What Now for the Republicans

Since my last post I have been out of sight.  There are several reasons for this, personal and professional obligations as well as research on a story that I am hoping will pan out.  If you have read my blog before, you can guess who I am researching.

During my absence we have seen the rise and fall of the candidate I was personally rooting for Herman Cain and am sad to see this man drug through the muck the way he was.  I think Ann Coultier was on to something when she associated the allegations with David Axelrod.  You can find more on this story HERE.

With the loss of Herman Cain as a candidate, the Republican party has a tougher job of defeating Obama.  A story like Cain's could not have been better.  He has a history of standing up to politicians as he did Bill Clinton, he was a self made business man and entrepreneur.  And, he did not take crap from anyone.  Tie Herman Cain with a smart VP candidate with knowledge on foreign affairs and you had a winner of a ticket.  Well, that is not going to happen now, so, what do we do.

Let's be honest, shall we.  Obama is going to go after whomever is chosen by the electorate as his opposition.  They are going to use the candidate's personal life, they are going to dig up any past indiscretion and they are going to mis-state the facts.  This will all be done with the assistance of the media.  The candidate that is selected has to be the one that can beat Obama not only with their ideas but is likeable by moderates, independents and Reagan Democrats.

Listen, you can be as high and mighty as you want when it comes to social values, but you are not going to win a national campaign that way.  To quote James Carville, "It's the economy stupid."  If a candidate can come across with a moderate social policy, strong defense and a strong fiscal policy that promotes small government, we should rally behind him.

The minions of Obama are already starting the game plan.  They are blaming Congress, both Dems and Reps for the economy.  They are propping him up for his action overseas and as the man that killed OBL.  They are stating that he came into office under bad terms and cannot be expected to fix everything in 4 years.  If you read Andrew Sullivan's article in Newsweek, he builds the case that everything Obama has started was based upon an 8 year plan. 

The person that is chosen for the Republican Presidential Candidate has to be someone who is electable in a general election.  So, with that said, who is that person?  Is it crazy uncle Ron Paul who makes some strong fiscal sense but talks a little nutty on foreign policy?  Is it creepy step-dad Newt Gingrich that says things that make sense and what you want to hear, but you wonder if he really means it?  Is it the over achieving cousin Mitt Romney that seems a little out of touch with the day to day life?  Is it the overshadowed cousin Rick Santorum who never really got the attention that he may have deserved?

I do not know who the right candidate is for the country.  None of these guys were my first choice.  I respect Jim Talent and he has good things to say about Mitt.  I respect Sarah Palin and she seems to lean towards Newt.  Mark Levin, who I think is both smart and entertaining, has endorsed Rick Santorum.  The very smart Judge Andrew Napolitana, from Fox News, has endorsed Ron Paul. 

All I can say is this.  We can bicker about who best represents what we want, but in the end, we need to elect someone that can win.  There is no way on God's green Earth that Obama is going to agree to a series of debates, Lincoln-Douglas style or otherwise with Newt.  We will be lucky to get 3 out of Obama and no more.  Without the debates, I do not think Newt is electable.  The debates are what is helping him out now.  Ron Paul, comes across as detached from foreign affairs as compared to Obama, so he would be eaten alive in the debates when it comes to foreign policy.  This lives Rick and Mitt.  I believe that of the available candidates, these two are our best choice. 

That said, no matter who the candidate is, we still have another issue.  If Obama is still down in the polls come time for the conventions, then this election will be made into a race issue.  No matter who the nominee is, we must have someone as the VP who can offset any claims of racism.  If it is true that Condi Rice wants to get back into the political game, it would be smart to look long and hard at her as a VP candidate.  For either Rick or Mitt, it would add much needed foreign policy experience.  Condi being a single, black professional woman can help offset racist and sexist Republican stereotypes.  All that and in the end she would be a damn fine VP who has a ton of experience and can go mano y mano agains a Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton should Joe step down as VP as some rumors suggest.

Republicans and Minorities

I thought I would share a couple of youtube videos that I found interesting and profound.  As we go into the next election cycle, there are some intersting things here to consider and think about as we work on campaigns and such.

This is the trailer for a movie that is profound and insightful.  I would suggest that everyone watch this.

and then, let us not foget the words of the great Ronald Reagan in a speech that I find many people are not aware of.  It is interesting to see how timeless his words are, although with Reagan that seemed to always be the case.

I may get flamed for this but I am ok with that.  I bring this up because I am a realist.  In Missouri's first district, we have a large black and a growing hispanic population.  That combined with our large union base does not bode well for Republicans.  If we are to ever get a Republican or a right leaning Libertarian in office, we have to listen to these people.  We have to learn that this is a different audience than we are used to and reach out to them.  Too often we assume that we cannot reach this audience and that is not the case.  As many people stated in these clips and in the movie, many blacks and latinos are social conservatives.  They have just been brainwashed to think that they have to vote Democrat.  We all know that is not he case.

Obama Admits to NOT Enforcing the Laws and The Press Says Nothing

As I am going through my normal reading patterns, I stumbled upon this article in the Washington Examiner (HERE).

In it, Obama talks about how he wants to work around Congress until he can get his lapdog Nancy Pelosi back in charge.  Work around Congress.  If George Bush or any Republican said that the MSM would be screaming from rooftops about dictatorship.  Trolling through the cable news channels, I have yet to hear anyone mention this.  Drudge has it up on his website, but that is about it.

On top of that, Obama all but admits that he is not enforcing the laws on the books as his way of circumventing immagration law.  Once again, the main street media is not saying anyting about this.  Obama is all but bragging that he is choosing to not enforce the laws and not a peep.

Of course, Obama makes remarks to say that while he tempted to do his own thing, that is not how our rule of law works. 

So in one side we have Obama saying he cannot override the rule of law, but on the other side he is saying I can do what I want by deciding how and when I am going to enforce the laws.   Bush was called a dictator for his actions in Iraq even after receiving Congressional approval.

The corruption and arrogance of this administration is appaling.  They will go after Gibson Guitars for what they see is illegal purchase of wood (story found HERE) but they will not legally deport illegal aliens.  What's worse is in this example, Obama's admin would rather shut down a company based upon their interpretation of a foreign law rather than enforce the laws that are on the books.

This is what we get when we elect a community organizer for President of the United States.  A community organizer that said in 2001..

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

While Obama is speaking in the context of the civil rights movement, he is talking about redistribution of wealth and the government being granted rights.  This is a man who does not understand the Founding Fathers' concepts of individual freedoms.  This is why he believes that it is ok to not enforce the laws on the books and instead shutdown companies that may not be doing anything illegal.

If this does not explain why we need a change in 2012, nothing will.

Our Republican Candidate Choices

Greetings and saluatations,

Rather than re-hash an old topic or talk about Lacy Clay, I want to talk quickly about the Presidential Republican candidates.  I am probably going to get flamed for this but frankly, I do not care.  I must say that I really do not like many of the choices we have.  Most of them either come off as weak and populist or strong and unelectable.

Here are some thoughts:

• Rick Perry - I like some of the things he has said and done, but I fear that his past and some of the things that he has said in Texas will come back to haunt him.  I think he trying to come off as electable to everyone by channeling Ronald Reagan.  Just look at him during the CNN debate.  He looked like a young wax figure of Reagan.
• Can he beat Obama, probably. 
• Would he be a good president, maybe.
• Herman Caine - If I had to vote today, he would get my vote.  He is plane spoken, speaks his mind, is no nonsense.  I believe he is exactly what this country needs, a non politician who is socially libertarian and fiscally conservative.
• Can he beat Obama, probably not.  Caine makes too much sense and does not play politics.
• Would he be a good president, with the right VP to help out on foreign affairs, yes.
• Mitt Romney - He is the most photogenic and possibly the least trust-able candidate.  He acts like he is small government fiscal conservative.  That said, he does not have the political background to prove this change of heart.
• Can he beat Obama, yes.
• Would he be a good president, 50/50 chance.
• Michelle Bachmann - She is the Tea Party candidate.  She is also the target of much of the media's criticism.  She also suffers from what my mom calls "foot in mouth disease".  Michelle has said too many things that make her seem extreme.  True or not, she has been painted as the Republican Nancy Pelosi.
• Can she beat Obama, not likely.
• Would she be a good president, maybe.  I question how well she could work with  everyone to get things done.  She seems to be too much of a my way or the highway personality
• Ron Paul - Ron makes a lot of sense 75% of the time.  The other 25% of the time, he either seems to be wrong, in my opinion, or he just rambles like your crazy Uncle.  On social issues, I agree with Paul.  On several of his fiscal issues, I agree with Paul.  When it comes to his foreign policy though, he comes off as an isolationist and that does not fly.
• Can he beat Obama, no.
• Would he be a good president, no.  Foreign policy is too major a part of being a president and it is much more complex than I think Paul is willing to admit.
• Rick Santorum - As a senator, he did some pretty good things but he is not a strong candidate.  He is spending too much time downplaying his competitors instead of talking about his ideas.  I know he is trying to get his foot in the door by trying to show the chinks in the armor of his competition.  He appears to be a fiscal conservative and socially moderate.
• Can he beat Obama, yes.
• Would he be a good president?  He would probably be OK, not bad and not great.
• John Huntsman - Based off of all the things he has said and presented he appears to be a middle of the road Republican.  I would not call him a fiscal or social conservative by any measure.  He may be appealing to the masses but I do not think that he is what the country needs.
• Can he beat Obama, probably not.
• Would he be a good president, probably not.  He seems to wishy washy and willing to bend to polling numbers.
• Newt Gingrich - Newt is by far the statesman of the group.  What he says makes total sense.  Newt knows how to get things done in Washington and while he is a politician, he is also a scholar.  That all said, Newt brings a lot of baggage with him and because of that, would probably not be embraced by the general public.
• Can he beat Obama, maybe.
• Would he be a good president, yes.

If the American people knew what was good for them, they would elect Herman Caine or Newt Gingrich.  Either man would do great things for our country and in my humble opinion, the two of them together could really kick some tail.  I mean, Mitt Romney has practically agreed with Herman Caine every time the two are together.  The difference is Mitt Romney is a more polished politician. 

If I had to guess today, I would say Huntsman will be the next one out.  He would likely endorse no one and his backers would probably fall in line with either Ron Paul or Rick Santorum.  After that, it is really going to depend upon fund raising.  Gingrich, Santorum or Caine could have to bow out early if they do not pick up more money or endorsements.  As we get closer to the primaires, Ron Paul will become a non-candidate as the American public learns mreoa bout him (NOTE - After the CNN debate, it could be earlier), leaving Bachman, Perry and Romney.
So, with all that said, using a Hubble telescope type lens to predict the future, I could easily see a combination of a Mitt Romney-Herman Caine ticket or a Rick Perry-Rick Santorum ticket.  Mitt and Herman can project a pro-business, working knowledge of industry perspective while a ticket of the 2 Ricks could project strength, Christian conservative and youth values. 

There are some other VP candidates that I think would be good too and they include Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan and locally Jim Talent.  They all bring different things to the table and it will really depend upon the state of the nation and the world as to who would be offered the job.  If the economy is really in the tank and the House and Senate has a lot of internal bickering, Newt would be the perfect VP.  If the economy is still showing no signs of growth and business outlook is dim, Paul Ryan and Herman Caine would be very good choices considering their knowledge and backgrounds.  If foreign affairs becomes a hot topic due to more terrorist threats or increasing military action, Jim Talent's name could rise amongst the ranks.  Of course if there is a need to try and grab some Atlantic Coast votes as well as some Christian conservatives, Rick Santorum would be a good pick.

I say all of this and admit, though, if Sarah gets into the race, you have to throw out the entire playbook and start from scratch.  Personally, I think Sarah is bigger than the presidency at this point and can do more good where she is at now than as the President.

Now these are my opinions.  I welcome counter points and other thoughts.