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.

Price-Per-Barrel, Band-Aids and Bludgeons

Arguably, the single most important issue in the U.S. economy is the current unprecedented rate of increase in the price-per-barrel of crude oil. Unarguably, our “Leaders” are still offering no well thought-out cohesive plan to address this matter that’s been in crisis-mode since 1973. Instead, they continue to offer Band-Aids and Bludgeons.

Band-Aids are things like the gas-tax holiday endorsed by Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain or Congress calling in oil company executives to yell at them about their morally questionable level of profits. While these actions illicit gut-level reactions, they’re not solutions. They are, at best, Band-Aids.

Bludgeon describes how politicians use this to beat on each other. Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama provides a classic example of this. He uses this as yet another opportunity to use the disingenuous phrase “Bush/McCain” and to lay the blame for this crisis at the feet of his political opponent. This completely ignores the fact that every President, Senator (including himself) and Member of Congress, since 1973, has screwed this pooch. Instead of a true “Change” to true leadership that leads to much-needed real solutions, we get the same old political expedience of just blaming the other guy any chance you get. The result? No real solutions, just more Bludgeons.

Well, I’ve had enough! In late 1978, when I was 30, I accepted a promotion and moved from Indiana to Southern California. When I got there, I found that you could only get gas on alternating days, depending on the ending number of your car’s license plate. And, on those alternating days, you’d still have to wait in line for gas, hoping that the filling station you’d picked didn’t run out. To make matters worse, the price for gas was approaching an outrageous $1.00 per gallon! I remember the Tonight Show’s Johnny Carson saying, “Just wait. Once gas gets to $1.00 a gallon, there will be all the gas you want.” I guess he was right. Once there was enough supply, the price didn’t seem to matter that much and not much changed.

So, here we are, 30 years later, I’m now 60, I’ve moved from Southern California to the Pacific Northwest, gas is over $4.00 per gallon and finally, something about our nation’s energy dependence is beginning to change … our driving habits. Charles Krauthammer addresses this well in his recent column entitled “At $4, Everybody Gets Rational”. Once the price exceeded $4.00 a gallon, it did matter to us and the change in our behavior is forcing the “Captains of Industry” to respond.

I guess that’s a good thing and that Krauthammer is right … Its too bad that it takes this sort of “gun to the head” circumstance to change our driving habits but that key needs to remain in place if, as a nation, we’re ever going to achieve energy independence. But, this involves the behavior of “Followers”. What about the behavior of our “Leaders”?! Where is their cohesive plan, now 35 years overdue, that: Safely produces more domestic crude oil and refined product, includes rational and expedient development of alternative fuels, leverages pricing for the products that OPEC imports from the U.S., etc.?

Certainly, I’m not alone in my views on this and I’m confident I’m not even in the minority. What I’ve pointed out up to now isn’t exactly “news”. The question remaining is what do we, as individuals, do about this? Well, we can still “throw the rascals out” with the power of our vote. After 35 years of inaction, whether they have a “D” or an “R” (or any other party-affiliation) after their names, they deserve to be thrown out. If, in over a third of a century, they can’t address such a clearly urgent matter, which can just as clearly be resolved, how can we rely on them for other concerns and why shouldn’t we give “the other guys” a chance to do better?

For me, the time to act is now. I look at what has happened while our “Leaders” have continued to let this matter drift since I was 30. We can’t “unscramble that egg” but lets have enough concern for where our nation will be 30 years from now, to put true Leaders in place who will do better than just continue to let us “go with the flow” into oblivion. There’s no telling if I’ll see 90 but, if things don’t change, I imagine my departure having to be much less elegant than my arrival. I plan to be cremated. Without significant change, I imagine that my Wife and dog will have to drag me to some designated public spot where two sticks can be rubbed together to get me started and I can be used as fuel for something, including the smoke-signals that are used to relay the news of my passing. Part of why I imagine that black-comedy scene is to try to make myself laugh to keep from crying. I do not want to spend my “Golden Years” in depression, both economically and emotionally, as a result of what we allow to continue to happen to our great nation. So, I’m going to do what I can, including doing all I can to “throw the rascals out”. That means I will not vote for anyone, at any level, who isn’t supporting a well thought-out cohesive plan for our nation’s energy-independence. Can I make a difference alone? No. But, if I’m right, that I’m not in the minority on this and those who agree act in unison with me, we will make a difference. In addition to being a difference that keeps my sorry ash from going up in smoke signals we can make a significant and true “Change” that keeps our nation on its course of greatness.

McCain’s Defense of Hagee

OK, there wasn’t one. As a result of controversy that was raised up about Pastor John Hagee within the past few days, Senator John McCain rejected the endorsement Hagee had given his presidential candidacy, without any apparent attempt to come to Hagee’s defense.

At the center of the mentioned controversy is an argument Pastor Hagee included in a late 1990s sermon. Those who unearthed this sermon, sum up Hagee’s argument as saying, “… the rise of Adolf Hitler was part of God's plan to help the Jews reach the Promised Land.” If that’s an accurate summary, I think Pastor Hagee is wrong. I’m a man of faith and I believe that God does know the end from the beginning so I would agree that God knew what Hitler would do. I, also, believe the Bible and what it tells us about the nature of God. As an example, in Romans 8:28, we’re told, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.” In other words, though God knows of the evil that men will do, He sees to it that it leads to good anyway, for His people. So, while I can see that applying to the mind-boggling evil that Hitler did, it isn’t in God’s nature to raise up that evil Himself. With that said, I guess I can see how Hagee could get carried away and come to the conclusion he did but I don’t agree with that conclusion and I would agree with McCain in rejecting that conclusion.

However, it wasn’t just that conclusion that McCain rejected. He rejected Hagee’s endorsement and in doing that, he rejected Hagee himself. In order to understand McCain’s character and his fitness to be our next President, I think it’s appropriate to ask … Why was there no apparent attempt to come to Hagee’s defense?

Of course, I can understand why it was politically expedient for McCain to reject Hagee’s endorsement. Especially, in light of how McCain’s detractors have relentlessly dug for anything they can find to counter the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stigma that McCain’s opponent, Senator Barack Obama, carries. But doesn’t Hagee deserve better? McCain actually sought out Hagee’s endorsement. And this past February, Hagee stood up for McCain, in the way McCain wanted. I trust that Hagee did this, fully aware that McCain has his flaws. McCain admits to this, himself. A good example came this past MLK Day; when McCain appeared at the site of MLK’s assassination and stated, “I was wrong. I was wrong.” And “We all make mistakes. We all make mistakes”, regarding his original opposition to establishing MLK Day, as a National Holiday. Perhaps McCain’s original opposition to MLK Day was out of some well-intended but misdirected over-exuberance. Whatever the reason, McCain, himself, now rejects that position and yet, he asks that we not allow this admitted error to cause us to reject him or his presidential candidacy.

Why, then, isn’t Senator McCain extending the same consideration to Pastor Hagee that he asks for himself? Perhaps Pastor Hagee wouldn’t admit to being in error. I don’t know. What I do know is that it troubles me that McCain rejected Hagee without any apparent attempt to give him that opportunity, so he might continue to stand up for him. It makes me wonder how the “Captain of the Straight-Talk Express” will stand up for me, in spite of my flaws. Although I’m, presently, a McCain supporter, I have to wonder if I can count on him once he finds out that I voted for Ambassador Alan Keyes for President, in California’s 2000 Primaries. I heard Keyes speak at my church and every time he spoke, he uttered my views. Since then, Barack Obama beat him like a drum, in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate and with his few appearances in the current presidential campaign; I’ve been embarrassed for Keyes. Maybe I was just overly enthusiastic about Keyes’ speech at my church but, considering what I’ve witnessed since then, I have to conclude that my judgment was flawed, in casting my Year-2000 Presidential Primary vote for him. Does that mistake, with or without admitting to it, mean that Senator McCain would reject my support and thus, reject me? Maybe so and maybe I’d understand it, in a way. Maybe that would be the politically expedient thing to do. But is that what we want our nation’s character to be founded on? Political expedience?! Shouldn’t we be willing to stand up for those who stand up for us … At least to the extent that, before rejecting them, we give them the opportunity to acknowledge their mistakes so that we can continue to stand up for them? I’ve done that for Senator McCain and so did John Hagee. But, that’s not what Hagee got from McCain, in return. John McCain is an unquestionably-genuine national hero. My gratitude for all he’s done for us and our nation is undying. Regardless, I’m disappointed that I didn’t see the courage of an unquestionably-genuine national hero in the way he dealt with this recent controversy, that was raised up around John Hagee. My hope is that he will revisit this in a way that assures me that we can continue to count on John McCain to courageously stand up for us all, imperfect though we are.

CA Voters Should “Recall” Why Prop 22 Was Abandoned

In 2003, California held a statewide circus known as the Gubernatorial Recall election. That election actually considered two questions … Yes or No, should their sitting Governor, Gray Davis, be recalled? … And, if Yes, who of the 154 candidates should replace him? The slate of candidates included Actors, a Lieutenant Governor, a State Senator, Business People, a Porn Star, a Comedian, etc., etc.

In the lead-up to this election, it seemed likely that Davis would be recalled. This gave the Republicans the opportunity to capture the Governorship of the nation’s most populous State from the Democrats. In my opinion, it was unnecessary emphasis on this that led the California Republican Party to make a tragic error. Dana Rohrabacher, the U.S. Congressman for the California District I lived in at the time, took the lead in the party’s effort to support Actor/Businessman Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was obvious that this endeavor was founded on Schwarzenegger’s popularity, making him most likely to garner the plurality of votes needed to be Davis’ replacement. It was just as obvious that, for the group led by Rohrabacher, the subject of “Who is the best Gubernatorial Candidate for the future of the State?” took a back seat to the issue of popularity. To many, the answer to the question of “Who is the best Gubernatorial Candidate for the future of the State?” was State Senator Tom McClintock. He seemed to be very clear on every issue, as it pertained to what was needed from a California Governor for the present and the future. However, he wasn’t widely known in the State and he is far from being a flashy politician. Of course, it’s impossible to say that, if Rohrabacher’s efforts had been invested in McClintock, he would have won and the Republicans would still have secured the California Governorship. As you know, Schwarzenegger became “The Governator”. However, since McClintock received more votes than any Republican besides Schwarzenegger, it seems quite feasible that, with the Rohrabacher group’s support, McClintock could have won the Governorship.

So, since that circus took place nearly five years ago, what’s its importance now? Especially, at a time when the political “hot topic” is the May 15, 2008 Headline - California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban - i.e. The overturn of California’s Year 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 which, by a vote of 61.4% in favor, prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Of course, there’s ongoing heated debate on this issue. I’m not writing to add to that fire. I will say that there are people who are dear to me on both sides of this matter and my prayer is that we all can keep our related discussions, no matter how inflamed, from singeing those treasured relationships. I’m not even writing to address the matter of seven unelected officials forsaking the will of 61.4% of the California Electorate … though that seems pretty obviously wrong to me. I’m writing to address the matter of choosing style over substance – i.e. in 2003; the California Electorate let themselves be led to choosing popularity over ability. The current political “hot topic” just helps to illuminate that folly and its result … You may end up with just what you asked for, a likable “leader” who isn’t able (or willing) to respond in a way that reflects the will of those he represents. Specifically, in a statement responding to this California Supreme Court ruling, Governor Schwarzenegger simply said that he respected the ruling and did not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it. By contrast, State Senator (and now, U.S. Congress Candidate) Tom McClintock said, "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a travesty of judicial activism and is based not on California law - which is crystal-clear - but on the social views of the individual justices. Fortunately, the initiative process allows voters the opportunity to overturn this ruling by adopting the Marriage Protection initiative this November," McClintock said. "I intend to do everything in my power to campaign for this initiative."

Certainly, the outcome of the 2003 California Recall Circus isn’t unique, in terms of a population choosing style over substance, leading to travesty. As with most things, the best example is in the Bible, when Israel demanded a King. They first chose Saul, described in 1 Samuel 9:2 as “… a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.” … He was a good-looking tall guy who was a disaster, as King. On the other hand, David, Israel's first great King, who God instructed Samuel to anoint to replace Saul, was initially not included with the sons of Jesse who Samuel was considering. He wasn’t even present … as the youngest and the least, he was the one assigned to be out in the field, shepherding the flock.

So, what can we learn from this? Obviously, though we were given the “choosing style over substance” lesson in Saul and David, thousands of years ago, in Israel, it seems we still haven’t fully learned that lesson. Hopefully, the voters of California are learning from the results of their having elected (and reelected) “The Governator”. But, I no longer live in California so I’ll leave that to present-day Californians. My hope is that we will apply this lesson to what lies before us, as a nation. In the current Presidential campaign, as in most political campaigns, there is much to consider, in terms of what is style and what is substance. I’m not going to tell you, here, which of the Presidential Candidates I see as having more substance. With this, I just want to encourage you to seriously consider the matter of “a population choosing style over substance, leading to travesty.”

Earth's Greatest Democracy ... Unless You Live in Florida or Michigan

The current flap over the seating of Florida's and Michigan's delegates at the national conventions of their respective national political parties makes it seem like an issue that's exclusive to the Democrat Party. That's because the nearly indistinguishable politics of the Left and Lefter Presidential Candidates of that party has resulted in them both scrambling to find some leverage to give themselves a winning advantage. However, this is a much broader topic that merits the interest of Americans of every political stripe.

We touched on this in an earlier posting, entitled "It ain't over ... 'til its Beginning?! ". There, we pointed out the inappropriate impact of the Iowa Caucuses on the slate of Presidential Candidates that voters in other States would get to consider. The key question we posed was, "Why should fewer than 100,000 Iowa Republicans and fewer than 200,000 Iowa Democrats have such sway over the 300 million of us living in the U.S.?" From there, we went on to note that, though we see this as a flawed beginning to the current process, there are many other flaws in the process sorely needing change. What we see as the most flawed part of the process is at the end ... the Electoral College. Our illustration of this came from our former home, Orange County, California. In the 2004 Presidential Election it was the "Reddest County" in the nation and though that "Reddest County" had a population of over 3 million, not one Electoral Vote from California was cast for President Bush.

So, we see this latest flap as just that ... the latest flap ... over Earth's Greatest Democracy not living up to its self-image. Since "majority rule" is a major principle of Democracy, we can't legitimately define ourselves that way if everyone doesn't get to participate equally. And, since the form of government in our Democracy is a Presidential Republic, how is it that political parties are dictating the terms of participation for the voting citizens of sovereign States?

With that said, our perspective is that each State should determine how their respective primaries or caucuses are to be conducted and any political party wanting to participate should simply comply. We do recognize the national interest in and need for conducting this process in an organized manner across the 50 States, though. But that certainly seems attainable. There are a number of reasonable approaches to this, including Time Zone groupings.

Finally, there's the matter of the general election. The Electoral College was meant for a U.S. of a different time. However, the Electoral College emerged out of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and making the assumption that all that wisdom has expired may be, in itself, unwise. Still, major revision is called for, at the very least. Though no "universally accepted" definition of Democracy exists, surely we can find a far better way to set an example of being what we claim to be ... the Greatest Democracy on the face of the Earth.

We gotta keep callin' it what it is - BO-loney!!!!!!!

One aspect of the current Presidential Campaign Season has continued to cause Figgins and I to regularly cock our heads and look at each other with facial expressions that obviously say, "What the heck does that mean?!" This aspect is the passion-evoking, yet vacant, rhetoric of Barack Obama.

Actually, we touched on this subject in an earlier posting entitled The Better Angels of Our Nature?!?!?!?. Although that posting addressed Senator Ted Kennedy's old-style-politics approach to whip the crowd into a frenzy when he endorsed Obama (ironically, quoting the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln), the theme is the same ... words that evoke virtually overwhelming inspiration, but void of meaning in reality. Figgins and I have coined a word to use between us to sum this up. The word is ... BO-loney. One reason we chose this is because it incorporates the slang word "baloney", meaning "nonsense". The "BO" part is for two reasons ... (1) Of course, these are the initials of the one who has been uttering these empty phrases and (2) Like another meaning of "BO", this is nonsense that stinks.

In his most recent column in the Washington Post, The Audacity of Selling Hope, Charles Krauthammer addresses this matter more thoroughly than Figgins and I could possibly do. For us, his most ominous words are the ones in his closing paragraph:

"Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude."

The only words we can think to add to this and in fact, we feel compelled to add are: The best thing we conservatives can be doing for our country between now and November is to call it what it is ... BO-loney ... and to do so every time we see it!!!!!!!

It ain't over 'til ... it's Beginning?!

Iowa Caucuses?! Wyoming Caucuses?! New Hampshire Primary?! Now there are some events Figgie and I have had trouble getting our minds around! I don't think we could really understand it without doing something like moving to Iowa and participating in the caucuses directly. Since I moved away from the Midwest 30 years ago and have no desire to return, that's not likely to happen.

Although we don't fully understand these events, we sense something a bit quaint about them and perhaps, somewhat fitting, in approach, for those localities. Otherwise, they seem rather archaic and good examples for our nation's need to revamp our approach to Presidential Elections, if we truly want to have a representative government.

Before getting into the things we'd like to see changed, we should point out that there are some good qualities of the current process that we would like to see retained ... no need to "throw out the baby with the bathwater". One of these qualities is that a Presidential candidate who isn't more wealthy than Solomon or who doesn't already have a national reputation can get a place on the Iowa caucus stage and establish themselves as a credible contender. It reminds us that what Jimmy Stewart portrayed in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is still attainable ... an average, down-to-earth person, doing their level-best to represent their average, down-to-earth fellow citizens.

With that said, though there are some good qualities of the current process that we would like to see retained, there are many aspects that we believe greatly miss the mark, if a representative government is the goal. At the beginning, are the Iowa Caucuses and their impact on the Presidential Election process in other States. The State we live in considered canceling this year's Presidential primary, usually held in May, to avoid the great expense of an event that would be meaningless by the time it was held. So, its been moved up to February 19th and if the political pundits have their way, it may still be a meaningless event. That doesn't seem right for a representative government. Why should fewer than 100,000 Iowa Republicans and fewer than 200,000 Iowa Democrats have such sway over the 300 million of us living in the U.S.?

So, we see the Iowa Caucuses as a flawed beginning to the current process. Certainly, there are many other flaws in the process, sorely needing change. But none is greater than the flawed process at the end ... the Electoral College. To us, there's nothing even quaint about this. Its just archaic. Maybe it made sense for the first generation of U.S. Americans but it just doesn't fit today. We were keenly aware of this during the last Presidential Election, when we lived in Orange County, CA. Many, outside of the immediate area, are surprised to learn that Orange County is the "reddest" county in the nation. At least it was in the last Presidential Election ... that's right, more people, per-capita, in Orange County, voted for President Bush than in any other county in the nation. And yet, not one Elector, representing the State of California in the Electoral College cast a vote for President Bush. If you're saying "So what?!" so far, consider that the population of Orange County is over 3 million. That's a greater population than in 20 States, DC and four U.S possessions. Even if your car is still sporting a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker and you're pleased to know that the "reddest" county in the nation went unrepresented in the last Presidential Election, you have to admit, that doesn't seem right for a representative government.

So, what do we recommend, as the "flawless alternative?" Frankly, we don't have a complete plan to suggest and if we did, it wouldn't be "flawless" ... none will be. But, we think what we've pointed out here are clear examples of the acute need for change. We see this as an ideal opportunity for the sort of thing we pointed out in our posting entitled Rediscovering America's Strength - i.e. moving from the politics that just pit one candidate against another, based on their differences, to the politics of courageous leaders with the common sense to embrace the synergy of the best of our differing ideas. Unlike the first generation of U.S. Americans, we have the infrastructure in place to support a vastly improved Presidential Election process. The lacking key ingredient is having the political leaders with the courage to step up and promote a different and better process instead of finding ways to utilize the flaws in the current process, as leverage for their special interests.

Honest Politician

Figgins has had increasing opportunities,in recent days, to witness the cynical view that most seem to have of American politicians. This can be summed up by saying that it seems to be, generally, accepted that the description "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron.

Figgins has, also, been witnessing how very discouraging I find this. That aspect really peaked today when one Presidential Candidate announced a decision to not run a "negative ad" that his campaign had prepared. My discouragement comes from the fact that I haven't heard a single representative of the media express even the most vague possibility that what the candidate said was true ... that he had given further consideration to what he was about to do and he had come up with the courage of his convictions and decided not to do it. This particular candidate is an ordained Baptist minister. He teaches from The Scriptures, which say, "let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay" ... in other words, say what you mean and mean what you say. So why is there not even the slightest consideration from the media that this guy is doing just that?

One of the ironies in this is that the aforementioned "negative ad" was prepared as a response to a candidate who has been less than believable himself. As an example, he claimed that he had seen his Father, a former Governor of Michigan, march with Martin Luther King Junior. When confronted with the fact his Father had never participated in such a march, this other candidate said that he had only been speaking allegorically, that he knew his Father marched with King "in spirit". For some reason, the media didn't seem to greet this with the same level of cynicism they leveled towards today's "negative ad" decision but it did provide another example of why, generally, American politicians are deserving of the media's attitude.

So, maybe American politicians are getting what they deserve. They've, generally, proven that the description "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron. So, "Justice Served!" Right?! Well, what about us, Americans? Are we getting what we deserve? I have to say, "I think so." Its not been that long since we twice-elected an adulterous Presidential Candidate who dodged the culpability of his philandering by questioning the meaning of what the word "is" is. And yet, instead of mocking and rejection, many still regard him as a heroic figure. As a matter of fact, there's even the possibility that the next Presidential Election could result in a return to that same administration.

OK, so maybe we're getting what we deserve too. But I say, "It doesn't have to remain that way." When you think about it, we're actually getting what we are letting ourselves deserve. And, I say, "Let's change that!" Let's stop putting up with American politicians dodging the truth by letting them debate what the meaning of the word "is" is. Let's stop accepting allegory, as an excuse for not being genuine. And, by all means, let's continue to express skepticism about things like today's "negative ad" announcement, if it doesn't seem credible. But, shouldn't we, at least, allow the possibility of an American politician saying what they mean and meaning what they say? If we don't, what is their incentive to do so? Moreover, shouldn't we be demanding this of our politicians instead of just accepting that, in our nation, the description "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron. By doing so, I think we end up deserving better and by being better from getting what we deserve.