I had an epiphany tonight. I was pondering the question as to why Obama seemingly sought to tick off Catholic voters. I was puzzled because it seemed to be a form of political suicide that lacked any political benefit; Obama didn’t need to offend Catholics to secure the support of pro-abortion voters.
I had incorrectly assumed that Obama was a political animal like Bill Clinton and would take actions that would assure his reelection. For example, Dick Morris convinced Clinton to sign welfare reform to ensure his re-election. Why did Obama do the opposite here? Why not push the decision back until after the election?
The answer is simple: Obama is not a political animal like Bill Clinton. In many ways, Obama is much more honorable and much more dangerous. He is a true believer, an ideologue, which begs a bigger question: why are leftists so militantly pro-abortion?
In my epiphany, an answer. In my opinion, leftists are more pro-abortion than pro-choice because they don’t seem to like it when people choose life.
Incidentally, this may be the only area – excepting narcotics – in which leftists want more freedom. Leftists dislike freedom of speech, which they stifle with political correctness and speech codes on campuses. They dislike economic freedom, which is known to most as Capitalism. Capitalism is where individuals spend their money where they wish. People have the freedom to enter into trade where both sides benefit. Leftists also don’t want freedom in employment, health care, smoking, gun ownership, or property rights.
But they desperately want “freedom” of unfettered access to – and even government sponsorship of – abortion.
Now, one could argue that the abortion/birth control mandate at the heart of the the recent controversy is the natural consequence to the government running healthcare; if they run it, they can dictate what’s in it. But why are abortion and sterilization even in the bill? One could argue that birth control affects health care, but abortion? Since when is disposing of potential human life a form of health care? It’s not.
In my view, leftists don’t like babies. I’m sure leftists like their own babies and I’m also sure that they will send their children to their left wing seminaries (i.e.: college), but they don’t like babies in general. Or, they don’t like people having many babies.
The reason? Leftists don’t like babies because babies force people to think realistically about the future and not merely about the present.
I remember holding my daughter for the first time thinking, “holy crap, I really have to be a grownup now.” I had to start thinking about the future. Upon having children, particularly multiple children, people tend to focus realistically on the future and this often moves them, politically, to the right.
Leftist and their ideas only exist in the present. If you project leftists ideas just a bit forward they collapse like a house of cards. As Whitney Houston sings, “I believe the children are our future.” The left wants to live in the present where their paradise can exist without the consequences of reality.
I was going to write about the fickleness of conservatives. Fickleness seemed an apt description. In this primary season, conservatives swooned first over Michelle Bachmann. Then Herman Cain. Rick Perry was king of the prom for a dance or two. Then Newt Gingrich wooed conservative hearts . . . until he attacked free enterprise, which wasn’t too smart because conservatives like free enterprise. Rick Santorum, of course, turned heads in Iowa. Now, like the hot-headed boyfriend conservatives know they should avoid – but just can’t, damnit! – Newt’s triumphant debate performance in Charleston convinced conservatives to give him one more chance; he’s changed, ya see . . . at least until he loses control of himself again.
Only, it isn’t fickleness. Not really. I think it’s an aversion to the guy that, deep down, conservatives should know is right for them: Mitt Romney. Yes, you read that right. If the Republican primary were a romantic comedy, Mitt would be the guy we all know the girl should be with, but she just doesn’t see it. He’s Duckie in “Pretty In Pink.” So right for conservatives, if only they would open their eyes.
Interestingly, Romneycare aside, the arguments against Mitt’s candidacy are largely based on things he said while campaigning. To put the prospect of a potential Mitt nomination in perspective, it’s instructive to examine what Mitt actually did while in positions of authority and control, including signing Romneycare into law, and not on what he said during a campaign.
In 1990, after he left Bain Capital and it subsequently sank into debt, the company asked Mitt to return and to save the company. He did both.
When the 2002 Olympic Games were rocked with financial failure and scandal, Mitt was asked to take over. He did. The Salt Lake City Olympics slated for 2002 were an absolute disaster. In 1999, the Games were approximately $379 million dollars in debt and top officials were embroiled in allegations of bribery. Mitt’s leadership turned that disaster into an opportunity that resulted in a $100 million dollar profit. As a side note, Mitt donated his three years of salary – approximately $825,000, to the Olympics and contributed an additional $1 million of his own wealth. In the words of Rocky Anderson, a Democrat and the mayor of Salt Lake City at the time:
He was absolutely spectacular . . . . He walked into an utter disaster, and slashed spending without cutting corners on what was necessary to put on an absolutely extraordinary Olympics . . . . With his unique management skills we came out in the black – which no one ever dreamed.”
(Emphasis added). After turning a sure failure into a remarkable success in Salt Lake City, Mitt was elected Governor of Massachusetts.
Mitt’s achievements in his first two years as governor were, in Terry Eastland’s words, “conservative in both ends and means.” Prior to taking office, Mitt knew his state was in a dire situation. Massachusetts reportedly had a deficit of at least $500 million. In fact, things were worse than reported. When Mitt was sworn in as Massachusetts’ 70th Governor in January 2003, he discovered that his state’s deficit was actually $650 million and the projected shortfall for the following year was $3 billion. Like he did with the Olympics, Mitt led Massachusetts away from the brink of fiscal catastrophe. He balanced his first budget in 2003 and ended his second year in office, 2004, with a $700 million surplus. And he did so without taxing or borrowing – he cut spending. Quite an achievement considering that both houses of his legislature were controlled by Democratic super-majorities.
I’ve determined that [the 'morning after pill'] not only involves contraceptive features, but also involves termination of life after conception has occurred . . . . You could have a pharmaceutical product that prevents [t]he conception of an embryo – the sperm and the egg combining, but does not prevent the continued life of an embryo after conception has occurred.”
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and vetoed a bill that ended life post-conception. Accordingly, he is both personally and politically pro-life.
Which brings us to Romneycare . . . I’m not a fan of Romneycare – in fact, I would personally like to see government get out of the health care business (and all business) entirely. But I’m not running for president and this post isn’t about me – it’s about Mitt. I do not defend Romneycare, but I do defend the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And so does Mitt. The 10th Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
(Emphasis added). Without going into the veritable thrill ride that is a blogged account of American Constitutional jurisprudence, I’ll just say that, under its police power, a state may do things that the federal government may not. Seemingly, this includes a state-run health care system.
In June, the Supreme Court will hopefully affirm that the 10th amendment and the commerce clause prevent such a mandated system on the federal level and invalidate Obamacare. If the Supreme Court upholds the law, however, Mitt has clearly and consistently stated that, if elected, he will repeal Obamacare. He’s made this pledge throughout the campaign. I don’t claim that this makes him unique as it is the position of every GOP candidate. However, Mitt is unique in advocating a plan – waivers for all 50 states – in the event that he is elected either without a GOP Congress or with one that does not include a filibuster-proof Senate.
Mitt’s emphatic support of federalism in general – and with regard to health care in particular - is not new. In the following video of a 1994 debate, Mitt educates the late Senator Ted Kennedy on both federalism and the free market.
If SCOTUS fails to invalidate Obamacare, each GOP candidate has every reason to honor their promise to repeal it, if possible. The last GOP candidate to renege on a strongly-made campaign promise – George H.W. “Read My Lips” Bush – suffered dire political consequences.
Our nation sits in the doldrums of a government intervention-created economic crises. Our national debt is approximately $15.3 trillion. Too many Americans are out of work in this barely growing economy. Our current president’s ineffectual, rudderless leadership on the world stage projects a dangerous, tyrant-provoking weakness.
As I previously wrote, Mitt has enjoyed great success as a businessman and investor in the private sector and he has experience as a successful executive in the public sector. He is therefore a successful businessman who understands both the needs of the free market and the constraints of political office. He governed dark-blue Massachusetts as a “conservative in both ends and means.” And he is pro-life. In his foreign policy he advocates the projection of American strength and values to “ensure the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies.”
There are some who call Mitt a “Massachusetts moderate”; who think him ideologically squishy; who advocate for “anybody but,” and for the “non-Romney.” However, as set out above, Mitt is a conservative with expertise in creating success out of sure failure. He’s done so at Bain Capital, at the 2002 Olympics, and in Massachusetts. The “non-Romney” that conservatives seek has been right there all along. The best non-Romney is actually Mitt Romney.
Every candidate for the Republican nomination would, in my opinion, be a better president than the oval office’s current occupant. But only one candidate has the experience and the record of success that qualifies him not just for the office, but for the particular challenges we face now and in the near future.
Ezra Levant hosts “The Source” on Canada’s Sun News. In the below videos, this Canadian accurately explains how President Obama’s recent decision to prevent the Keystone Pipeline illustrates – among other things – the president’s siding with special interests over American interests, broken campaign promises to the American people, and the continued standing up for our enemies while standing against our friends.
President Obama’s decision to prevent the creation of over 100,000 American jobs and and to impede lower energy prices should be – and will be – a major election issue. While it’s shameful that American mainstream media fails to provide clarity on this important issue, I’m grateful to Ezra Levant for his efforts. In the following video, Levant explains it all to us.
In this second video, Levant interviews David Wilkins, former US ambassador to Canada, about the political motivations behind President Obama’s terrible decision.
Rev. King spoke and wrote many memorable words. To commemorate this holiday on which we honor Rev. King, I offer you a few of his sentiments.
In 1967, Rev. King spoke to the 11th annual Southern Christian Leadership Conference convention and delivered his “Where Do We Go From Here?” speech, in which he said:
When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
And, of course, below is video of Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech.
Where President Lincoln said, “I don’t know who my grandfather was; I am much more concerned to know what his grandson will be,” Rev. King dreamed that his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
We are not our groups, we are not our skin color, and we are not our ethnicity. We are individuals, created in God’s image. And we should see each other – and judge each other and ourselves – as such.
In 1988, then President Reagan addressed the Future Farmers of America and famously said,
There seems to be an increasing awareness of something we Americans have known for some time: that the 10 most dangerous words in the English language are, ‘Hi, I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”’
As the below video demonstrates, Reagan’s words apply more than ever.
Best of luck to the Sacketts as SCOTUS hears their case today. One can only hope that SCOTUS puts an end to the EPA’s (and all agencies’) ongoing overreaching and violation of property rights.
I like Mitt Romney. I supported him for the Republican nomination in 2008, and I support him now (and I have since the primaries began and the candidates were determined). I’m not looking for a Messiah in a presidential candidate, I’m looking for the best candidate, closest to my views, who can win. I believe that Mitt is well-suited to satisfy that criteria. But Mitt’s got a conspicuous problem. He doesn’t connect with the Republican base. He doesn’t really connect with voters in general, and voters don’t connect with him.
It’s . . . strange, actually. Mitt’s a tremendously accomplished and able person. He’s enjoyed great success as a businessman and investor in the private sector and he has experience as an executive in the public sector (as governor of a dark-blue state, no less). He is therefore a successful businessman who understands both the needs of the free market and the constraints of political office. On paper, that’s a lot of potential to be a good – even great – president. So what’s the problem? It’s not that he isn’t engaging or passionate, because he can be (unlike this guy). I submit that, although voters may relate to politicians’ personalities, they are not swayed by them. If voters were swayed by personality alone, Bill Clinton would have gotten more than a plurality of votes in at least one of his presidential elections (Bill Clinton may be a douche, but he’s a charming-as-hell douche). Voters don’t relate to Mitt because voters relate to a candidate’s vision for the country, and not the candidate himself. Americans don’t love Ronald Reagan just because he was smart, funny, charming, and likeable, although he was, but because he had a vision for America.
Lacking the “vision thing” is a severe problem for presidents and presidential hopefuls alike. The U.S. Senate website describes the necessity of vision as applied to former President G.H.W. Bush,
Bush also suffered from his lack of what he called ‘the vision thing,’ a clarity of ideas and principles that could shape public opinion and influence Congress. ‘He does not say why he wants to be there,’ complained columnist George Will, ‘so the public does not know why it should care if he gets his way.’
(emphasis added). You hear that, Mitt? Our next president must, of course, offer and fight for concrete solutions to concrete problems, but I believe that Republicans want our nominee, our next president, to articulate the principles that his solutions serve. Do Americans deserve a tax cut merely because tax cuts will grow our economy and increase the government’s revenue? No, the economic growth provided by tax cuts for the productive is a byproduct of an underlying premise: economic liberty – the idea that every individual has a right to create wealth, owns that created wealth, and controls its disposal.
Mitt is very good at explaining the what; he is weak at explaining the why. He can take a lesson from Barry Goldwater, who stated,
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
(emphasis added). Barry Goldwater was a principled advocate for liberty. In the above quote, he said what he intented to do: reduce government’s size and “extend freedom.” Then he says how he will do so: by “repeal[ing] laws,” and by canceling unconstitutional, failed, or financially burdensome programs. And then, most importantly, he says why he will do so: because our “main interest is liberty.”
Mitt Romney should, first, mind the current gap between himself and the conservative Republican base, many of whom find him suspect. He may then close that gap by couching his policy proposals in the principle that animates most Americans. Liberty. The way Goldwater did. The way Reagan did.
A handy man can frame a house. An architect understands and can explain that frame’s importance to the integrity of the building. Mitt tells us what he wants to do. He also needs to tell us why he wants to do it. He needs to clearly state his vision for America. If his vision is to ensure a government that abides by our Constitution to enhance liberty, voters will relate to him. And they will vote for him.
Iowa doesn’t usually mean much considering that Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee and Pat Buchanan all won there but did not win the nomination, although all three continue to make crappy television. Not fair, Pat Robertson is entertaining when talking about God attacking New Orleans and Haiti but as a Christian, I cringe.
The Democrat electorate is made up of dozens of victim groups. If you aren’t a victim or feeling guilty about not being a victim, you aren’t a Democrat. The Republican electorate generally is divided among three groups: hawks, social conservatives and libertarians. People and candidates (who really aren’t people are they?) can be in more than one camp, although the social conservatives and the libertarians are often at odds over things like gay marriage, abortion and drug legalization. You will note I didn’t include a fiscal conservative constituency. There aren’t any in Washington of either party. The only thing you can do is to take away their credit card.
I found it interesting that you had the top three being in order: Romney, Santorum and Paul. Romney tries to cover all three groups but because he is trying to be all things, he appears insincere to many. Santorum is clearly a social conservative but has always been a hawk. Of course Paul is in the libertarian camp. Paul is the only ideologically pure candidate. He is so consistent, he says crazy shit like he wouldn’t risk American lives (to end the Holocaust).
There is only two of those three that have a national organization in place: Romney and Paul. It will be very difficult for Santorum to go long into this campaign. Especially since every one will be gunning for him now that he is finally in the spotlight.
Right now, Santorum won’t be an effective challenger to Romney until Perry drops out. Perry got ten percent of the Iowa vote which most likely would have gone to Santorum. When Perry drops out, probably after Florida, Santorum will have a clearer path to challenge Romney. If Santorum can effectively rally social conservatives, he may help give the nomination to Ron Paul by default. There isn’t anyone battling on his turf. If this happens, Obama wins 40 plus states and retakes the House and picks up seats in the Senate. In other words, if this happens, America is finished.
Rick Santorum is a good man. He ran a great campaign in Iowa and, although at the time of this writing the winner is yet to be determined, Santorum succeeded when it mattered by coming in first or second (probably second according to Karl Rove on Fox News…by 14 votes [Update: official, Romney wins by 8 votes][Latest Update: Santorum declared winner by 34 votes). On a side note, Santorum’s success in Iowa supports a point I previously made – that money can’t buy elections.
Santorum is an actual socially conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. His success in Iowa will get him to New Hampshire and perhaps beyond. But he will not win the nomination.
Current polling in New Hampshire, which is admittedly liable to change, has Romney more than 22% above his closest rival, which is Ron Paul. To the point, based on current polling, if Santorum picks up 100% of Gingrich’s, Huntsman’s, Bachmann’s (who will be out of the race by New Hampshire), and Perry’s supporters, he will still not beat Mitt Romney.
So, if Romney takes New Hampshire, I think Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry will split the non-Romney vote in South Carolina and Florida and may hand first or, at least, second place to Romney. Gingrich and Perry have every reason, if finances allow, to stick around for the first Southern state primaries. Then comes Nevada, which is Romney country.
Santorum seems to be picking up money and organization as he goes (same with Gingrich, by the way), which is not a promising way to run for the nomination. If the supporters of “anyone but Romney” don’t coalesce around one candidate, they will get Romney. I happen to like Romney for the nomination and will write more on why I support him at a later date; however, if you want a candidate more conservative than the former Massachusetts governor, Santorum’s your man. And now is the time.