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 If Obama Care isn’t repealed, the budget balanced, and the entitlement programs reformed with a GOP majority, it will be the end of the GOP and the beginning of a movement to replace the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…