We must vote for those candidates of any party that reflect these values: hard work, self-determination, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and honesty. Look to the character of anyone you chose to support. Their past does matter if they haven't learned from it. Their personal life is as relevant as their public one. We must be able to trust those who will be advising and leading us on what our country must do next. -Glenn Beck

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Republican Voter Enthusiasm

You can tell a lot by who is supporting which candidate. I remember reading a story in the 2004 election about Al Queda putting out a statement that the violence would stop if John Kerry were elected President. When someone like Al Queda endorses a candidate, that should be a major red flag about that candidate.

As conservatives, we can tell which candidate is best by the reaction of the liberals to that candidate. The fact that Democrats were voting for Rick Santorum to make Romney look bad in Michigan should be a great indicator that Romney is the strongest candidate. If the Democrats want Rick Santorum to win, Rick Santorum winning cannot be the best thing for the Republican party in the general election.

THE LIBERAL MEDIA

You have seen it today in the media following the Romney wins in Arizona and Michigan last night. Here is a fun exercise: Go to any major news website besides Fox, and first of all, try to find any story about the wins. But then when you do find the stories buried down a way, note some of the headlines:

"How the gender gap helped Romney." -- CNN
"Super Tuesday won't help clear up GOP Presidential race." -- CNN
"Exit polls have warning signs for Romney." -- CNN
"Romney out of touch." -- CNN
"For Romney, a tepid victory." -- CNN
"Why the better candidate lost." -- CNN
"Can Romney maintain momentum?" -- ABC News
"Win saves Romney from explaining loss." -- CBS News
"In Ohio, Romney gets back to attacking Obama." -- CBS News

And my personal favorite, from MSNBC, who do not even try to mask any bias:

"As GOP rivals fight, voter confidence in Obama improves." -- MSNBC

The way that the liberal media react to a victory by a particular candidate tells us something. They are working hard to play down these victories and to explain how it was actually a loss for Romney.

How does this media reaction compare to the reaction of the wins by Gingrich and Santorum?

"HOME" COURT ADVANTAGE

The story that I hear over and over again is that Romney isn't connecting with voters and how Republicans just aren't happy with this field of candidates, and the possibility of an brokered convention or another candidate coming in.

Completely ridiculous. I like our field of candidates. Santorum would be a good President. Romney would be a great President. Newt would be a good President. And Ron Paul, for any crazy ideas he might have, would be infinitely less crazy than the ideas of our current President. The media are telling us we need to be dissatisfied.

Romney won Michigan Primary with 41% of the vote last night. (And that was with Democrats voting for Santorum!) Which begs the question, what percentage of the vote did Ronald Reagan get in Michigan in the 1980 Republican Primaries? Answer: 32%

Romney loves Michigan, and has good memories of growing up there. But there has been a lot said about how this is Romney's "home turf" because he grew up there. He moved from Michigan when he was 22, and never moved back. The majority of voters who were alive when his father, George Romney, was Governor of Michigan from 1963-1969 are now dead.

A much better test will be Massachusetts, where Romney spent most of his adult life and was Governor. Reagan was born in Illinois, so that is his "home turf". He got 49% of the vote there in 1980, but he won with 80% in California where he had spent most of his adult life and was Governor.

THE REAL FLIP-FLOPPERS

Barack Obama lost the Michigan Primary in 2008 with 29% of the vote. If we go back to the 2008 Democratic Primaries, here is how Barack Obama did in the the states that we have had primaries for so far in this election when there were at least four candidates on the ballot:

Iowa: 38% (W)
New Hampshire: 37% (L)
Florida: 33% (L)
Nevada: 45% (L)
Michigan: 29% (L)

I'm sure if I went back and looked, the liberal media back then was running story after story about how the Democrats were disconteted with all of their candidates because nobody could get a majority of the votes, right?

With four candidates in the race, there is nothing strange about any one candidate having trouble getting above the 50% mark. After one of the candidates drop, we'll start seeing some majorities in the primaries.

FIM

The media will continue to push the "Republicans hate all the candidates" and "Romney just can't connect with the people" and "Santorum is just too socially conservative" messages to discourage voters.

But the truth is that if any of these candidates win the Presidency, their goal will be to cut taxes, repeal Obamacare, balance the budget, defend religious freedom, and get this country back on track. We are in good shape, no matter what the media would have us believe.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Romney, Santorum, & the Auto Bailouts

I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul. There are many issues where I don't agree with him, but he tells it like it is. His response to a question in the last debate was a perfect example:

John King: "You have a new television ad that labels [Santorum] a fake. Why?"
Ron Paul: "Because he's a fake."


I would hope if I ever ran for office, I would call it like it is. If someone were running negative ads about another candidate that distorted the truth, even if it were in my favor, I would hope I would have the courage to defend the other candidate.

Rick Santorum's current ad in Michigan is the perfect example of distorting the truth. In a place where the auto industry is massive, Santorum is running an ad saying:

"Romney supported the bailouts for his Wall Street billionaire buddies but opposed the auto bailouts. That was a slap in the face to every Michigan worker, and we’re not going to let Romney get away with it."

First of all, SANTORUM OPPOSED THE AUTO BAILOUTS!!! If it was a slap in the face to every Michigan worker, then Santorum was slapping as well!

Second, Romney supported the bank bailouts because of what happened in "It's a Wonderful Life." Our entire monetary system only works because we believe that the paper or electronic funds that we hold can be used to purchase actual stuff. I can take a stack of paper money, hand it to somebody, and they will hand me a car. And then they can take that paper money, go to the store, and buy groceries.

If that confidence goes away, the system collapses. Money becomes just paper. The electronic funds in the bank goes away. And we return to a barter system, where I will give you a shovel for some flour.

If Chrysler or GM collapses... they file bankruptcy, shrewd businessmen (like Romney) come in and purchase the company. They eliminate inefficiencies, they streamline processes, and they make the company better. This has happened over and over again in the airline industry.

Ford didn't take a dime of the federal bailout money that was offered to them. Here are the earnings for the last quarter from each of the Big Three:

Chrysler: $225 million
GM: $472 million
Ford: $13.62 billion (with a "b")

Which company would you want to work for if you were an auto worker based on those earnings?

You don't fix a company that is in trouble by simply giving them more money to continue business as usual (especially when you grant power to the federal government to dictate that you need to build cars that nobody wants to buy (*cough* Chevy Volt *cough*). I have all the respect in the world for Ford and CEO Alan Mullaly.

Santorum is intentionally misleading voters by inferring that Romney doesn't care about the auto industry, that he wanted the auto industry to go bankrupt, and that he wanted all those workers to lose their jobs... WHEN HE VOTED FOR THE EXACT SAME THING!

On the contrary, Romney loves the auto industry (was there anybody out there who didn't think a guy worth $250 million wouldn't have bought his wife a couple of Cadillacs?), but he knew a bailout was not the way to fix the problem.

Ironically, Santorum (who wouldn't know where to begin to fix a company like Chrysler or GM) is attacking Romney (who might be the first choice to fix either of those companies) for voting the same way as he did... and voters are buying it. Amazing.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Conspiracy or Whining?

Just read this column by Ann Coulter, which I thought it was spot on:

What's Their Problem With Romney

I find it funny when I hear over and over again from Santorum supporters (or others like Sarah Palin who covertly support Santorum) say "Romney just has not been able to convince the majority of Republicans..." And I think, If that is a problem for Romney, then what about Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich who have even less support from the majority of Republicans?

I also read this one, which I had to laugh at:

Santorum campaign suggests Mitt Romney may have done deal to make Ron Paul his running mate

And then right after I got done laughing at it, I couldn't believe my ears when I tuned into Rush, and he was perpetuating the story! From what I've listened to Rush in the past few weeks, he has spent the better part of his time on the air defending and propping up Santorum. In light of the facts in Ann Coulter's column, I don't get it. What is Rush thinking giving this story any validity? Ron Paul is the most "tell it like it is" candidate up on the stage (which hurts him sometimes), and you think he would hold back from pointing out something he disagreed with in Romney?!

I have mentioned that Santorum is a good guy and a candidate I could support should he get the nomination. But it is funny that because Santorum is suddenly getting attacked on both fronts regarding his record, he feels like there must be a conspiracy. It could be that that the two opponents (keyword: "opponents") have a secret backroom deal going on... OR it could be that they both simply see the same things in your record, Rick.

Welcome to front-runner status! Time to be vetted like Gingrich was after his win in South Carolina, or like Romney has been continuously even before he officially entered the race.

I thought the Romney campaign response was a PR stroke of genius:

"The President of the United States's political action committee is now running ads that are just like Rick Santorum's. Is Rick Santorum coordinating with the President of the United States? I don't think so."

How Santorum responds to facing a barrage of attacks as the front-runner for the first time will tell us a lot about him. If he whines like Gingrich about the playing field being unfair and gets defensive and loses focus, that will tell us something about him. But if he stands strong in the face of attacks and does away with any excuses and just focuses on doing it better than anybody else, that will also tell us something about him.

The Romney-Paul conspiracy theory is not a good start.

Friday, February 10, 2012

The Executive Branch: Romney vs. Santorum

I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who was surprised to see Rick Santorum sweep Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado this week. Here are my thoughts:

Good for him!

Rick Santorum seems like a good, honest, decent person who is very sincere about his convictions. He is an individual I would not have any problem supporting should he get the nomination. What he has done with his limited resources in this Republican Primary has been impressive. I believe this race should have been between Romney and Santorum from the beginning. May the best man win!

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

My one main concern with Santorum is the same concern I've had with other candidates -- He has never run anything. So you go from never having run anything of substance to running the largest "corporation" in America.

Rick Santorum earned a BS in Political Science, then went on to get an MBA, and finally his Juris Doctorate degree. He practiced law for 4 years, and then ran for Congress in 1990. He spent 3 years in the in the House, and then was elected to the Senate, where he served through 2006. After losing the election, he went back to law. Like 3 of the 4 candidates, Santorum spent most of his life as a politician in Washington.

In the Constitution, the Founding Fathers purposefully and thoughtfully created three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial

Senators and Representatives are experts in law. They propose laws, debate laws, and vote on laws. Representatives and Senators are part of the Legislative branch of government. They legislate.

The President of the United States IS the Executive Branch of government. It is an executive position. The role of the President is to lead, to lay out the vision for the country, and to make critical executive decisions.

Let's analyze the principal professions of the four Republican candidates:

Newt Gingrich = U.S. Representative
Ron Paul = U.S. Representative
Rick Santorum = U.S. Senator
Mitt Romney = Chief Executive Officer

YOU'VE GOT MAIL

The U.S. Postal Service just announced that they lost $3.3 BILLION in the last quarter. They are now working to eliminate Saturday mail delivery.

Question: Which of the current Republican candidates (Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney) would you put in charge of the U.S. Postal Service if you could? Why?

If you had worked to save $25,000 and were investing it in a new start up company, which candidate would you put in charge if you could? Why?

Heck, if you were doing something as unimportant as putting on a golf tournament, which candidate would you put in charge? Why?

LEADERSHIP

We took a gamble as a nation in 2008 on an untested leader. Learning on the job has proven to be difficult and disastorous in that case. The last time before that where we had elected somebody who hadn't run a business or a state or both was in 1968 with Richard Nixon.

Rick Santorum might have the potential to become a great leader. He seems to have good vision, and he has led his campaign, which has been relatively successful in spite of few resources, so that is a good sign. He does have an MBA, so he has a fundamental understanding of the theory. So I think he might do a good job.

But I think that Ann Coulter stated it well today at CPAC:

"You know how [Democrats] are going to run against our candidate, because it is the only way that they run against any Republican: Call them dumb or stupid. And there is one presidential candidate we have right now who frustrates both of those. That is Mitt Romney. You can't call him dumb. You can't call him crazy. You can call him square, and that seems to be what a lot of right-wingers don't like about him.

"You ask them, 'What is it?' 'Well, he's kind of a Ken doll, sort of stiff.' I think we have had enough of hip. Hip has nearly wrecked the country. Let's try square for a while."


The Republican candidates share the same views on most of the issues. The debate over who is more conservative is silly. Next time you watch a Republican debate, notice how many times the words "I agree with what [this other candidate] has said..." are spoken. Ron Paul is the only one who drastically diverges when it comes to foreign policy. The candidates all hold conservative views, which is obviously important, but not the only important quality in a candidate.

Some times the natural choice for a leader is also the correct choice... especially when that leader is going to be the Leader of the Free World.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

"I'm not concerned(2) about the very poor"

There has been an uproar in the media over Romney's statement:

"By the way, I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. I'll continue to take that message across the nation."

It was indeed a bad statement from a PR perspective, because that one line can be pulled out of context and played over and over and over again (which it has been, and will continue to be.)

The dictionary defines the word "concern" these ways:

con·cern   [kuhn-surn]

1. to relate to; be connected with; be of interest or importance to; affect: The water shortage concerns us all.
2. to interest or engage (used reflexively or in the passive, often followed by "with" or "in"): She concerns herself with every aspect of the business.
3. to trouble, worry, or disquiet: I am concerned about his health.


Romney was obviously was using the second definition in his statement when you look at his statement in context. What he was saying is that his main focus is not going to be on the very poor because they have a safety net. We have a welfare system structured to care for those individuals. And his main focus is not going to be in the rich, because they are doing okay. His main focus is going to be on the middle income earners, those individuals who were a two-income household where one person has lost their job and now they are in danger of losing their home. There is no "safety net" for those individuals.

The media and two of the other candidates have jumped on the statement, using it in the context of #3. That Romney is not worried or does not care about the very poor. That is simply silly. His charitable contributions alone should speak for how he feels about the poor. If everybody in the world followed Romney's lead in his support for charity, there would be no "very poor" among us.

Even Ron Paul, who is running against Romney and could have chosen to use the statement against him like Gingrich and Santorum have chosen to do, chose to defend Romney. Ron Paul is a good, honest person. Gingrich and Santorum knew exactly what Romney meant.

The way to get the economy moving is not to give the very poor more money. That is what the government has been doing and it has not worked. The focus needs to be on the middle class, which is the majority of the households in America. For example, Ben Bernanke said the other day that the housing crisis is the main factor currently impeding recovery. The very poor do not buy houses. They don't invest in business. They don't do the things that are going to lead to recovery.

The way to help the very poor is to get businesses hiring again, which increases demand for workers. As more workers enter the job force, there are more producers and less consumers, and more money flows from company to company. The level of confidence increases, which leads to more hiring. And when unemployment reaches a natural level again and the supply of workers becomes constant, companies will raise the level of pay to attract workers, and the standard of living increases as a result. Mitt Romney understands economics, and he understands that the very best way to help the poor is not to hand them money, but to get them a job.

He is not concerned(2) with the very poor, but he is concerned(3) about the very poor, which is why he wants to turn this economy around.

Friday, February 3, 2012

A President's Personality

Somebody shared this article with me and I thought it was a great!


What is the best indicator of future behavior? Past behavior.