2012 Candidates Discussion - The Dividing Line

The dividing line for 2012, in my opinion, is whether the candidates truly represent the ideals of the Tea Parties or if their overall objective is little more than regaining power for their political party. In 2012, it is not about party power - it cannot be... what it must be about is returning this country to it's constitutional roles, where The People and States are sovereign and self empowered, and the national government regulates common defense and commerce.

The road that political parties has lead us down, too, is a line of division. To be a Republican means more to be pro-life & anti-gay marriage than it does small government & fiscal responsibility. The two do not go hand in hand, and so we have isolated, say, homosexuals who also want to fight for liberty from oppressive government, high taxation, etc. Instead, the GOP acts as the oppressive entity, laying a heavy hand on Social Policy rather than leading the cause of liberty. It is one thing to believe in a certain way of life - it is another to use the power of government to force a way of life upon another... be it religious, sexual, or other... The GOP needs to embrace Social Conservatives, but not let Social Conservative morals be dictated to others.

For instance - I am a straight male, married, and growing a family. I am a firm believer that marriage is a religious event, not a social contract, and that it is up to the faith to determine how they bond two spirits. I believe that it is not the responsibility of the government to approve or license religious events. In fact the individual may be free to grant "power of attorney" to whomever one so chooses, same sex or otherwise. The states have turned the religious act of marriage into an act of drawing up a civil contract between two parties. Simply relying on my own spiritual or personal belief as a just cause to deny another individual an ability to grant legal authority to act on their behalf or jointly with them is the antithesis of liberty.

So I again suggest that the dividing line in the selection of a Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential elections is in whether or not the candidate has shown an ability to distinguish between personal values and government's role in dictating morality.

Applying the rule above, as in the case against government involvement in marriage, to future candidates in all their policies has led me to create my watch list - as detailed in my previous post. Which candidate has shown a history of liberty and a true understanding of sovereignty, and which is simply "next in line"? Which has the ability to drastically change the face of the GOP, returning it to a party of limited government, TRUE limited government? Which candidate has the necessary experience and fortitude to take on not only the radical left, but the Social Political machine driving both parties? It is this litmus that has led me to place a candidate like Luis Fortuno, Governor of Puerto Rico, as a front runner and exclude individuals like Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty.


Pawlenty and Daniels would make fine run-of-the-mill candidates, both having gone on the record in order to have a trail of saying the right thing, however, their actions lead me to believe that at best they would be Bush Light - where government would continue to grow, debt would continue to grow, and liberty would continue to shrink.

Fortuno, on the other hand, has something different. He comes from a different political climate, where the government of Puerto Rico is sovereign, the debates and issues the island territory faces are noticeably different than the rest of America. In the face of mounting government debt, Fortuno slashed $2 Billion from government spending by eliminating thousands of unnecessary government jobs. Two billion from an island territory with a GDP of $77 Billion is no small task, and is a sure sign of a strong liberty minded individual.

When looking for a 2012 candidate this far in advance, I am interested in what stands out... what is so unique that it cannot be ignored? I am also looking for effective leadership in the face of hardship... trial by fire. Run-of-the-mill candidates are a dime a dozen in this new century... I want to continue a discussion about what the dividing line is for YOU. What is it that YOU want out of a candidate... What is it that would make a Romney or Pawlenty appealing to you? Or do you know of someone else worthy of mention?

What are the non-negotiables as we turn a liberty movement into momentum for a candidate?

Is Huckabee surge REALLY a Problem for Conservatives?

As I was reading through my blogroll, I came across an article discussing the problems with a Huckabee nod from the GOP. As a former pro-Huckabee blogger (now officially neutral due to circumstances), I still like discussing the viability of candidates, and enjoy discussing such with fellow bloggers. Though our friends make good points about Mike's lack of foreign policy, and the troubles he will face as his dirty laundry is finally aired nationally, I wonder if there is a blind-rage factor, as seen by Hugh Hewitt. Now, to be fair, the blogger does state that they do not officially have a horse in the race, but I wonder who their favorite is... it is definitely NOT Mike Huckabee.

I decided to post my response to his article below. Because I cannot officially support or endorse any candidate, I like to take a step back and think of the issue not in a pro/anti candidate light, but rather an electability light... and I challenge all my readers to do the same. I have made a couple points about it below.

(let me start by stating that on-the-record I am unable to support or endorse any candidate before the primary)

When selecting a president, and a presidential candidate, there are a few things to consider. National appeal is surely one, but Electoral appeal is more important in winning. Prior races and prior opponents surely matter. And of course, the ability to serve all citizens.
The biggest issue I have with President Bush is that he became so wrapped up in his own agenda that he isolated a good number of citizens (or allowed the left to isolate themselves), thus furthering the political divide. When I look at a candidate, I look at a candidate that has a wide base appeal, because this country needs a leader who can bring the nation together and heal the political divide. Fred Thompson (to mention someone directly) has come out and all but stated that he is going to continue the butt-kicking of the democrats (and independents, I presume). He is a continuation of the "Cowboy Republican" image that has further isolated the GOP from the rest of the nation. National appeal wins elections... and we need a candidate that can do more than 49.5% of the vote... else we run the risk of a deeper political divide.

Regarding Electoral appeal... Looking at the 2004 electoral map, one must consider which candidates are capable of holding ALL the Bush states. A candidate like Rudy, where many have voiced SOCON concerns, may cause a series of undervotes or 3rd party votes, thus tipping the tables and handing over entire states to the Democratic contender (most likely Clinton). The base, as a whole, is more concerned with SOCON issues than FICON issues... So the base is more likely to get out and vote on behalf of a SOCON, especially against Clinton... This puts Rudy and Mitt in question... and McCain and Huckabee if you consider past stances on immigration a part of the SOCON agenda.

The ability to serve all, as I hinted at above, is a HUGE factor. You specifically mentioned Huckabee above, so I will here as well. Mike Huckabee's recent endorsement of the Teacher's union in NH and the Machinist Union in Florida are not signs of liberalism, but rather as the ONLY Republican candidate who went out to speak to them! He is reaching out to all citizens, where others are ignoring those votes as they traditionally go to Democrats. I already discussed Thompson's view of anyone other than a Republican... and I don't see the other candidate's ability to reach out, or their efforts at all... especially in this campaign.
And past races are very important. Rudy was losing to the Clinton machine in his NY bid for the Senate. NY is a tough state for a GOP contender, but losing to a carpet-bagger? This doesn't bode well... as well, there was a LOT of dirt that the Clinton's had that they never got to use on him... so he will be faced with a tough battle, especially when so many Republicans have all but sworn not to support him even if he gets the nomination. Mitt went up against the Kennedy machine, which might as well have been the Clinton machine, and lost in MA. To win, he had to take even more liberal stances, all of which he has now changed as he is seeking a higher office. Remember Kerry in 2004... we will see the exact same thing by the Clinton's against Mitt... even if it is not true, the perception is there, and the masses will hear about it. Huckabee has faced the Clinton machine time and again in Arkansas, and the people chose him over the Clintons. Of course, the same old mud is going to be news to the rest of America, but I can guarantee that Huckabee, having been faced with all the same mud before, has canned responses to all of it.

I think that Huckabee is capable of taking on the Clintons and winning...Electorally, and nationally... It is pitting a uniter against a polarizing figure... and we will come out on top. Electorally, what states do you see switching their 2004 votes in favor of Clinton over Huckabee? I cannot think of one!

Now... If Clinton happens to NOT get the nomination... well, we will surely have a WHOLE NEW discussion about electoral strategy! An Obama or Edwards nomination on the left will change things drastically...

The key will be if Huckabee can maintain his high numbers in the face of all the old mud coming out for the nation to see... if he can, and he can answer the questions, I do not see why you suggest he is not viable. Is he not as established a politician as all the rest?

One additional comment about Huck - notice that his support is not from the Independents (Paul) or the center-left Republicans (Rudy). His support is the SOCON base. The same base that Fred had, and squandered... So I don't think that the Clinton "positive" comments effect the SOCON vote.

Find Your Perfect Candidate

I was forwarded a link to an USA Today "game" in which you are matched up with the candidate who most closely agrees with you on certain issues.

The way it works is that you answer a series of questions, then rate the level of importance. The level of importance is necessary because the way the answers are presented do not always seem to give you EVERY option available, rather a mix of certain quotes by the candidates.

My results were pretty predictable, though I figured that Bill Richardson would have been higher due to his stance on renewable energy... but it looks like USA Today is not giving him credit for renewable energy, instead they are sticking him solely with "carbon caps". So there are some flaws, but otherwise the results are pretty close.

My results are as follows. Click the image to take the test for yourself, and leave a comment on who your top three were!

(This poll is not showing an endorsement of any one candidate, rather the results of a poll showing issues alignment)

Land of the Free?

As I was watching news reports in the days after the Iowa Straw Poll, and listening to conservative talk radio shows in the same time, something struck me as odd...

The very same talk show hosts on the AM dial who prior to the Ames Straw Poll where billing it as a relevant event, marking true support for "America's Candidate", were now debunking the results... and why??? Because the big news out of the event was that Mike Huckabee, the underfunded underdog came in a awe inspiring second place and was the media favorite after the contest...

So the Pro-Romney, Pro-Rudy AM radio hosts who have been responding to Pro-Huckabee callers with "Good guy, doesn't stand a chance" were eating their words... Yes, I am talking about Rush, Hannity, and Hugh Hewitt...

And then it really got me thinking about how we are going about choosing our next President... when a man with as much Message as Romney has Money is belittled because he is not the talk show's favorite, and the host keeps repeating those words "doesn't have a chance", then I ask this simple question: How is this Presidential election any different than the 2005 Iranian Presidential election?

The answer... It Isn't!

In Iran, the Guardian Council sifts through the field of candidates and selects the candidates that THEY think are fit to run for president. There are no real primaries, no real pre-contests... it is who the Council decides should run, and the people hear that the guardian council has selected a field of candidates, all else are not worthy.

In the US, the Media and Talk shows anoint the candidates that they think are fit to run for president. The primaries are no longer on election day, but on the front page of TIME, or on talk radio shows where the "other" candidates are asteriks candidates, and their beloved Mitt Romney (who is still in single digits nationwide) is always granted the title of debate winner, or poll winner, because the other candidates don't count anyway (almost a direct quote from Hugh Hewitt). The Media decides who should get the airtime, who's name they will praise and who's name they will be debunking. The people hear the Guardian Council... I mean the Media Elites... and see that all else are not worthy in their eyes.

So are we getting the elected officials we deserve? Are we falling for the carrots at the end of the media elite's stick?

With 25% of the GOP vote going to "other/unknown", you have to wonder what candidate we are going to settle for... "Tell us, oh wise council of elite media, for we no longer have the ability to be free thinkers..."

OR, we can rise up, as we did in Iowa... time and again, supporting a candidate with executive experience and a strong Jeffersonian message... We can use this election to take back America, restoring it back to the wonderful Land of the Free... We can look at candidates with substance, intelligence, and core conservative values. Look in your hearts... you know what is right.

Do we want to live in a land of the elite ruling class, or do we want to live in the America that our forefather's endowed us with... the free land, where the government does not rule, the media does not rule, but the people... the common people... you and me... we rule, because we are free.

Reject the elite class. Flood their phone lines with calls. Fill their e-mail inboxes with letters. Send them letter after letter to fill their studio. Organize rallies outside their broadcasting buildings, demanding support for a Jeffersonian candidate willing to give power back... Take the power back from the elites, or suffer at the hands of their appointed leaders.

God Bless!