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).

"il" to "Un" in a Day

It's happened. North Korea's Kim Jong-il is dead and the future of the country is, once again, in question. The "Great Successor", Kim Jong-Un is poised to lead the prison camp of a country, so what will he do?

Of course, no one could possibly predict with certainty what will happen there, but it's safe to say that North Korea will probably do something crazy to get people to pay attention to it. Wait, they just fired some short-range missiles into the sea. So there you have it. Now what's next?

Un's uncle, Jang Song Thaek, will be his consigliere and, hopefully, will guide the young prince/dictator/general into a place of stability (doubt it). Because this is a familial succession and Un is in his late 20s, there will be some palace intrigue and scary times ahead in the near term. Is a twenty-something prepared to lead a country of 24 million people with nuclear weapons? Will the military assert itself to maintain stability? Will Un just follow his father's feckless "diplomatic" policies (as was seen with the missile launch)?

Or, could there be hope that this young man, who may have been exposed to events and technologies from the outside world, will have a different view about North Korea's place? It's been reported that his father liked the finer things in life (like most dictators), so maybe Un had access to computers and international news. Maybe Un saw what has been going on in the Middle East. Maybe Un knows his way around Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube. Maybe, just maybe, his youth could be an advantage to the country. If he has the self-confidence to control the military and the party, it could be possible (but not likely) that Un could liberalize things (beginning with feeding his own people) and possibly open up channels with South Korea, Japan (??) and other Asian countries with an eye towards normalization with the West. Naive? Probably, but one can dream...

What If Occupy Really Wanted Change?

Let's assume that the Occupy protesters have good intentions to actually change the system they feel is onerous and tyrannical and is not just a means to create havoc for the sake of havoc. What could they do to actually make their case for substantive difference in our system?

1. Stop acting like spoiled brats and remember that they aren't the only ones with rights to move freely. There are people in the areas they are protesting in that have rights as well. Those people want to live and work in peace. It's tough for them. They couldn't take TWO MONTHS out of their schedule to sit around and meet. What about their rights??

2. Actually have some stated goals, not just "the 1% sucks". Squatting in a park on Wall Street did not affect one trade or bond deal. If they wanted to get a media hit out of it, they could have gotten a permit to march for a couple of days with their "hand-made" signs and 1960s slogans to start things off. Then, more substantive actions could have been taken: for example, there was an activist in California, I believe, that pushed the idea of moving one's money from the national banks to local credit unions. What better way to get the attention of major companies that hitting their bottom line and making them compete for your business?

3. Don't treat PRIVATE property as your own personal outhouse. Come on people! Really? Defacating on police cars and sidewalks? Public urination?

4. The most outrageous of the behaviors is the outright crime going on in these areas. The supporters of the "movement" don't want to talk about this, but the idea that rapes, child molestation, drug use, murder, assault, theft and any combination of these is going on in these supposedly peaceful protest areas is sickening. Why would anyone listen to your demands when you have basically created an outdoor prison environment?

5. Of all the places in the country where the Occupy movement should have been protesting is Capitol Hill, Washington DC. The traders and banks on Wall Street could care less what you people do because Congress will continue to fund their largess. Go to Capitol Hill and ask the congressional leadership (both Democrat and Republican) why they gave billions (if not trillions) of dollars to companies that were "too big to fail". After that, march on over to the White House and demand the answer to the same question. THOSE are the people that made this system the way it is. Why would you blame the recipient of ill-gotten gains and not the donor?

6. Don't be partisan. If you really want to change things, become an anti-incumbent movement and throw all the bums out! The Tea Party flirted with this idea, though they are largely a Republican organization, but they started out of dissatisfaction with both parties and their spending habits. Actually, there could be some solidarity with the Tea Party (if you drop all of the communist, union support, oh, and the rapes and drug use) on some issues if the Occupiers were so inclined.

Those are just a few things that the Occupiers could have done to make their movement more effective. But, we all know there is no interest on their part to actually change anything. They are bored, overwhelming white, middle to upper class kids that don't like homeless people and want to "do something". I guess every generation has to have their college protesters who think they are the best and the brightest, but turn out to be nothing of the sort.

2012 Supreme Court and the GOP

Just some quick thoughts on today's decision by the Supreme Court to accept review of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). The fact that the Court will probably take the full term to decide the case, will take us to June 2012. This will be right before both major party conventions, so how will it affect each candidate? Here's what I think:

If Mitt Romney has more or less clinched the nomination by this point and the Act is found constitutional, he's toast. Every Tea Party conservative, who won't be happy about his eventual nomination anyway, will blame him fully for starting this ball rolling. He's already getting hit on his RomneyCare efforts in Massachusetts, but if the Court finds it constitutional, there will be quite a raucous convention and once election day comes, he better have a tremendous ground game in operation.

If the Court finds it unconstitutional, then Romney gets a reprieve (though it will be a slight slap in the face, again, because he started this mess) and could say: "see, the way I did it was different. Obama is just trying to seize power over all of us", blah, blah, blah.

Now, Romney is the only one who really has to worry about the Court's upcoming decision. If Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain or Rick Perry are on the way to win the nomination by June of next year, regardless of the outcome, they will have a great issue to run on. Each man can rail against its constitutionality and promise to work towards repeal or take a victory lap and say the country is at the dawn of a new era of freedom and liberty.

Along with Romney's trouble if the Act is found constitutional, is the Democrat's efforts to hold the Senate and regain the majority in the House. If the Court somehow finds this atrocious piece of legislation constitutional, then look out! The House and Senate will gain super majorities for the Republicans and the Act will probably be repealed anyway (I say probably, because predicting legislative behavior is like herding cats). It could potentially be a realignment that hasn't been seen in generations. Remember, the Democrats have to defend 23 seats in the Senate to 10 by the Republicans. The GOP already has a leg up, so the Court's decisions could help either way.

Of course, the Court could just split the difference and say the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the rest is okay. I still think that won't make much difference because the mandate is the key. Whatever happens with that will determine if Obama beats Romney or Obama is CRUSHED by whomever is the Republican nominee.

Where is John Galt?

With all of the bellyaching from the Occupy movements, Hollywood stars (!) and national Democrats about income inequality, "fat cats" and the "obscene" profits made by corporations, is it time that a John Galt steps up and says what needs to be said?

As many of you know, John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Galt is an industrialist/philosopher who basically had had enough with the assault on human independence, productivity and excessive government. He convinced a group of fellow "traders" to go on strike and leave the welfare state (and its creators and consumers) to its own destruction. If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, now is the time...

Galt made an address to the nation (after seizing the network in which the President was about to make a speech) and outlined the connection between the destructive moral beliefs of those consumers (mystical and material) of the welfare state and the loss of reason and human endeavor. When one group complains about the "greed" of another group, they impose their moral beliefs with an eye towards invoking guilt. That group wants something for nothing and the Galts of the world are having none of it.

The "beliefs" of the Occupy movements across the country are steeped in "gimme" morality and outright laziness. Why should any producers support these spoiled consumers? If the protests had been peaceful and expressed with some semblance of a coherent message, more people may ask themselves the same types of questions (Remember, at first, there was a subtle message against bank bailouts and excessive government support of the private sector). That message is long gone and has become a hodge-podge of whining about paying for their college (get a job!), socialism/communism (never worked) and outright anarchism (will NEVER work).

If these "takers" in our society (who have a healthy dose of personal entitlement) continue to rail against the producers, will the producers one day become so fed up that they will say "enough is enough" and stop providing them with the material goods they clamor for while at the same time disparaging the manner in which they are produced (or profited from)? Unlikely, but at some point, those who produce will not sanction anymore screaming and wailing from those spoiled consumers who dare not work to make society better but would rather simply scream and wail until someone listens to their screams and wails.

How will these "protests" against capitalism and free markets end? No one knows, but based on the level of violence we're seeing now, it probably won't end well. These supposed "peace and equality"-loving people are smashing windows, sexually assaulting minors, defecating on public property and embracing anti-liberty forces. To what end?

Once you read Atlas Shrugged, you will know "Who is John Galt?", but maybe we should start asking: "Where is John Galt?"

Teachable Moment Coming...?

There actually might be some burgeoning capitalists coming out of the Occupy movements across the country. The members of these different protest groups are learning that capitalist free markets are necessary for an ordered society. Case(s) in point:

In Portland, Oregon, a member of the Occupy movement filed paperwork to INCORPORATE their group in order to protect their financial assets.

In New York City, the Occupy kitchen staff is withholding the "good" food from people that don't WORK to support their efforts...actually those folks would probably then be in the 1% of the protesters because they will get the best food!

There are also stories of Occupy members, in conjunction with ACORN/New York Communities for Change (NYCC), are seeking VENTURE CAPITAL to purchase supplies and "pay salaries"...now I understand that using the word "venture capital" may be a stretch because they are going door to door and lying to people about the true nature and use of the donations, but regardless, they realize that money is needed to support their efforts and they are "working" for it.

The country may be better after all of this is over because many of these young people will be learning a valuable lesson about life in the real world.