The Establishment Candidate?

Mitt Romney is being called the “establishment” candidate. First, who is the establishment? Second, when has the GOP ever been organized enough to be considered an establishment? I believe the GOP is in chaos. It would be better to consider Mitt the man to organize chaos candidate.

There is this conventional wisdom that he will fall in lock step with the GOP leadership if elected president. Again I ask, who would you consider to be a leader in the GOP that could influence a Romney White House? The speaker John Boehner I guess could be considered a leader of the GOP but after the 2012 elections we may see an insurgence of more Tea Party candidates to support the 2010 class and a possible changing of the guard in the GOP.

The only way the GOP can survive is if after the 2012 election the country’s direction is definitively changed in the direction of limited and constitutional governance. If Obama Care isn’t repealed, the budget balanced, and the entitlement programs reformed with a GOP majority, it will be the end of the GOP and the beginning of a movement to replace the GOP with a third party.

I am concerned about Mitt’s past just like I am concerned with every politician in the GOP to do the conservative thing. It doesn’t make them all establishment candidates it just makes them typical politicians. We don’t need typical politicians and I think Mitt knows that. He didn’t become successful due to a lack of ability to assess a situation and create an appropriate solution.

The GOP nominee will most likely be Mitt so we need to start pressuring him to do what is needed for the country. Acting as an establishment candidate will not produce results. He will have to reduce government, balance the budget without new taxes, reform entitlements, and reform regulations. The establishment has gotten us in this mess. The establishment will not be able to get us out of it. Mitt can’t afford to be an establishment candidate. We know that and I believe Mitt does as well…

Can We Agree on Freedom?

Democrats and Republicans are more polarized than ever. I sometimes think it is simply, if I say black, you say white. We are no longer thinking through the results of who we elect. I have a question for all Americans of every political stripe: Is freedom still important to you?

If the answer is yes as I expect, we have our first point of agreement.

Individual freedom requires individual accountability, and the willingness to allow for failure as well as success. Can we agree that people are better off when they are accountable for their own actions including getting and education that results in a job? Can we agree that if an individual chooses not to work that the result should be they are not rewarded for not working? Can we agree that if an individual succeeds that we should celebrate that success and not punish them by limiting their ability to create even more success?

Freedom includes the opportunity for individuals to conduct business between each other with limited action by the government. The government action is in the law. The law is the guideline but should definitely play only one role: make the playing field level. Not the outcomes but the opportunity. Can we agree that when business invests in people and capital that they should be able to decide who they hire and how much they pay them? Can we agree that it is in businesses best interest to pay people the wage that gets them the best people? Can we agree that the market is the best mechanism to control businesses behavior? If a business is polluting or pillaging the consumer, the consumer will punish the business by going to a competitor. The more government inflicts its “solutions” the less free a market becomes? Can we agree that when businesses thrive and hire people it is good for everyone even if the owner (s) get rich?

Can we agree that when individuals go to work every day, the paycheck they earn is theirs? Can we agree that no American has a right to someone else’s private property? Can we agree that private property is a good thing that supports individual freedom?

Can we agree that politicians work for the people? Can we agree that free speech and religious freedom are fundamental to our individual freedom and we need politicians that support and defend the constitution? Can we agree freedom is protected by having a military that is ready to defend it from foreign enemies?

Can we agree that churches and private charities should be free to take care of the poor and that they are much better at it than the government? Can we agree that giving people a choice of where they go to school is a choice that will result in more freedom of opportunity?

Can we agree that the bigger the government gets the less freedom we have as individuals?

Different Types of “Baggage”…

There is a lot of talk in this GOP primary campaign about the candidates “baggage”.  The GOP electorate is especially sensitive to the issue due to the standards we conservatives hold in comparison to the democrats. Values and character matter to us. Our candidates often get sliced and diced by the media when they do things that undermine those values. Democrats get away with character flaws because it is accepted that democratic candidates don’t value or espouse character as a campaign issue. Unless of course what they do is egregious enough and can’t be overlooked like the Weiner incident.

When we talk about electability we are mostly talking about character. The reason being is that there is a huge difference between Gingrich and Romney. Here is why I choose Romney over Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich has been less than admirable in his married life. His divorces are not what one can consider “normal”. Normal being two people finding out they have fallen out of love with each other, have different goals for the future, or simply not getting along. Newt’s marriage issues seem to be more about Newt’s selfishness and high regard for himself. He seems to disrespect the woman in his life and that is a major flaw for me.

Newt will say what people want to hear and because he is so skilled in debating, he seems to be able to justify every question around his past including his divorces. The more you listen to Newt and look at what he says, it doesn’t always line up to the past; you start to wonder about his ability to make stuff up. He seems to be conveniently dismissing any challenge to his past and acting as if he is above the truth. Righteous indignation seems to be his defense against any criticism. He beats down his opponents and is really good at defending and justifying questionable actions. This is also why he is attractive to conservatives because he fights back. But this will wear on the electorate and will eventually be too much to overcome.

Mitt has to be admired as a family man. Born with a silver spoon he chose to melt that spoon down and donate it to charity. He didn’t launch his successful career based on his financial inheritance. He used his solid upbringing and education to build on his future. How many people can say that? Did he get ahead because of his family? Yes he did but that is something he was lucky enough to be born into. There is nothing wrong with taking what you are blessed with and expanding on it to create more success. It is the American Dream after all.

Mitt has been with the same woman for his entire married life and they seem to be honestly in love. I have to say I like that about Mitt. I married my best friend and after 21 years I am still madly in love with her. Have there been hard times? You bet but when you are committed and believe in each other you work everything out. You don’t give up on each other. The Romney’s are an example that we can feel good about and would make an excellent First Family.

Mitt is seen as being a “flip flopper” mostly on abortion. The reality is personally he has always been prolife and as a MA Governor the reality is he signed life based bills. In order to be elected in MA you can’t make that an issue front and center or you don’t get elected. It was a political calculation and it is understandable. With Mitt’s family values I can’t believe he would ever nominate a judge that was radical left.  The court is important and he will more likely nominate conservatives. Newt you just don’t know. He seems more likely to nominate “intellectuals”. Showing off his intellectual prowess and I don’t think that is a good strategy.

Mitt is supposedly “moderate”. I don’t believe that based on his record or his family background. People that live their life as Mitt has are more conservative, and I have no doubt that he will lean in the conservative direction. I am not sure about that with Newt who is totally ego driven and will want to be liked and seen as the smartest guy in the room. Newt does not know humble, Mitt lives it.

Character matters and even though Newt makes us feel good when he is beating up liberals, he does not live as a true conservative. Newt is also explosive and I believe it is because he uses it as a defensive mechanism to deflect truthful criticism. Mitt has a much more steady approach because he is comfortable in his character.

In the end we will all be more comfortable as voters supporting Mitt. Deep down we know it even though the fighting spirit of Newt can be so satisfying. This election is more than fighting the media and liberals. It is electing someone we can be proud of and will have the experience in turning us around in the right direction…  

Mitt Romney Announces Marco Rubio as Running Mate…

Wow! I can’t believe how many people this attracted and if only it was true! If Marco Rubio was Mitt’s running mate I think the primary contest would be over.

I know Marco Rubio felt he had to focus on his first term as the freshman Senator of Florida, but I would suggest that he is needed on the GOP ticket to unite the party and the conservative voter. With Rubio on the ticket conservatives would feel like they had a voice on the ticket, an ally in the White House, and a channel to keep Mitt focused on the conservative agenda throughout the campaign.

I don’t believe Rubio would join a Newt or Ron Paul ticket. He might be convinced to join a Rick Santorum ticket but Rubio would overshadow Rick and I am not sure that would work for Rick Santorum.

I know I got your hopes up but instead of letting the GOP elite crony politicians inject a new candidate, how about we start a movement to strengthen a current campaign that has a real chance of winning in November?

Just a thought (a really good thought!)…

The Island of Misfit Politicians…

Watching the State of the Union last night was a painful exercise.  This president is invested in convincing Americans that this country would be nothing if not for the Federal Government’s intervention. He packaged it in “team” rhetoric but the underlying principle was that individuals can’t do it by themselves. In order to succeed Americans had to have help in their pursuits. It is a weak argument but it is telling about this President’s attitude toward the Constitution.

My question is: Is there any area of American life that the Federal Government should not have a role in? As a constitutional voter, I find the entire premise of today’s political class in Washington, that there seems to be no consideration of constitutional limits, to be appalling. I feel like I am alone all too often. I feel like we are losing our competitive edge which has always been a limited role for government and a starring role for the individual. It pains me to watch this president defend the poverty and despair the government has inflicted on the citizens, especially poor citizens of this nation.

Doe this president not see the squalor of our inner cities? Does this president not see the failure of government education to educate? Does this president not see the debt and deficit that will sink this country for decades? Does this president think we are stupid?

I fret that maybe we are when it comes to politics. When people don't take the time to think about politics instead of taking what is said on its emotional appeal, most people are easily fooled. A handsome messenger with a feel good message no matter the results is what sells in campaigns.

As I observed the people elected to political office at the State of the Union I felt I was looking at the Island of Misfit Politicians. Tell them what they want to hear no matter what the results are seems to be the MO of DC.

The response of Mitch Daniels for the GOP was a great speech full of content. The messenger was weak and is being encouraged by the GOP elites to join the race for president. I will never vote for a GOP injected candidate that has not campaigned from the beginning unless the entire current field resigns. I would vote 3^rd party before supporting this dysfunctional Republican Party.

It has become really depressing for the people that care about this country and understand what is happening in the world of politics. I am not optimistic at this point…

Good News and a Strategy for Mitt…

Mitt is the best candidate for the general election in my opinion. Before you get angry and start to craft a response about the other candidates being more conservative hear me out.

Last night to my surprise my wife, a nurse, and a great sample of the passive voter, although she leans conservative in her lifestyle, gave me her analysis of the GOP field. This was the first debate she watched, and the fact she was watching the debate nearly floored me. She explained her impression of the candidates with instinct pundits would envy.

She discounted Ron Paul and wondered why he was on the stage. I did my best to explain his positions although she liked his answer on the end of life question because she is a hospice nurse dealing with death frequently.

Rick Santorum impressed her with his answers and his style but said he didn’t have the good stage presence. I explained his background as a Senator and my concern about his executive experience but I could vote for him (as would she) without holding our noses.

Newt Gingrich rubbed her the wrong way. She instinctively did not like his demeanor, body language or look. She said he looks and acts like Ted Kennedy. We lived in Massachusetts for many years and I worked on Mitt’s campaign against Ted so she knows Ted. She asked if he was a “dirty” politician? I did not know how to answer that. But it was telling. She found him to be angry.

She was immediately impressed with Mitt Romney’s stage presence, demeanor, and message. She liked him right away. She connected with the message of being a business man and not a politician. He looked like he could be president right now. She really liked the forcefulness but respectful way he answered the opening questions. He was her pick hands down.

The strategy for Mitt needs to be to become more deliberate and take a forceful posture when discussing the issues. He should not change his style of response except for the passion behind it. My wife was really impressed with Mitt and asked me what my problem with Mitt is?

My problem with Mitt is actually my problem. I am angry at the direction, the media, and the people running this country and I want a fighter that is going to kick some a_ _. That may make me feel good but it is not presidential to the casual voter.

For Mitt to beat Newt he needs to explain how capitalism and limited government is the path to success. That governing as an executive is experience that very few people have including Newt. It is one thing to come up with ideas and another to know how to implement them. Executives implement. Newt is definitely a thinker as he suggests in all of the committees and groups he has formed or been a part of. But we only need a couple of ideas to be implemented and we need someone that knows how to focus and get the job done. We don’t need a president that gets distracted by too many ideas and then never gets anything done. I think that is Newt in a nutshell.

Mitt: Don’t go low. Stay on a positive message of capitalism as a successful launching pad to prosperity. We need to downsize government and to improve efficiencies in Washington DC. That is your strength. Say it with force and passion…

Economics 101, Again!

Wealth is created when someone provides a product or service someone else is willing to pay for.

The price of a product or service must be greater than the cost to produce or provide that product or service.

Costs include the wages paid to employees. The wages are part of the cost and cannot exceed the value the employee creates.

Profit is what the producer (owner) of the product or service keeps after paying all of the costs; rent, manufacturing, research & development, packaging, shipping, marketing, and wages.

The money earned by individuals whether they are wages as an employee or profits as an owner or investor is their money.

The more cost the government adds to a product or service; taxes, regulation, minimum wage, etc… - reduces the ability to create more wealth and wages.

The less cost the government adds to a product or service the greater the likelihood wealth is created to create more wealth and wages. This cycle is the reason we are so wealthy.

If employees don’t think they are paid enough they have the right to leave and get a new wage or create their own product or service.

Employees do not have a right to the wealth created by the owner.

Jobs are not the goal of wealth creators, jobs are the result of a need for help in producing a product or service to make additional profit for the owner or investor.

People that believe someone’s success is the reason for their failure is the victim of their own lack of initiative. Blame, envy, jealousy, and social justice are not products or services. They are barriers to individual success.

Capitalism offers everyone an equal opportunity to succeed or fail. Failure is a natural result of bad ideas, management, and laziness. Government trying to limit failure actually escalates bigger failure.

Markets decide winners and losers. You as an individual are part of the market. Every choice you make in the marketplace has an impact on the success or failure of the market. Government interference limits your choices in the marketplace and by asking for fairness you are guaranteeing higher prices and less choice.

Taxes should not be used to re-distribute wealth. Re-distributing wealth reduces the incentive to create wealth and everyone loses.  

The Keystone Pipeline…

Is there ever going to be another energy project approved by democrats? Has it ever been more obvious that this administration is in direct opposition with the citizens of this nation?  Can we be this blind and suicidal to allow this president to stop the Keystone Pipeline project?

I am befuddled how we allow this administration to trample the laws of this nation, libel the Nation’s history and intentions, and continue to steal the future generation’s ability to be prosperous.  This president believes success is about luck, everyone deserves the same results of their work no matter how hard the individual works or even if they work, and he supports organizations that hate this country, namely environmental nuts.

Even his usually supportive union members are showing signs of discontent. My guess is he will buy them off with our tax dollars in some other way. It will be expensive because this pipeline project is estimated to create 20K jobs. My guess is most of the rank and file would rather be out there getting their hands dirty with a good job building the pipeline rather than some payoff scheme. But the bosses will determine their future as they always do.

My true anger is with every republican in congress. There were many elected in 2010 that were sent to change Washington. “Chirp” “Chirp” Where are they? Where is their outrage? When will they start speaking out beyond the current whisper?

Twenty thousand potential jobs for our citizens have been nixed because of a small group of radicals with the support of a radical president. When will our representatives stand up for the majority?

Newt at His Best…

I wish Newt never went after Mitt with an angle that questioned the value of our capitalist economic system. He was at his best in the most recent debate and showed why conservatives have been holding on to hope that they could vote for him. I still question his ability to stay on message. He needs to avoid the temptation to bash or question conservative positions in front of the main stream media. When conservative positions are promoted and delivered as he did in this debate, they uplift and energize the conservative base.

I don’t know if it’s too late for him to surge but a few more debates like that and we will have a true head to head race. I think he is the only one left in the GOP field with a glimmer of hope to bring Mitt Romney down to earth.

Ron Paul is a true constitutionalist but a cranky old man that goes off subject or mixes thoughts which often seem as if he may have issues with memory or clarity. And his foreign policy bothers most.

Rick Perry has been losing support since the day he announced. That was his high and he needs to get out of the way. We don’t need another Governor from Texas so soon after the last one.

Rick Santorum has the problem that the more you see him the more you feel like you may not like him. You may like him but you’re really not sure. He is a very dedicated social conservative but I think we need to stay focused on the economy. Many conservatives don’t think you can separate the two and I don’t necessarily disagree but we need a campaign focused like a laser beam on the contrast of economic vision. Any republican will be better on social issues than Obama.

If the GOP was smart there would be an effort to move this to the two men Mitt and Newt as quickly as possible. The votes in South Carolina should be the indication of which two should stay in the race. I know they all believe they could be a better president than the current one and I agree. But the reality is we need a clear contrast of ideas in the primary and by having just Mitt and Newt we can finally see if Mitt really is the guy.

After last night I am not sure…

Mitt, Remember When…

Dear Mitt:

It is time for you to take off the gloves and get ready for a barrage of attacks that will make the Senate race against Ted Kennedy in 1994 look like child’s play. I was there outside Faneuil Hall in Boston supporting you at one of the debates and experienced firsthand the vitriol and lies the democrats are capable of and are already being unleashed in this campaign.

Debbie Wasserman, the DNC mouthpiece that rarely speaks the truth, is laying the groundwork and no one is counter attacking. Where are the counter attacks? I know the RNC should be responding but the bottom line is you are the most likely nominee and therefore these lies will impact you the most.

You need to stop saying “Obama is a nice guy”, “I have nothing personal against Obama”, “He is misguided in his policies” or any phrase of the sort. Obama is out to destroy this country. Treat him as such and make it known every time you speak of him that he is aligned with people that hate what America stands for. Believe me you will be rewarded for stating the truth about him.  One of the voters biggest concerns about you is the feeling you will not take the fight to the president, and when you use the phrases above it only supports the skeptical voter’s perception of you.

Being honest is not going to repel the “independent” voter. Being too politically correct will repel all voters. You need to emphasize the deep divide between conservatism and this president. You need to be unabashed in describing the president as he is: a willing advocate for the transformation of this nation from a free market economy to a big centrally governed economy out of step with both the people and the constitution.

Be bold, decisive, honest, and less of a gentleman when it comes to speaking about the president. You don’t have to be nasty but you must understand this president knows exactly what he is doing to our economy and this nation…

Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich not worthy!

“Vulture Capitalism” is the argument both candidates are using to elevate their campaigns against Mitt Romney. The problem is they have given us a view into their true feelings about capitalism and should be kicked out of the Republican Party. I can see the commercials now in the general election with both Rick and Newt being used as pawns to defeat Mitt. Despicable.

Mitt may not be the perfect candidate, but capitalism is the perfect answer to our economic problems. When these supposed republicans start criticizing our economic system they undermine our abilities to reform a federal government that is bloated to the degree of collapse. The market system is the answer to every ill we have in our economy, and by feeding into the left wing propaganda, these candidates feed the fire of the radical wing of the left which influences the casual voters about the failures of capitalism. We need a candidate that is unapologetic about capitalism!

As my previous post states, capitalism is the reason we can be the most compassionate people on earth. Take away capitalism and you will destroy all of the greatness of this nation.   

Newt Gingrich is an angry man with a lack of discipline which will not make for a good president. Yes we want a fighter, but a fighter with the ability to be strategic about the fight. Rick Perry needs to go back to Texas where he belongs. The nation doesn’t need another Governor from Texas at this point and his poll numbers prove he excites very few voters. Time to save face and go home.

Ron Paul has actually elevated his status by the way he defended Mitt against these disturbing attacks. I like what Paul has done to keep the constitutional argument alive. I don’t want him as the nominee but he adds to the argument. If Ron were to hand the baton to Rand I would be all over it.

After last night’s speech by Romney I have to say he has the right stuff to beat a president that will be spending a billion dollars to beat his opponent. To all of Mitt’s critics I ask you this: If Mitt has Marco Rubio as VP, would that influence your vote? To me that will be the best case scenario at this point…

Capitalism is Compassionate…

The most compassionate nation in the world is the United States of America. We are not compassionate because we have special DNA or are some special form of human species, we are compassionate because of capitalism. Capitalism has given us the gift of excess goods, services, and resources that we share with the rest of the world.

At the heart of capitalism is the ability of individuals to produce and create wealth for their own personal use and their family. As human beings, we first must take care of ourselves by producing food, clothes, and shelter. It is the nature of survival that is first and foremost in the human condition. In most economies prior to the capitalist system of the United States, goods and services were assumed to be owned by some ruling class. Production was stifled because the people producing wealth for others is much harder to manage than a system that allows for individuals to keep what they produce for themselves.

Capitalism rewards the hard work of individuals and is destroyed by the policies of taxation or confiscation without due compensation. It is a simple premise that is rooted in human nature. As we create our own wealth beyond the basic survival needs, we create additional wealth that allows us to become more compassionate. Whether that is on the personal scale of donating food to the local food pantry or the on the corporate scale of creating foundations that help other nations climb out of poverty, it can only happen when we create excess wealth. Excess wealth only happens in a capitalist economic system.

There are people and companies that abuse the system but on the whole most people and companies in the United States are a great example of how capitalism is the only system that works is a free society. As the government tries to regulate business and the capitalist system they impede freedom, freedom of individuals, and freedom of markets to conduct business. This limits wealth, reduces freedom, and smothers compassion.

So as you listen to all of the political posturing in 2012, remember capitalism is the most compassionate economic system in the world. It produces both winners and losers. The losers often come back into the market to become winners. But that can only happen when the government keeps its hands out of the arena. Any business or business person breaking the law should be punished. But any business or business person that fails in the market must be allowed to fail and not bailed out by the government.

If the government continues to distort the market capitalism is dead. Once capitalism is dead so is wealth and compassion. It’s that simple…

The Cost of Ignorance…

No matter what they say - ignorance is not bliss. In fact it is dangerous and imperils our freedoms. Our founders understood human nature because they were students of history. The founders had a love of learning and believed that education was a personal obligation to becoming a good citizen. Knowing history is like having a crystal ball to the future. By studying the civilizations of the past, our founders created the foundational principles of the Constitution.

Limiting the capacity of government to be able to control individuals was the principle goal of the Constitution. The main argument for a central government was to create the ability to provide a common defense for the states. They didn’t want to have to beg the states to support the defense of the country as they did during the revolution where George Washington had to make due with very limited resources. The Constitution was designed to contain the tendencies of governments to overstep and control the lives of the governed as was the case throughout history. They believed by putting us in charge of us, and limiting what a central government could do, they could improve the lives of everyone that lived within the constitutional republic. The Constitution was the written culmination of lessons learned that would set a foundation for a brand new form of government. One created by the people for the people. No ruling class or group of people would have power without the consent of the governed. It was a revolutionary concept but could only survive with an engaged citizenry. The founders feared if the citizens ignored the government it could quickly deteriorate into dictatorship so they provided as many safeguards in the Constitution as they could. But ultimately they knew it would come down to a willingness of the people to defend the Constitution. Without the people’s attention they knew the past would repeat itself.

They feared many things when designing the new republic including an all-powerful president. They did not want one man to have too much power or any group of people in the government to have too much power so they used the concept of “balance of powers” between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. It was the job of each branch to keep the other in check. So no one branch could determine the direction of the federal government without the consent of each branch. It was a design nothing short of a miracle.

As we consider the actions of the Federal Government today and this President, it is apparent that the American education system has failed. The outrageous conduct of the appointments made by this president without the constitutionally mandated consent of the senate yesterday should have received a greater reaction than it did. The limited reaction to these appointments shows how our education system has systematically limited the citizen’s knowledge of their form of government. These radical and unlawful acts should be stirring up a beehive of legal action against this administration. Yet we go on and act as if this is just a game being played by a President intent on creating a rift between him and the congress to be used in his re-election campaign strategy. It is a dangerous and illegal game that deserves the attention of our congressional members and the judiciary.

This President has said he will go around the congress to do the “people’s work” which is exactly what every dictator in history uses as an excuse to implement their own tyranny on the governed. I know most people don’t realize how dangerous this is but they should. No matter what rhetoric is used to justify his actions, in a constitutional republic the law is king not the president. And the law says he can’t appoint people to positions of power within the government without the consent of the Senate. The Senate is officially in session and therefore the excuse of recess appointments is irrelevant.

Following the process of government is like watching paint dry for most citizens but if we expect to live in a country that respects freedom and the rule of law we must pay attention and react when necessary. The congress should threaten impeachment immediately and defund the departments affected by these appointments. This is not business as usual. This is a crime.

The country is worth watching over. It may be boring but it is our responsibility to protect future generations from the ambitions of leaders that would rather dictate than follow the law of the land.