The Real War For America

Forget all the Class Warfare and Republican vs. Democrat arguments. The real battle in this country right now is Capitalism vs. Socialism. It is a war of ideology. Obama wants to increase the size of Government and further the expansion of the Nanny state. What happened to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness? The Constitution doesn't guarantee that citizens of this country will be taken care of by others, but that all have the opportunity and freedom to put their hand to the plow and make a way for themselves and their families and to have the freedom to worship the way they want and to bear arms to protect what they have.

The Federal Government is NOT the answer to solving the ills of society and never will be. Name me ONE Government agency that is effective and operates with fiscal efficiency. The Constitution was created to put the primary burden of the social intervention of Government on the states. The states have to do so annually within their budgets. The Federal Government isn't capable of managing that and has been forced for decades to raid the Social Security funds, increase taxes, print more money and borrow from foreign governments just to kick the can down the road.

Rick Perry recently put forth an idea that I have been touting for several years: a part-time Congress. I am glad to see that idea beginning to get some attention. Of course I realize there is no way under the current structure that the “representatives” that are there now would ever vote themselves out of a career. It would have to start with term limits, which should have been in the Constitution from the beginning. The founding fathers saw no reason to put it in there because the original design WAS part-time representation. Back then Congress convened annually for a few months to take care of government business and then went back home to their farms and businesses.

Much of the problem on the Hill today is because all of our so called leaders spend way too much of their time congregating together and furthering the agendas of their crony supporters, instead of advocating for the rights and freedoms of their constituents. With today’s technology, why can’t they work primarily from an office in their home state? They would be more accessible and in tune with the voters. They could do committee meetings by conference call. They could receive proposed legislation by email and actually take the time to READ it before voting on it. They could then convene once or twice a year to debate and vote on the proposals. That was the original design of our representative government, without all the technological advances we have now.

Over the last 50 years we have grown into a culture of those who produce, and those who consume. The consumers now outnumber the producers. That is not sustainable and will eventually bankrupt this country. Where will the masses find their support when that happens? You might want to learn how to plant a garden and learn some principles of self-sufficiency. Isn’t that what the founding fathers had in mind to start with? Everyone work hard to provide for yourself and your families and the Government will guard the borders and waters and protect your freedoms and liberties. That philosophy is barely visible today. We don’t need a new vision for America; we need to restore the original one.

I think it is time we put some new leadership in charge that will treat the Government like a business and start making the tough decisions that aren't driven by political gain. Like Entitlement Reform, Illegal Immigration, Social Security Reform, Tax Reform, etc. We should shut the entire Federal Government down and start over from scratch with the original Constitution and Bill of Rights and tell every American, "If you don't like it, the gates to Canada and Mexico are open for one way traffic."

The Disenfranchised Un-pickers

The first primary of 2012 in New Hampshire went as most people expected with Mitt Romney winning with a double digit margin of victory. Not a surprise, since he has lived in New Hampshire for awhile and was Governor of bordering state Massachusetts. The surprise was the fact that Ron Paul finished second and Jon Huntsman finished third. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich finished virtually tied for fourth with 10% each. Rick Perry received less than 1% after skipping the state.

What is beginning to infuriate me is the fact that there seems to be so much emphasis being placed on the early states picking their choices. Why Iowa and New Hampshire? Do they represent the views and values of the rest of America? Are they the pulse of the Republican Party?

Why is it that two states that have traditionally been “blue states” get to have such an impact on picking who the rest of the country will get to vote on for their nominee? Iowa has 7 delegates and has only gone Republican once (2004) since Reagan was President. New Hampshire has 4 delegates and has gone Republican twice (1988 and 2000) since Reagan. In 1988 they picked George H.W. Bush, who won in a landslide against Michael Dukakis. In 2000 they surprisingly picked George W. Bush over Al Gore, but didn’t vote to re-elect him in 2004.

Not only that, Iowa allows voters to register and participate in their caucus the day of voting. New Hampshire allows Independents and Democrats to vote in their primary. Many pundits use these facts to explain how Ron Paul did so well in both of these states. We aren’t even sure what percentage of the voters were registered Republicans. Is that fair to the people in the “red states” that actually are?

Why can’t all primaries be on the same day? Let’s stop all this nonsense and overspending of money and resources on a few people in a couple of small states that aren’t even solid Republican voters. If candidates didn’t have to put so much focus on the early races they might be able to stay in the race long enough to garner the support they need to make a viable run at the office. Divide up the delegates based on the percentage of votes and see who gets the most in ALL of the states combined.

We have already seen Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain exit the race due to the results of the primary process in Iowa. They were probably the two most conservative candidates in the race. It’s not fair that the early states get to have such a large impact on picking who the rest of us will get to vote for on Super Tuesday? Who will be left on the ballot by then?

South Carolina and Florida are next up. South Carolina is the first “red state” to have its primary and should be the first true barometer for where the constituency is leaning. Florida has always been a swing state and with 25 delegates is the fourth largest state in electoral votes. With the momentum from “sweeping” the first two contests to carry him into these primaries it is possible that Mitt Romney may have successfully run off all challengers by the time Super Tuesday arrives. I don’t know about you but that possibility makes me feel like a disenfranchised un-picker, since I may not have any say as to who the nominee is. This system needs to change so that the “true voice” of the people can be heard.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

The 2012 Presidential Election Cycle has officially begun with the recent Iowa Caucus and the upcoming New Hampshire primary. Election years always make my blood pressure harder to regulate. I can’t help the fact that I am passionate about this country. The last Presidential race and then the 2010 mid-term elections took a toll on me that I frankly didn’t think I would recover from. Yet, here I am again all fired up with another election year.

What is that sound I am hearing? It is the footsteps of all those political surrogates and volunteers marching out of Iowa and on to New Hampshire or South Carolina. The people of Iowa have had their chance to speak, after being courted by all the Republican candidates for the past 6 months. What do the voting results really say about this year’s race? The answer depends largely on which ear you listen to. I try to be unbiased, listen to both sides and think independently, but it is honestly hard to hide my conservative leanings. So what am I hearing about this year’s race so far?

Let’s start from the top with the “not so clear winner” Mitt Romney. Most pundits didn’t expect him to win, so the fact that he did was a bit of a surprise. I don’t consider a winning margin of 8 votes or 25% much to celebrate about. Especially when you consider he easily has the best financed campaign and a four year head start on the field. He basically garnered the same base of support he had four years ago and has remained steady while the other 75% of the voters danced with multiple partners and struggled to pick their date to the prom.

First we had Michelle Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll a few months ago and seemed to be the darling of the tea party conservatives. She stood her ground in the debates and successfully landed a few good blows to some of her opponents. She was probably the main reason Tim Pawlenty exited the race early. Her thunder seemed to dissipate with the entrance of Rick Perry. Perry quickly surged to the top only to later falter after a couple of poor debate performances. Now Bachmann is suspending her campaign and bowing out of the race. I hope she keeps her options open because I think she would be a pretty good Attorney General for the next President.

Rick Perry entered the race and became an instant top tier candidate primarily because of two things. He is very outspoken about his faith, which speaks to the evangelicals in Iowa and his 10 plus years of executive experience as Governor of Texas. Perry is quick to point out that Texas has continued to thrive economically during the recession and has created more jobs than the rest of the country combined during his tenure. While that may be true, it has happened because of policies that were in place before he took the reins. Texas is a right to work state, with no state income tax and business friendly laws. Perry has not polished his message enough to overcome a couple of debate blunders that caused him to slip dramatically in the polls. Perry has vowed to move forward and has strong financial backing, so don’t count him out.

When Perry slipped, Herman Cain thrust upon the scene with his 9-9-9 plan and common sense approach that quickly resonated with voters. The conservative base quickly got behind him thinking it had found an outsider with the charisma and leadership necessary to lead the country. Unfortunately, Mr. Cain succumbed to an onslaught of allegations of sexual misconduct. Most were never substantiated but didn’t have to be. The barrage effectively ran Mr. Cain out of town and sent the conservatives into a frenzy.

Next up to the plate, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Due in large part to stellar debate performances, Newt emerged as the new flavor of the week. The man definitely has the awareness and tenacity to handle the task at hand. His ideas are clear and concise on every major issue in the campaign and his directness and candor reflect the experience and wisdom of a man confident in his ability to lead. With over 30 years of public track record and many past transgressions, it wasn’t long before the negative ads began whittling down the pillars of strength that had been erected to portray Newt as the frontrunner. Finishing fourth in Iowa was a huge disappointment after having a near double-digit lead a few weeks ago. Newt is marching on and promising to take the gloves off for the next round.

Finishing third in Iowa was Texas Congressman Ron Paul. With a large faithful and passionate following of supporters, Paul has been holding his own against the other top tier candidates. His stances are the most unique of any candidate. His Libertarian views on State rights, the Federal Reserve and Constitutional Law have been embraced by many and are the core principles behind his support. His foreign policy views and a few odd statements he has made concerning Iran, illegal immigration, and the legalization of marijuana have kept a large number of conservatives from getting behind his candidacy. He has a loyal following of about a quarter of the party but will continue to struggle to attract the necessary broad support it takes to win the nomination.

The surprise of Iowa was former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Losing the Iowa caucuses by a mere 8 votes was a victory by any definition. Rick was underfunded compared to most of his rivals. His surge happened at the right time and his primary support came from the fact that he worked the hardest on the ground, covering all 99 counties of the state. This stealth operation snuck up on the competition and caught them totally off guard. That won’t happen again. The scrutiny will surely intensify moving forward. Will the reliance on grass roots effort carry him to continued success?

Here is my take on the current pulse of the race. Romney is being called the “25 per center” by Obama strategist David Axelrod. He has a point when you consider that four years ago he got about the same percentage and four years later the state isn’t much fonder of him even with his frontrunner status. Why is it Romney can’t seem to break through the threshold into the 30% range? That is an interesting question to ask, especially in Iowa. Many pundits make statements that he is viewed as too moderate, which is why he is enjoying a double-digit lead in more moderate New Hampshire. If that is the case, it shows enough vulnerability to be a concern to the Romney campaign. After all, Iowa has been a blue state in 7 of the last 8 elections.

Most veteran pundits offer the common strategy of winning the independent voters as a key to victory. They also claim that the majority of those independent voters are moderates. If that is the case, then Romney should have won Iowa in a landslide. The fact that he didn’t should dispel that theory. If you add up all the votes of Santorum, Paul, Perry, Gingrich and Bachmann you have 75% of the vote. All of those candidates are considered more conservative than Romney. It is clear that the conservatives far outnumber the moderates, at least in Iowa. The only reason there was not a clear and decisive winner is the division of the conservative vote among five candidates.

Until a clear choice emerges from among those five to unite the conservatives, Romney will continue to be at the top. If the Republicans really want to win in November, they need to unite behind the strongest of the five and merge their strengths into a winning platform of ideas that address the primary concerns of the people. Will that happen in South Carolina, Florida or beyond? Stay tuned, it could get interesting.