Shock and Awe

You know, I just don’t get it. I thought I did, but I guess I really don’t. I thought that I had a feel for this country; its moods, its political leanings, its desires and dreams. I thought that this country, a country I love dearly, had a natural pendulum that would swing back and forth socially, culturally and politically. Every few years there would be a massive, noticeable and shocking swing to one side, then, a few years later, the pendulum would swing back. Sometimes it would swing back just as noticeably as the previous swing, but eventually, things would go back to a sense of balanced normalcy, you know? The country would always find its true north and be set on a stable course to prosperity, or at least something that resembled it. You can all think of examples, I’m not trying to give a history lesson here. The heated rhetoric during the second Bush term was a point where the pendulum swung pretty drastically and people wanted something different. So, we got it; and the pendulum swung almost 180 degrees the other way. Fine. That’s how things go. But now that it had swung that far, I thought it would swing back and center itself. It. Did. Not.

I don’t understand why. I have some theories tied together with thoughts from some pretty smart people I know as to why the country re-elected Barack Obama (I have to admit though, that last part was really difficult to write). I, like so many others were convinced the country would right itself and elect Mitt Romney (though he wasn’t the end-all and be-all to our country’s problems, but he presented a reasoned, moderate approach that would address some of the fiscal problems we face). Though the election was close (popular vote), it was a drubbing in the Electoral College. It was a devastating repudiation of common sense and the ability of the American people to confront a problem head-on. But the damage wasn’t done simply on the presidential level. Democrats increased their number of seats in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. The Republican governor of Puerto Rico was defeated and the residents of that country voted overwhelmingly for statehood in a (thankfully) non-binding referendum. Two black House Republicans were defeated (though Allen West is still contesting the results), potentially leaving only Tim Scott of South Carolina. Don’t misunderstand me, the Republican party is NOT the savior of this country, but considering the problems we face, electing more Republicans nationally would have gone a long way towards righting this ship. There are viable policy positions from some of the third parties, but as of now we function under a two-party system so that’s what we have to work with.

In a previous blog entry, I had speculated that there would be a transformational shift towards a solid center-right populace at the end of this election. Romney, as a former (?) progressive Republican was well suited to mount a strong, aggressive campaign that would take the fight to the leftist progressives. Obama’s policies would be rejected and “balance would be restored to the force”. I was half-right. The country has been almost solidly consumed by the consumer-taker mentality, which, as of this election, makes up 50% of the electorate. Producer-givers make up only 48%. There is the transformation. President Obama made that same promise in 2008, but I didn’t believe him (at least not in the way he thought it would happen). That 48% is a large number no doubt, but still the fact that it is not a majority is highly disturbing. We have now become a nation divided, not along party lines, but along attitudinal ones. This will come as no surprise to many, but now, the future of the country will be fought between consumer-takers and producer-givers. No, these terms are not original, but it will be therapeutic for me to explain them.

The producer-givers are the people that Romney represents and who he seems to embody. He seems to be a caring, giving man who had a great deal of success in his life. Yes, he had advantages, but everyone has different types of advantages and it comes down to how you exploit them. He was successful in many things that he did and was rewarded for it. There is nothing wrong with that. He also seems like a noble man who loves his country and wanted to help make it better. The 48% who supported him have similar stories: hardworking people who don’t look to strangers (in government) to give them something for nothing. Now, Romney miscalculated about the 47% figure he quoted in that undercover “gotcha” video. He pegged the number three percentage points too low. There are, and we have seen it in stark relief, 50% of people, not 47%, who want something for nothing. It’s as simple as that. Fifty percent said “no” to self-reliance, personal responsibility, selflessness, and dare I say it: honor and love of country. That 50% were doing nothing but thinking about THEIR next meal, THEIR next bill payment, THEIR feelings of “hope” and “change” and how THEY are going to move “forward”. Not one single second was spent thinking about the trillions of dollars (can you even contemplate how much that really is??) our posterity is on the hook for; not one second thinking about the massive yearly deficits that are due NOW; not one second about increased inflation, taxes and gas prices; not a single second on the almost constant violations of civil liberties; and, most disturbing (at least to me as a military veteran), not a single solitary second on the lives lost by people in the service of this great country: service members, federal law enforcement officers, contractors and diplomats. Whether on the Mexican border, in Benghazi, at Ft. Hood, Texas, at recruiting stations in Arkansas, in Iraq or in Afghanistan (please forgive me if I’ve neglected to include any other incidences, I’m doing this from memory), their service has come to naught.

People have died due to the negligence of this administration and their worldview. People have died. Apparently that does not mean anything to the 50%.

But I digress.

Those 50% that voted to continue on the same path are the consumer-takers. This term is pretty self-explanatory. They are focused on and dedicated to enriching themselves with the least effort possible. They are no better than the fat-cats they rail against. The only difference is they won’t put in the hard work to one day become a CEO, CFO or COO. They simply want what they want and expect everyone to give it to them. They had a candidate who promised to do just that. The shift has taken place in such a resounding way I am still in a bit of shock. I was shocked when Obama was elected, but chalked it up to Bush fatigue. Re-elected? No way in hell. Never happen. The American people can throw a fit every once in a while, but they are balanced, common sense people. When Americans see a problem or something not working, they will try to fix it. Not this time. There’s no way they didn’t see it. They FEEL it everyday for crying out loud! Then what was it? The country has shifted. It’s not a pendulum swing thing anymore. It’s a honest-to-God shift. The fundamentals of this country have shifted from producer-givers to consumer-takers. Of course, there are still people who are willing to give of their time and work hard, but I have to say, this must be the first time in the history of this country where the consumer-takers have out-numbered the producer-givers. That is a devastating realization.

If faced with the fiscal, cultural and political problems that we have confronted over the past few years hasn’t awoken a spirit of basic common sense to stop the train while we still can, I’m afraid their may be no turning back. Maybe we can chip away at the edges and hope for the best, but the fears of turning into France or Greece may actually be realized soon. I’m not trying to be tin-foil hat guy and scream about the end of the republic, but France, to Greece, to Venezuela to Go-knows-what is not an impossible thing to happen. Americans have a special type of outlook, but, considering this past election, they are increasingly susceptible to falling down the civilizational cliff towards a totally statist society. Some may argue we are already there. I don’t think it is complete, but much of the evidence points in that direction. Maybe it will be a “new” brand of statism, a sort of “socialism American-style”. Regardless, it will still be a system that has never worked and has led to the deaths of countless millions of people and the subjugation of those still living. That is a truly scary thing, but the foundation has been laid. The 48%, like me, loves this country and wants the best for it. It is so demoralizing to see it go in a direction that most reasonable and rational people see as dangerous. Forget ideology and just look at the numbers: trillions here, trillions there. We can’t sustain this. Then, look at history, and not just ours. Finally, look around the world. Where do financial crises lead? These problems are not solely ideological, though there are “Democratic” and “Republican” economists (which makes no sense), but the numbers are the numbers. I would only tell the new 50%: Be careful what you wish for…

God save the Republic. 

A picture is worth a thousand words...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/photo-president-obama-and-first-lady-appear-stunned-after-first-debate/article/2509824?custom_click=rss#.UG0fOpigvyA

The Crowds!!

No. No. No. No. They wouldn't, would they? I can't for the life of me believe the Democrats would stoop to such a level! At Breitbart.com, John Nolte has a picture (see left) of the stage for the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina's Bank of America stadium. Behind the podium are images of adoring crowds in Obama campaign gear. They are excited, enthusiastic and enraptured. Why would these images be on the screens behind the stage?

Nolte speculates that these images may be used to falsely show large emotional crowds for Obama's nomination acceptance speech to hearken back to the heady days of the 2008 campaign. The Obama campaign has had a great deal of trouble filling venues for his events and to show these images of full, happy crowds would be great optics for the campaign and the convention. However, they can't be that desperate (or stupid) to do such an obvious thing. Could they?

I mean, the only time for these images to be displayed would be during Obama's speech, right? No one would care if there was a large, focused crowd during, say, Georgetown Law School graduate Sandra Fluke's speech about the government paying her to have sex, right? So, now that these images are out there, I can only believe (if the Democrats aren't that stupid) that it will be a part of a "Remember When" style of video presentation. I mean, it just has to be right? They can't be THAT desperate. Can they?

Just in Case

We all know politics can be a rough and tumble "sport". Backstabbing, back-room deals and overly ambitious players can all make political activity an unwelcome endeavor for many people. I don't know Rep. Todd Akin's personality at all, but I would warn the Republican Party to not push him too hard.

Some polling has come out after his "legitimate rape" comments and initially showed him getting destroyed by about ten points. Now, more polling has come out that shows the race tightening*. The Chairman of the Republican National Committee has effectively cut Akin off from any funding (as did the National Republican Campaign Committee). Well, what happens if Akin wins (narrowly or overwhelmingly)? If, as some projections have it, the Senate is evenly divided (and assuming there's a Vice President named 'Ryan' as the tie-breaker) next year, the Republican Senate Caucus may have to deal with a vengeful freshman Senator from Missouri.

As mentioned above, I don't know Akin's personality, but no one should take anyone's action (or reaction) for granted in the political world. If a major piece of legislation comes up next year and there are 49 definite Republican votes, 50 definite Democratic votes and one Senator asking them to "Show Me" (get it?) why he should vote a certain way, we will all look back on this moment and say: "why did we cut off our nose to spite our face?"

There are crucial issues that need to be addressed next year: Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, federal judges, the budget, etc. Let's not let a few words, which he apologized for by the way, cloud the judgment of political decision makers. I understand waiting and seeing what will happen as Election Day approaches, but there should be some money held aside for this race, just in case.

(*Granted the polls have been conducted by PPP, a Democrat-affiliated firm, so take ALL polling with a huge grain of salt)

Congratulations

Congratulations Governor Romney, on becoming the official Republican Party nominee. Now don't screw this up!

READ THIS TODAY...Happy 4th!

The Declaration of Independence IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated: Column 1 Georgia:    Button Gwinnett    Lyman Hall    George Walton Column 2 North Carolina:    William Hooper    Joseph Hewes    John Penn South Carolina:    Edward Rutledge    Thomas Heyward, Jr.    Thomas Lynch, Jr.    Arthur Middleton Column 3 Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton Column 4 Pennsylvania:    Robert Morris    Benjamin Rush    Benjamin Franklin    John Morton    George Clymer    James Smith    George Taylor    James Wilson    George Ross Delaware:    Caesar Rodney    George Read    Thomas McKean Column 5 New York:    William Floyd    Philip Livingston    Francis Lewis    Lewis Morris New Jersey:    Richard Stockton    John Witherspoon    Francis Hopkinson    John Hart    Abraham Clark Column 6 New Hampshire:    Josiah Bartlett    William Whipple Massachusetts:    Samuel Adams    John Adams    Robert Treat Paine    Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island:    Stephen Hopkins    William Ellery Connecticut:    Roger Sherman    Samuel Huntington    William Williams    Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire:    Matthew Thornton Source: National Archives

Stop Defending Roberts

I’m not a constitutional scholar. There’s your disclaimer. But, the idea that Chief Justice John Roberts has helped the conservative/libertarian/constitutional cause by limiting Congress’ Commerce Clause power by making the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate constitutional under the taxing power is getting silly. Many conservative pundits have tried to calm the waters among grassroots conservatives and libertarians by saying that, although the ruling was a blow to our expectations, there is a silver lining. To say that the “police” powers of the Commerce Clause were staunched and all we have to do, thankfully and almost easily in their minds, is to fight these taxing powers at the ballot box. This makes me think that “experts” really don’t know, nor understand, what it’s like to be a “non-expert”.

If one is to remark about the broad police powers of the government, what should and often does come to mind? Taxation. The taxing power of the government is one of the most onerous, awesome and frightening powers the government has. Think about it: the massive combined federal, state, and local governments command us to pay a certain amount of money to them to support their operation (I’m not going to argue about the Social Contract or other fundamental things). This is usually based on what you and I do. If you work, you pay an income tax. If you invest, you pay taxes on profits and/or losses. Hell, even when you die, your family pays a tax on your estate (dying is doing something). What is this command to pay backed by? Violence. Guns. Threats. Loss of Freedom. Loss of property. The various levels of government have untold resources to compel its citizens to pay their share. How much more powerful of a policing power can there be?

Just because Roberts did not use the Commerce Clause to uphold the ACA, does not mean we’re any better off. The taxing power seems just as, if not more, scary to me. 

Mandate = Tax

Well. There you have it. The "Affordable" Care Act has been found (for the most part) constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts massaged his opinion to say that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, but constitutional under Congress' taxing power. So, the federal government can tax us into oblivion in order to force us to buy something we may not want. Great precedent huh?

Here's a link to the 193-page opinion.

Intrigue in Egypt

Ouch. The Egyptian people have chosen the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohammed Morsi, as their new president. But are we actually seeing a "transition to democracy" in Egypt? Well...

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had recently suspended the powers of the presidency to control the military and inserted broad powers for itself. The country's highest court had thrown out legislative election results and the new constitution. The SCAF was the true guiding hand in Egypt for the past year, so why did the Brotherhood candidate win over the man who seemed to be the natural fit for the military, Ahmed Safik?

Safik was a former prime minister for Hosni Mubarak. He was seen as the status quo, "old guard" candidate. The Brotherhood had been banned from political activities under Mubarak. So many questions come out of this: 

Does the Brotherhood have more influence in the military than most think? 

What type of constitution will come out of a Brotherhood-dominated legislature, assuming there is one (though it seems clear that's the path the people are headed down)?

What of relations with Israel and the United States, as well as the broader Middle East region (specifically Turkey, Syria and Iran)?

Will the fundamentalist Brotherhood be able to contain itself from onerous religious laws after the celebrations in Tahrir Square die down? 

Was there a deal cut between the Brotherhood and SCAF (obviously, yes)? How extensive was it (besides the military's suspension of basic democratic controls). Closely connected to this is: 

Was this result a fait accompli as the military and the Brotherhood negotiated "power sharing" roles? (In order to win the presidency, the Brotherhood had to agree to give up power over the military and the military would support Morsi).

Politics is politics wherever you go and politics is about power (getting it, holding it, maintaining it, expanding it, etc.). So all of the great chants about democracy and freedom will often be a mask to cover naked power grabs. If the Egyptian military is/was more concerned about power, than national security, then this result is not surprising. Same goes for the Brotherhood; give up some powers in the hopes of gaining others they may find more important (religious, social control). Heck, if the Brotherhood plays their cards right, they may be able to get the upper hand on the military over time. Come to think of it, both sides are probably thinking the same thing (make the deal, wait out the clock, maneuver incessantly and take total control). 

The thought of a large and powerful military, working along side a known religious fundamentalist group in a (soon-to-be formerly) secular and open society should give our government and many of the freedom and liberty-loving people around the world pause. No need to get hysterical just yet, but watch and wait. I don't see much good coming out of this development...

Extremely Rare Endorsements

This is probably the first time in American political history where all of the living former Presidents of the United States (from opposing parties) have, in one way or another, endorsed the challenger to the incumbent executive.

President George H.W. Bush has formerly endorsed Mitt Romney for President. George W. Bush has done the same (“I’m for Mitt Romney!”). Those two endorsements from Republican former presidents would be expected. The following endorsements? Not so much:

Bill Clinton, on several different occasions, has defended Mitt Romney’s qualifications (as governor) and his “sterling business career”. He has also given us a timeline for when we can expect the economy to improve and who to hold accountable. Two years ago (September 2010), speaking at the Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio, Clinton said that if the Democrats don’t have this mess straightened out, the voters should “vote them out”. Well, it is two years later and there is an election coming up, so…

I’m now standing by to hear what Jimmy Carter has to say about President Obama. Oops, wait a second. In an interview with MSNBC this past April, former President Carter said Romney had been “fairly competent” as governor of Massachusetts and that Carter would be “comfortable” with Romney as president (though he did try to pin the “right-wing extremist” tag on Romney later in the interview). Not a ringing endorsement, but close enough coming from Carter.

Geez, with friends like these…

The last endorsement (though indirect) of Romney (or whoever the Republican nominee would be) comes from none other than: President Barack Obama himself! During the 2008 campaign, Obama said that if he didn’t have the economic situation worked out by the end of his first term, then it would be a “one-term proposition’ for him. Well, we’re coming up on the end of his first term, so…

Prelude to Transformation

At the start of the presidential primaries, I supported Texas Governor Rick Perry. I thought that he had the best record to go up against President Obama. Unfortunately, he was not able to parlay his executive experience into a successful primary win. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has gone on to win the Republican nomination (officially, this past Tuesday in Texas) and has, to my surprise, stormed out of the gates with a solid campaign and fundraising operation.

This, along with the atrocious performance of the Obama campaign, has led me to believe the potential of two things happening come November:

1. The polls (I know, it’s REALLY early) are showing Romney close, tied or in the lead among various demographic groups and individual battleground states. The lack of mistakes (so far) from his campaign should give Republicans confidence as we go into the summer months. This all could lead to the possibility of a not-so-close election, culminating in Romney winning a healthy number of electoral votes (not to mention popular votes). I would not be surprised with a  mid-50% share for Romney, and a mid 40% share for Obama (honestly, if we didn’t live in Bizarro world, it wouldn’t be close at all).

2. The second thing that I see happening is that we could be on the verge of another transformational political election on the order of 1994 and 2010. This won’t just happen at the federal level either. Governorships, state legislatures and local governments will see more conservatives/Republicans/libertarians taking office in 2013 (especially as we see more Democrats switching parties; Arthur Davis the most prominent). This would have the most profound effect on our country and its future. I'm not so naive to think that just because a Republican is in office that everything will be rosy, but at least there will be the chance for a devolution of federal power back to where it belongs: in the hands of the people.

Now, there are a million caveats that could be attached to this, but politics is not just a science, it’s an art. Gut feelings come into play on top of all the hard work that campaign operatives and candidates put into the various races. My gut is telling me that the Romney campaign is exhibiting a level of skill that we didn’t see from the McCain campaign in 2008. So far, it seems to have the same organizational flexibility and tactical awareness of the 2004 Bush campaign (and depending on how things go, that of the 2008 Obama campaign). Would it be possible for the Romney operation to outmaneuver the Obama campaign? Well, they seem to have done it today with the dual press conferences at Solyndra headquarters and the Massachusetts State House! Not to mention the failed Obama attacks on Bain, the ridiculous "War on Women", the fight against the Catholic Church and his own surrogates (Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Cory Booker among them) shooting the campaign in the foot. 

The funny thing about all this is that the 2008 campaign was about the transformational nature of Barack Obama. His voters loaded him up with their dreams and hopes and carried him to the Oval Office. In 2012, is the country looking for the same thing? No. This year, we are looking for steady administration, quiet confidence, success and experience. There won’t be many fainting youngsters at Romney rallies or God-like images of Mitt on posters, but there will be internal relief among many conservatives, independents, and even liberals, that here’s a guy who can get things done.

After eight years of President Bush-a steady, confident leader-who was dogged by constant media and Democratic assaults on his policies and character, the country wanted something diametrically opposed to him. They got that with a vengeance. Now, the country has seen what the lack of gravitas and experience can do to the economy and our national standing in the world. They want steady back. 

The Best Defense...

Follow my logic on this one:

Conservatives generally believe that "progressives"/liberals will do whatever it takes to win an election. They will claw, scratch, bite, lie, cheat and/or steal to gain power. If you listen to any liberal politician or strategist, they will say anything to advance their goals (gaining power) no matter how outrageous or twisted. Ok.

Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, and in previous campaigns for U.S. Senate, described himself and acted in a "progressive"/liberal manner. Many conservatives have a problem with him because of this. Also, many people believe, at heart, he is nothing more than a Massachusetts liberal masquerading as a conservative to win an election. Ok.

So, would it be a stretch of the imagination to say that Romney may do better against Obama (strictly in a tough campaigning sense) than we think? Judging by the way he has attacked every Republican candidate since Iowa (which is fine with me, I don't have a problem with "negative" campaigning), the charge that he will be too nice or milquetoast to go toe-to-toe with Obama may prove to be baseless.

His political DNA is coded to be "progressive"/liberal, so maybe he will pull out all the stops (unlike McCain) and really take it to Obama. It's not like there isn't enough fodder to hit him on (Fast and Furious, the economy, jobs, national security, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, his "son" Trayvon, the "Beer Summit", "fundamentally transforming America", 57 states, ObamaCare, the war on Catholics, Solyndra, foreign donors, Israel, the national debt, spending, golf, lack of leadership on ANYTHING, taxes...whew!).

Being aggressive is an important part in this election. There is no way that Obama will be defeated if the Republican is not aggressive. Even though any sane person can see that BHO is a friggin' train wreck of a President, it will still take hard, aggressive, take-no-prisoners campaigning to beat him. Since it seems that Romney will be the last man standing (ugh), I just hope he isn't afraid to use Obama's middle name.

What Do They Believe In?

Thinking about the remaining Republican candidates for president, it's important to ask a fundamental question about them: What do they believe in? This doesn't have to be a far-ranging though experiment, but could be done by simply filling in the following sentence. Here's an example right off the top of my head:

Ronald Reagan was a man who believed in ______________.

My first thought on this (not being an expert on every aspect of him) is: Ronald Reagan was a man who believed in smaller government, less regulation and a strong national defense. Yes it's broad and simple, but that's the point. The fundamental beliefs of a candidate should be clear and easy to discern. Let's try another one:

Barack Obama is a man who believes in...a powerful central government and programs and policies that will fundamentally change America. No commentary, just the narrative that I see coming from his time as president.

The problem with this is that can anyone do the same for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? I could probably come up with ones for Ron Paul (less government intrusion, efficient monetary policy, less global intervention) and Rick Santorum (strong national defense, the importance of faith and family in government policy), but what about the two top candidates? They are bashing each other's brains in for tonight's Florida primary and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, but what do they believe in? It shouldn't be hard this difficult to figure out. Each campaign's messaging has been a hodge-podge of negative ads and temper tantrums, but no overarching philosophical belief system that conservatives, independents (and even liberals) could recall in response to a question from a curious friend or colleague.

This is a problem. Particularly when the general election begins. There has to be a basis for support outside of the specific policy issues that will be fleshed out during the campaign. Both of these candidates (Gingrich and Romney) have run in campaigns before and should know this. Now that Governor Perry is out of the race, I'm inclined to support Gingrich, but I need to know how to complete this sentence:

Newt Gingrich is a man who believes in ________________.

Watch Out: Romney's Coming to Town!

Holy crap. The 28-minute long "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" video hits all the emotional points that your everyday leftist would hit. Granted I don't mind any Romney hit piece, but geez, this is just over the top. You have pregnant women, a toy store closing, husbands and wives getting laid off, tear-jerking music, lost Christmases and pissed off Vietnam Vets. Winning Our Future certainly pulled out all the stops for this one.

Watch the video (linked above) and have a box of tissues handy...

Oh, and for Newt's SuperPAC to be involved in this, is pretty shameful. It's like the Occupy Wall Street people wrote and directed this. Again, I'm no Romney fan, but this is a bit much...

I do love one clip however: Romney is sitting in a chair on the tarmac (don't know why). There's a plane in the background and someone (no idea who) is wiping Romney's shoes off (or polishing them). This is the weirdest image I've ever seen...

It’s Friggin’ Over (I guess)

I’m thinking way ahead with some of this, but since the Iowa caucus is over, I think it’s appropriate. First though, the final result of the caucus probably caught a lot of people by surprise. I was one of them. I really thought Santorum and Paul would run away with it considering Romney didn’t spend too much time there and didn’t seem too interested. That may have been because he was content in letting the conservative candidates beat each other up over the social/religious voters. He did, however, spend a lot of money, but the grassroots-style of campaigning needed in Iowa, I thought, would make it more competitive for Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Bachmann. The fact that Romney only won by 8 votes, yes, VOTES, showed (1) the conservatism of the state and (2) that Republican voters are still not wholly satisfied with Romney as the frontrunner (surprise!).

Moving on from Iowa, Romney will probably crush everyone in New Hampshire. Santorum shouldn’t even waste any time there and make a stand in South Carolina (with an eye on Nevada and Florida as well). Perry will make his stand in SC, Bachmann is out and Gingrich will be working the state hard as well. Paul will keep going due to the fact that his young libertarian base on college campuses will continue to energize him.

Unfortunately, all of this strategic planning and horserace analysis will mean nothing. Romney will be the nominee. He has been methodically “campaigning”, not saying anything controversial and hoping the conservative vote will split itself at every turn (which it is and will). He has access to great sums of campaign cash and looks like a presidential character from central casting. He’s got some policy baggage, but that won’t matter. He’s the nominee. So, looking ahead, who should he pick for VP?

Because of the geographical importance of politics (even when governors pick running mates), Romney needs to look south and/or west. In addition to geography, what Obama does will (and should) play a role in Romney’s selection. If Obama dumps Joe Biden and places Hillary Clinton on the ticket, that will be the definition of a “game changer”. Without looking at any polling data, I would say that Obama would get a 5 – 7% bounce in his numbers after the announcement and Hillary would probably be good for 2 – 3% on Election Day. The leftist base would be fired up, Biden would get his dream job (Secretary of State), Hillary would be one step closer to the presidency and Bill Clinton would be able to be in the news even more often. It’s a no-brainer for Obama to do this. Sure, Biden may have his feelings hurt for a while, but he can spin it into being a “hero for the party”, blah, blah, blah.

With respect to geography (along with experience, appeal and electoral success) and Romney’s choice for VP, there are three potential running mates who would help balance Mitt’s Moderation:

• Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Young, attractive, conservative Tea Party favorite. May not necessarily be “ready” to be president, but wasn’t there a young senator from Illinois of whom we said the same?

• New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez. First woman governor of New Mexico (a democrat state in the southwest). Again, not too much experience, but executive experience none the less.

And last, but not least, my choice would be:

• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Conservative. Re-elected in a landslide. Southern state. Extremely capable and popular. He endorsed Rick Perry (who should also get a mention for VP) because they are neighbors, but would balance out the ticket perfectly and, in my view, is ready and able to be President of the United States*.

If Obama makes the switch, Romney and the Republican Party have to inject some drama and excitement of their own. They must show a burning desire to lead and offer the country a capable combination while also satisfying conservative voters who have been known to cut of their noses to spite their faces when not happy with a candidate. The speculation about the switch has been going on for some time, but I think we will know if/when it’s going to happen: watch for the signage, bumper stickers and buttons the Obama campaign is using. If it just says “Obama 2012”, look out Joe!

(*Don’t think that I’m looking at ethnicity here either. I hate that. I’m looking at position and ability).