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

South Carolina Primary ... The Fat Lady Will Sing?

Haven't we had enough of the media and those with ready access to the media (i.e., "bundlers" and political pundits) telling us who is going to win our elections?  Everywhere I turn the television and most newspaper sources are saying "the winner of South Carolina will be Romney or Gingrich."  The South Carolina primary is tomorrow and thus far the "fat lady" hasn't done any singing. Correct me if I am wrong, but thus far Newt Gingrich has NOT WON a single state primary. Mitt Romney has won one state primary (New Hampshire) and Rick Santorum has won one state primary (Iowa).  Newt Gingrich has won NONE. 

We let the media tell us who was going to win the last election --with all of the liberal bias on media coverage in the 2008 election-- and look what we got:  four years of rhetoric in action, a floundering economy, lingering high unemployment, and Iran on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.  Are the American people really stupid enough to let the media run the show again in this election????????????
Thankfully, voters in this election cycle seem less likely to convict a candidate based solely upon initial media releases and unproved allegations (e.g., Herman Cain).  I do have to give Newt Gingrich credit for standing up to the media at the beginning of the last debate.  Seems the American people were happy to see Newt throw the shame ball back into the media's lap based upon the standing ovation that he received.

Just recently, Fox News ( "fair and balanced" ) predicted that Mitt Romney would win Iowa with just over 50% of the precincts reporting.  In the final certified count, released yesterday, Rick Santorum actually won Iowa. Granted the Iowa race wound up being incredibly close, but the latter is evidence that even with the best of intentions media doesn't always know and can't always get it right.  Rick Santorum been had polling in the single digits --in the days leading up to the Iowa primary-- and he wound up winning Iowa.  I know that predictions are best 'educated' guesses but, contrary to what seems to be widely accepted opinion, media predictions are often wrong and sometimes they are outright dangerous (e.g., CBS news incorrectly calling the 2000 Presidential Election in favor of Al Gore). The American public needs to keep the latter in mind when they are weighing the facts and deciding which of the current four candidates will be the best Republican nominee.  Voters should look at the records of the candidates and make their own decisions.  They should not allow the polling numbers and opinions of political analysts to make their voting decision for them.

I still keep hoping the American people will make the honest effort to get the facts in this election process.That they will vote based on who they believe will be best candidate (and eventual President) for the country. With a little bit of  homework and some honest effort on the part of voters, hopefully whoever we end up sending to Washington D.C. will actually represent the will of the people.  If we can't do the latter, then our government in this country will never return to a "government of the people, by the people, for the people"  and we will most likely wind up falling.

Instead of listening to historical data on the significance of each early voting primary and media predictions for 'winners and losers' (based on often inaccurate polling data ... witness the recent Iowa upset):  let's make our own history!  

One last thought ... In the world of today, now more than ever, we must be cogent about the world at large and the threat of a nuclear Iran.  The next President of the United States of America will hold the keys to our nuclear arsenal and may well be called upon to consider using them.  Which of the four current candidates do you trust with the keys?

Image Source

May God, our Creator, bless and inspire all the people of South Carolina going into the Republican Primary election there tomorrow ... even if the "fat lady" doesn't truly wind up singing.  I've a sneaky suspicion that this Republican Primary is going to defy all of the "rules."




1/21/12 ... Well score one for Newt Gingrich.  Each candidate now has one state primary win under his belt ... save for Ron Paul.   I didn't hear any "fat lady" singing.  Seems to me it's still anyones race, though Gingrich really needed a win to legitimize his campaign.  I've often wondered if it is fair that the same states get to go first election cycle after election cycle.  Doesn't seem quite fair ... by the time the primary reaches some of the later states your candidate of choice may have decided to drop out of the race and you've had no real say in the matter.  I think primaries should be held on a rotating basis so that each state has an opportunity to be among the first states to vote and impact the final outcome.

I was sorry to see Michelle Bachman drop out the race, but campaigns are expensive to run.  A rightly so, Bachman took her cue from a home state (Iowa) where she had spent a lot of time and money campaigning.  I can't blame her for pulling out.  I guess the world is ready for a black President (which I was truly happy to see, even if I don't care for his politics), but the world is not quite ready for a woman President of the United States.  Michelle Bachman is a very intelligent, informed, hardworking and articulate individual.  I think she tried a little too hard to come across as the staunch conservative and instead wound up coming across as rigid and inflexible.

This was not the race for a staunch conservative.  The pendulum isn't going to swing back entirely the other way this election.  Too many in this country still remember the George W. Bush era with 9/11, war in Iraq, and the stock market collapse. They aren't ready to embrace anything bearing the label "hard-core" conservatism, but I think that most are willing to admit that the liberal swing of the pendulum hasn't done much good this past four years either.

The answer for "who will be the best Republican candidate" will probably have to be a conservative who is willing to embrace flexibility in order to unite this country and get us back up onto our feet once again.  We have real issues facing this country (e.g., floundering economy, financial system that stills needs reforms enacted to prevent another market collapse from happening again, high unemployment, rising tension in the middle east, not much movement on true energy independence from the Middle East, and now the threat of Iran as a nuclear power in our very near future) and we need a President with a proven record for getting things done.

We need a President without the baggage of bad history (personal or political), someone who is willing to roll up his sleeves on day one, embracing conservatives as well as liberals, to get things done.  We need an innovator, but also someone with a record for putting ideas into action.  We need someone who will surround himself with good people and be willing to listen as well as lead.  We need a candidate for President who is proud of our country and its people.  God willing the voters will have the end in mind when they cast their vote to determine exactly who the Republican candidate will be.  We have look beyond the election fight against Obama, with the end goal of the Presidency and the country in mind.

The score is now 1-1-1  ... Iowa for Santorum, New Hampshire for Romney and South Carolina for Gingrich.  The race is on:  may the best man for the country win.


[ Alright ... I am done with talking politics here for awhile.  I am volunteering for the campaign of the candidate I will support.  I just had to have somewhere to speak my mind.  All of my friends seem to be liberal and I am now living in a liberal-minded state.  I am okay with agree to disagree, but many on the other side do not seem to be.   Thus, I have found very few venues for enlightened, honest discussions.  Thanks for bearing with me and hearing me out : ) ]


2/6/2012 ... Why do people assume that one who has an aggressive posture, coupled with an impressive deliverance in a debate setting, would naturally make a good long term President of the United States?  Obama is a very charismatic orator, with rather impressive deliverance in a debate format ... Has the latter translated into an effective leader for our country these past 3+ years in terms of jobs, national debt, true energy independence and a world free from the threat of a  nuclear Iran?  Be careful my fellow Republicans lest your short term goals wind up being your Achilles heel ... Do you truly want what's best for our country or to win a perceived battle?  And if the latter, then what makes your agenda any more desirable to independents and the rest of the country than that of the "half-time, with four more years" being offered by the Obama campaign?

It's not about class warfare ... just like it's not about a perceived victory. It's about what it takes to get our country back up on its feet again and which candidate is perceived (by the entire country) as being truly capable of delivering in that respect.  



(Think, I will have to make this a post all its own?)


2/8/2012 ... Woo-hoo!  Way to go Rick Santorum!! ... You knocked it out of the ballpark last night and then then some with your 3 state sweep:  I LOVE IT!!  A decisive win in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado represents a widespread, broad spectrum support from middle America in my humble opinion.  And I don't discount Missouri ... the fact that over 138,000 (out of 250,000 total voters) people braved the bad weather to get out and show their support for you in a non-binding primary speaks volumes ... especially when voter turnout in the entire state of Nevada (the last primary contest) was less than 50,000 voters total.   More power to you in the weeks ahead, Rick Santorum.  Keep your momentum going!!

I love that the American people are doing what it takes to get their own information and to think for THEMSELVES in this Presidential Primary.  You aren't content to let the establishment, the political commentators, analysts and polls make your decisions for you.  You've renewed my faith in the American electorate.  Keep it going and God Bless!!


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