Republican Voters are Doing Their Homework and ...

Making up Their OWN minds in this Republican Primary. You gotta love it: Voters coloring outside the lines.  =)

My own personal feelings on a big issue of late aside ... One can always pray.  So I did.  I prayed for the best man to lead this country to do well in these 2 southern primaries, at this pivotal point in the primary process ...  And Rick Santorum won in both Alabama and Mississippi.

Image Source: New York Times

Fox News Video:  "Rick Santorum:  We Did it Again!"



I must say, the American people are doing their homework  and voting their own minds this election cycle. That truly gives me hope for our nation. Voters aren't content to let the media, RNC establishment and the polls make their decisions for them and that truly renews my faith in the American electorate.  God Bless America, Rick Santorum, his family and staff.  Keep the momentum going!


Read More Here ...
Rick Santorum's Plan for His First 100 Days in Office




If Rick Santorum can get a handle on his social positions and use his voting record to his advantage to demonstrate that he clearly understands the difference between holding a personal belief (e.g., religious) and making policy ... If he can reassure voters that if elected he will respect "the will of the people" ... Then Rick Santorum will indeed be THE BEST candidate to secure the Republican Nomination heading in to the general election against President Obama. ... And Santorum needs to get this dialogue going NOW.

There is a distinct and important difference between being a "true conservative" and being a "staunch (intolerant) conservative."  While the latter may appeal to the right-wing of the conservative base in this Republican Primary:  it won't fly in the general election.

Politics of Perception: Choose Your Battles Wisely ...

I'll say it again:  TIMING IS EVERYTHING!


Rick Santorum's statements regarding contraception have said --during the course of this current campaign-- that while he personally does not believe in contraception an individual has the right, under our constitution, to make that decision for herself [“right to choose”].  Santorum also made another profound statement in one of the earlier debates, where he stated that when he voted against some bill mandating 'right to work' in his state.  He had done so not because he disagreed with the bill in principle, but he voted the "will of the people" that he represented at the time. It was very refreshing to hear a politician recognize and affirm this: "the will of the people" ... so many elected officials seem to forget this when they go to Washington. These two statement by Rick Santorum were among the main reasons --along with his other economic ideas (e.g., his plans to return manufacturing jobs from overseas back to America)--  I began to consider Rick Santorum as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Santorum’s statements, coupled with his Senate voting record, illustrated to me that he clearly understands the true nature of our Representative Democracy: "a government of the people, by the people and for the people." 

Rick Santorum is obviously a man of devout faith, which is a good thing. It seemed to me, however, that Mr. Santorum clearly understood the difference between holding a personal (moral) conviction and the infliction of those convictions upon others. The ability to make this sort of distinction is critical for the success of any elected politician in effectively serving his constituents … be they a congressional district, a home state or the entire United States of America.

Image Source

The fact that we are such a diverse nation, with a corresponding diversity in our religious beliefs and practices, is why our Founding Fathers built a "Separation of Church and State" into our United States Constitution. I agree, this provision was not put into place in order that we would become a secular nation, as is the interpretation of the current administration and its supporters. The latter being said, I don't think that this issue should be at center of campaign narratives in the current Republican Primary.  To me, a candidate who ventures into this ideological argument runs the risk of getting off message and losing potential voters in the long run.


You should  be proud of your faith, Mr. Santorum.  To many, your faith will serve as evidence of your moral character and your ability to be trustworthy and ethical in your execution of the office of President of the United States. The latter being said, I don't think faith vs. secularism in government should be a critical issue of your election campaign. You have to get into office before you can effect change in the latter respect. Once in office, the change in attitude will naturally occur by the type of administration you put into place, appointments you make and the people that you will choose surround yourself with. I fear, however, if you start an ideological campaign on the issue of faith vs. secularism in government you might just loose the votes of mainstream American voters who may misconstrue your current focus for an inability to address the real concerns facing our nation:  sky-rocketing gas prices, no true energy-independence, people who have given up looking for work to give a false sense of "true unemployment", a soaring national debt, and weak foreign policy posturing that now heralds a potentially nuclear Iran.


Maybe, to quote your own words, Mr. Santorum ... You need to "take one for the team" and refocus your campaign narrative back onto the BIGger issues concerning all Americans.


3/2012 Update:  Rick Santorum's Plan for His First 100 Days in Office

Let's Keep Our Eye on the Ball Republicans!

[Yes, another blog entry finds me tired and yet again sleep-deprived.  That being said, I feel these things need to be said.  I will revisit and proof after some hopeful sleep. Peace, Love & Stay informed.]

I did not like the format of last night’s Republican Primary debate at all.  Seeing the Presidential candidates seated informally next to one another, in such close proximity, did not bring out the best of these candidates to either the voting audience or the rest of country.  The candidates did not look at all Presidential in this 'relaxed' debate format, nor did they appear to be comfortable.  Quite frankly, seeing the Presidential candidates seated in such an informal forum, while attempting to discuss serious issues such as the very real threat of a nuclear Iran was almost laughable.  Perhaps this was yet another ploy by the liberal media to further diminish the Republican Presidential candidates in the eyes of potential voters for the upcoming November 2012 general election?

I DID happen to like the question from an on-line submission near the end of the debate: “What one word would you use to describe yourself?” Ron Paul answered with a predictable “consistent” ... albiet an out-in-left-field consistent. Santorum took a line from his own campaign mantra in focusing on “courage [courageous]." I had to smile at Romney’s adjective for himself: “resolute." Romney's deliverance of that word itself was resolute, as if to say “Hey, I’m not going anywhere anytime soon. I am going to ride this election cycle through to the very end and win [unspoken explicative].” But it was Newt Gingrich’s jovial laughter in conjunction with his chosen adjective that I felt was perhaps the adjective that all of the candidates would do well to adopt at this point in the campaign: “cheerful.” Why? Because, last night's debate was perhaps the height of the hammering performances given by the candidates in a debate setting to date. It was almost too painful to watch the Republican candidates continue to tear one another apart in an effort to take the lead in the polls heading into the Arizona and Michigan primaries, with "Super Tuesday" just around the corner. At least, there was some concession and agreement --near the end of the debate-- on the very real threat of the nuclear Iran and what should be done with regards to current and future potential situations arising in the Middle East.

The Republican Presidential candidates REALLY NEED to start defining the narrative for the upcoming general election, instead of letting the media and the Obama Administration continue to dictate their narrative for them. The Republican Presidential candidates cannot afford to keep tearing one another apart, while simultaneously giving Obama a free-pass until after the August Republican National Convention. John King’s lead-in to one of the questions last night was “Since contraception seems to be a hot issue right now …” Why weren't rising gas prices and the fact that our current President vetoed the Keystone Pipeline a hot topic worthy of a formal question in this debate? Well now, let's see: contraception ‘seems to be a hot issue’... because the current administration has made it a hot issue in order to provide smoke and mirrors for the real issues facing the country right now. The Obama campaign gambled that the conservatives in the Republican Party would consume themselves with the "contraception issue" and they were right; that's exactly what the conservative base has done. We’ve “taken our eye off the ball”, so to speak, by continuing to let contraception remain THE issue. The candidates continually taking the media bait by attempting to explain their current and past statements/positions on contraception and other related social issues isn’t helping either. Enough already! Let it go and let’s keep our focus on the real issues facing our country right now (e.g., nuclear Iran, soaring gas prices, floundering economy, high unemployment, mounting national debt). Let’s keep our eye on the political ball so to speak. Now is NOT the time to focus on social issues and platforms.  Save the social issues for the party platform building at the National Convention in August!  Right now, our country has bigger problems; let's keep the campaign narrative focused on these.

[Side Note: You really have to stop for a moment here and give the current Administration credit for steering the election commentary towards the issue of "contraception", don't you?  Can you now, perhaps, see who the President really does not want to run against?  President Obama would love to have this campaign not be about the economy, sky-rocketing gas prices, no true energy-independence, people who have given up looking for work to give a false sense of "true unemployment", a soaring national debt, and weak foreign policy posturing that now heralds a potentially nuclear Iran.]

[Hah! Will that Blue Ball fit through the hoop? ; ) It's late and I'm tired ...

Not my best graphic, but it serves its purpose.]

Rick Santorum seemed to be the one taking the biggest beating in last night’s debate and inevitably so as he is currently the newest Republican front-runner.  I would hope, however, that voters seriously begin to question the merits of a candidate whose only strategy to date seems to be pointing out the negatives and shortcomings of others instead of offering meaningful solutions for the problems currently facing our nation.  No politician is perfect.  They all have probably voted for something in their past that they now regret.  In light of the ongoing negativity in this Republican Primary, it is imperative that voters be informed (i.e., get the whole story on negative attacks, verifying authenticity and context) and look at the big picture of a candidate's overall voting record.  Quite frankly, to me, the focus on negativity and tearing opponents down in order to get ahead is reminiscent of the type of campaign that Obama ran in the last presidential election ... offering intangible, nebulous "hope and change."  Look where that has gotten us.  Is that really where we want to go as a party?  Maybe, Rick Santorum is onto something when he refers to Mitt Romney as "Obama-lite."


Hopefully, Santorum can regroup and refocus after last night’s debate and get his 'A-game' on heading into the upcoming 14-state election primary contests that will unfold over the course of the next two weeks. Santorum absolutely has to keep his eye on the ball and stop taking the bait to steer his campaign commentary back towards social issues which in last night's debate started to paint him as a staunch (intolerant) social conservative. Social issues will wind up being Santorum’s Achilles heel if he keeps allowing his campaign to be defined by them.  Go ahead and court the conservative evangelical base, Rick, just be careful not to alientate the more moderate factions of your party, independents and the rest of the country. You have to keep your focus on the general election now. Your voting record speaks to your understanding of and willingness to embrace the "will of the people" ... use it; don't make excuses for it.

Image Source

[Side Note:  I sincerely hope that Rick Santorum doesn't jump on the "all contraception is bad and promotes immoral behavior" bandwagon.  This is just where the liberal left and his current rivals for the Republican Presidential Nomination want Rick Santorum to go. To jump on this bandwagon would be such a sad, not to mention quick, way to derail a truly promising campaign. Don't bite, Rick! Stick to your previous position --from the beginning of your campaign-- when you stated that you "don't personally believe that contraception is right, but that you support an individual's right to choose for themselves."  And then remind everyone that your voting record in the Senate clearly supports the latter statement. Don't make excuses for your voting record.

Rick Santorum's statements in tonight's debate seemed (to me) to be an attempt to perhaps rally the evangelical conservative base of the Republican Party … And this is a legitimate campaign strategy. Whichever candidate decides to court this segment of the Republican base, however, should tread very, very carefully --in my humble opinion (myself being an Independent Republican)-- lest said suitor jeopardize their entire campaign by alienating the rest of the potential voting base in the short term … and the rest of the country in the long term.  The evangelical base of the conservative party can conceivably be rallied to support a given campaign (candidate) without said campaign having to back itself irreversibly into a staunch, rigid, self-righteous corner. Any suitor of the evangelical base should exercise extreme judiciousness in making public statements on sensitive issues like contraception. They should keep the primary focus of the campaign on the bigger issues facing our nation and go after the true culprits of the 'moral decline in our society' … if they must go after them at all. Ron Paul makes a very valid point: contraception is not the root of the problem. Society's attitudes towards pornography, prostitution, drugs and the like … not contraception … are at the heart of moral decay in our society. Any candidate with sights beyond the Republican Primary would be wise to make the latter distinction early on, and make it forcefully. ]


Rick Santorum's statements regarding contraception have said --during the course of this current campaign-- that while he personally does not believe in contraception an individual has the right, under our constitution, to make that decision for herself [“right to choose”].  Santorum also made another profound statement in one of the earlier debates, where he stated that when he voted against some bill mandating 'right to work' in his state. He had done so not because he disagreed with the bill in principle, but he voted the "will of the people" that he represented at the time. It was very refreshing to hear a politician recognize and affirm this: "the will of the people" ... so many elected officials seem to forget this when they go to Washington. These two statement by Rick Santorum were among the main reasons --along with his other economic ideas (e.g., his plans to return manufacturing jobs from overseas back to America)--  I began to consider Rick Santorum as a viable candidate for President of the United States. Santorum’s statements, coupled with his Senate voting record, illustrated to me that he clearly understands the true nature of our Representative Democracy: "a government of the people, by the people and for the people." While Rick Santorum is obviously a man of devout faith, it seemed to me he clearly understood the difference between holding a personal (moral) conviction and the infliction of those convictions upon others. The ability to make this sort of distinction is critical for the success of any elected politician in effectively serving his constituents … be they a congressional district, a home state or the entire United States of America.

A few weeks back, Rick Santorum seemed to emerge as the candidate that not only could beat Obama, but THE candidate that would also be best for the country serving as President of the United States.  Voters in the Republican Primary no longer felt compelled to settle for the candidate being pushed by establishment politicians and the media (conservative and liberal alike) as "the only viable candidate" who would be able to secure victory against the incumbent President Obama. Republican voters just aren't happy with a 'middle-of-the-road' Romney. With Santorum's 3-state sweep, Republican voters embraced a new-found realization: they had another viable choice for the Republican nominee. As the latter realization quickly spread, Rick Santorum finally began to energize what had previously been an overwhelmingly unenthusiastic Republican party. Hopefully, this Santorum-energy will continue as voters head to the polls in the upcoming election primaries of “Super Tuesday” and the like, because regardless of who will be our Republican Presidential cadidate the Republican Party will need an energized party in order to bring voters to the polls in November or there will be no defeating the incumbent President Barak Obama.



[ Alright ... I'm exhausted.  I may have to take March off too?  I've said my political piece.  Going back to focusing on images once again.  The current state of our country and the problems facing our nation has inspired me to attempt a read "The Federalist Papers" in their entirety ... We shall see how far I get.  Peace, Love and Get to the Polls to VOTE! ]


2/24/2012  http://video.foxnews.com/v/1471930214001/santorum-romneys-attacks-are-laughable/?playlist_id=87937

3/2012 Update:  Rick Santorum's Plan for His First 100 Days in Office

Time to Talk Politics ... The "C" Candidate

Time to take a break from philosophical pondering, photography, writing and poetry. I haven't written much about politics lately, but that doesn't mean I am not staying informed, watching the Republican Primary debates and forming my own opinions.  Here is my input into an on-line political discussion with friends.  The question was:  "Who will be the best next President of the U.S. for the future of our children? And why?"

My response  to this timely and thought-provoking question follows in the quotation below.  These are my personal opinions.  Each person is entitled to their own, but hopefully voters in this election will be informed and not just vote based upon emotion and rhetoric as they did in the last election.  This election Obama has a four-year term of words and actions --as well as inactions-- that speak to what he "can do for the country."

"I agree with Kris ... Newt has some brilliant ideas, but he is so hot-headed (a quality that is NOT Presidential). He also has a tendency to be arrogant and condescending. I truly wonder if he would listen to advisers at all if he were President. A presidency under Newt Gingrich might be more like a bull-dozing dictatorship? The words "Washington insider" come to mind as well. But at least he would be a decisive President who would let the rest of the world know that America is not for sale and that we won't be messed with --nor can our allies (e.g., Israel)-- and under no condition will America tolerate a nuclear Iran.  And some say Newt knows where all of the Washington skeletons are buried, as if that were a good thing?

Rick Santorum, Republican Candidate for President 2012

www.RickSantorum.com

Romney seems to have a broader spectrum appeal. He is probably the best bet to beat Obama at this point, but I don't completely trust him. I don't like some of the things he did as governor in MA either (e.g., "Romney-Care" mandatory state-sponsored healthcare, akin to "Obama-Care").  "Middle-of the road" comes to mind when I ponder Romney as President. On the positive side, Romney would likely surround himself with good advisers and listen to their input.  Perhaps if Romney would stop beating around the bush and just release his tax returns (as all of the other candidates have already done) he could gain some valuable points on 'trustworthiness'.

Of all the candidates currently running in the Republican Primary, I like Rick Santorum the best.  Rick Santorum seems young and perhaps a bit lacking in experience, but I think that he would come up to speed quickly. He comes across as honest and trustworthy. Santorum's record shows that he is not afraid of hard work, nor is he afraid stand up and fight for what he believes is best for the country. I like what he said in the last debate ... that when he voted against some bill mandating 'right to work' in his state that he did so not because he disagreed with the bill in principle, but that he voted the "will of the people" that he represented at the time. It was very refreshing to hear a politician recognize and affirm this: "the will of the people" ... so many elected officials seem to forget this when they go to Washington.  Santorum has an impressive political record and some very sound ideas on the economy.  I like his plan to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States via U.S. companies currently making products in foreign countries.  I think that the latter plan would be a huge step in the recovery of our floundering economy.  Santorum is conservative, but he seems to be able to separate his personal views from what is best for country (e.g., he is personally opposed to birth control, but he says he feels that the right to use birth control is an indivduals choice and should  therefore be protected under the law).  I think after his impressive win in Iowa ( I don't care if Romney technically won by a handful of votes on the official tally.  In my book, Rick Santorum won Iowa because of the fact that he came from behind, in single digits, to a virtual win in the final count against Romney, who had been polling all along at number one and was the favorite to win in Iowa.) that with the right support, the backing of the GOP and a bigger PR machine that Santorum could conceivably beat Obama in the November 2012 election.  I also think that of the Republican candidates currently available to voters that Rick Santorum would be the best President for the country.

In my opinion, it is helpful that the field of Republican candidates is narrowing, because the candidates now get more detailed questions in the debates and more time to speak to each question (or rebuttal).  The five remaining candidates also now have more 'air' time and effective attention from potential voters.  In this way,  people (voters) can see what candidates (like Ron Paul) really stand for and what they would do to help or HARM the country as the case may be.  

On a different matter, but related because it speaks to what is "best for the country":  I can't believe that President Obama was bold enough to veto the Canadian Oil Pipeline project in an election year!?! Obama is for blowing money on 'green' companies like Solyndra (that go bankrupt with taxpayer money) in order to achieve energy independence from the Middle Eastern oil, but he will not support an alternative option to get oil right here on our own continent? The president says he's appeasing the environmental base, but in this economy with the rising tensions in the Middle East ... how can any informed and intelligent person actually believe that was truly his rationale? Is there now any remaining doubt? Obama wants to see American fall, thus advancing the agenda of rebuilding America in the liberal progressive image. His veto of the Canandian Pipeline (if it is not overturned by Congress) effectively shoots the United States of America in both knees with respect to our hopes of actually achieving energy independence in the near or perhaps any future. Even if Obama is not re-elected his legacy of weakening America, with this act in particular, will live on in the journal of history ... Is it too late to put the Pipeline to a vote of the people?  Well, hopefully the Congress can muster the gumption and the votes needed to override Obama's veto."




I did not mention Rick Perry in my comment above.  I realize that Perry is also a Republican Primary candidate; I just don't think that he is viable candidate for the Presidency at this particular point in time. Perry has done remarkable things for the economy in the state of Texas, but now is not the time for him run. Perry against Obama in this election would be played as Obama vs. the Bush II legacy and would most assuredly guarantee the re-election of Obama (and I happen to have the highest respect for former President George W. Bush, but many do not.).

In sum, I think I've changed my mind about the Venn diagram that I posted a few weeks back ...

Image Source: ME

At the time of posting this chart, I had said that "C seems to be a rather empty field."  That is to say, that there did not appear to be (at the time) a candidate who could both beat Obama and be the best overall President for the country.  Sitting here today, I don't think that we have to compromise with a candidate who can likely beat Obama, but may not be the best President for the country.  Sitting here today, I think that we have our "C" candidate in Rick Santorum.






3/2012 Update:   Rick Santorum's Plan for His First 100 Days in Office

And to correct a statement made above ... Rick Santorum did end up winning the State of Iowa.  At the time this post was written the State had erroneously been called for Mitt Romney.  A final tally, with some possible recounts, awarded Iowa and its delegates to Rick Santorum.