Romney vs. Palin: A Quasi-Rift That Should Not Exist

We’re hearing a lot about division in the Republican party these days. The mainstream media loves to point out how weakened they are due to their back-to-back losses in 2006 and 2008. However, they seem to ignore how Americans are beginning to trend towards Republicans near the close of Obama’s first 100 days according to current Rasmussen polling. At any rate, I find it silly that such squabbling is going on in the GOP. Rush Limbaugh said this. Mitt Romney says that. Sarah Palin says this. Michael Steele says that. It’s childish. Can’t I like all these people and share the majority of their collective viewpoints without having to pit them against each other?

A lot of this stemmed from a CNN interview that Romney had in which he was asked about the fact that Time Magazine’s World’s Most Influential People list only included two Republicans: Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. So in response to that, Romney said “I think there are a lot more influential Republicans than that would suggest.” Many took this as a jab at Palin. I tend to disagree. Keep in mind that the question was about how few Republicans made the list. Romney was simply stating that there should’ve been more that made the list like perhaps Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Eric Cantor, or even Michele Bachmann. So to say this is an attack against Palin is really being a bit disingenuous.

Rush Limbaugh has also attacked Romney and Jeb Bush for conducting their “listening tour,” claiming that instead, they should be conducting a “teaching tour.” Okay Rush, I agree. The American people, by and large, do need to be educated on what Republicans can do (or at least, should be doing) for this country. But isn’t that what you’re on the air for? Would it not be a good to at least listen to the American people and find out why they voted for Barack Obama? Or even better, would it not be good to listen to conservative Americans and find out why many of them didn’t vote for John McCain? I guarantee you that most of the Ron Paul crowd didn’t vote for McCain.

It’s ridiculous for this infighting to be going on. For the most part, we agree on the same basic principles. Granted, I will say that John McCain was definitely not a true champion of those principles and that’s why many conservatives didn’t support him. But we need to band together. There’s no reason for these little skirmishes. Personally, I think a Romney-Palin ticket in 2012 would be a dynamic force that could defeat Obama. Who knows? This could be the biggest kiss-and-make-up since Reagan and Bush in 1980.

 

Romney and Palin campaign for McCain

For example, I think that for the most part, Romney and Palin agree more with each other than Palin and McCain did in 2008. Both are pro-life. Both oppose gay marriage. Both support drilling in Alaska (unlike McCain). Neither of them support the FairTax. Economically, they’re generally the same although Romney is much more experienced. Both of them take strong immigration stances.  I’d being willing to say that they generally line up on the majority of the principles and values that conservatives hold dear. Both of them are worthy of carrying the Reagan banner. So let’s not beat each other up too bad. We’re going to need all the help we can get in 2012.

Why We Look to Reagan

It’s virtually undeniable that Ronald Reagan is the most popular Republican president since Abraham Lincoln. Barely 20 years from his final year in office, we as Republicans now look to him as an icon of what we want in a President today. Just why is that the case?

Despite the overarching greatness we remember him for, Ronald Reagan did make mistakes. Now to some within our party, that previous statement would be considered heresy or treason. But according to our principles as a party, there were times, though few, when Reagan fell short. He granted amnesty to illegal aliens which has played a part in the immigration debacle we face today. The national debt increased greatly under his administration, which seemed to validate the “voodooeconomics” charge by Reagan’s future Vice President George H.W. Bush. And as Governor of California, Reagan was pro-choice.

But that’s not what we think of when we think of Reagan.

Reagan represents to us a time when people were proud to be Americans, not Republicans, Democrats, Independents, but Americans. He symbolizes a love for God and country that is almost forgotten in the current fray of partisan politics. He exuded an idealistic optimism that was unmatched among any other politician at the time. It’s no wonder Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale couldn’t compete with him.

But in 2008, I wonder if Republicans, let alone Americans, would elect Ronald Reagan today. We’d call him a flip-flopper. We’d say he was too old. We’d skewer him for his lack of foreign policy experience. It’s almost as if we wouldn’t even know Reagan if he was running today.

The thing about Reagan is that when he was faced with the challenges and opportunities to make America better, he succeeded. He played a major role in ending communism in the U.S.S.R. He led us out of the disaster that was the Carter administration. He was compassionate, but he was firm. After America had lost faith in its leaders after Vietnam and Watergate, Reagan restored some of that faith and optimism we once had in America.

And while we’ve had a Republican president for 12 of the past 20 years, both have paled in comparison to Reagan.

But while I think it’s important to look to Reagan by assembling the coalition of conservatives that he was able to, we need a President that will make his own mark on America. We need a new touchstone for future generations to look to for inspiration, not for imitation.

I know many of you out there are already affiliated with some candidate in one way or another, but if any of you out there are on the fence and are looking for a candidate to throw your support behind, I’d urge you to look for one who will make his own mark on America like Reagan did.

While we should learn from Reagan, we need to remember to look forward instead of backward.

New Hampshire: The Last Hope for Conservatism in 2008

Needless to say, I was dismayed at the results of Iowa last night. I think when it really came down to it, evangelicals felt like they had to vote for someone who shared their exact religious beliefs. After all, who wants to vote against a “pastor” who claims to be a “Christian Leader?”

Mike Huckabee is not a well-rounded conservative. Many people in Arkansas believe that as governor, he ruined the conservative movement. And now, many across the nation feel that Huckabee’s victory in Iowa has been a major step backward for conservatism nationwide. He’s a fiscal liberal. When it comes to foreign policy, he is utterly clueless. Besides social issues, there’s little difference between him and most Democrats. He must not win this nomination.

 If John McCain wins Iowa, it will help Huckabee in South Carolina and in other states. It could even help Rudy Giuliani in Florida. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. He wants to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. He must not be allowed take New Hampshire.

Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee are what I like to call fracture candidates. They are not well-rounded conservatives. Instead they have pieces of conservativism that fracture the wide conservative base of Defense Conservatives (DefCons), Social Conservatives (SoCons), Evangelicals, Fiscal Conservatives (FisCons) and Moderates. Rudy appeals to fiscal conservatives and defense conservatives. McCain appeals to moderates and independents. Mike Huckabee appeals to social conservatives and evangelicals.

 There are only two whole conservatives in this race: Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Both appeal to the entire base, capturing what is known as the Reagan Coalition. They appeal to the variety of conservatives across the base. Keeping this base intact is the only way to win in 2008.

A stand must be made in New Hampshire for conservativism. There, voters must choose a candidate that reflects the wide range of principles the Republican party stands for. If not, I fear that we are headed towards defeat in 2008.

Romney-Thompson: The Ideal GOP Ticket

Before you turn away, let me make my case.

As many of you may know, I’m a Romney fan. But I also like Fred Thompson, even though I did say that I didn’t think he was the next Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless, I think both men have Reaganesque principles and values that reflect the true nature of the Republican Party.

I could go on and on about why I think Romney is qualified and why I think he’ll win the nomination, but I’ve pretty much done that already in other posts.

As it stands, Giuliani is the frontrunner of this race. Why? Because of his leadership on 9/11. Because he has governed one of the largest cities in the world. But most importantly, because many in the GOP believe he’s the only one that can beat Hillary Clinton. However, he’s not true to the platform of the Republican party. Even Giuliani himself has admitted that.

At this point, the more conservative electorate has been splintered between Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson. This leaves Giuliani at the top since he doesn’t necessarily appeal to that constituency anyway. He is exchanging the social conservative vote for the moderate/centrist vote, which will likely be his downfall. Right now, evangelicals seem to be torn between Romney and Huckabee. Fred Thompson’s still got a large base of conservative followers as well. But I believe that the momentum will eventually shift to Romney if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

Now, some fear that Romney’s so-called flip-flopping and his religious beliefs may alienate members of the base. Not to mention that he’s a Massachusetts Republican (to many, that’s an oxymoron), which could cause Southerners to be skeptical about supporting him. What could solidify his chances at being competitive in the general election? A good running mate.

I hear so many calling for Huckabee to be the eventual running mate of whoever wins the nomination. And he may indeed be a good choice. But I suggest Thompson instead. Why?

Thompson is second to Giuliani in national polls. He’s got significantly strong support in the South. He’s a generally likeable candidate with very good values. He has a very consistent conservative record in the Senate. He could bring a certain degree of balance to a Romney candidacy.

So why would I choose Romney as the candidate with Thompson as the running mate and not vice-versa?

Romney is running a better strategy than Thompson by leading in early primary states. His organizational strength would be better than Thompson’s in a general election. Romney has governing and managerial experience that Thompson doesn’t have. Thompson doesn’t seem to desire the White House that much anyway. So being a Vice President might better suit his personality and abilities.

A Romney-Thompson ticket could unite the Republican base by appealing to evangelicals, moderates, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. They would have the same coalition that Reagan had. Personally, I think a ticket like this would be the next Reagan-Bush. And the last time that happened, things went very well for the Republican party and for the American people.

Note: I just thought I’d mention a few more smart choices for running mates: J.C. Watts, Mike Huckabee, and Condoleeza Rice.

The Legendary History of Ron Paul

I’ll admit, I was skeptical about Ron Paul. I thought he was just some libertarian kook who couldn’t win any office other than the one in his congressional district. But finally, I have found what everyone in his fanbase is raving about. You see, Ron Paul is no ordinary congressman. Nay, he is a legend. A fabled hero who is destined to save this country from utter ruin.

Let us begin with the history of our hero.

Ronald Ernest Paul Sr. was born in the colony of Virginia in 1704. As a teenager, he often spoke of patriotism and the need for us to abandon all ties with Mother England. In fact, Ron Paul actually coined the phrase “no taxation without representation.” On a bright summer day in 1736, Ron encountered a bear in the woods near his farmhouse. Fearlessly, he managed to strangle the bear to near-death with his bare hands, only to finish the job by beating it with his own shoes. The townspeople of his village rejoiced, as the bear had eaten many children in the area.

In 1775, at the ripe old age of seventy-one, he was elected to the Second Continental Congress. His ideas for the founding of a new nation were strikingly on-par with that of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry.

On July 4th, 1776, as John Hancock was just finishing his signature, Ron Paul reached for the quill and was denied by Hancock, only to be told, “No, Ronald. This country needs you for something greater.” Thus, the founding fathers gathered together and unanimously decided that Ron Paul was to be the eternal protector of the Declaration of Independence.

In order to allow for Ron Paul’s long life, the founding fathers sought the help of a local Virginian witch, who gave him an elixir that would grant him long, and quasi-natural life. The witch was subsequently hanged for witchcraft. Of course, prior to that, she was allowed habeas corpus and subjected to a trial by jury.

With a new vitality, Ron Paul continued to fight the good fight for American liberty. He authored the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted in 1777. He felt that this was a permanent solution to American government. The states were loosely joined together, yet each had one vote in the unicameral legislature. Ron Paul considered this system nothing short of ideal.

By the time 1788 rolled around, America hungered for a change in government. A new Constitution was on the horizon. While Ron Paul was reluctant to accept such a change that would increase the size of federal government, he inevitably supported the Constitution and swore to protect it forever. The relationship between him and the Constitution continued to blossom throughout the rest of his life.

After 1789, Ron Paul was relegated to comfortable obscurity until 1858, when the Lincoln-Douglas debates began. Stephen Douglas favored popular sovreignty to solve the problem of slavery, believing that states and territories should decide for themselves whether or not they would allow slavery. This ideology was exactly that of Ron Paul’s. Slavery was an issue that should be decided by the states, not by the federal government.

So Ron Paul fought Abraham Lincoln every step of the way. He abhorred Lincoln’s attempts to abolish slavery on a federal level, even though Paul himself personally opposed slavery. He even aligned himself with the Confederate States of America, feeling that their views on states’ rights were on par with that of the founding fathers.

Paul also had other problems with Lincoln. He argued that Lincoln was invading a sovereign nation when Lincoln sent Union armies into Confederate territory. He also hated the way Lincoln temporarily suspended habeas corpus, spent Federal money without Congressional approval, and imprisoned 18,000 Confederate soldiers without trial. Outraged, he nailed a copy of the U.S. Constitution to the White House doors, which reportedly took him 3 hours.

Fortunately for Ron Paul, he was able to hire actor John Wilkes Booth to put an end to the madness of Lincoln’s administration. Paul would not be heard from again until the 20th century.

By the time 1915 rolled around, Ron Paul was urging Americans not to enter World War I, claiming that the sinking of the Lusitania was a result of blowback from aiding England against Germany. He hated Woodrow Wilson’s policies just as bad as Lincoln’s.

When 1920 came along to dawn that decade of decadence, Ron Paul fought tooth and nail against the 19th amendment, claiming that the founding fathers would have never extended the right to vote to women.

In late 1941, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Paul formed an overwhelming rapport among those who believed that the attack was an inside job perpetrated by the U.S. government. He absolutely loathed Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, claiming that they enlarged the size of federal government. He also fought against the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.

With the exception of Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul opposed the policies of every single President since Rutherford B. Hayes. He also fiercely stood against the creation of the departments of Housing, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veteran’s Affairs, and Homeland Security.

When 1974 rolled around, Ron Paul made an unsuccessful attempt at running for the 22nd district of Texas. Luckily, his opponent was appointed to head of the Federal Maritime Commission and he won a special election in 1976, only serving six months before losing again. He did win a re-match in 1978, going on to be re-elected again in 1980 and 1982.

He tried to run for U.S. Senate in 1984, but was defeated in the primaries. He then returned to the practice of saving lives and delivering babies as a medical doctor, a practice he had perfected since 1883.

In 1988, Ron Paul finally decided that he could enter a public foray as a candidate for President of the United States. He ran as a Libertarian, regardless of his support for Republican President Reagan. He lost by quite a substantial margin, relegated to the ranks of his fellow third-party candidates David Duke and Willa Kenoyer.

By 1996, Ron Paul had returned to Congress, representing the 22nd district of Texas once more. He won subsequent elections in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

Throughout all his long life, there has not been a single documented account of Ron Paul laughing at something that was humorous. When asked about this in 2006, he said, “I take my job as a Congressman too seriously to indulge in something as frivolous as humor. Humor can be dishonest and at best unscrupulous. Furthermore, the Constitution simply would not allow for me as an elected official in the federal government to partake in it.”

But now the time has come for Ron Paul to fulfill his promise that he made to his fellow founding fathers over 200 years ago. He is destined to prevail as President of the United States in 2008. He will ride his white horse to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in victory.

You see, Ron Paul understands the Constitution perfectly because he was present at its inception. He knows the will of the founding fathers because he in fact was one of them. He understands the history of America and its departure from its original values because he has been there all along.

Ron Paul knows the path to America’s greatness because he has trodden it for all his life. He cannot lose this election since he is the perfect candidate in every way.

Yes, I understand Ron Paul now. Now, I get what all the hype is all about.

The Case for a Romney Victory

I’ll be honest, from the outset, Mitt Romney made me nervous. Having studied the Mormon religion and discussed it with actual Mormons, the prospect of a Mormon President seemed a bit dismal to me, even if he was a Republican.

But I got past that. I considered the fact that no President in the past 100 years had ever been someone I could find a substantial amount of common ground on religiously. Plus, I know that Mormons are generally wholesome, moral people. Their family lives are almost unparalleled even among many evangelical denominations. Romney’s case is certainly no different. What I had thought was a disadvantage for Mitt Romney had become an unusual advantage. I guess I had flip-flopped.

The “Mormon Thing”

In addition, I came across a quote from Romney’s former opponent Ted Kennedy having been asked about the potential drawback of Romney’s religion. Kennedy said, “We’ve moved on. That died with my brother Jack.” He was highlighting the fact that many Americans were uneasy about the prospect of a Catholic President in his brother John F. Kennedy. In fact, I think there is some degree of similarity between Catholicism and Mormonism. But that’s certainly a different topic altogether. However, I think Ted Kennedy’s point still remains: with certain exceptions, America is past judging candidates on the basis of how odd their religion is.
 

His Experience

With religion aside, let’s look at who Romney is as a leader. His political experience is most notably his time as governor of Massachussetts. In arguably the most Democratic state in America, he was able to balance the budget four years straight without raising taxes. That’s an undeniably impressive task for anyone. It’s not only impressive that he won as a Republican, but that he was successful while in office.

Delving further into Romney’s history, we could look at his experience at Bain Capital, the company responsible for the success of businesses like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, Brookstone, Sealy, and Sports Authority.

We could even examine how Romney took a projected $397 million deficit with the scandal-ridden 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics and turned it into a $56 million surplus by the end of the event.

If his experience alone doesn’t qualify Romney’s candidacy for you, let’s look at his stances.
 

His Stances

Mitt Romney is pro-life. Now before I hear the words “flip-flop” from you, let’s examine this stance a bit further. In numerous accounts (even back in 1994), Romney has always claimed to be personally pro-life. That means that Romney opposes the action of abortion on a moral level and he always has. However, at one time, he was not opposed to women having the legal right to do so. Basically you could take Giuliani’s current stance and add personal moral opposition, and that’s Romney’s stance prior to 2004. But since then, Romney has admittedly changed his mind.

While many would quickly point to political motive, I’d urge you to examine the history of the acclaimed GOP icon Ronald Reagan, along with former President George H.W. Bush. They both had similar stances to Romney in their political histories regarding abortion. And shall I even mention such Democratic figures as Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson? I could go on, but I think that would be unnecessary. For whatever reason, the stances of politicians change. Call it a matter of political opportunity or a genuine change of heart. It just happens.

Many have also criticized Romney’s support of homosexuality. But if you look into his record, you’ll notice that Romney advocated an amendment in Massachussetts that would mandate that marriage would exclusively be the union of a man and woman.

He opposed state funding of stem cell research. He passed a successful healthcare plan (quite unusual for most Republicans). He opposed the failed McCain-Kennedy immigration plan. He cut spending. He supported the Bush tax cuts. What more can a conservative want out of him?

His Chances

A recent LA Times poll has found that Romney is the favorite among Republican party insiders. This doesn’t seem to be all that unusual considering that John McCain has fought against the party all too often and Rudy Giuliani holds views that aren’t in harmony with the party platform. 

In March, Romney was found to be the first choice among conservatives at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Conservative news magazine NewsMax.com has referred to Romney as “The Reagan Candidate.” That’s quite an endorsement for someone whose conservative credentials have been called into question.

It seems that Romney has been successful in connecting with the conservative base of the Republican party, a key objective in winning the nomination.

If you have watched any of the 2008 Republican Presidential debates so far, you’d most likely be convinced that Romney was the clear winner. And organizations like the Politico, Fox News, and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough have typically agreed. He’s easily the most polished, eloquent candidate in the entire crowd. It’s obvious that he can hold his own in any political discussion.

While many nationwide popularity polls have him below Giuliani and Fred Thompson, he is leading the pack in early primary states, an integral part of his strategy. You see, Romney’s game plan involves planning for victories in the early primary elections to create momentum that will carry him to the nomination. I personally see this as a very wise strategy that will inevitably pay off.

Will he win?

Mitt Romney seems to have every qualification necessary to become the 44th President of the United States. He has the conservative stances that reflect the nature of the Republican party. He’s got that Reaganesque appeal, that optimism that so many people in America reminisce about. 

Will Romney prevail in 2008? Only time will tell….