour, and she’s an athlete).

Mike Huckabee

• PAC: HuckPAC, $195K cash on hand ($1.77M Raised)
• Organization: Huckabee was not strong on organization in the last presidential primary, but still finished an impressive second. It’s not clear that he’s focusing significantly more on organization for 2012, and instead he is again relying on his likeable personality and his connection to the Evangelical community.
• Focus/Desire: Huckabee has numerous distractions, including a TV show, Radio Show, a band, and many speaking engagements. He did demonstrate a strong desire in 2008, as he hung on in the primary far beyond what was practical. For 2012, he has yet to transform himself into a full-time candidate, leading me to believe that his desire has waned some. He seems to be having too much fun being a celebrity.

Tim Pawlenty

• PAC: Freedom First PAC, $884K cash on hand ($1.28M Raised – PAC started in late 2009)
• Organization: Building an organization with establishment players in both organization and fundraising (Vin Weber, William Strong).
• Focus/Desire: While Pawlenty is definitely serious about this presidential run, he recently tipped his hand that, perhaps, he isn’t quite ready. Pawlenty expressed regret for not running for a third term as governor, because of the change in the makeup of the Minnesota legislature. If Pawlenty was indeed laser-focused on the White House, I’d expect he would barely notice that home-state opportunity. Pawlenty remains a serious candidate, but, his eye isn’t completely on the ball.

Haley Barbour

• PAC: HaleysPAC, $390K cash on hand ($1.07M Raised)
• Organization: Barbour is a sitting Governor, and is in good standing with the Republican establishment. As a successful chairman of the Republican Governors Association, he has the ability to quickly build a nationwide organization. If he is successful at building support from the Tea Party organizations, he will be a formidable candidate.
• Focus/Desire: Barbour has not yet committed to running. He appears to be more of an opportunist (seeing an opening with a weakened Obama) as opposed to looking to fulfill a lifelong ambition. His age and his lack of physical conditioning brings his stamina into question.

Newt Gingrich

• PAC: American Solutions PAC (different than the 527 of the same name), $80K cash on hand ($705K Raised)
• Organization: Given Newt’s connections within the Republican Party (and his 527), it isn’t important that he start building an election organization this early in the process. If he gains traction with his candidacy through the debates and by pressing the flesh in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be able to quickly assemble a strong team.
• Focus/Desire: For the past year, Gingrich has been a tease, taking his own advice to draw out the decision to help him stay in the limelight. He states that this time around he is very serious about running, though this seems like he’s backing into the race as opposed to busting down the door. His desire seems to be based on the weakness of Obama, not due to an insatiable desire for the White House. Gingrich also routinely states: “Calista and I will make a decision probably at the end of February.” The visual on this is a man hiding behind his wife’s skirt. Newt has many outside distractions (books, speaking engagement, commentary, etc.), but there is no doubt that he has the ability to quickly drop these and focus on a campaign if he’s so motivated. His stamina might be in question due to his age and his lack of physical conditioning, but, I think that a grueling schedule is the norm for him, and that has the ability to be vibrant thoughout an entire campaign.

Michele Bachmann

• PAC: M.I.C.H.E.L.E PAC, $200K cash on hand ($625K Raised)
• Organization: A favorite of the Tea Party, Bachmann has a significant constituency, though no significant organization at this point. She was instrumental in assisting Tea Party candidates in the last election.
• Focus/Desire: Given the overwhelming challenges she has taken on with her family (5 children, 23 foster children), she clearly demonstrates that she has the endless energy necessary for a national campaign. She has not tipped her hand, yet, on her level of seriousness.

Mike Pence

• PAC: Principles Exhalt a Nation PAC, $56K cash on hand ($615K Raised)
• Organization: Pence appears to have no organization.
• Focus/Desire: Pence’s supporters seem to have more ambition for his career than he does. He was encouraged by Bill Crystal to run for Senate, which he didn’t. He as also encouraged by others to run for Minority Leader in the House, and he lost. He is now being encouraged by others to run for President, and he is starting to explore this. I believe that his ambition should be strongly questioned at this point.

Gary Johnson

• PAC: Our America PAC (not clear that it has significant money)
• Organization: None that is apparent
• Focus/Desire: Johnson is a former New Mexico Governor (term limited out). There is no doubt that he has the physical stamina for a race, as he is an athlete, and has successfully climbed Mount Everest. One of his “principles of good government” is to be willing to do whatever it takes to get your job done. This demonstrates that he knows it’s important to finish any fight that he starts.

John Thune

• PAC: Heartland Values PAC, $173K cash on hand ($807K raised)
• Organization: Thune has a national donor base that he attained during his race against Tom Daschle. Thune also has good connections within the Republican establishment. Outside of this, he doesn’t appear to have built a significant organization.
• Focus/Desire: At this point Thune is just testing the waters. He seems to be more opportunist as opposed to singularly focused.

Ron Paul

• PAC: Liberty PAC, $114K cash on on hand ($183K raised)
• Organization: Paul is supported by a very motivated group of libertarians. He has not cultivated the support of establishment Republicans.
• Focus/Desire: In previous elections, Paul has been singularly focused on pushing his agenda of returning the government to its constitutional mandate. He has focused less on the retail politics necessary for a successful run. As of now, he has not decided on a run in 2012. But if he does decide to run, I feel that this will be more of a decision to “participate in the primaries” as opposed to running to win.

Rudy Giuliani

• PAC: Solutions America PAC, $0.1K cash on hand ($6K raised)
• Organization: Giuliani has many political connections, though he doesn’t appear to have started organizing yet.
• Focus/Desire: In the 2008 primary, Giuliani waited until the Florida primary to compete in the race, which turned out to be a disasterous move. It’s not clear that he’s being any more aggressive in this election cycle.

There are many potential candidates mentioned, who I don’t believe deserve serious consideration from the standpoint of a demonstrated desire: John Bolton, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Liz Cheney, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, George Pataki, John Cornyn, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Jr., and Judd Gregg. Many on this list have shown that the are motivated to play on the national stage, but, they have not taken tangible steps that show us their inner motivation.

I believe that Obama will not be as formidable of an adversary as he was in 2008. I see him appearing to the electorate as more like President H. W. Bush did during the 1992 elections. When Bush checked his watch during the debate, he communicated that he was detached from the election. Obama, I believe, will come off even worse, seeming aloof, entitled, and an elitist. Also, Obama thrives on adulation, and I don’t believe that enough adulation will be there to hold his interest. The only thing that might motivate him is if he smells the blood in the water from a Republican candidate who is still unsure about winning. This is why I’m focused at this point on finding a candidate who is in it to win.