Post Super Tuesday Predictions

It has been a long three months since the Iowa caucuses, and the GOP has been subject to one of the most bloody battles in my lifetime. With four candidates duking it out today for regional, delegate, and potentially total contest dominance, I am left pondering the expected results, the coming contests, and the oddities that I have seen heading into this political milestone.

There are a few things that could make or break these predictions, namely how well Gingrich performs outside of the south, and how well Santorum performs in general against Romney.

Gingrich will win in his home state of Georgia. There is no doubt there. If Gingrich wins any state outside of Georgia, he will stay in the race, gobbling up delegates in the south. Watch for Newt in Tennessee. However, if Newt cannot win in TN, he will not have the momentum going forward into Alabama and Mississippi in one week... save a collapse by Santorum, which could be cause for another Gingrich rise. If he loses, and loses hard, and if Santorum turns around his misfortunes of the past week and a half, I have this feeling that Gingrich drops the bid and endorses......... Ron Paul.

Wait... did I just say Ron Paul?

I did. For two reasons. Watch Gingrich's performance in the last debate. He gave an unusual amount of praise to Paul. Read any article ro listen to any interview with Gingrich of late, and he finds a way to incorporate Paul or Paul's message... this includes Paul's foreign policy. I ignored it at first, but then found it odd that he seemed to be massaging his position to align with Paul. It is a long shot... and as long as Gingrich sees a weakness in Santorum he will stay in... but IF he does drop, I would bet $5 that it is a drop in favor of the non-Santorum anti-Romney candidate.

Santorum... who's numbers are falling, needs to survive Super Tuesday. He does that by a win in Ohio. Romney may have weakened him enough in that state, pummelling him with money. Santorum needs Ohio, he neesd Alaska, he needs Oklahoma and North Dakota. He needs his regional mid-west wins... but more importantly he needs a win in the Rust Belt. If he cannot beat Romney in Ohio, it is my prediction that Santorum begins lobbying Romney for VP or a high ranking cabinet position prior to dropping and endorsing Romney.

Happy Super Tuesday!

Lurking in the Shadows

After the 20th 2012 GOP Presidential debate it became obviously clear that there was blood in the water. Romney, who has been the consistent “One to Beat” was rather low-energy, but he provided a standard performance that would neither hurt nor help him. Newt Gingrich seemed distant to the contest, and attempted to give another rebirth to his run by focusing on the energy issue (gas prices) – which I must make note of his “Americans will be happy with $2.50 a gallon under my presidency”... Newt, I am not happy with anything over $2.00. 16 short years ago when I started driving, I could get ARCO/AMPM gas for $0.69 a gallon. You’re asking me to be happy with a 250% increase in gas prices because it is better than a 550% increase? I remember the outrage when gas hit $2 a gallon... I want to get THAT wrong corrected first... but I digress. Ron Paul had a great night, where he delivered two points. First, Santorum is a “Go along to Get along” kind of politician, and that Paul’s biggest hurdle has been the misconception that he is not electable when matched with Obama. But Paul is still fighting for a state to pick him, and struggling with the media to get fair attention. This leads to the source of the blood in the water: Rick Santorum, who was the center of attention of the other candidates, yet let the moment pass without a defining example of why or how he is rightly the person to lead this nation. Four candidates making their 20th appearance before the voters; four candidates, none of whom stands poised to gain the required delegates to clinch the nomination.

Just months ago the mere mention of a brokered convention, suggesting that Romney could not clinch the nomination, was tantamount to GOP heresy. Heading into March, however, you are hard pressed to go one day without a new article discussing the looming brokered convention. Journalists and pundits have their delegate scorecards and their calculators in hand, and as each contest comes and goes, the resounding chorus is one raising the speculation of a brokered convention. But what is really making their mouths water is the speculation of who may be lurking in the shadows, waiting to step into the light and unify the party and the nation... the great savior of the 2012 election.

The speculation of the brokered convention comes down to Arizona and Michigan. Romney is in the fight of his political life after losing three states to Santorum, one being the Romney “gimme” state of Colorado. If he loses in Michigan, he could still win the nomination but would be so damaged that he would have no chance to win the general election. Once the results of Michigan and Arizona are read on Tuesday night, after the calculators come out, after the delegate scorecards are updated, we have to look at the facts:
1. Gingrich is still poised to clean up in the South, and will hold on until the bitter end hoping to gain enough delegates to be a force in the party convention. He has been waiting patiently for Super Tuesday, and a run on the southern states. He is at such odds with Romney and Santorum that he will not support one of them. So long as he has a delegate to his name, he will ride on to Tampa.
2. Ron Paul’s strategy has always been to lock up loyal delegates who may not vote with their state’s results, in hopes of being a force at the convention. If Ron Paul gets out of the race before the convention it would only be to do so as a third party candidate, focusing his attention on the general election. Based on the strength of his delegate strategy, however, I feel that Paul could enter Tampa stronger than delegate scorecards would lead you to believe.
3. Romney and Santorum are both Northeastern candidates, but Santorum does not fare as well in that region. He is clearly the favorite in the Midwest and Mountain states, where evangelicals win the day. Santorum may falter heading into the next contests due to his “cover my butt” performance at the debate, but without a chance for Newt to surge, Santorum is going to be at least neck-in-neck with Romney, splitting delegates and emboldening both candidates moving forward to Tampa.
4. If Mitt Romney can hold on in Michigan, he is strong in the west, and could pick up a large number of delegates. If Romney loses in Michigan, he may suspend his campaign. If he loses in Arizona and Michigan he will no longer be the GOP front-runner and may hold on through the convention hoping to at least be a delegate leader heading into Tampa.
If this continues to be a four horse party after Super Tuesday, we can count on a brokered convention. Period. But what is likely to happen leading up to the Convention in Tampa? Chances are slim that we will have our savior waiting in the wings until the convention.

Look for a possible draft movement to arise if Romney loses in Michigan and Arizona. Santorum is off the ballot in enough states, and is not a national contender (see Gingrich in the Southern States). If Santorum can beat Romney but not clinch the nomination, Romney will not be able to beat Obama, leaving a huge source of anxiety for the Republican Party. Look for a stronger one if he wins one or both; the people are looking for the anti-Romney and if Santorum is not that guy they will keep looking.

Who is lurking? Who is waiting? Chris Christie? Sarah Palin? Donald Trump? What about true dark horses, like Luis Fortuno (Gov. Puerto Rico)?

More importantly... What if there is a deadlock? One can assume that Ron Paul’s delegates are 100% loyal, and without his endorsement they will keep voting for him. Gingrich and Santorum delegates are more likely to swing without endorsement – they are not loyal so much as appointed by the state to vote one way or another. Romney has an army, though less loyal than Ron Paul’s... but would they be inclined to support a dark horse nominated from the floor?

There are 48 more contests (including territories and districts)... How the delegates are selected is key to how a brokered convention may play out. How Romney fares in Michigan and Arizona is key to the potential for a brokered convention. The strength of the remaining four heading into Super Tuesday is key to determining if there is an open door for a late-comer to step in and save the GOP from itself in 2012.

How the Elephants Died - an Essay on the Broken Republican Party

In 2008, after eight years of George W. Bush, after having lost the House and the Senate, after having lost many State houses and Governorships, the Republican Party teetered on the edge of becoming a long term minority party in the United States. It was not because the Democratic Party had necessarily done anything special to change themselves, nor had they damaged the GOP in some manner as to deal a death blow. Quite the opposite, actually. It was the Republican Party that had been faltering from within.

After the crushing losses of 2008 the pundits began to ask the question, “What now for the GOP?” What they were asking had less to do with strategy and more to do with message. What did the GOP stand for? Who were the GOP leaders? The horrible primary set-up a GOP ticket which fronted a liberal Arizona Senator and a half-term unknown Governor from the 3rd least populated State. The GOP was deeply divided after the primary, and there was a large lack of enthusiasm for McCain as the leader of the party, or the nation. During the election, the GOP ticket seemed to be splitting as well, with the Governor of Alaska “Going Rogue” in defiance of the leadership of the Arizona Senator. After the election the depth and breadth of the divide was so obvious that to ask the question about the future of the GOP was not uncalled for.

The state of the Party at that time was one where the party leader and outgoing President, backed by the Party itself, had drastically veered from the “small government/limited government” doctrine which defined its surging success in recent years. No, the Party had lurched so far to the left that figure heads within the party defended the constant erosion of liberties and the perpetual borrowing and bail-outs as staples to the values of the party itself. Perpetual war, Patriot Act, wireless taps, bail-outs, federal healthcare/prescription drugs, No Child Left Behind. The party of limited government was responsible for the largest growth of the (non-essential) government in the history of the United States. After losing power in the executive and legislative branches, the party was at war with itself for what it had done, suffering from a crisis of identity.

During this crisis, however, there was a splinter group within the party which had laid the groundwork for the coming election cycle. The energetic and overly enthusiastic supporters of Ron Paul in 2008 had effected a tone within the party discussion, raising the issue of liberty. The big government GOP leaders were so put off by this message that Paul and his supporters were actually blocked from the national GOP convention. This group of the small Libertarian wing of the ‘Big Tent Party’ splintered from the GOP, holding their own Liberty Convention, where they put in place a long term strategy to retake the Republican Party.

As the Republican establishment selected new leadership and tried to scrape together a message, there was a movement already underfoot, planning Liberty Rallies on Tax day. The general message of the rallies was Liberty, low taxes, and a change to the monetary system. It was the Tea Party. The newly elected left was so afraid of the quick organization and the multitude of rallies across the nation that they immediately went into panic mode, claiming that the Liberty minded rallies were racist or terrorist in nature. The GOP establishment was so disconnected that they did not claim affiliation with the organizations spreading their message across America on Tax Day. This “radical element” was the organization of the Libertarian movement, the Campaign for Liberty. The success of the ‘Tax Day Tea Parties’ did not belong to the established GOP, however, after the movement began to swell in numbers the GOP began to approach the rag-tag leadership with an offer to take the Liberty movement under the wing of the Republican Establishment. As such, the GOP rested its momentum heading into the 2010 elections on the Tea Party. The strength of the Tea Party was brought into question on primary election day, and overwhelmingly the GOP establishment candidates were ousted in favor of the Libertarian Tea Party Conservatives. The narrative of 2010 was, then, that the GOP was now being led by the Tea Party, and as such the Republican Party could only retain the established leadership under the banner of this liberty movement.

After the unprecedented resurgence of the once dead GOP in 2010, the strategy of the established Republican leadership was to retain the talking points of the movement while dismantling the structure and ability of the Tea Party to splinter from the ‘Big Tent’. It was, after all, floated as an idea that the Tea Party itself could actually become a formidable third party, challenging the Republicans for top-tier status against a unified Democratic Party. Such a move, of course, would have ensured Democratic majority in 2012 and beyond. So the GOP establishment took the Tea Party congressmen and senators into their fold, and moved quickly to marginalize the Tea Party movement itself. By mid-2011 it was clear that the Tea Party had been so over-run by the mainstream GOP that the movement was dead under the moniker “Tea Party”. What began as a liberty movement quickly became a social conservative movement with no clear message of opposition. The message of small government, lower taxes, and individual liberty which defined the Tea Party became talking points for established moderate Republicans. The waters were so muddied that the mention of the Tea Party no longer represents a sect of the GOP, rather some ambiguous affiliation from within the Republican Party. You no longer hear about Tea Party candidates heading into the 2012 election cycle, rather you hear about whether voters identify with the Tea party. But I ask you, what does it mean to identify with the Tea Party in 2012? What is the party’s message? You are unable to answer because the GOP successfully dismantled the movement while simultaneously absorbing their talking points. The movement was no longer deemed a threat.

The fractures of 2008 began to reappear in the GOP during the selection of the presidential candidates in 2011. As the party began the process of identifying the next generation of leadership, so returned the animosity of the 2008 election cycle. The media scrambled to identify the leader of the Tea Party movement while the GOP establishment held their breath hoping none would arise. Sarah Palin was the media darling, mostly because of her atypical moves after losing the election in 2008. Michelle Bachmann was a very vocal member of the Tea Party, but lacked the excitement of Sarah Palin, and who could not get her endorsement for the ‘female amongst the males’ spot in the 2012 run. Other first term names were favored by the media, such as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. It was becoming clear that the incorporation of the Tea party into the GOP had so diluted the movement that when the time came for the Tea Party to front their leader as a challenger to the GOP establishment candidate, the movement found it had been so love-struck with the recognition of the GOP that it was no longer a movement unto itself. It had no leadership. It had no message.

Seeing a sign of weakness from the Tea Party movement, who had developed into an active staging ground for the social conservative wing of the GOP and less of a true liberty movement, the Conservatives began their quest to identify and run a “True Conservative” candidate. Large bands of Conservative Republicans attempted grassroots draft campaigns for Governors from Indiana, Texas, New Jersey, as well as a fleet of Senators and Congressmen. Each draft campaign attempted to sway opinion in favor of their candidate as the Truest “True Conservative”. As the field winnowed, however, even the definition of a “True Conservative” was sullied, tarnished by conservative talking points that do not actually resemble the left-moderate actions which they were being used to describe. The Conservatives, as well, had been marginalized.

Then there are the 2008 hold-overs. Most notably Mitt Romney, who made a calculated decision to yield the 2008 race to McCain after South Carolina, and go directly into 2012 campaign mode. Mitt Romney, who maintained the campaign presence in the early voting states, was identified as one of those who was expected to run and was identified as an early front-runner. His campaign represents the ideas of the moderate-left lurch of the established GOP, and a continuation of those ideals of the ‘Neo Conservative’ era of the Republican Party.

The second hold-over is Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the Libertarian who was blacklisted from the GOP in 2008. Paul’s brand of Republicanism is the Goldwater/Jeffersonian Libertarianism. His strategy was much the same as Romney’s: stay in the early voting states and build a movement with which to roll through them in 2012. He was hated by GOP establishment and feared by the media. His followers were branded, as he was, as being out of touch. But then came the economic collapse. Then came the continued wars under Obama. Then came the financial disasters of the fiat currency system. And the media turned to the one man who had not only predicted the downfall, but was actively building a movement of educating the public to the extent of the failings. His movement, the Campaign for Liberty, gave life to the Tea Party and the GOP wins in 2010. Paul’s decision to enter the Presidential race gave the Liberty Movement a validated and tested leader, and this put fear back into the heart of the GOP. Paul’s early numbers and successes were dismissed as ‘Paul-bot anomalies’, and he was written off as a candidate out-of-touch (again) and unelectable. He was targeted by the media for blacklisting, and painted as outside of the party norm by the GOP. But Paul’s numbers continue to grow, his Campaign for Liberty continues to reach the voting bloc in charge of the future of the party – the youth vote. Where the Tea party movement failed, the original campaign for liberty strategy devised by Paul in 2008 had succeeded, and the Libertarian’s have a movement underway within the GOP.

We turned the calendar to 2012, the election year. We are under the thumb of an unpopular President, a Democrat who is easily beaten should an organized opposition show itself. Herein lies the rub. The fractures made visible in 2008 were never truly fixed, and now we see a Republican party so broken that it is becoming ever impossible to repair, re-establish, and retake the battlefield. The GOP is not organized. It has no leadership. The Tea Party has failed, and the message marginalized. The Social Conservative movement has failed, and the message marginalized. So what is left is a bloody power struggle between the Neo-Conservative elements of the establishment, both sides fighting so viciously to implement their brand of moderate leftism under the brand “Republican”. We see a Republican battle in which the majority has been fooled by the talking points, by the stolen message of the Liberty movement and the Conservative movement. The leaders of the GOP promote a continued growing of the government, increased erosion of liberties (such as the NDAA, SOPA, etc), increased spending, and perpetual war while at the same time using talking points about increasing liberty, reducing debt, cutting spending, and securing Americans by not backing down from saber rattling. The message is unorganized, it does not make sense. The Republican brand has somehow become no different from the Democratic brand, save a few minor means to the ends – but in both cases the end is the same.

When Republicans act like Republicans we win. When we act like Democrats, they win.

As the infighting intensifies, all eyes are on Ron Paul and his growing Campaign for Liberty. There is daily talk about Paul’s brand of Libertarianism splintering from the GOP. With it, Paul will take a national 10-15% of the GOP – those who learned the lesson from his movement and those who are simply tired of the heated divide in the Party. A Ron Paul third party run is the Tea Party splinter nightmare held by the GOP after the 2010 groundswell. But this time the GOP has no control. The movement has a leader. The leader has a brand. The brand has a following that transcends party lines, drawing support from the fiscal right and the anti-war left as well as liberty minded independents. The big story of the 2012 election is going to be the political landscape left behind by the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty and the lasting effects of a movement within the GOP or established as a third party.

The GOP cannot contain the core of this movement, the Libertarians.The atmosphere is ripe for a fracture of the party. The stress of an undefined party to define itself, a party who is historically on the conservative-right but who has recently lurched moderate-left, a party who has largely gone without a notable figurehead, without any true leadership for too long is the stress that continue to fracture the party from within. The squelching of the conservative right and the ignoring of the libertarian movement threaten a party so divided against itself that it will not beat this sitting President nor will it retain control of the either chamber of congress, no matter which Moderate-Leftist you prop up on Election Day. What we are witnessing may be the end of the ‘Big Tent’ GOP, where libertarians and social conservatives need not apply, where they are catered to during elections but ignored while in power. The minority blocs of the GOP are growing wise to the new Republican brand. They are growing less patient with the lurch and less tolerant of the lip-service. The Party has moved past the crossroads and is heading full-speed toward the political cliff. This may very well be the narrative on how the mighty elephant died.

Why "They" Are Scared of Libertarians

Ron Paul stated in his New Hampshire speech, "They're scared of us because we're dangerous to the status-quo." Who are 'they' and what was Ron Paul, the figure head for the Libertarian movement within the GOP, talking about?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy aimed at making decisions based on a simple principle - personal responsibility and limited government intervention. It is greatly misunderstood and misconstrued by pundits, stirring the sheep into a frenzy, but when asked one-on-one you will find that a majority of Americans are actually Libertarian minded. The political right brands Libertarians as "pro-drug, anti-war lefties". The political left brands Libertarians as "ultra-right-wing extremists bent on taking away government handouts." The brilliance of these labels is that they are both right, and THIS is what the political dividers fear.

We are in a political circus where the change in leadership does nothing to adjust the course of this nation. We are marching steadily to the beat of a drummer taking us into a fiery pit. The GOP and the Dems have done little in the past fifty plus years to correct our course, rather we continue the same game of political wife swapping.

Both political parties, backed by their super-wealthy donors (media and banking elites), have the same agenda: American Imperialism and Absolute Government Control. Even Obama's 'Hope and Change' was no match for the momentum of the true powers of this nation (and the world). His continuation and escalation of foreign wars was a direct continuation of the Bush foreign policy of Nation Building and preemptive warfare, which was the direct continuation of Clinton's foreign policy of Nation Building and World Policing, which was a direct continuation of Bush Sr's foreign policy of Nation Building and World Policing, which was a direct continuation of Reagan's foreign policy of foreign interventionism and World Policing against the Soviets, which was a continuation of Carter's much weaker but still present foreign policy of foreign interventionism and World Policing, which was a direct continuation of Ford's foreign policy... You get the point? Since the dawn of this nation the US has been involved in foreign wars and colonialism. At first it was "Manifest Destiny" that drove the Americans westward, causing mass devastation to a population of natives already settled in the land. After the continental empire was complete, the US became heavily involved in the far east in the later half of the 19th century, directly influencing the events building up to the two World Wars. Post WWII the US military industrial complex was so grand that even Gen. and President Eisenhower warned the US about in his farewell address in 1961. Most recently, over the last ten years, the US population has seen a drastic erosion of the basic civil liberties and a perversion of power by the ruling elite - both parties blaming the other, but neither doing anything to actually stop it. Economically and Socially, both parties are power-hungry leviathans with no real interest in healing the nation or taking up the cause of liberty. They are the status-quo.

Ron Paul said it best, "We do need change in this country - but not something new, something that already existed." What he means is that the cause of Libertarianism is not one of fundamental changes in America, rather a return to liberties that were defined at our founding.

The powers that be, the political parties, fear the idea of Libertarianism because the government has grown "too large to fail".

For the GOP, any Libertarian talk of reducing the size of the US overseas presence, ending foreign wars, and putting an end to Nation Building is seen as a threat to the NeoConservative movement that has become the GOP. Drastically cutting spending, ending power grabs and the Patriot Act... all seen as 'threats to national security' by the GOP security/war hawks. How can we ever be safe if the government doesn't regulate and police our every move? This is the GOP. These are the things they do not want to give up.

For the Democrats, any Libertarian talk of reducing government handouts, eliminating unconstitutional departments at the Federal level, and scaling back government intervention into private business and affairs is seen as a threat to the Socialist/Populist movement that has become the Democratic Party. Cutting trillions in spending, phasing out the hand-outs, and returning responsibility to the individual is seen as a threat to the "New Deal Society" aimed at providing a safety net and retirement check for every US citizen (and now world citizen, it appears). How can we ever survive if the government is not there to feed and clothe us? These are the Democrats. These are the things they do not want to give up.

And so they dance their little dances, make their backroom deals, and at every turn each multimillionaire in power becomes a little richer and a little more power hungry. They live by their own set of rules and governances whilst we are subject to their dominion. They are two sides of the same turd... and you all know the old idiom about polishing a turd.

And so they fear the idea that we may have to repay our debts. They fear the concept of increased liberty and personal responsibility. They spread fear and lies of chaos without their "protection" or their "safety net".

They are afraid of letting go of their power. And so they fear the people standing up for the cause of liberty.

What Would a Paul Presidency Look Like?

Ron Paul earned a solid 22% third place victory in Iowa on January 3rd, but the headlines went directly to a Santorum surge that has arguably been a "no-show" one week later in New Hampshire, where Paul is finishing 7% better than his polling average. Paul finished a very strong second tonight in the Granite State, but already the headlines are reading like a Huntsman/Romney head-to-head heat. Huntsman, of course, is finishing about 22% behind Romney and about 8% behind Ron Paul. And yet the media black-out continues. In fact, when watching the results on FoxNews, any mention of Ron Paul was met with "who will not be the nominee". Romney has had an array of "Not Romney" contenders, but no one has consistently finished stronger than Paul, and no one has the organization and momentum that Paul has after the first two contests. Arguably, after Iowa and New Hampshire it is clear that the true contender to take on Romney is and has been Ron Paul.

Ron Paul polls favorably against Obama in a head-to-head contest. Paul has the youth and Libertarian votes locked up. Paul is a true anti-war candidate, which would make Obama the war-candidate, locking up leftist anti-war support in a general election. Paul is the one candidate who speaks across the spectrum. He fits into no political mold. He is the true Libertarian. In a time when the electorate are so fed up with the status-quo, Ron Paul is the most dangerous man running for the American Presidency - because he will annihilate the status-quo.

Assuming a Paul victory in November, what would America look like on January 21, 2013 and for the first 100 days of his presidency? What about beyond?

Moments after being sworn into office, Ron Paul would issue an executive order repealing the Patriot Act. He would follow that immediately with starting to roll out his Plan to Restore America, his $1 Trillion budget cut, by ordering the systematic closure of several of the Executive Departments of the Federal Government. The restructure of the government would be done in such a way that State Governments and Private Business would be required to immediately step up to take the rolls of those efforts necessary enough to survive the transition - that is right - the free market will eliminate the waste. Within weeks, several US military bases overseas will be targeted for closure as part of a first wave, followed quickly by other waves of foreign base closures. Energy prices would dive, as Paul's America First energy initiative would stop the export of US energy, aiming the US onto a track of self sufficiency, thus putting an end to our dependency on foreign oil, and the need for defense of Middle Eastern oil.

The military would be strengthened by consolidating our currently overstretched resources. The closure of foreign bases and the immediate end to decades long unconstitutional regional wars would free up resources to focus on American infrastructure and defense. The military industrial complex would be slowed to a grinding halt as US involvement in missions like Tomahawk Bombing Libya and Drone attacking civilians in Pakistan would immediately cease. Our global mission would truly go from one of aggression to humanitarianism. Where governments ask us to leave, we would respectfully exit and allow them to handle their own affairs. We would cease to be the police, and once again lead by a strong example of civility and liberty.

The Native Tribes would be cut loose from the racist policies of the Dept. of the Interior, as it would be eliminated. In accordance with Article 1 section 6, treaties made with the native Tribes would finally be upheld, and the Supreme Court ruling of 1982 regarding the Lakotah Sioux would have a chance to be realized. The US would have to face the issue of Reservations and Native land once and for all.

The US monetary system would be transitioned back under the control of the Dept. of the Treasury, thus ending the privately owned National Banking System known as the Federal Reserve. The US dollars would become real money, and our debt would be painfully real - eliminating the annoying ability of Congress to pay off debt with borrowing fake fiat money. The US would experience deflation over time, and the value of the US Dollar (not the Federal Reserve Note) would increase on the strength of our growing economy.

We would see the US debt being paid down. We would see the end to banker-owned Congresses and the era of Bail-outs. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet that Paul goes after the companies who took taxpayer monies with the expectation of collecting those debts and returning the monies. We would see the tax system completely revamped, eliminating loopholes and reducing overall taxes. We would see a bare-boned Federal Government and a rise in the importance of state and regional governments.

A Paul Presidency would be dangerous to the status-quo, which is why paul is feared amongst those in power. It would be a transition toward a smaller federal government and lower regulation of personal affairs (like taking off your shoes to board an airplane). It would be a return to Constitutional sanity... to checks and balances.

It would be the best chance America has to survive another hundred years. It would be the best chance we have to remove the burden of debt from our future generations. It would be an era of a quieter and more competitive America, a renewed era of American Exceptionalism... one of American peace and prosperity... one where America returns as the shiny city on the hill for all the right reasons... one where we are followed out of respect, not followed out of fear.

Am I being overly optimistic? Sure. As a realist I understand that there would be push back from war-hawks in Congress, lobbyists, big labor, etc. The system that has grown too large to fail would fight so very hard to keep the pork barrel full, even if this fat hog was eating the citizens out of house and home.

So the honest answer is that there would be struggle. There would be news stories of doom and gloom as the fat cats began getting isolated and eliminated. There would be a period of struggle and strife as we shake off the dirt and get to work on truly restoring our country. There would be work, transition, and a whole lot of personal responsibility - a broom in every hand to clean up this country!

We just may, through all of this, find ourselves the leaders of the next great generation of Americans.

Of course, this is all only a possibility if Ron Paul is given the fair shake he deserves as a true front runner and presidential contender. A Ron Paul America... can you imagine?

CPAC Week and the Dark Horse Candidates

This is CPAC week, and even though some potential 2012 candidates are not speaking, other lesser potentials are using the CPAC event as a continued institution for networking and furthering the political dialogue. Huckabee and Palin are not scheduled to attend or to speak, but the likes of Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Luis Fortuño are expected to take a moment on stage.

We are one year away from the Iowa caucuses, and I believe that the usual attendees at these events do so in hopes to stay current, maintain or gain name recognition, and wait for their chance to jump into the race (or at least receive a draft movement on their behalf).

The 2008 campaign was changed by two dark horse candidates - Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. They both could now enter the 2012 race as established figures in the party with a clear direction and message. 2012 still leaves much room for a dark horse candidate... for someone with a message or movement that could unite the country and fix this economic, foreign, and otherwise general disaster we have in there now...

Keep an eye on Luis Fortuño, Puerto Rican governor. He just got a Bob Barr endorsement in the Atlanta Journal, and the Associated Press just interviewed me for a story they are going to run about a potential Puerto Rican President of the United States. Like I said, there is plenty of room for a dark horse candidate to establish himself over the next year... with the rate of progress in Puerto Rico, and their rebounding economy, one has to wonder how much longer before Fortuño becomes a household name...

2012 Presidential Speculation

I last wrote a full article on 2012 Republican speculation in early October of 2009. Arguably, this is a different world than 13 months ago. The rate of change in the political spectrum over the course of the 2010 cycle has been so much so that one should stop to ponder some scientific source of free energy from it! That being said, it is time to look at some serious and not so serious issues facing the presidential elections of 2012.

To begin, one has to wonder what the current President is planning for 2012. Early speculators for the left are suggesting that Hillary is ready to jump in and save the party and the unpopular president, while others are publicly calling for the president to announce that he will not seek re-election now in order to stop short of absolute destruction of the Democratic Party. A saviour he was not! Of course, barring any major changes on the left, we should expect to see a very weak President unable to control his divided legislature and thus enter the race as a weak incumbent. His performance at the G20 summit and throughout Asia last week indicate that the world is no longer smelling what Barack is cooking!

The GOP faces two camps of contenders for 2012 - those who fell short in 2008 and those who are new to Presidential politics; Each has a strength and a weakness. Those who are past failures have name recognition, but also suffer from burn-out or simple distaste from the people - hey, we already said we didn't like your brand of politic. Those who are up and comers have the fresh sense of something new, but may struggle with name recognition on a serious national scale. For the old, they suffer from the changes over the past two years, as anyone can clearly tell 2012 is definitely no 2008 in the political world!

So, who is in and who is out for the GOP?

Fox News is running a series called "12 in 2012" where they highlight 12 candidates:

Those candidates includes: Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
McPike reports, “A thirteenth story is also planned with long-shots such as former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, and others like Donald Trump.”

I had looked into the campaigns of some potentials (mentioned in my 2009 article linked above). Idaho Gov. Otter is out, carrying only 59% of his state when the Republican Senator snagged 71%. ND Gov Hoeven easily won election as the US Senator from ND with 76% of the vote. Some time on the federal stage could lend credence to his libertarian tilt. Gov. Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico is single handedly turning the liberal state into a conservative economic model, and his campaigning in 2010 with others around the nation have lended credence to him as an early pick.

So, who is in? Who is out? No one is talking just yet. Word is that some are waiting until after the first of the year, and after the new congress is seated. Some are waiting a bit longer to see who is jumping into the race.

Of the list above, who would I NOT support?
1. Mitt Romney. He is a big government moderate who has gained nothing since 2008, and remains somewhat of an elitist with respect to the people and the media. He has nothing good to offer the GOP... unless you need someone to sell you a used car.
2. Bobby Jindahl. Anyone who votes 'yes' on making the Patriot Act permanent will never get my vote. He would be the Bob Dole of 2012, and is not significant enough to move this country back into the hands of the people. His horrible state of the union response in 2009 was both the beginning and the end of his national level political career. He is best left to the people of Louisiana.
3. Sarah Palin. I know Palin is a fan favorite, but she cannot beat Obama, and she cannot unite the base. Her career move to leave Alaska's Governorship in 2009 (after just two years) destroyed her credibility as an elected official. For whatever her purpose, the end did not justify the means. Her re-election campaign in 2010 would have been the training for 2012, and her two more years running up to that election plus two more ahead of the 2012 election would have given her significant executive experience. Instead she became a cheerleader for the tea party, in my mind washing away all the hope and respect I had for her as an elected official.
4. Newt Gingrich. He may have been third in line for the top spot in the nineties, but this is not the nineties. Newt Gingrich is a relic, and does not have what it takes to 'right' the sinking ship.

Who would I support?
1. Luis Fortuño. A Puerto Rican bid for the presidency would send a shockwave through the nation. A territory of the US for over one hundred years, the island's population are US citizens, but hold no vote in the US federal government. They pay no federal taxes, but receive federal funds. Fortuño has spent the last two years reforming the island commonwealth into a tax haven, and has worked to drastically cut the size of the island's government - and the jobs that went with it. He is a rising star, and his campaign would not only draw a latino voting bloc, it would change the debate to one focused on our imperial policy of territories.
2. Ron Paul. His economic forecasts proved to be true. His foreign policy stance is very isolationist, much like most Americans pre-WWII. His followers have taken root in local and state parties across the nation, moving into key leadership positions. His backers have never quit the 2008 campaign. Ron Paul's followers are the reason for the Tea Party. The Campaign for Liberty has millions of followers. Ron Paul's appointment as the Chair of the Sub-Committee on Monetary Policy, which he will use to go after the Federal Reserve lends credence to his gain in popularity and credibility within the party, and the outcome of his crusade of the Fed could put him in a strong place to lead the field in 2012.
3. John Hoeven. If he can do something strong and dramatic within the Senate, he stands a chance to make a national name for himself. He is easily in the libertarian camp; arguably able to become the Ron Paul of the senate (notice Rand did not get that distinction). He did a great job in North Dakota, and could do a great job taking that same policy to D.C.

Others who Intrigue.
1. Lou Dobbs. There were feelers put out when he left CNN last year that he may be setting up for a 2012 run. Dobbs would do a great job in the mix.
2. Joe Arpaio. The Arizona County Sheriff will play the part of Tom Tancredo, getting tough on immigration. He holds general favor across the nation, and is already making the rounds.

Wikipedia is tracking 28 potential GOP contenders, with the prospect of a few more waiting in the wings. As the dust settles from November 2010, it will surely be interesting to see who decides to put a horse in the race for 2012.

Conservatives are a "Terrorist Militia" - so says MIAC

It is a well known Socialist strategy - destroy all opposition. Fellow freedom loving conservatives, be warned - THE WAR AGAINST LIBERTY IS GEARING UP.

I have often warned of the implications of the path these United States were wrongfully taking - and it has just been discovered by me that these warnings - the words that you are reading today - come from what the Obama Team are now considering "a potential paramilitary terrorist".

I warn you that continuing to read this blog, or continuing to think or believe the same way that I do will also lead to you being labelled as a potential increased security threat to the nation, and possibly a POTENTIAL TERRORIST.

The Missouri Information Analysis Center (a division of the Missouri State Police) has released a report called the MODERN MILITIA MOVEMENT warning officers to be extra diligent in watching out for signs of these potential terrorist group members (identified as Right-Wing Extremists), including:

• Christians
• States Rights advocates
• Right to Life Advocates
• Anti-Illegal Immigration Advocates
• Paintballers or Military Simulation Enthusiasts
• BLOGGERS, Chat-Forum users, Social Networks involving Conservative Issues
• County Sheriff Citizen task Forces (citizen assistants - aka Volunteer Sheriff's Deputies)
• Members of Third Party Political Groups (Such as Libertarian, Constitution, Independence, Campaign for Liberty, etc) - specifically supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr
• Those who have bumper stickers in support of Ron Paul, in support of "Right to Carry" arms, anti-illegal immigration, in support of tax-code revision, and other such 'RADICAL RIGHT' values
• Those who oppose the North American Union
• Those who oppose the Federal Reserve Bank, or World bank
• Those who strongly advocate for the 2nd Amendment
• Those who display Gadsden Flags, Common Law US Flags, or US Flags in Distress (upside down or backwards)
• Those who display or recite MOLON LABE, which is a Greek Phrase for "come and take them" sometimes translated to "Over my dead body" - or "From my Cold Dead Hands" - also known as the battle cry of the NRA

Here is the actual Report

Here is a segment of Rush Limbaugh discussing the story:


With the increase in frustration over how the Federal Government is being run, and the increase in anti-government demonstrations such as the Tea Parties, it should be noted that at least in one of the 50 states - and likely in others - Conservatives and Libertarian minded individuals attending these rallies are potentially being marked as "Suspect Terrorists".

The Tea Parties themselves, which are coming up on April 15th, is an anti-Socialist / anti-taxation rally openly criticising the expansion of the federal government, and therefore in the eyes of the Missouri State Police (and potentially national agencies) a rally being held by anti-government militias and terrorists.

Readers - we are now living in an age where political dissent is classified as terrorism, terror rallies, or in support of terrorist activities... The use of the word terrorist instills fear, instantly, and the broadening of the word terrorist to include anyone openly dissenting with governmental leadership is little more than a tactic of annihilating opposition.

Let it be known to all that I am anti-federal government when the government does not uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States... when it is led in a manner that is tyrannical, and undermines the fundamental liberties defined in the Declaration of Independence.

Let it be known that I will gladly call myself extreme, if being extreme means rejecting a Socialist agenda aimed at the dissolution of individual liberties and general free market capitalism.

Let it be known that I will gladly stand up and declare a need for revolution when Liberty is given a death sentence.

I will not stop speaking these truths - even if it means that I will be considered a danger to national security by the metrics used in Missouri - who consider my beliefs as being potentially terroristic.

I am an honest man, an active Republican, a vocal supporter of Liberty, a supporter of State's Rights, in favor of abolishing the IRS and replacing it with a flat or fair tax system, in favor of securing the borders from illegal immigration, an advocate for Gun Rights, an advocate for personal responsibility, and a flier of the Gadsden Flag.

If being a conservative/libertarian Republican identifies me as a potential terrorist, then I gladly join the ranks of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Henry, and other founders of this nation who so nobly defied tyranny once before.

To support a union for the sake of a union is idiocracy. To support a union founded on the principles that liberty is the justest of all causes - well, I say, Give me Liberty or Give Me Death.

Ron Paul Speaks to House of Reps... What If...???

H/T to "Road to Nowhere"

Ron Paul delivered a powerful message on the floor of the House of Representatives - What If the US Government and Imperial ideology is the culprit?



This is why Ron Paul was always my number two in the big show - he has a firm grasp on the big picture - a peripheral view to the tunnel vision of most politicians...

What if the US government is the problem... Rep. Paul - it is!

The Case Agaist Obama - Race Over Reason?

I am a Racist.

At least that is what the Democratic Party is going to try and make me believe. As Republicans begin building the case against Barack Hussein Obama, we are going to be met with counter attacks void of reason but full of emotion.

For instance, How can the Republicans feel that they are doing the right thing by blocking the election of the first black president of the United States? As if because he is Black and because he is a major party nominee, he deserves to be President. Can someone please explain to me how the color of a man's skin qualifies him to be President? I was under the assumption that it was the content of his character?!?

So let's look at his policies, let's look at his character. In doing so, we can fight emotion with reason. we will always be labelled as the racist party because we are fighting to block a "Black President"... but what we are really doing is attempting to preserve the fundamental rights and roles of the government by supporting the candidate who has a more conservative understanding of the founding of this nation, and the role that the government should play in our lives.

Barack Obama is a Marxist. Most youths who support him don't even fully understand what this means, or what it means to a truly free America.

Obama lives by the dictum of taking from those who have to give to those in need... no free will or free choice about it. If you have it, they deserve it... regardless of what they did or did not do to earn it.

Visit his campaign website and look at his policies.

Regarding Education - He plans to fully federalize a state institution of education. Where in the 10th Amendment does it stipulate that the States must give up rights such as education of their population?

Regarding Energy - Obama is a supporter of the "Tax the Profits" ideology coming out of the Senate regarding Oil. Instead of taxing the oil industry, which will only help to bankrupt and turn the industry over to the government (can you believe it, under President Obama we will seize the private lands of the Oil Fields and nationalize them! In America!?!) Instead of putting faith in the private sector, and incentivize car companies and power companies who offer alternative energy... or what about providing tax breaks for those who go solar at their homes? Or who buy fully electric cars? Instead, the answer to Obama is to seize Private Property and have the government regulate energy entirely on behalf of the people. (sounds more like Venezuela than America)

Socialized Health care - A system which most countries are currently trying to move away from, Barack Obama will rush the US headstrong into a crippling system that will further bankrupt this nation. Instead of removing regulation on the health care industry (which is an industry, not a right) and having faith that the free market will fill the need of the many by offering low cost group care programs, the intent of Obama is to seize the health care system and nationalize care, cost, and coverage. He complains that the HMO doesn't know what the best doctor is for you, so how is a bureaucrat in DC going to know any more? This is a ploy.

Race over reason... Unless his supporters are true socialists, they have to be blinded by being part of a group that elected the First Black President... never mind that there are more able candidates, more appropriate (non socialist) policies, or more appropriate "causes". Their reason is blinded by race, by the color of a man's skin...

I challenge that anyone supporting Obama because he is the going to be the First Black President, or anyone who uses that as a campaign cry, is the actual racist.

When I see a man, I see character... content filled character. I am not so low as to rally around the campfire of skin color. I demand content!

Obama is a black man running for President... who cares? I need a candidate who understands that this country does NOT need to go the way of the Soviet Union... we demand politicians who understand that this is a Free Nation. Period.

The End of the Democratic Battle?

After months of unbelievably entertaining, and often all too desperate Primaries, the Democratic contest is officially over tomorrow (June 3rd).

Or is it.

The Democrats need a combined delegate count of 2118 to win the convention.

Barack Hussein Obama has 2076 combined voters and super delegates.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has 1917 combined.

Up for grabs tomorrow:

Montana's 25 combined delegates
South Dakota's 23 combined delegates

Should Obama win 100% of the remaining delegates, he would break the threshold by 6 delegate votes... which is not going to happen. The delegates are split by a percentage of votes won, not winner take all as in the Republican contests.

Which brings into question Michigan and Florida... both Clinton landslides (namely because she campaigned and won there, though the delegates were never going to be seated). Should she decide to seat her allotted delegates from Michigan and Florida, Hillary Clinton could take the Democratic nomination.

If not, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are so close, that a Ron Paul style "coup" at the convention could sway the Obama voters for the second round of voting.

This is where being a delegate gets confusing, and interesting. If, after the first round, there are no clear winners, the delegates are released and able to vote for whomever they so chose. If Clinton was able to stack the delegate crowd who made it to the national convention, and is able to pull off a stalemate prior to convention, she could win the convention by a landslide.

However, this tactic may back-fire in the general election.

As well, if Clinton cashes in her chips, those in the know would have to assume that she doesn't have the political will to lead her party, and as such could never be considered a serious contender in the future.

Clinton's chances for victory have never been so sweet as they are now... make Obama believe that there is no chance of victory... play the delegates HARD... and hope for a second round vote blowout. Clinton has played her cards right 100%. This could be the political story of the century.

Or her flame could flicker out after the June 3rd contests, as she bows her head in submission to Obama.

I suspect that the battle continues through the summer, and the Clinton campaign machine moves forward to the convention, and ensures that every vote is counted... and then changed in her favor.

It happened in the USSR...

When the USSR collapsed in the late 80's, the Cold War ended. The United States was filled with joy of the end of the CW, but new threats began to arise.

Those threats were rogue states, unstable nations, and civil wars throughout the old soviet republics.

What would it look like if the US government, and it's complacent voters, continues the gap between the people and the leaders... What would it look like if the gas prices reached $4.00 a gallon and drove the nation into an economic panic, as the lower and middle class could no longer afford the basic necessities. What would it look like if the lower and middle class was systematically uprooted from their homes because of government mingling in the private housing market?

What would it look like if the US ceased to be a union of peaceful states, and instead became a series of independent states fighting for resources enough to survive?

It is not crazy... we have done it before... and as the people are less and less able to thrive, let alone survive, we march forward along the same path that destroyed the Soviet Union.

We are truly at a pivotal point in our nation's history... and our nation's existence.

Here is an interesting timeline starting in 2008... it is from a video game, but is hardly unlikely.

Thoughts on West Virginia Speeches

West Virginia is clearly a Huckabee / Romney state. The speeches were great, the crowd was pumped up... and now the delegates vote for this winner take 18 state.

I predict that Huckabee will win. He had the advantage of speaking last, jazzing the crowd, and speaking to the hearts of the delegates. That being said, Romney supporters had to sit through the lack-lustered McCain presentation by McCain's surrogate. The fact that Huckabee had the chance to wake this crowd up may pay big dividends!

WV gives out 30 delegates, but only 18 are being pledged today by the convention. Nine more are being handed out based on the Primary results in May... and three stay unpledged and belong to the state party... perhaps for bargaining tools.

The results should be out before 12:30 ET. That is one hour away... breath is officially being held!

Republican Race Open, but not THAT Open

This blog is in response to a comment on my previous post, by Ben Degrow over at Mt Virtus. His comment reads:

Respectfully...You wrote in an earlier post: "Should Mitt Romney take the top spot in Michigan, he and Huckabee will battle it out in SC, where it will likely be Huckabee's last stand." Given this previous statement and the fact that Huckabee SC shares are not selling at all on Intrades, do you see anything in tonight's modest 3rd-place MI performance (you predicted he would win here, so this has got to be a big disappointment) to turn around his plummeting SC numbers? Do you see SC as a 3-way race between McCain, Romney, & Thompson (whom you earlier predicted would dropout after the Iowa caucuses)? Do you still think Thompson will have an"embarrassing finish" in SC and withdraw? After this unexpected turn of events (Huckabee in IA, McCain in NH, now Romney in MI), how big of an opening do you see for Rudy's strategy to pay off? Do you agree that this race will continue to defy the pundits & the predictions? (http://bendegrow.com/2008/romney-wins-now-what/)

Let me first begin by congratulating Mitt Romney on his win in Michigan. Michigan was always a pro Romney state, but the big surprise was the McCain surge, making Huckabee a non-player in the state. Ben is right on, and I agree that this race is still open... and it will continue to defy the pundits and predictions... However, without predictions, what fun is it in tracking the race so closely?

Regarding Romney's landslide... we must consider the fact that Michigan is an open priamry state, and the Democrats had nothing to vote for on their ticket... so:

Michigan's open primary means Republicans, Democrats, and independents can all
vote in it. Since there's no contested primary on the Dem side, their
participation in the GOP contest could be a wild card. Daily Kos steward
Markos Moulitsas, hoping desperately to be mistaken for a Machiavellian genius,
is encouraging his minions to vote for Romney for mischief's sake, under the
assumption that if he doesn't win today, he drops out. Kos reasons his
side prefers Romney staying in the race so that the well-funded bloodsport of
primary battling will continue among Republicans, presumably injuring the
eventual nominee.

Let's discuss how open the race is, and what SC means to which candidates.

Ben, who is a Fred Thompson guy, seems to be holding out for Thompson in SC. And Fred Thompson, who seems to sometimes be a Fred Thompson guy, is also holding out for something big in SC. I just don't see that happening. Fred is in SC, trying to make his stand, but doing so with absolutely no momentum from the first three contests. In the state, Fred Thompson support has gone from over 20% to just under 10% in the last three months... and nothing has happened to suggest a boomlet in Thompson's favor. I still stand by my word that this may be Thompson's last stand. Anything less than a 2nd place finish for Thompson in SC kills any chance for a momentum boomlet. (My Iowa prediction of Thomspon's withdrawal was hampered by a close third place battle between he and McCain, which almost forced him to stay in and take a stand in SC... but it did not help his numbers... they continue to fall)

So to answer the question of "is SC really a McCain, Romney, Thompson showdown?"... the answer is no... the race is open, but not that open! And Huckabee is still alive and well in the Palmetto State. Romney's win yesterday likely stifled McCain's boom, but I don't think it hurt Huckabee... What is hurting Huckabee is the McCain boom... so Romney's wion can only help Huckabee in SC. Based on the intensity of McCain's surge post NH, which was unforeseen at the time I made the two man race prediction, SC is very much a three way race. But Thompson is not in the top three. It will be a Huckabee, McCain, Romney battle in SC. Thompson, unless he can muster up some momentum in the next week, will likely be finished... I know I predicted a withdrawal after Iowa, but maybe the old man stays in to be part of the delegate race. The 4th place finish will be an embarrassment to the Thompson campaign. Remember, Thompson was elevated to savior status before getting into the race. He has, arguably, yet to finish above 4th (or 200 votes from finishing 4th in Iowa)

Regarding the Intratrade... I visited the intratrade site, and there was not an option to buy Huckabee stock in the state. He is not listed. Never was. So I am not using that as a measuring device.

The race is open... indeed! It could not be looking better for Rudy in Florida, though I think his decision to sit out the early contests likely makes him a non-contender in Super Tuesday states now... perhaps Florida could turn that around.

But what do I see in my crystal ball?

For starters, I will tell you what I did NOT see. I did NOT see McCain having such an effective surge... especially in the wake of the Illegal Immigration Shamnesty plan that he tried to ram down our throats. Maybe Tancredo's withdrawal from the race took some of that pressure off McCain, and the issue out of the limelight.

I did NOT see Rudy falling off as much as he has! Rudy is currently polling nationally at 13%, tied with Romney for a distant 3rd. By the time we get to Florida, Rudy will likely be battling Fred in national polls for 4th, somewhere around 10%. That is not a good place to be heading into Super Duper Tuesday.

And I did NOT see Ron Paul beating out Thompson in a state like Michigan. That doesn't do much for Ron Paul at this point, but it doesn't say much for Thompson's support in the state of Michigan.

At this point, we need to take a compass reading. Nevada will likely not give us that reading. Nevada is so wide open, and clearly blowing in the direction of the momentum, that it will likely be a race between the top four: McCain, Rudy, Huckabee, Romney.

If McCain takes SC, McCain will likely win out. If Huckabee takes SC, it will likely move the battle to a two man race on super tuesday. If Romney takes SC, Huckabee's run is likely over, and McCain will likely win out on Super Tuesday, with Romney and Huckabee finishing in a series of 2nds and 3rds... obviously some 1st's in their stronghold states. I don't see Rudy's plan paying off, and I don't see Fred Thompson as a major player anymore.

I am still predicting a brokered convention...

One thing that I know is that the water is very muddy leading up to Super Tuesday!

God Bless!

The Death of Establishment Politics?

The new buzzword from the lips of the establishment political mouthpieces is no longer "islamofascists"... well, at least not during the election season. The new buzzword is "populism"... but trust me on this, the use of the word is meant to invoke the same fear and emotion!

The reason that this word is causing fear is that the people are speaking, and they are finally united in one effort: Get rid of politics as usual. One thing is for sure, politics in America will never be the same after 2008! At least if the trends continue.

The establishment candidates are falling faster than those poorly animated ducks in Nintendo's Duck Hunt... That hunting dog has his work cut out for him as he has to run around picking up nose-diving establishment candidates.

And if one pays any attention to tracking polls, you can clearly see that the populous was wearily supporting the establishment candidates, because the Media declared that they were the only viable candidates in either party. But, as the polls show, the first sign that there was even a hint of viability in another candidate, the establishment lost the wheels on it's bandwagon! (See the red arrows in the picture above... nose-dives indeed!)

Since 2006, the media has been building the next Royal Rumble... Hillary Clinton facing off on the national stage against Rudy Giuliani... pollsters and pundits have written books about this clash of the titans, made millions, and had nearly handicapped the 2008 race for us...

So was this anticipation the straw that broke the camel's back? Was it the grinding in on "viability" politics that finally made the people throw their hands in the air and declare "ENOUGH!"? I think so... I think the quasi-subdued citizens, distracted by American Idol and Top Model, were motivated by something different... and the tools of motivation made these citizens more accessible.

That is right... The death of the establishment politics, and the rise of populist politics, is due to the internet. The last vestige of free speech... and I mean free in that you can send powerful messages (via YouTube, e-mail, MySpace, Facebook) for FREE. No money required. That means candidates can focus on getting their messages out to millions of citizens at the cost of ZERO...

Then enter the bloggers... the most effective and passionate grassroots effort in American Politics... perhaps in history... capable of causing a revolution within our government without firing a single shot... The perfect example of the David v. Goliath... the Bloggers taking on the Major News Outlets... Communication amongst the people, giving rally cries, circling wagons, reaching out to one another, and waiting for our chance to pounce.

No longer are we restricted to the newspaper reading over the coffee table, where we are limited to bouncing our ideas and opinions off of our significant other... Now, each and every citizen has a forum... and we are excited about it.

Now that we are able to see our results, the impact that we have had, the downing of the establishment candidates... politics in America will never be the same. Empty campaign promises, negativity, gaffes, and slips... they will all be reported, they will all be discussed, they will all be scrutinized... because, in our lifetime, we have seen the beginning of the populist movement, when the people... WE the people... have decided to take our government back.

Let's see what happens after tonight... but I am willing to bet the farm that the trends continue, and that the pundits will be left scratching their heads over two obscure dark horse candidates getting the nod, and heading into the general election.

Predictions for the NH Primary

Real Clear Politics is showing a new trend after the Iowa Caucus, and in anticipation of the New Hampshire Caucus: Mike Huckabee and John McCain are surging nationally, while Rudy Giuliani (who is seeing his lowest numbers of the race) and Mitt Romney are free-falling. In fact, the latest polls show a three way tie for first: McCain, Rudy, Huckabee... but unfortunately for Rudy, his numbers are falling and it will not be too long before his campaign is through... At this rate, I doubt that he will make it to Super Tuesday in one piece... so it looks like his "Go Big or Go Home" approach to delegates (focusing only on the Super Tuesday states) has failed... or is in the midst of failing.

But what about taking a look at New Hampshire? How is tomorrow going to play out? The debates showed that there are four candidates in this race nationally: McCain, Huckabee, Rudy, and Romney. Thompson will likely not register in these polls, and may hold out for South Carolina... but after an embarrassing finish there, he will withdraw.

I call NH this way for the Republicans:
McCain: 37%
Romney: 28%
Huckabee: 15%
Paul: 10%
Rudy: 9%
Thompson: 1%

NH Dems:
Obama: 39%
Clinton: 26%
Edwards: 24%
Richardson: 6%
Kucinich: 5%

On the Republican side, the poor 2nd place showing will be a second blow to the already critically wounded (post Iowa) Romney Campaign. After a 2nd place finish in NH, Michigan wont much matter, and there are no other states where Romney is polling in first besides Utah (and perhaps MA, but I don't know... the last poll was from April of 2007).

Fred Thompson is not expecting anything out of NH, and only showed up in the state for the debates, then it was off to SC where he is facing a 2:1 deficit to Mike Huckabee, who leads the state. After a fourth place finish (to Huckabee, McCain, and Mitt or Rudy)... perhaps a 3rd place finish if Mitt and Rudy continue to slip, Fred will give a speech along the lines of: "Well... we gave it a good run... but it looks like it wasn't meant to be... so I will be withdrawing my campaign from the race, and endorsing John McCain"

John McCain will get a huge boost from an overwhelming win in NH. This boost will likely propel him to a 2nd or 3rd place finish in Michigan, and make him a contender (likely finishing 2nd) in SC. This will give him some momentum going into Super Tuesday. I say SOME because he will not do well in Florida, so there will be one loss just days before Super Tuesday.

Mike Huckabee's convincing 3rd place finish will reignite the huckaboom, and add to his momentum from Iowa. He will likely go on to win in Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida... giving him the big Mo' heading into Super Tuesday. This is going to be a Huckabee McCain race to the finish.

Rudy's gamble of waiting for Super Tuesday did not pay off. He will have no momentum going into Florida, and likely finish second to Huckabee. This blow will lead to a lackluster performance on Super Tuesday. Rudy will likely hold out for the National Convention, hoping to win over some delegates as Romney and Thompson drop out of the race.

Ron Paul will make his last stand in NH. This is the only state where he would have had a chance to come out on top, with the support of the Independent voters. However, a 4th place finish will leave his campaign with no momentum... plenty of cash, but no momentum. I doubt that he runs as a Libertarian, but if he did, this could put the Libertarian party on the map, giving the Green party a run for it's money as the only viable third party. This would be optimal if Bloomberg also ran as an independent. We would see a four way race, where the Democrats are hit by the Independent Bloomberg, and the Independents are hit by the Libertarians, and the Republicans are hit by losing Independent voters to some degree... It would make it the most interesting election in recent history!

On the democratic side... if Obama pulls off another upset, as I predict, the Clinton campaign will be finished. Edwards will surge into first or second as Clinton's numbers plummet. The nomination will likely go to Edwards or Obama (in that order) after Super Tuesday clears Clinton off into a third place shocker. She will likely drop out and endorse Obama, but her voters will be split between Edwards and Obama... then it is a delegate war for who can cross the threshold first.

*Note, these predictions are subject to change assuming I am completely wrong and NH goes a totally different way.

Comments Make the Blogging World Go 'Round

Back from vacation, and blogging again! I hope that everyone is well rested from New Years, and ready for the election season to begin!

Surprisingly, I have had no comments on my previous post, relating to how you all think the election cycle will go!?!?

Are there really no opinions out there?

Perhaps a comment from a Ron Pauler who knows something about a potential for Paulers to flood the Iowa Caucuses, giving Paul a surprising top three finish.

Perhaps Fred Thompson bows out after a poor showing in Iowa?

Who hangs on until Super Tuesday, and how do you all see that super election going?

I would love to hear some analysis, or just plain guesses, as to how you all think this month will play out!

Don't be shy! Comments make the blogging world go 'round!

HOPE for a New Year

Where rational thought ceases, and New Year's Resolutions begin... that is where we find ourselves in this blog.

I first have to give a very major acknowledgement to my Best Friend, Curtis Brower, who's resolution last year was to give up tobacco, alcohol, and fast-food for a year. He is just days away from successfully following through on his resolution... and is a prime example of the importance of taking charge of the self, demanding results, and the control and commitment it takes to follow through with personal responsibility of the highest order!

Now, in the same spirit of reaching for success on a personal level, my hope for the new year is that the United States take a good look at the pure evil that exists in the world around us, as well as the corruption that drives us towards evil and hatred right here in the United States.

It is my hope that we can enter this season of political ideals, and select the candidate that can best heal the divided nation in which we live.

It is my hope that we can get past semantics, and that politicians can learn to tell the truth...

It is my hope that this New Year can deliver a message of hope, not by force, but by example, that the people of the world will want to take action on their own, and demand a better life... one in which rockets are not lobbed into schools, and markets are not bombed by cowards... demand a life where my child can grow in peace next to your child, and we needn't fear for their basic survival... rather we only dream of their endless potential.

World peace is an unrealistic goal, as long as there are those willing to kill, willing to defy society, willing to follow fools and jesters in the name of religion.

The Declaration of Independence stated that there are basic rights endowed by the Divine Creator, including Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

World Peace begins with the respect for life... for your own, for that of your children, and most importantly, that of your neighbor. Without the respect for life, the cycle of violence will only continue. The respect for life is the first step, the second is the respect for Liberty. That means how I, or your neighbor, choose to live that life. As long as we do not encroach on your free life, we shall be left to live our lives as we so please. Of course we all need to agree on how to ensure this freedom... and how we do so is that Pursuit of Happiness. We get to debate and discuss how we want to live, how we want to measure success, and how we can all achieve success. But this discussion can never happen in the presence of Tyranny. Happiness needs freedom to thrive, freedom needs a respect for life.

So as we choose our new leader, we need to ensure that we are choosing a leader based on the ability to reason and understand the building blocks for freedom... Not a continuation of the "freedom by force" mentality. It doesn't work... never has, never will. The people of the world cannot see the freedom if it is given to them... they must work and fight for it on their own.

So look for a candidate strong enough to see the right answer, and make the right choices, even though he is lambasted by his own party. Look for the leader who understands that to succeed, we must first stand united. Look for the man who can bring Hope back to the highest office.

Happiness to you and yours in this New Year!

Doing the Right Thing - Being Human

Politics is a battlefield... That goes without saying. It is the most vicious game that one can participate in. There seem to be little rules, no clear fouls, and the out-of-bounds seems non-existent.

So why do we do it... why do we blog on political issues? Why do we run for office, or why are we involved in political parties?

Each and every person can provide a very different answer. Some seek glory, some seek social change, some seek to simply protect the constitution. There are some who see it as their civic duty, some who see it as a career.

No matter what your motivation, there seems to be an aspect that has gone missing... that is the human element.


It is widely understood that we (the masses) are no longer considered citizens, rather consumers. We are no longer concerned citizens, we are poll results. We are seen as mindless drones in need of political ads to sway us, or commentating to change our vote.

Wake up, readers... we are not mindless drones, and we cannot allow ourselves to be 'led out to pasture' by media, political ads, etc. We must demand that our politicians NOT consider politics as "business as usual"... we must demand the human element!

Take the time, as a political leader, to reach out to me as a human being... I am not talking about making a political ad about living with your mother in an attempt to SEEM more human, I am talking about reaching out in a different way... a way that is off the beaten path of politics... engage the people on a personal level...

Treating every "voter" as a human being... what a concept.

Reaching out to us means showing your soft underbelly... it is hard as a politician... but it is real. And that is what the people crave... real change, real ideas, real emotion, real heart, and real people... people from their own ranks... A candidate with something that the others are missing... the human element.

Oh, Christmas Feud... and the effects of Negative Campaigning

As I have said in previous posts, there is little time to make big gains in Iowa and the other early states. The front-loading of the process has made Christmas time the prime time to campaign... however, it is the one time of the year that the Iowans are not interested in campaigns... they have made up their minds... or they just want to be left alone for the time being.

So why has the campaign of Romney released two new ads attacking Huckabee, to be aired during the campaigning cease-fire? And how does that make the people of Iowa view him?

Mike Huckabee also released an ad to be aired in the early states over the Christmas cease-fire. How might this ad make voters view him?

When it comes down to it, I have to ask myself which candidate is acting more presidential, taking the higher road, and trying to better define himself instead of running negative ads against someone else. When it comes down to judgement, who is making the better choice? Think of what Christmas means to you, and then imagine sitting down to watch a re-run of "The Christmas Story" with your family... Then both of these ads pop up during a commercial break... which one do you want to share with your family? Which one makes you listen, and say, "Oh... thanks for the Christmas message".

And now, the effects of Negative Campaigning... I will keep this short...

For starters, There has been one candidate who has consistently used negative advertising in their campaign. I am not going to name names, I will let you figure that out. So what does that tell you about the candidate? Perhaps it implies that their record or message is not strong enough to support itself, so they must try to tear down the other campaigns.

But what else does it do? It puts hate into the heart of that candidates supporters. They begin attacking, sometimes viciously, the other candidates. It invokes negative emotions, and the people are left to act on these sometimes strong emotions... It destroys the base support, and distracts from the candidates ability to distinguish themselves in a positive light.

It also should be noted that this is the Primary season... this is not the time to be filling the hearts of the party's base with hate and anger in an attempt to build up one candidate over another. Once the primary season is over, and the negative candidate has lost (for example), their supporters are so angry at the other candidates that they refuse to be part of the party, and they refuse to vote, refuse to support the party and vote third party, or worse: they support the opposing party just out of spite.

Negative campaigning is a poison, and we have a personal responsibility to insist that candidates maintain campaigns that stick to the moral high ground. We don't need politics as usual... we complain about it year after year. So do something about it, and demand that the candidates STOP negative ads, stop negative campaigns, and run on their merits and records.

What are your thoughts?