The rogue nation of North Korea has been chosen to lead the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. Yes it is that time of the year again when people only recognize the United Nations as existing because of an outlandish decision to have a dictator lead a council which contradicts everything it stands for.
The United Nations have justified the appointment by stating that it was an "automatic rotation." The defense of "Well, it's their turn" should no longer be accepted by the international body. The Conference will report to the United Nations General Assembly which passes non-binding optional resolutions.
A peace-keeping body such as the United Nations should have skipped over North Korea in light of several military actions taken against South Korea over the past two years (minimum), it's continued attempts to create and grow a nuclear arsenal (contradictory?), and it's well documented ties to helping others grow theirs (see Syria, 2007).
If the United Nations wants to regain legitimacy in the American public and in places around the world where it's practices are being called into question, they must begin removing countries under sanction from chairing these important committees. There is a clear conflict of interest in letting the ambassador from North Korea chair a committee on nuclear weapons. The proper thing to do as an added diplomatic measure would have been to penalize the North Koreans by selecting the nation after them to chair the committee.
In order to keep the peace-keeping body around and to maintain a level of legitimacy by reforming the chair selection committee. When the UN allows for these kind of events it adds fuel to the fire for its growing number of critics calling for an end to the body. With principled reforms such as the one listed above and a few others we could have a legitimate place for diplomats to discuss peace, and make recommendations as to how this peace can be brought about.
Follow @mullrainee
Tweet
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
We May Have Missed Our Eisenhower
Roughly a half-century ago the former commander of the most important mission in World War II ran for and won the Office of the Presidency. Dwight Eisenhower was a center-right President whom history has been very kind too. The man was a tremendous leader of men and held personal responsibility in the highest regard. There was an immense ground swell to make Eisenhower president after the Truman ended his presidency.
The same movement was around General David Petraeus. Petraeus has been entrusted with both of the War on Terrorism missions. He oversaw both "surges" which have been viewed as key and impressive victories toward ending our stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked with Presidents Obama and Bush in order to secure lasting peace in the region.
Much like Eisenhower, Petraeus has been universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike. They are both center-right and are well spoken and intelligent individuals. Petraeus has a PhD in International Relations from Princeton and had graduated in the top 5% of his military class. He has hands-on learning one of the most, if not the most, critical region to United States security. This experience will no doubt serve him well.
I figured General Petraeus should he have decided to run would have done so in October, November, or December of this year after his service to the President had expired. I would not expect him to leave his post as Ambassador Huntsman did with China. I feel that it shows a level of disloyalty to begin to plan against an employer and attempt to undercut your former employers credibility. Petraeus, a man committed to fulfilling his oath to the President would not have gone the Huntsman route.
I had been hoping for a potential run from Petraeus despite his constant statements to the contrary. It appears now as though we missed on one of the crucial leaders of our time. Petraeus will become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and will have put the nail in the coffin for a President Petraeus. If President Obama is elected for a second term the earliest Petraeus would be able to run in 2016 when he will be in his early sixties and still viable as a candidate. He will be a tad on the older side of the field but the GOP loves running solid military men as much as it loves running governors or businessmen. Giving him a fair chance.
However, if the coin goes the other way and a Republican is elected in 2012 Petraeus may not be able to run again until 2020 putting him as one of the oldest presidents in American history. An obstacle that may not be easy to overcome. It appears as though we have missed out on an opportunity for history to repeat itself and America is losing out by not having a veteran leader of men at the helm of the nation.
The same movement was around General David Petraeus. Petraeus has been entrusted with both of the War on Terrorism missions. He oversaw both "surges" which have been viewed as key and impressive victories toward ending our stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked with Presidents Obama and Bush in order to secure lasting peace in the region.
Much like Eisenhower, Petraeus has been universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike. They are both center-right and are well spoken and intelligent individuals. Petraeus has a PhD in International Relations from Princeton and had graduated in the top 5% of his military class. He has hands-on learning one of the most, if not the most, critical region to United States security. This experience will no doubt serve him well.
I figured General Petraeus should he have decided to run would have done so in October, November, or December of this year after his service to the President had expired. I would not expect him to leave his post as Ambassador Huntsman did with China. I feel that it shows a level of disloyalty to begin to plan against an employer and attempt to undercut your former employers credibility. Petraeus, a man committed to fulfilling his oath to the President would not have gone the Huntsman route.
I had been hoping for a potential run from Petraeus despite his constant statements to the contrary. It appears now as though we missed on one of the crucial leaders of our time. Petraeus will become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and will have put the nail in the coffin for a President Petraeus. If President Obama is elected for a second term the earliest Petraeus would be able to run in 2016 when he will be in his early sixties and still viable as a candidate. He will be a tad on the older side of the field but the GOP loves running solid military men as much as it loves running governors or businessmen. Giving him a fair chance.
However, if the coin goes the other way and a Republican is elected in 2012 Petraeus may not be able to run again until 2020 putting him as one of the oldest presidents in American history. An obstacle that may not be easy to overcome. It appears as though we have missed out on an opportunity for history to repeat itself and America is losing out by not having a veteran leader of men at the helm of the nation.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Eric Cantor Leaves Deficit Talks
Today it was announced that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has pulled out of the bipartisan deficit panel being headed by Vice President Joe Biden. The reason being an absolute lack of leadership and discussion with President Obama.
Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have called for President Obama to finally get fully involved in these discussions to help move the discussion about taxes in any deficit reduction plan. Cantor is absolutely opposed to any new tax increases especially now in the current economic status of our country. This is the kind of Republican leadership we have been waiting for.
By walking away from the deficit talks Cantor is forcing President Obama to come to the table to come and discuss the fundamental issue of his Presidency. Obama has been able to skate on this issue by creating a panel and putting Joe Biden in charge. The president has shown a lack of leadership by trying to push this onto the Vice President, speaking on the topic generically, and hiding behind his press secretary.
Republicans had been giving the president a free-pass on the debt until recently when Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and asked where was the president on the tax issue. Eric Cantor is showing the signs of leadership and ability to confront the executive branch that was prominent during the 1990s under Newt Gingrich. This is the leadership I had hoped for at the beginning of the new Congressional term under Speaker John Boehner.
This is a brilliant move on several levels. First being the country stands to benefit in the short and long term by agreeing to a deficit and spending reduction plan. The country has spent itself into a dangerous position and it is in need of some tough medicine. The next level is the Republicans will look much more serious on the deficit issues than the Democrats and President Obama. The debt and economy are two central issues to the upcoming 2012 election cycle. The third level being it highlights President Obama's inefficiencies as a leader and it forces him into a position where he will have to continue to rattle cages. The Republican Party has continuously hammered Obama for following the world in foreign affairs and now he appears to be following even in domestic policy. The decision will also force him into a position where he will put forth his own agenda which will not go far enough for the liberal-progressive base or he will pander to the base too well and disenfranchise an American people who will not take kindly to tax increases.
This will turn into an ideological staring contest in which we will all have a side we will lean on because of our ideological differences. We can only hope that someone's eyes dry out before the United States has successfully followed Greece into democracy and bankruptcy.
Edit: Representative Cantor has also announced today that the House will consider the Balanced Budget Amendment the week of the 25th. Cantor and the Republican Party appear to be done playing games with deficit reduction.
Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have called for President Obama to finally get fully involved in these discussions to help move the discussion about taxes in any deficit reduction plan. Cantor is absolutely opposed to any new tax increases especially now in the current economic status of our country. This is the kind of Republican leadership we have been waiting for.
By walking away from the deficit talks Cantor is forcing President Obama to come to the table to come and discuss the fundamental issue of his Presidency. Obama has been able to skate on this issue by creating a panel and putting Joe Biden in charge. The president has shown a lack of leadership by trying to push this onto the Vice President, speaking on the topic generically, and hiding behind his press secretary.
Republicans had been giving the president a free-pass on the debt until recently when Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and asked where was the president on the tax issue. Eric Cantor is showing the signs of leadership and ability to confront the executive branch that was prominent during the 1990s under Newt Gingrich. This is the leadership I had hoped for at the beginning of the new Congressional term under Speaker John Boehner.
This is a brilliant move on several levels. First being the country stands to benefit in the short and long term by agreeing to a deficit and spending reduction plan. The country has spent itself into a dangerous position and it is in need of some tough medicine. The next level is the Republicans will look much more serious on the deficit issues than the Democrats and President Obama. The debt and economy are two central issues to the upcoming 2012 election cycle. The third level being it highlights President Obama's inefficiencies as a leader and it forces him into a position where he will have to continue to rattle cages. The Republican Party has continuously hammered Obama for following the world in foreign affairs and now he appears to be following even in domestic policy. The decision will also force him into a position where he will put forth his own agenda which will not go far enough for the liberal-progressive base or he will pander to the base too well and disenfranchise an American people who will not take kindly to tax increases.
This will turn into an ideological staring contest in which we will all have a side we will lean on because of our ideological differences. We can only hope that someone's eyes dry out before the United States has successfully followed Greece into democracy and bankruptcy.
Edit: Representative Cantor has also announced today that the House will consider the Balanced Budget Amendment the week of the 25th. Cantor and the Republican Party appear to be done playing games with deficit reduction.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Anti-TSA Bill May Bring Perry Into Contention
Governor Rick Perry of Texas has added an anti-TSA search bill to the Texas state legislature's calendar. This move will play very well to a Republican base Perry may be trying to court as he prepares to test the waters for the Republican Primaries.
A few weeks ago while Perry was still flat out denying any interest in the Oval Office he removed the bill from the agenda of the Texas Legislature's Special Session. Perry cited a lack of votes to get the bill passed in his decision. Added pressure was applied by the federal government when a letter was sent to the Texas legislature claiming air traffic to Texas would be limited if the law was passed.
Now the buzz around Perry has becoming a deafening roar for the Texas Republican to enter the Presidential fray. He has advisers sprinting away from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich including two more today from Newt's fundraising office. He has an appeal to the Christian Right in his upcoming day of prayer for the United States and his strong pro-life stance and policies. Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the United States combined and has people coming in droves to the Lone Star State. Hell he's even authored a book entitled Fed Up! about recent government overreach into state's matters.
The big name Republican backers are waiting to see if Perry or former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin jump into the race. My money says Palin will not run and wait for an opening in the White House in 2016. So the big money is out there for Perry to take advantage. People are waiting to establish a conservative candidate to oppose front-runner former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
When the Republican Party needs a candidate that can win elections and needs to unify the party they go to their oil-well. The Lone Star State. This anti-TSA bill will be more than enough to draw Governor Perry into the race and may even put him ahead of Governor Romney.
This bill will give Perry more than enough momentum to carry the field and headlines if he so chooses.
A few weeks ago while Perry was still flat out denying any interest in the Oval Office he removed the bill from the agenda of the Texas Legislature's Special Session. Perry cited a lack of votes to get the bill passed in his decision. Added pressure was applied by the federal government when a letter was sent to the Texas legislature claiming air traffic to Texas would be limited if the law was passed.
Now the buzz around Perry has becoming a deafening roar for the Texas Republican to enter the Presidential fray. He has advisers sprinting away from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich including two more today from Newt's fundraising office. He has an appeal to the Christian Right in his upcoming day of prayer for the United States and his strong pro-life stance and policies. Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the United States combined and has people coming in droves to the Lone Star State. Hell he's even authored a book entitled Fed Up! about recent government overreach into state's matters.
The big name Republican backers are waiting to see if Perry or former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin jump into the race. My money says Palin will not run and wait for an opening in the White House in 2016. So the big money is out there for Perry to take advantage. People are waiting to establish a conservative candidate to oppose front-runner former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
When the Republican Party needs a candidate that can win elections and needs to unify the party they go to their oil-well. The Lone Star State. This anti-TSA bill will be more than enough to draw Governor Perry into the race and may even put him ahead of Governor Romney.
This bill will give Perry more than enough momentum to carry the field and headlines if he so chooses.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
FreedomWorks is Wrong to Target Orrin Hatch
According to an exclusive from The Daily Caller FreedomWorks first target in 2012 is Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. FreedomWorks, is chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and the PAC associated with the Tea Party group will unveil the "Retire Orrin Hatch" Campaign at the Utah Republican Convention on Saturday.
FreedomWorks is misguided in its attempt to "Primary" the 34 year veteran of the United States Senate.
Does Hatch have blemishes on his three-and-a-half decade old political career? Yes and who wouldn't in that length of time? The list of grievances in Hatch's career as cited by the article include voting to raise the debt ceiling 16 times, his vote in favor of the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP), and his vote against a ban on earmarks.
These should be seen as strikes against his record from the point of view of the Tea Party/Conservative organization. However, FreedomWorks is trying to remove a long-standing ally of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution and a long-standing conservative.
I sat in the audience of the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference while Hatch defended his record in a manner I deemed as acceptable. He defended his record with such vigor that it should have swayed the audience in his favor. However, it appeared the audience did not attend the panel with the open mind I would have expected.
During his time in the United States Senate Hatch has sponsored or co-sponsored a Balanced Budget Amendment 17 times, he voted against the health-care legislation of 2009, he is a constant defender of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has stood up for religious freedom, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has credited Hatch with his appointment.
Hatch has worked on a conservative record that should earn him high enough marks to avoid this kind of challenge on his political career.
I understand the Tea Party movement has a great success in Utah in 2010 with the election of Senator Mike Lee. Lee had tremendous ground support and a popular conservative upswing behind him. 2012 will be a close general election. President Obama despite slower than expected economic growth, still polls well against Republican foes. A general election, with more voters coming out, and control of the US Senate on the line we have to go with the proven element.
I for one support Orrin Hatch and his overall record. A few blemishes will not ruin a record for me.
FreedomWorks is misguided in its attempt to "Primary" the 34 year veteran of the United States Senate.
Does Hatch have blemishes on his three-and-a-half decade old political career? Yes and who wouldn't in that length of time? The list of grievances in Hatch's career as cited by the article include voting to raise the debt ceiling 16 times, his vote in favor of the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP), and his vote against a ban on earmarks.
These should be seen as strikes against his record from the point of view of the Tea Party/Conservative organization. However, FreedomWorks is trying to remove a long-standing ally of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution and a long-standing conservative.
I sat in the audience of the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference while Hatch defended his record in a manner I deemed as acceptable. He defended his record with such vigor that it should have swayed the audience in his favor. However, it appeared the audience did not attend the panel with the open mind I would have expected.
During his time in the United States Senate Hatch has sponsored or co-sponsored a Balanced Budget Amendment 17 times, he voted against the health-care legislation of 2009, he is a constant defender of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has stood up for religious freedom, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has credited Hatch with his appointment.
Hatch has worked on a conservative record that should earn him high enough marks to avoid this kind of challenge on his political career.
I understand the Tea Party movement has a great success in Utah in 2010 with the election of Senator Mike Lee. Lee had tremendous ground support and a popular conservative upswing behind him. 2012 will be a close general election. President Obama despite slower than expected economic growth, still polls well against Republican foes. A general election, with more voters coming out, and control of the US Senate on the line we have to go with the proven element.
I for one support Orrin Hatch and his overall record. A few blemishes will not ruin a record for me.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Surprises of the Second GOP Debate
The CNN/WMUR debateon Monday was full of moments that made me sit up and take notice of a field I view as a lot stronger than other pundits have stated.
The results of the second debate were a mixed bag. A few candidates were impressive, a few disappointing, and the moderator was down right dreadful.
Results:
1) Governor Mitt Romney - While he has experienced great pain in media over the past two weeks he showed that he isn't going through the Sophomore Slump. Romney conducted himself well during the debate and is still playing keep away from his field of challengers. Those watching the debate were expecting challengers to go after the front-runner but all of them backed away. Instead of making Mitt discuss his policy on healthcare they all let him handle it. He came in the leader of the pack and no one did anything to stop him. Thus Romney for staying on top and gaffe free wins the second debate.
2) Rep. Michele Bachmann - In her first ever presidential debate I was completely taken aback by the composure and posture of Bachmann. She has fully stepped out of the shadow of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin and has become her own candidate. My only concerns from Bachmann at the debate were she used a couple of applause lines from her Tea Party days at a formal debate, and she announced her candidacy during a round of questions. Other than these two flaws in decorum for debating she has fully emerged as a serious and viable candidate.
3) Speaker Newt Gingrich - After suffering horrible setbacks in terms of his staff and his confusing campaign scheduling Newt came out firing. He was in rare 1980-1990 form as he took on the debate format, moderator, and how he answered forcefully and with conviction. He showed the disdain for how government operates that made him so popularly within the GOP. After what seemed to be a week in which Newt's campaign had fallen apart just as everyone predicted the veteran of the Clinton Era showed why you can never count the old dog out.
4) Herman Cain - The Atlanta businessman falls to the fourth slot after unarguably winning the first debate. Cain struggled to break out of the middle as the candidates above him had more buzz surrounding them. He did not present lines or analogies that would resonate with voters. After the train and caboose analogy he seemed to fall into a game that isn't his. He played the role of politician after the initial round which is where he is out of his element. His comments on Muslims and an opportunity for cabinet positions has hurt him as well.
5) Sen. Rick Santorum - Santorum bounced back to make a stronger performance than his first debate appearance. He stayed composed and took control of debate topics when posed to the entire floor of candidates. Extra face time like that can resonate with voters. He continues to make strides as a national candidate and could be a force in Iowa with his strong pro-family values. He hasn't been generating enough press but he can make some noise after this event.
6) Gov. Tim Pawlenty - My initial selection to be the candidate of the Republican Party was underwhelming at his second debate performance. He is not garnering attention, and has backed off his tough talk about Mitt Romney's healthcare legislation on the national debate scale. After coining the term "ObamneyCare" on a Sunday talk show he instantly backed away from the term and his attacks on Romney at the debate. If an opponent has screwed up in your eyes you have to go for him. Especially the front-runner. Pawlenty dropped the ball and has fallen to the sixth spot.
7) Rep. Ron Paul - Now before everyone attacks my comment section with generic Ron Paul quotes and defenses read what I am about to say. He was not performing at the same level as he did in the first debate. He also fell back on crutch words like "umm" and "uhh" and several points during the debate. He did not appear to be adequately prepared. His delivery was flawed which is an important part of publicized debates. You must be able to present yourself as well as your ideas. Not too mention very few questions posed by members of the audience were directed at Paul which may be a bad thing in New Hampshire.
8) Mainstream Republicans - When a member of the audience posed a question about how the candidates would work with the regular everyday people who make up the Republican Party and not just the vocal fractions of it everyone posed this question offered defenses of the Tea Party and did not answer the question. These candidates are running for the Republican nomination and it is about coalition building within the party. Finding a common ground between factions. This answer is what stunned and upset me the most during the CNN/WMUR debate.
9) John King/CNN - This debate was moderated horribly. John King has to make up his mind if he will be a tough moderator and cut the candidate off or let them finish the question. He constantly said "ok" during candidates answers hoping to cut them off but it just bothered the listener. CNN also had the Twitter page going and did not use it as well as I had hoped. Viewers posed questions but very rarely was it used. CNN needs to find a new moderator and if it is going to showcase all of its technological aspects it must use them.
The results of the second debate were a mixed bag. A few candidates were impressive, a few disappointing, and the moderator was down right dreadful.
Results:
1) Governor Mitt Romney - While he has experienced great pain in media over the past two weeks he showed that he isn't going through the Sophomore Slump. Romney conducted himself well during the debate and is still playing keep away from his field of challengers. Those watching the debate were expecting challengers to go after the front-runner but all of them backed away. Instead of making Mitt discuss his policy on healthcare they all let him handle it. He came in the leader of the pack and no one did anything to stop him. Thus Romney for staying on top and gaffe free wins the second debate.
2) Rep. Michele Bachmann - In her first ever presidential debate I was completely taken aback by the composure and posture of Bachmann. She has fully stepped out of the shadow of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin and has become her own candidate. My only concerns from Bachmann at the debate were she used a couple of applause lines from her Tea Party days at a formal debate, and she announced her candidacy during a round of questions. Other than these two flaws in decorum for debating she has fully emerged as a serious and viable candidate.
3) Speaker Newt Gingrich - After suffering horrible setbacks in terms of his staff and his confusing campaign scheduling Newt came out firing. He was in rare 1980-1990 form as he took on the debate format, moderator, and how he answered forcefully and with conviction. He showed the disdain for how government operates that made him so popularly within the GOP. After what seemed to be a week in which Newt's campaign had fallen apart just as everyone predicted the veteran of the Clinton Era showed why you can never count the old dog out.
4) Herman Cain - The Atlanta businessman falls to the fourth slot after unarguably winning the first debate. Cain struggled to break out of the middle as the candidates above him had more buzz surrounding them. He did not present lines or analogies that would resonate with voters. After the train and caboose analogy he seemed to fall into a game that isn't his. He played the role of politician after the initial round which is where he is out of his element. His comments on Muslims and an opportunity for cabinet positions has hurt him as well.
5) Sen. Rick Santorum - Santorum bounced back to make a stronger performance than his first debate appearance. He stayed composed and took control of debate topics when posed to the entire floor of candidates. Extra face time like that can resonate with voters. He continues to make strides as a national candidate and could be a force in Iowa with his strong pro-family values. He hasn't been generating enough press but he can make some noise after this event.
6) Gov. Tim Pawlenty - My initial selection to be the candidate of the Republican Party was underwhelming at his second debate performance. He is not garnering attention, and has backed off his tough talk about Mitt Romney's healthcare legislation on the national debate scale. After coining the term "ObamneyCare" on a Sunday talk show he instantly backed away from the term and his attacks on Romney at the debate. If an opponent has screwed up in your eyes you have to go for him. Especially the front-runner. Pawlenty dropped the ball and has fallen to the sixth spot.
7) Rep. Ron Paul - Now before everyone attacks my comment section with generic Ron Paul quotes and defenses read what I am about to say. He was not performing at the same level as he did in the first debate. He also fell back on crutch words like "umm" and "uhh" and several points during the debate. He did not appear to be adequately prepared. His delivery was flawed which is an important part of publicized debates. You must be able to present yourself as well as your ideas. Not too mention very few questions posed by members of the audience were directed at Paul which may be a bad thing in New Hampshire.
8) Mainstream Republicans - When a member of the audience posed a question about how the candidates would work with the regular everyday people who make up the Republican Party and not just the vocal fractions of it everyone posed this question offered defenses of the Tea Party and did not answer the question. These candidates are running for the Republican nomination and it is about coalition building within the party. Finding a common ground between factions. This answer is what stunned and upset me the most during the CNN/WMUR debate.
9) John King/CNN - This debate was moderated horribly. John King has to make up his mind if he will be a tough moderator and cut the candidate off or let them finish the question. He constantly said "ok" during candidates answers hoping to cut them off but it just bothered the listener. CNN also had the Twitter page going and did not use it as well as I had hoped. Viewers posed questions but very rarely was it used. CNN needs to find a new moderator and if it is going to showcase all of its technological aspects it must use them.
Monday, June 13, 2011
GOP Needs Unity
On the morning of the second televised debate I come to all of you with a message that has been repeated by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. This is the case for the sects of the Republican Party coming together for the sake of winning elections. We must find the happy medium between the Tea Party's frustration and running candidates too conservative for their constituency (i.e. Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware) and the moderate wing of the Republican Party.
We must remember the words of William Buckley: "Nominate the most conservative candidate who can win" and Ronald Reagan "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor."
These words were seemingly forgotten when former House Majority Leader Dick Armey stated that the Tea Party would stay home if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination.
When must remember we are a party, a unified organization at the end of the day. We believe in a certain set of ideals and practices in Law and Government. Some believe in these principles on a much more hard line base than others. That does not make those with a more moderate stance Liberals, it makes them Centrists.
The 2012 election will be too crucial to allow for Republican/Conservative voters to sit on their hands and not go out on election day. The fate of our newly won House of Representatives, our chance to win the Senate, and the opportunity of the White House depend on it. We cannot afford to stay at home because the candidate is not conservative enough.
A candidate who will vote your ideology 60-80% of the time is far better than one who votes 5-15% of the time with your ideology is it not? At the end of the day all factions of the center-right movement must recognize this.
William Buckley was correct when he stated we must run the most conservative candidate that can win. Winning is the objective of any election. We just have to make sure we run the best candidate in the fields of ideology and region. Jim DeMint probably couldn't take a Senate race in Minnesota the way Olympia Snowe probably could not win a race in Alabama.
It's about region and ideology. It's about finding a candidate that can compete in the Heartland, Bible Belt, and coast-to-coast.
Defeating President Obama in 2012 will be an uphill battle as it stands. We do not need a splintering of the vote, the creation of another right-of-center party, or eligible voters staying home.
Do we really want to let loose four more years of Progressive Liberal policies on the United States for the sake of "purity?" Ask yourself that question if you are considering staying home in 2012. This is the future of the country we are discussing here. Everyone has a vested interest. Everyone should be voting.
This is why we must all come together.
We must remember the words of William Buckley: "Nominate the most conservative candidate who can win" and Ronald Reagan "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor."
These words were seemingly forgotten when former House Majority Leader Dick Armey stated that the Tea Party would stay home if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination.
When must remember we are a party, a unified organization at the end of the day. We believe in a certain set of ideals and practices in Law and Government. Some believe in these principles on a much more hard line base than others. That does not make those with a more moderate stance Liberals, it makes them Centrists.
The 2012 election will be too crucial to allow for Republican/Conservative voters to sit on their hands and not go out on election day. The fate of our newly won House of Representatives, our chance to win the Senate, and the opportunity of the White House depend on it. We cannot afford to stay at home because the candidate is not conservative enough.
A candidate who will vote your ideology 60-80% of the time is far better than one who votes 5-15% of the time with your ideology is it not? At the end of the day all factions of the center-right movement must recognize this.
William Buckley was correct when he stated we must run the most conservative candidate that can win. Winning is the objective of any election. We just have to make sure we run the best candidate in the fields of ideology and region. Jim DeMint probably couldn't take a Senate race in Minnesota the way Olympia Snowe probably could not win a race in Alabama.
It's about region and ideology. It's about finding a candidate that can compete in the Heartland, Bible Belt, and coast-to-coast.
Defeating President Obama in 2012 will be an uphill battle as it stands. We do not need a splintering of the vote, the creation of another right-of-center party, or eligible voters staying home.
Do we really want to let loose four more years of Progressive Liberal policies on the United States for the sake of "purity?" Ask yourself that question if you are considering staying home in 2012. This is the future of the country we are discussing here. Everyone has a vested interest. Everyone should be voting.
This is why we must all come together.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Bad Numbers For Obama Administration
A recovery not so much.
Today's gloomy jobs report brought unemployment just back north of 9%. The projected gain in jobs was supposed to be about 150,000 whereas the real number actually gained was closer to 54,000 making unemployment 9.1%. A number we all know to be 1.1% higher than the maximum number predicted by the Obama Administration after the passage of the stimulus package.
The Dow Jones is currently concluding it's fifth straight week of loses. A number that would make the Washington Wizards jealous.
Domestic policy more so than anything else shapes Presidential elections. The economy is first and foremost in everyone's minds.
An economy stuck in a rut will lead to short term benefits that could become long term benefits for Republican contenders in 2012.
The candidates that can lead the way with this bump would be: Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson. All three men have had fantastic successes in the private sector.
Jon Huntsman has gained the support of major financial backers. This economic uncertainty will lead to further name recognition for Huntsman who is in severe need of it according to recent polls. The name recognition will build upon an already secure base of some of the established Republican guard. This could lead to lasting benefits for the current long shot. Huntsman will now stand a better chance if he can seize the moment.
The current front-runner and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will be able to capitalize on this moment with his private sector experience. When the message is solely based on job creation he can attempt to move past RomneyCare. If he can successfully move to the topic of job creation through typical conservative ideals (lower taxes, less regulation, etc.). Romney can use this to fend off a potential bid by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin (even though I believe she will not run).
A man with rising name recognition and with high positivity scores can keep the momentum going. That man is Herman Cain. Cain made a name for himself solely on his private sector accomplishments. His view on the private sector can translate into the public sector according to the late Jack Kemp whom Cain advised in 1996. This is assuredly put Cain in the spotlight again and when people get to know Herman Cain they love Herman Cain as evident by the Gallup Positivity Polls.
The last former businessman in the field is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson has less name recognition than I do and has garnered as much national appeal. This is his now or never moment. Of course he will still lose the majority of libertarian-minded Republicans to Dr. Paul but he will attempt to steal some of the more economically minded ones from the doctor. If he doesn't look better after this economic news there will be little hope for the mountain climber.
Today's gloomy jobs report brought unemployment just back north of 9%. The projected gain in jobs was supposed to be about 150,000 whereas the real number actually gained was closer to 54,000 making unemployment 9.1%. A number we all know to be 1.1% higher than the maximum number predicted by the Obama Administration after the passage of the stimulus package.
The Dow Jones is currently concluding it's fifth straight week of loses. A number that would make the Washington Wizards jealous.
Domestic policy more so than anything else shapes Presidential elections. The economy is first and foremost in everyone's minds.
An economy stuck in a rut will lead to short term benefits that could become long term benefits for Republican contenders in 2012.
The candidates that can lead the way with this bump would be: Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson. All three men have had fantastic successes in the private sector.
Jon Huntsman has gained the support of major financial backers. This economic uncertainty will lead to further name recognition for Huntsman who is in severe need of it according to recent polls. The name recognition will build upon an already secure base of some of the established Republican guard. This could lead to lasting benefits for the current long shot. Huntsman will now stand a better chance if he can seize the moment.
The current front-runner and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will be able to capitalize on this moment with his private sector experience. When the message is solely based on job creation he can attempt to move past RomneyCare. If he can successfully move to the topic of job creation through typical conservative ideals (lower taxes, less regulation, etc.). Romney can use this to fend off a potential bid by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin (even though I believe she will not run).
A man with rising name recognition and with high positivity scores can keep the momentum going. That man is Herman Cain. Cain made a name for himself solely on his private sector accomplishments. His view on the private sector can translate into the public sector according to the late Jack Kemp whom Cain advised in 1996. This is assuredly put Cain in the spotlight again and when people get to know Herman Cain they love Herman Cain as evident by the Gallup Positivity Polls.
The last former businessman in the field is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson has less name recognition than I do and has garnered as much national appeal. This is his now or never moment. Of course he will still lose the majority of libertarian-minded Republicans to Dr. Paul but he will attempt to steal some of the more economically minded ones from the doctor. If he doesn't look better after this economic news there will be little hope for the mountain climber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)