Leading Through Derision?

“Last week, the other party, they gave their pitch. … What they offered … was an agenda that was probably a little better suited for the last century, … you might as well have watched it on black-and-white TV, put some rabbit-ears on the convention hall.”

-

President Barack Obama, Addressing an Iowa campaign audience,

regarding the 2012 Republican National Convention

How disappointing is this? Our nation is facing countless overwhelming challenges. Our people are deeply and pretty much equally, divided over the best approach to meeting these challenges. Instead of getting the leadership we look to our President for, to draw our efforts together, we continue to get derisive comments like this … comments that are more likely to come from a Community Organizer, to incite agitation.

Presently, the nearly-equal political halves of the U.S. population are most easily illustrated through the opposing views of the DNC and the RNC, on solving our nation’s current problems. These include our lagging Economy, our incredible Debt, the stance on Abortion, Energy policies, Environmental policies and National Security. To illustrate my point about the counterproductive nature of President Obama’s derisive leadership style, I want to take a look at how that applies to just one of these topics. Hopefully, if I can get you to understand my views on this issue, you’ll see how it applies to the many others.

Tax Relief has been a consistently contentious issue that I think serves well to share my perspective. A very condensed version of the GOP's Platform on this is:

We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income. Our goal is a tax system that is simple, transparent, flatter, and fair. A reformed code should promote simplicity and coherence, savings and innovation, increase American competitiveness, and recognize the burdens on families with children. To that end, we propose to extend the Bush tax cuts-pending reform of the tax code, to keep tax rates from rising.

Of course, the unabridged version of this has many other facets, with several of them being understandably arguable. With that understood, it still seems to me that, in order to draw together the opposing halves on this issue, our nation needs a leader willing to say something like, "Though I don't agree with your stand on this, I can see where you're coming from and I want us to sit down together, to find a solution that works for us all." However, what we continue to get is our President leading the endless drumbeat, stating that all Republicans care about is further enriching "Millionaires and Billionaires." I find this derision to be personally offensive. I'm not a Millionaire or Billionaire. But, thanks to getting the sort of opportunities mentioned in the GOP Platform, I have been able to earn a lifestyle that is well beyond the dreams of a kid (me) who started out as the youngest of three kids, raised by a single-Mom in a time (the Fifties) when that title wasn't even in use yet. Thus, I pretty much resent the implication that I and others like me, are so intellectually and morally inferior that we get up every morning thinking, "What can I do today, to benefit America's Millionaires and Billionaires."

Additionally, I have to say that I find these specific derisive comments from the President to be particularly aggravating as a result of his using "the last century" and "black-and-white TV" as negative connotations. I was born in the middle of the last century and there were some pretty great values that I was given then, foundational values for my life, that I'm deeply disappointed to say have not survived well into this century. For me, a great example can be seen when I tell people, "I'm confident that on the first Sunday after I was brought home from being born at St. Anthony Hospital, my Mom and my Grandma Ray took me to the Second Avenue EUB Church, along with my Brother and Sister. On my first Sunday, I was shown the value of Faith, Family and Community. They remain my life's priorities. Sadly, in this century, fewer and fewer children are even exposed to these great values. And, why disparage black-and-white TV? Are Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech or Neil Armstrong's first step on the surface of the moon any less valuable because they were broadcast utilizing the best medium available at the time - i.e. black-and-white TV?

I guess, if the derisive comment I'm addressing was an exception, it wouldn't be so bad. That certainly isn't the case, though. It continues to be central to the demeanor of the Obama-led Democrat Party. Sad example after sad example can be cited at this week's DNC in Charlotte, NC. Case in point, former Ohio Governor, Ted Strickland, stating that, "If Romney were Santa, he would fire the reindeer and outsource the elves."

As I said at the outset; our nation is facing countless overwhelming challenges and our people are deeply divided over the best approach to meeting these challenges. Another man who called Illinois home when he was elected President, Abraham Lincoln, sized up this situation by looking to wisdom expressed by Jesus Christ, when he said,

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Also as pointed out earlier, our nation is crying out for the leadership we look to our President for, to draw our efforts together. It's obvious, from the behavior addressed here, that Barack Obama either doesn't have the wisdom or the interest (or both) to do this. That, however, remains the sort of leadership we need. For this, I recommend Mitt Romney. A guy who was born in the same year I was, who grew up with Faith, Family and Community as his life's priorities, who watched MLK Jr. and Neil Armstrong on black-and-white TV and celebrated their victories, as we all did.

Empty Boots, Not Empty Suits, at Iowa GOP Presidential Debate



On one of his recent shows, Conservative Radio Talk Show Host, Hugh Hewitt, was rejoicing in observing how similar today’s political circumstances are to those of 1979, during the Carter Administration. According to Hewitt, he did so because he is certain that the present conditions will lead to a “reinvigorated … American renaissance of power and influence”, as it did under the Reagan Administration, from 1981 to 1989. I’m certainly in favor of seeing that happen so, as a member of the Twitter group that Hewitt calls “The Tribbles”, I was able to indicate my support by tweeting “Preach it, Brother @HughHewitt!” As I did, though, I was thinking, “There’s a key ingredient missing here … Ronald Reagan.”



Our nation was blessed to have had President Reagan but a great leader of his stature, typically, only comes along once in a lifetime. I would welcome seeing someone emerge as an exception to this but; so far, I don’t see anyone who could fill Reagan’s boots. While I would apply this statement to the eight participants in Thursday evening’s GOP Presidential Debate in Iowa, I would also say, as a group, they showed themselves to be anything but empty suits. Unlike we do with the current Democrat Party Leadership (as represented by Obama, Axelrod, Geithner, Kerry, Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, Rangel, Clyburn, etc.), we didn’t hear the relentless drumbeat of party talking points and attacks on voters who want to resurrect our great nation. To those Democrats, I’d say, “You’re misunderstanding the low approvals indicated by polls for the Whitehouse and for Congress. Those polls indicate that voters aren’t happy with those institutions … yet. Election by election, as we send more and more of your type home, approval ratings will be going up.” By contrast, what we did get from the announced Republican Presidential Candidates Thursday night was what Moderator, Bret Baier, asked for – i.e. for talking points to be left behind. Instead, what we heard from this group were pretty unvarnished observations about how to get our country back on a positive footing, along with how their ideas differ from the sitting Administration and their Republican rivals.


One candidate, who I thought did quite well in Thursday evening’s debate, was Newt Gingrich. It was good to see him, finally, sort of step out of the shadows in this campaign. Perhaps his strongest statement was one aimed at putting the press (in the person of Chris Wallace) in its place, when he chastised Wallace for “playing Mickey Mouse games” with “Gotcha questions.” Later, he tried the same gambit with Bret Baier. This latter attempt didn’t strike me as seeming justified and I thought it was a clear indication of why Gingrich doesn’t measure up to Reagan. He is a very intelligent man but he often shows that he doesn’t always use good sense. With that said, I thought he did an excellent job of thoroughly addressing all the questions that came his way. My personal favorite was when he called the Federal Deficit Super Committee the “dumbest idea” he’s heard of and he stated that this is a job for the entirety of Congress.


Of course, the sparring between Congresswoman Michele Bachman and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was entertaining. Frankly, I’d tune in to that if it was a TV series. However, I think they both showed more indications of how they fall short of Reagan, as a standard, rather than showing how they could follow in his footsteps. In Bachman’s case, she seemed more like another career politician with her ongoing chant about making Barack Obama “a one-term President” and with her defensiveness about taking rigid positions that have not produced results. Likewise, I thought Pawlenty came off as a career politician, with the difference being that he seemed mean.


Former Senator Rick Santorum didn’t seem to get as much exposure as some of the other candidates. I thought his complaint about that had some legitimacy. However, I didn’t think he made good use of what visibility he did get. He seemed to use most of the time he got to denigrate his opponents. I never find this breaking of what President Reagan called “The Eleventh Commandment” to be appealing.


As per usual, Congressman Ron Paul seemed to have the most vocal supporters in the audience. And, once again, he and his supporters, to quote the tweet of a fellow-Tribble, “came off as nuts.” I don’t know many Ron Paul supporters well but I do know one supporter who is a fellow Tea Party member and quite a nice lady so, for her sake, I’m very uncomfortable in saying this.


The “front-runner” going in to this debate was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. I think he remained in that position coming out of the debate too. Mostly, I thought he did a good job of dispelling a press “gotcha comment” that, up to now, he has seemed to be in a “Mittness protection program.” He was very clear and thorough in outlining the seven steps he sees as needed for resurrecting the U.S. economy. And, I thought he did a fine job of illustrating how, both in the private sector and the public sector, he has provided the sort of leadership to get these jobs done. Furthermore, he plainly stated that, by contrast, President Obama is “out of his depth” in this regard.


I have to admit that former business CEO, Herman Cain, is a sentimental favorite with me. The positions he’s taken on the issues are well aligned with mine and I like the down-to-earth way he states his positions. However, he has regularly let his openness get him into trouble. And, his “willingness to learn” on foreign relations leaves many wondering if he would suffer from the same “What will he do when the phone rings at 3:00 in the morning?” weakness that Barack Obama has shown.


Finally, there’s former Utah Governor, Jon Huntsman. Out of the candidates participating in Thursday night’s debate, he is the most recent to enter the race. Although I found that several issues he addressed in the debate (securing the border, understanding foreign relations, locally determined education reform, etc.) line up with my views, he did seem like another career politician who is new to the race.


Beyond the GOP Presidential Debate in Iowa, there has been significant interest in the likelihood that Rick Perry will enter the race. As Governor of Texas, I’m betting he owns a pair of boots. Maybe he will prove himself to be somewhat “Reaganesque.” Or, perhaps, one or more other candidates will emerge, who seem to fill that bill. But, as I said before, “so far, I don’t see anyone who could fill Reagan’s boots.” With that said, I did feel that Thursday night’s debate demonstrated another comment I’ve made previously – i.e. There are several Republican Presidential Candidates who are head-and-shoulders above Barack Obama, in terms of being qualified for the job of President. My hope has been, in the process of selecting from this field of candidates, we won’t end up with McCain II. Based on what I saw in the Iowa GOP Presidential Debate, I’m more comfortable with either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, in that regard.

Comments

The battle begins


Submitted by Brittanicus (not verified) on Sat, 2011-08-13 09:45.

0

+-Only one candidate for the White House will stop the bleeding of billions of dollars annually, by illegal foreigners who have taken advantage of the American people? Even Ron Paul in his book, is hesitating on bringing the full power of the law, to halt in its tracks another terrible immigration Reform package; but not so lady Michele Bachmann. Perhaps this is why Rep. Michele Bachmann exempted from being asked questions on illegal immigration? Her stance on this issue is far above the rest who stood behind their dais in Ames, Iowa? Was this leaving Bachman out of this social issue premeditated? Whether this was the case or not, she strands strong as this uncontrolled illegal immigration invader problem has been ignored by administrations for years. Bachmann will not tolerate any form of Amnesty as President. Every Sanctuary City and state that does not comply by cutting of these ordinances will lose federal funding. It’s been said many times before, that American cannot afford to subsidize Mexico, Central America, Europe, Pacific Rim or other nation; its inhabitants impoverished and desperate illegal immigrants anymore? This illogical problem is crippling America’s economy by the massive payouts for families, which have migrated illegally across our sovereign border.



The TEA PARTY has become an immense grassroots movement of tens of millions of one- mind Americans from all racial and religious backgrounds, political parties, no matter what the adverse pundits say? The TEA PARTY members share the focused philosophy of limited government, individual freedoms, personal responsibility, "fair" free markets and above all else returning power to the States and the people. The TEA PARTY is about reforming all political parties and control, so the key principles of our Constitution, once again is the foundation of which this nation stands.



Of course open border disciples, business lobbyist will deny the obvious, that this illegal incursion is drowning us in debt—with no end in sight. (FAIR) American Federation of Immigration Reform that of 2009, reported that overall costs to subsidize the illegal alien household was calculated through, federal, State, County and Municipal sources that it was a $113 Billion dollar problem. Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a report in which they estimate the total annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is estimated to be $113 billion combined. The states are bearing the burden of the costs; while the government share is nearly $29 billion, it escalates to $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The state-by-state breakdown begins on page 4 of this report at: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921

Education for the children of illegal migrants and immigrants constitutes the sole largest outlay to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Virtually all of those expenses are absorbed by state and local governments. At the federal level, only about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs is allied with the illegal immigration occupation and recouped through taxes collected from illegal nationals. Nearly all illegal aliens do not pay income taxes; only those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal immigrants when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resultant in payments from the U.S. Treasury. Please note this is not a static expenditure, but these dollars amounts are raising all the time.



Ask yourself, why the Grand Canyon State of Arizona had not choice, but to clamp down against the massive dollar amounts spent to appease illegal alien homesteads How can a small South Western state that is mostly desert, afford to pay out $2 Billion dollars annually for foreigners? Then again-- how can Leftist legislators in Sacramento, California, justify taking taxpayer’s money and giving it to illegal aliens when these persons truly don't exist, other than in ICE enforcement records or Homeland Security? HAS ANY READER THOUGHT OF CHECKING THEIR STATES PAYOUT TO FOREIGN NATIONALS? Although they come here through the magnet of jobs, welfare and each year bring their children. The estimates of 300.000 babies enter via a broken, intermittent border fence, that can no-way be fully enforced without the deployment of troops. Instant citizen for babies is above most payments, is an incredulous cost forced on taxpayers by Liberal judges legislating from their gavel.



Because entering America without papers is not a—FELONY—it is essentially a giant hole in the wall, which imports not only millions of illegal aliens, but a massive population of criminals; bringing death, mayhem and ID theft on the unsuspecting citizens and residents. As I said in my commentary yesterday, the only way to sever the incentive of jobs (which I never thought I would admit) is issuing every citizen and legal resident a government ID CARD. This could be used to get employed US workers. (8 million illegal aliens have stolen jobs from mostly low income Americans according to reputable sources.) The same official ID card could be presented for voting; instead of the mess we have now, with convicted felons, deceased and illegal aliens, fraudulently using the election process to alter an elections direction.



You would also use this federal ID CARD to be checked against other data bases, official birth records to see if you have the right to be issued a driver’s license, vehicle insurance, welfare or other Public entitlements. I shouldn't gloat over the welfare payouts in California, but it is a self inflicted wound caused by the Liberals in the capitol. California, the Godfather of Sanctuary State has a $19 Billion dollar budget gap, with a staggering cost of $21 Billion $ according to the National Conference of State Legislators in 2009. We must wonder how the welfare costs have escalated in two years in the once Golden State?



MY EARLIER BLOGS: http://brittanicus-enoughisenough.blogspot.com/

No Copyright. Distribute Freely.



From Rab L Rouser via email


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sun, 2011-08-14 14:25.

0

+-I was going to compliment you an a nice article and point out that, as Michael Reagan points out in his book ‘The New Reagan Revolution’ (on pages 66-67) ;



“Gerald Ford was a flawed candidate, as was John McCain. But I’ll let you in on a secret: We’re not going to find a perfect candidate. Ronald Reagan was not perfect. He was not 100% pure. He was a great man, but he had his flaws. Despite all that he accomplished Ronald Reagan couldn’t win the GOP nomination today.



If Ronald Reagan were running for president today, where would the opposition come from? From the left? No, from the right! Ronald Reagan would not be considered ideologically pure enough to be the standard-bearer of the party.



Conservatives revere Ronald Reagan as the patron saing ot the GOP– and rightly so. But if conservatives in 1980 had applied the same standards to Ronald Reagan that they apply to Joyhn McCain, we might never have had the economic recovery of the 1980′s of the fall of the Berlin Wall.



Ronald Reagan caaomplished what he did because he saw the big picture. He waved a bnner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pale pastel shades. He wasn’t a perfect man, but he was a good man–



And a great leader.



I didn’t bother to watch the debate. I have learned that words used at these events are just lies intended to hornswaggle voters into lending their support toward the candidate most to their liking.



I sit back and wait for my intelligent friends to post on trustworty publications such as Red State and then benefit from their sage judgement.



Thank you for your tireless devotion to liberty my friend.



Reaganism


Submitted by Jon R (not verified) on Sun, 2011-08-14 20:04.

0

+-If a political candidate has to compare himself to Reagan; Chances are he is not anything like Reagan. It annoys me to know end to hear Presidential candidates say things like, I am Reagan Republican or What would Reagan do?



You know what candidate? Reagan was a leader. Reagan didn't compare himself to other people. Reagan saw himself as a leader of a movement. Be that person, don't say your like that person.



From @strongthought via Twitter


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:47.

0

+-If we had ‘internet scrutiny’ in 1979 we would be critical of Reagan too. There is a Reagan in that pack of candidates. There is.



From @tamij via Twitter


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:50.

0

+-Nice Gary!



From Michael Beck via email


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:52.

0

+-Great analysis big Gary. I think correct analysis. This next election, Obama will be in over his head in debating the GOP candidate, just like he is in over his head in running the country. Ron Paul is a total idiot. To think that Iran with a nuclear weapon poses no threat is kooksville.



From Joel Turvey via email


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:54.

0

+-Gary,

I enjoyed your post very much. You put your finger on what is missing in the Republican presidential primary contest. Having said that, I feel hopeful after watching the last 2 debates. Any one of these candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) would be better than President Obama. All seem committed to encouraging free enterprise and reversing Obama’s policies, especially Obamacare. They are articulate and forceful. And who knows, like @strongthought observed, maybe a Reagan will eventually emerge from this field, especially with the addition of Rick Perry.

My sentimental favorite is Michele Bachmann. She may seem rigid, but she was uncompromising in opposition to raising the debt ceiling, and she has fought against the administration’s positions, despite Pawlenty’s petty comments. She walks the walk on the pro-life issue.

Keep up your good work.



From a fellow Northwest conservative,

Joel Turvey (@joelmt)



From team_Excalibur via email


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 06:03.

0

+-I have to admit that the “political machine” of either party is not producing a believable candidate I would strongly back and vote for in 2012. Every “hard-line party”, rich politician currently in Congress thinks that the existing two-party system with support from dependent, high-density urban area voters will either save them in the coming elections or replace them with a party clone that holds the “status quo”. It’s ironic that many of the nation’s young voters and “poor” vote for Congressional candidates that are from a very rich and arrogant sector of our society. Why should anyone of the right stuff that we need to replace the Congress or the President in office need to pay millions to promote themselves as a viable candidate and participate as a candidate in a preliminary campaign event??? The whole system is broken! We need real leadership, not accusations and vague political promises! Obamacare is not about medical care improvement, it’s about expanded federal government control of the middle class populous and weakening of the Constitutional rights of every American.



The Democrats are primarily funded by big business interests (those same corporations who don’t pay their fair share of taxes and outsource our critical balance of trade jobs to our national debt “lenders”) and fully supported by new white-collar state government unions in almost all states with very large cities on both coasts. We are headed for a direct political conflict between suburban folks with angered patriotic seniors who paid their “entitlement” taxes the Democrats established over the last 60+ years and progressive liberal socialists and communists headquartered in all of America’s big cities. A dictator will emerge (if he hasn’t already been voted in by the “sheeple” who depend on the current course of federal government-initiated entitlement programs and taxation.) We are under economic attack and still giving borrowed money away to other counties in the world for favors. Meanwhile, Congress just keeps rearranging the deck chairs on the American, National Debt-ridden Titanic…

Avoiding McCain II

If, like me, you’re praying for the 2012 Presidential Election to result in Barack Obama being a One-Term President, the good news is that the most recent Gallup Poll shows that the "Republican Candidate" (generic) leads Obama 47% to 39%. The bad news is that when you fill in “generic” with any name from the current field of candidates, polls indicate that Obama holds the lead over (or, at least, is tied with) each of these candidates.


Thankfully, for now, most Republicans seem to be trying to cleave to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment … “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” … so their relentless knit-picking of each candidate who comes along seems to have waned. Perhaps that is due to the fact that they recognize what has even been acknowledged by one writer at the Huffington Post – i.e. “The least qualified Republican candidate, stands head and shoulders above the qualificat­ions of the incompeten­t guy we now have in the White House.” Just the same, an aire of unease seems to remain amongst the GOP faithful. I believe the source of this anxiety is what I call “The Fear of McCain II.”

“McCain II” is my metaphor for a repeat of what happened with the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination. Though I will always honor John McCain as a true American hero, I don’t believe he was the best candidate the GOP could have put forward as their 2008 Presidential Nominee. But, like many, I voted for McCain in the General Election, not because he was “my guy” but because he was my preference over Obama.

In order to deal with the angst of loyal Republicans due to the possibility of “McCain II”, it only makes sense to develop a strategy to avoid that. Logically, the first step in this development process is to consider how “McCain I” happened. My view is that, in general, this was the result of the GOP doing “business as usual”, from the time candidates started emeging up through the 2008 RNC in St.Paul, MN. By contrast, the Democrat Party and the Obama Campaign recognized that the 2008 political landscape called for anything but “business as usual”. Their “audacious” approach handed the GOP a huge defeat in that year. That, of course, was discouraging for the GOP faithful. What’s more discouraging is that, so far, the Republican Party seems to be taking the same “business as usual” approach in the current political season. For evidence of this, you only need to look as far as the “top candidate” in the current field of Republican presidential hopefuls.

Mitt Romney is, presently, the clear leader amongst the “top candidates.” According to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll, “Romney also runs ahead of the pack on three crucial attributes: leadership, experience and, perhaps most important, who can beat the president next year.” However, a related report in the Washington Post goes on to say, “Romney’s support is tepid, particularly among the party’s most energized constituency — the strong supporters of the tea party movement.” My belief is that the primary reason that “Romney’s support is tepid” is a fear of “McCain II.” Frankly, I would vote for Romney for President in the 2012 General Election, but it would only be because he would be my preference over Obama, not because he’s “my guy.” Obviously, for me, having this happen would add up to “McCain II.” Fortunately, though Romney is the current “front runner”, there are several other Republican “top candidates” to consider.

Though unannounced, Sarah Palin remains a “top candidate.” The Washington Post report I mentioned also provides a good thumbnail sketch on the outlook for her prospective candidacy. It notes:

“Sarah Palin’s lingering power to shake up the race if she decides to run.” … “the hold that Palin still has on segments of the party faithful despite some long-standing liabilities and deep skepticism among many voters about her qualifications.” … “Palin tops the list as the most empathetic figure. She runs almost even with Romney on the question of who best reflects the party’s core values and on who is most compatible with people on the issues.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry has also been expressing a growing interest in a possible candidacy. Here again, the Washington Post article I mentioned offers a good synopsis of this “top candidate”:

“As the longtime governor of a big state that has produced more jobs than any other state in the country, Perry is seen by some Republicans as a potentially serious threat to Romney. But he is far from a dominant figure in the assessment of rank-and-file Republicans. He attracts the support of 8 percent, with or without Palin in the race, and he is in single digits on all six attributes as well.”

And, as cited earlier, there are numerous other Republican candidates, the least of whom, in the words of the Huffington Post author, have credentials that are “head and shoulders above the qualificat­ions of the incompeten­t guy we now have in the White House.” Although I’m not going to attempt to provide a summary for the candidacy status of each of these individuals, there is another “top candidate” I want to draw attention to in this regard. It’s the candidate mentioned at the outset of this article … the "Republican Candidate" (generic) who, according to the recent Gallup Poll, leads Obama 47% to 39%. Of course, successful campaigning on the part of one of the candidates I’ve named up to now could lead to that person inheriting the poll-leadership of the “generic candidate”. Mostly, though, the present poll-leadership of the “generic candidate” implies that party faithful are hoping there are one or more superior candidates out there who, for now, have chosen not to join in the race.

So, how does this all fit together and what does it tell us about how to avoid “McCain II?” My belief is that all this clearly indicates the necessity for the Republican Party to proactively get behind a candidate now, instead of taking a “business as usual” approach.” One way of doing this is for the party, as an example, to identify the reasons why “Romney’s support is tepid” and if this is a result of perceptions that can honestly be corrected, to work with the candidate to correct them and give him the party’s full support. Of course, this approach could also be applied to Palin’s “long-standing liabilities and deep skepticism among many voters about her qualifications” and with the view of Perry as being “far from a dominant figure in the assessment of rank-and-file Republicans”. If the GOP was to take this approach with all of it’s “top candidates”, an added benefit could be encouraging some of those superior candidates, who have chosen not to be in the race at present, to get in.

I recognize that the idea of the RNC selecting a candidate for the party’s full support at this stage of the game is very naïve and not very practical. But it is just that … an idea ... a suggestion for something different and better than “business as usual.” Without a different and better approach, we’re almost certain to get “McCain II.” So, Republican National Committee, you folks are the professionals to whom we’ve entrusted our party. If you don’t like this idea, please tell us what you have in mind that’s different and better. I don’t care how dissimilar what you have in mind is from the idea I’ve presented. All I care about is that it’s not “business as usual” and please, that it doesn’t give us “McCain II.”


Comments

From Mark Mahan via Facebook


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Fri, 2011-07-22 19:27.

0

+-I'm with you Gary- we need a good, strong Republican candidate to run. Not because we need a Republican in office, but because we need an excellent choice. I'm hoping that the GOP can find the right person.

From funwithknives


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Fri, 2011-07-22 19:44.

0

+-is apparent here . At least to this Naif. Leave this decision to Fall Convention, 2012 and little time remains for preparations. BHO has the advantage if we allow it.Example: Point/counter-point is coming and Unification is only logical, for concentration of every resource.

“Time ,Waits for NoOne,and It Won’t, Wait for Me…”(or WE)

McCain II


Submitted by Mike Frome (not verified) on Mon, 2011-07-25 07:59.

0

+-Gary, I largely agree with what you've written here. I've referred to it as "pulling a Dino" - a GOP candidate put forth using the "politics as usual" paradigm...and there are far too many first-time conservative activists who view the GOP very skeptically on the national level especially, vis-a-vis fiscal policy.



think that some of the names with lesser recognition can truly shine on their own merit, if they are not placed in the shade of the Name Brand by the party.



I also personally know several people who have expressed that they will refuse to vote if the choice presented by the system is, in their perception, one branch of "the Left" vs. another. I can empathize with that view, although I believe the stakes are far too high.

Rediscovering America's Strength

This past weekend, Figgie (Figgins) and I had a few discussions about the 2008 Presidential Campaign. It seems that this campaign has already been going on forever and its not even 2008 yet. The election itself is still about 11 months away. Its all pretty new to Figgie though and while he hasn't registered to vote, he has seemed pretty keenly interested.

Our level of interest seemed to ramp up over the weekend, as a result of media focus on a certain "Celebrity Endorsement." This isn't a topic that generally carries much weight with me. However, Oprah Winfrey was at the center of this and though neither Figgie nor I are fans, we recognize her unique celebrity status. The factor that stirred my interest most was that she wasn't just lending her name, as an endorsement for a candidate, she actually showed up at a few campaign events to say why. So, we tuned in.

I ended up telling Figgie that I was disappointed with what I heard. Generally, there were comments about need for change, followed by the name of the candidate she is endorsing, as the preferred change-agent. This is a theme I've heard countless times, for numerous candidates (both real and fictitious), since before I was old enough to vote. What I didn't hear was much substance about the need for change or details of the "something better" we need to change to or specifics of plans for accomplishing these improvements.

So, there we were, with our interests stimulated but not gratified. What were we to do? Well, the first step was pretty obvious ... we needed to face the fact that, going into it, we knew better than to expect much from a celebrity endorsement. And, frankly, we had to admit that our critique of the event was pretty obvious and easy. Those steps taken, we decided to check a source with a track record of fulfillment for us, when it comes to political observation ... Charles Krauthammer ... a Syndicated Columnist who, when I see him on TV, I spontaneously shout, "My hero!"

To my astonishment, we came away from reading Krauthammer's column for this past Friday, in The Washington Post, with a sense of disappointment too. His comments were about one Presidential Candidate's Evangelical Christianity and how he had used that to "manipulate" another candidate into having to discuss his Mormonism. As usual, Krauthammer expressed his views intelligently and interestingly but, at the end of it all, he just pitted one candidate against another, based on their differences.

But then it struck us! Ironically, we realized that "My hero", Charles had actually come through. He had pointed us in the right direction by pitting one candidate against another. We realized ... that's what they all do. Regardless of the forum, its Democrat against Republican, Left against Right and Pro versus Con on: abortion, energy, environment, immigration, Iraq, taxes and pretty much any issue you can think of. How does that make us better? I don't think that's what led to our success, as a nation, in the first place. At the outset we pitted ourselves against Britain to gain our independence but we didn't do it just one person's way. I seem to recall that we drew on the best of the differing ideas of those we now honor as our Patriots ... John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington, etc. These were all very different guys. Where would we be if all they did was pit themselves against each other, based on their differences? ... In a place where there is only a Union Jack and no Old Glory, that's where! ... So, why is it that that's all we do today? Although Oprah didn't persuade me to support her guy, I'd bet that he does have some good ideas and that he, genuinely, wants to do his part to better our nation. Likewise with both the Evangelical Christian and the Mormon. As a matter of fact, that's probably true of all the current mainstream candidates. So, why is it that not one of them seems to have the courage to offer what we do need ... not just change but leadership, with a vision aligned with the beliefs of the majority and with the common sense to embrace the superior ideas of others, even if the "others" are political opponents. Now there's the candidate I'm looking for! One who can lead us to rediscovering the strength that made America great in the first place ... the synergy of the best of our differing ideas.

After basking for a few moments, in the illumination of the "Aha moment" we'd had, it occurred to me that I'd recently heard a similar point of view. As I reflected on this, I realized it was what I'd heard about a new book called Common Ground - How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America., by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel. If these two, literally, political polar-opposites have come to this conclusion too, we're more encouraged, we must be on to something!

As a relative newcomer to considering Presidential politics, this all seemed to be a bit convoluted for Figgie. But I sensed it was sinking in and beginning to comfort him. As soon as we came to today's conclusion, he wandered off to one of his favorite spots ... the living room couch. There, he was able to look out and enjoy the sunny, though chilly, mid-December day. No doubt, it was that comforting view, along with the enlightened vision, resulting from our examination of today's topic, that had him peacefully snoozing in no time. I was thankful he could do that so easily. He is such a good listener but I know that takes a lot out of him.