The Thanksgiving Forum Recap

November 20, 2011 by Leave a comment

The 2012 Presidential race has been billed as one the most important election cycles in recent history. And perhaps due to this prophetic proclamation it seems that the number of debates hosted around the country has increased dramatically. That would not be a bad thing if the debates that we being conducted were anything more that soundbite machines hosted by moderators that seem to want to turn the candidates on each other in some sort of political version of the a battle royal. That is why yesterday evenings Thanksgiving Family Forum hosted by The Family Leader was so refreshing. The basic rules of the evening were crafted so that the candidates could not only answer questions, but answer them in depth so as to allow the audience to really understand how the candidate reached the conclusion that they did. For those of you that were unable to attend you can view the forum in its entirety at this link.

Now I could give you a complete rundown of everything that happened during the two hour long forum, but due to time and space constraints I will simply break it down in to how I believe each participant performed.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul

In my opinion Congressman Paul started the evening out with a whimper. In his response to the very first question Congressman Paul was all over the place, but not with any comment of any consequence. And despite his longwinded answer he still provided an answer that did not satisfactorily answer the question. This appearance really hit the bottom during the second half of the program where he really let the naivety of his foreign policy stance show through.

Georgia Businessman Herman Cain

Last night we had another appearance by Mr. Cain in which there were times that he looked absolutely amazing, and then other times when he left you scratching your head in wonder. One of the times where Mr. Cain really shined was when the question revolved around the phrase “So help me God” in the Presidential oath of office. Mr. correctly asserts that when that phrase is uttered in the oath that the person is asking for God’s help in fulfilling the duties of the office in question. When the candidates were asked about the sanctity of life his answers seemed intentionally vague and evasive; and gave the audience the impression that he will not fight for life as hard as some of the other candidates would.

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachman

I have to admit that this was one of the best performances I have seen from Congresswoman Bachmann for some time. During this forum the Congresswoman does have at least a rudimentary knowledge of American History. She demonstrated this by correctly recited the fact that it was the first President of the United States, George Washington, that was so instrumental in having that short little phrase included in the oath of office. In my opinion I really did not see the Congresswoman make any fatal mistakes last night.

Texas Governor Rick Perry

After having endured the painful experience of watching Governor Perry take part in the last several debates I was prepared for the dreadful nails on a chalkboard effect that his appearance would create. To say that I was surprised by his extremely competent performance would be an understatement. Whenever he happened to field a question the answer seemed to be directed at the audience. It was like he was just having a conversation with us, not the moderator. Not only did he do a good job speaking to the audience, he responded with well thought out remarks that demonstrated that he is not a light thinker.

Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich

If only one candidate can be said to have had a huge night, that candidate is Newt Gingrich. The former speaker’s wit and wisdom were on display for all to see last night. He repeatedly answered the questions posed to him with reason and knowledge. He really did not have any misstep for anyone to attack him on. Among the most memorable lines of the night was this gem describing the occupy movement.

“All the occupy movement starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. They take over a public park that they didn’t pay for, to go nearby to use bathrooms that they didn’t pay for, to beg for food from places that they don’t want to pay for, to obstruct those that are going to work to pay the taxes that sustain the bathrooms that sustain the park so that they can self righteously proclaim that they are the paragons of virtue to which we owe everything. Now that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country. That is why we need to reassert something as simple as saying to them go get a job right after you take a bath.”

Former Senator Rick Santorum

This was yet another strong performance from the former Senator from Pennsylvania. He delivered strong and rational arguments supporting his beliefs and his positions. He was able to articulate clear and concise reasons for denying the nation of Iran the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. He delivered a powerful piece of testimony illustrating for all to see that even though he is a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, he is really just a flawed human being like the rest of humanity. As he was confessing this past mistake for all the world to see you could see that reliving that period of his life was just as hard now as it had been then.

Everyone at The Family Leader deserves a hearty round of applause for the outstanding event that they had put together. I would not hesitate to state that this type of format will definitely be copied and utilized in the future. As promised, last night’s forum allowed those in attendance to learn more about the candidates and what made them tick than in any of the other debates or forums combined. All in all, a great event.

Filed under Commentary, Iowa Caucus, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Herman Cain: Liar, liar, pants are on fire

October 19, 2011 by 2 Comments

Bob Eschliman

 

      In all fairness, I have to admit I once was riding the “Cain Train.” I had bought into his message, his position as an outsider railing against Washington, and Herman Cain’s success as a businessman who has been able to create jobs and turn failing business models around.

      But, I never stopped the vetting process, which is why I’m firmly back among the ranks of the undecided. I dug deeper as I got to know more about the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO, and I didn’t like what I saw.

      For one thing, the man’s underwear must be constantly aflame, because he seemingly can’t open his mouth without lying.

      At the Las Vegas GOP debate held Tuesday night, Herman Cain got caught in one of those awkward moments where he said something to one journalist, and then told another journalist (ironically enough, from the same media outlet) the direct opposite.

      During the debate, moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper asked, “Herman Cain, let me ask this to you. A few hours ago you were asked by Wolf Blitzer, if al Qaeda had an American soldier in captivity, and they demanded the release of everyone at Guantanamo Bay, would you release them? And you said, quote: ‘I can see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer.’ Can you explain?”

      Before we get to Cain’s response, let’s take a look at what was asked and what was said during the earlier interview on CNN with Blitzer:

      BLITZER: One foreign policy question. I know you’re going to be asked many more in the days to come.

      CAIN: Yes. Sure.

      BLITZER: I know you’re a major supporter of Israel.

      CAIN: Yes.

      BLITZER: Did the Israeli government of Prime Minister Netanyahu do the right thing in exchanging 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for one captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who had been held by Hamas for five years?

      CAIN: I would have to know all of the considerations he made to say yes or no, because I’m sure that there were a lot of considerations that he had to make in order to make that decision. On the surface, you would say one for hundreds doesn’t make any sense. But here’s how I make decisions. And this is why I respect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so much. He looks at all of the facts before he makes a judgment call. We don’t know all of the facts.

      BLITZER: Could you imagine if you were president — we’re almost out of time — and there was one American soldier who had been held for years, and the demand was al Qaeda or some other terrorist group, you have got to free everyone at Guantanamo Bay, several hundred prisoners at Guantanamo? Could you see yourself, as president, authorizing that kind of transfer?

      CAIN: I could see myself authorizing that kind of transfer, but what I would do is, I would make sure that I got all of the information, I got all of the input, considered all of the options. And then the president has to be the president and make a judgment call. I could make that call if I had to.

      So, clearly, the evidence proves Herman Cain used the phrase, “I could see myself authorizing that kind of transfer.” So, what do you suppose he had to say about Cooper’s question during the debate?

      “The rest of the statement was quite simply, you would have to consider the entire situation. But let me say this first, I would have a policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists. We have to lay that principle down first,” he said. “Now being that you have to look at each individual situation and consider all the facts. The point that I made about this particular situation is that I’m sure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to consider a lot of things before he made that.”

      “So on the surface, I don’t think we can say he did the right thing or not,” he added. “A responsible decision-maker would have considered everything.”

      I’m sensing his handlers and advisors got hold of him after the Blitzer interview and gave him some new talking points. And, I think Cooper sensed that, too, so he pressed the question further, as any journalist would:

      “But you’re saying you could — I mean, in your words, you’ve said that, ‘I could see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer,’” Cooper said. “Isn’t that negotiating with, in this case, al Qaeda?”

      Now, at this point, often referred to as the “run, squirm, or lie moment” amongst hardcore journalists, Cain could have done one of three things: 1) run away from the issue (Rick Perry calls this “answering the question however I want”), 2) squirm behind his podium, providing a mostly unintelligible response, or 3) flat-out lie.

      Herman Cain didn’t bat an eye or flinch — not even a little bit.

      “I don’t recall him saying that it was al Qaeda-related,” he responded.

      When Cooper confirmed Blitzer had, indeed, framed the question with al Qaeda in mind and offers to read back the exact quote, Cain almost says, “Well, I don’t really care.” At least, that’s what it appears he was ready to say before he caught himself.

      “Well, I don’t really — my policy will be we cannot negotiate with terrorists,” he said. “That’s where we have to start as a fundamental principle.”

      After the debate, Cooper again confronted Cain on the question about the quote, and this time played a video clip of the Blitzer interview. The official response this time: “I misspoke.”

      If this was a one-time faux pas, you could pretty well give him a pass on it. But, Herman Cain has had a lot of instances where he “misspoke.” In fact, there have been several instances where he’s appeared to flip-flop, or have multiple positions on a single issue.

      And, there have been several times where he’s outright lied to someone’s face. Having TV cameras in the room doesn’t appear to be a deterrent. And, lying in the middle of a GOP debate hasn’t been a problem, either.

      At the Bloomberg debate a week earlier, Ron Paul attempted to go on the offensive about Cain’s position on whether or not the Federal Reserve should be audited:

      Mr. Cain, in the past you have been rather critical of any of us who would want to audit the Fed. You have said — you’ve used pretty strong terms — that we were ignorant and that we didn’t know what we are doing, and therefore, there was no need for an audit anyway, because if you had one, you’re not going to find out anything, because everybody knows everything about the Fed.

      But now that we have found and we have gotten an audit, we have found out an awful lot on how special businesses get bailed out — Wall Street, the banks, and special companies, foreign governments — and you said that you advise those of us who were concerned, and you belittled, you say call up the Federal Reserve and just ask them, get the PR person.

      Do you still stick by this — that this is frivolous — or do you think it’s very important? Sixty-four percent of the American people want a full audit of the Fed on a regular basis.

      Once again, Herman Cain finds himself in a run, squirm, or lie position and chooses the latter. And, once again, he barely bats an eye as he lies through his teeth:

      First of all, you have misquoted me. I did not call you or any of your people ignorant. I don’t know where that came from. Alright?

      To which Paul responds, “I’ll get it for you.” But, Cain continues:

      Now, so, you’ve gotta be careful of the stuff you get off the Internet, because that’s just not something I’ve said. Secondly, when I served on the board of the Federal Reserve in the 1990s, we didn’t do any of the things that this Federal Reserve is doing. I don’t agree with the actions of this Federal Reserve. I don’t agree with the actions that have been undertaken by Ben Bernanke.

      We didn’t have a 14-trillion-dollar national debt to prop up with some of the actions that they are taking. And I have also said, to be precise, I do not object to the Federal Reserve being audited. I simply said, “If someone wants to initiate that action, go right ahead. It doesn’t bother me.” So, I’ve been misrepresented in that regard. I don’t have a problem with the Federal Reserve being audited, it’s simply not my top priority. My top priority is 9-9-9! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

      Those who know me know I’m not the world’s biggest fan of Ron Paul. But, when someone is right, they deserve to be defended. No, Herman Cain didn’t call the Audit the Fed movement “ignorant,” he used a different word: stupid.

      Cain then followed up his defense of whether or not he used the word “ignorant” by more or less calling Ron Paul and those who agree with him ignorant: “Now, so, you’ve gotta be careful of the stuff you get off the Internet, because that’s just not something I’ve said.”

      So, what did he say, exactly? Well, as a guest host on “The Neil Boortz Show,” he had this to say about the Audit the Fed movement:

      …but people who say, “Well, we ought to audit the Federal Reserve because we don’t know enough about it,” well, here’s the advice I’ve given to people who are worried about an audit of the Federal Reserve: “Call ’em up and ask ’em, if you can stop by and have one of their PR people, or of their Public Relations people, explain to you how the Federal Reserve operates!”

      I think a lot of people are calling for this audit of the Federal Reserve because they don’t know enough about it. There’s no hidden secrets going on in the Federal Reserve, to my knowledge, and I tell people, we’ve got twelve Federal Reserve banks, find out which district you’re in, call ’em up and go from there.

      We don’t need to waste money with another commission, or an audit that’s not necessary, because, folks, we got a lot of other problems we need to worry about.

      The Internet was ablaze the day after the debate with “fact checks” on Cain’s statements, both on Boortz’s show and in the debate. But, again, that wasn’t the first time he lied on the campaign trail.

      Granted, ThinkProgress is the least likely source of information I would quote, but they can back up what they’re saying with raw video footage of Herman Cain saying exactly what he’s about to say he didn’t say. Wow, you really do weave a tangled web…

      Back in late-June, ThinkProgress asked Cain if he would be comfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet, if elected President. The answer is pretty straightforward: “No, I will not.”

      And then, he went on to explain why:

      There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.

      The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.

      He went on to defend his point with Oklahoma’s attempt at establishing only American law should be considered in its courtrooms. And, if that’s where this story ended, we would be patting the man on the back as principled, Christian defender of Constitutional liberty.

      But just two weeks later, when approached by BBC reporter Matthew Wells, we get a completely different result:

      WELLS: You said you wouldn’t have a Muslim in your Cabinet two weeks ago. Is that still your position?

      CAIN: That wasn’t a statement I made. Let’s get it right. I was asked if I would be comfortable, and my response was I would not be comfortable with a terrorist in my Cabinet. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but a lot of the terrorists are Muslims, so I just have to be real careful about who I put in my Cabinet.

      The candidate later admits political correctness isn’t his strong point, and that he tends to ruffle feathers. But, he never acknowledges how his position has seemingly done a 180 in just 14 days’ time.

      But the baffling point is that he goes right back to the original position as he continues to defend himself against the criticism. And, he even admits to why his position keeps wavering in the wind, so to speak:

      …[T]he comment that I made that become controversial, and that my staff keeps hoping will die, is that I wouldn’t have Muslims in my administration. And it’s real simple: the Constitution does not have room for Sharia law. I want people who are going to believe and enforce the Constitution of the United States of America. And so I don’t have time, as President of the United States, to try and screen people based upon their religious beliefs — I really don’t care what your religious beliefs are, but I do know that most of the people of the Muslim faith, they believe in Sharia law. And to introduce that element as part of an administration when we have all of these other issues, I think I have a right to say that I won’t.

      Would the real Herman Cain please stand up?

      A good friend of mine, Cary Gordon, a pastor at Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, thought that was exactly what he was getting one day several months ago. Pastor Cary and his wife, Molly, were invited to attend a Cain campaign event, and were later invited to chat with the candidate, one-on-one.

      Somewhere along the line one of his staff mentioned that he would be in the city on the Lord’s day (the following morning) and would enjoy worshiping with us, if we were okay with that.

      Naturally, I said we would be delighted to have him worship with us. I shared the time of the morning service with them and parted ways. I asked him if he wouldn’t mind greeting everyone just before the sermon. He graciously agreed to do so. Herman was warmly received by our congregation as he briefly spoke prior to the sermon.

      Pastor Cary said, after the service was over, there were many members of the congregation who remained behind to meet Cain personally, and that in general they were very supportive of his candidacy. And after some good ol’ fashioned glad-handing, Cain, some his staffers, and the pastors at Cornerstone World Outreach went out to lunch at a popular Sioux City restaurant.

      We engaged in a discussion, among other things, on the Christian worldview. While we were eating, one of Mr. Cain’s staff members — Charlie Gruschow — made it a point to remind Herman that I had played a measurable public role in the recent Iowa Judicial Retention process, and that my efforts were strongly rebuffed by Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

      This dovetailed into an in-depth conversation on the sanctity of family, and our mutual conviction that it must be protected from judicial fiat and other leftist attempts at social re-engineering. In the course of that very specific conversation, Herman Cain made it abundantly clear that he agreed with our stand completely. He stated something to the effect of, “Rest assured, a Cain presidency will defend traditional marriage.”

      He then shared that he felt the media had been, and would continue to harangue him and other conservative candidates concerning the gay agenda. He said that he told a reporter, “I would have no problem hiring a qualified gay person to my staff,” then he emphasized to everyone listening, “please notice that I used the word ‘qualified.’”

      Little did Pastor Cary know at the time, but another staffer — Scott Toomey — was in fact the “qualified gay staffer” Cain must’ve been talking about. But that wasn’t the only betrayal of trust that occurred during that lunch discussion.

      Imagine my feeling of betrayal to read a [Washington] Post article highlighting Cain’s sudden departure from his word, now saying he will not do what he assured the pastors of Cornerstone he would do: protect marriage.

      I thought Herman Cain might be the kind of quality, fearless leader God would bless and use as a tool to salvage our nation that is currently sliding into hedonism and socialism. Clearly, Herman Cain is not the man I thought he was.

      But, with Cain leading several of the polls as of this reading, will enough Americans see through the façade before it’s too late? Or, will the real Herman Cain finally be revealed?

 

      Bob Eschliman is an Iowa journalist who has been covering politics and government for more than a decade. He is the founder of the Ben Franklin Journalism blog, which promotes citizen journalism.

Filed under Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Ron Paul’s only consistency is his inconsistency

October 19, 2011 by 1 Comment

      This past May, during a GOP debate in South Carolina, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was asked about his stated position on criminalizing drug use:

      Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.

      A: It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.

      And, yes, he’s completely for de-criminalizing the non-pharmaceutical abuse of heroine, arguing that if it were not illegal, no one would abuse it. While that’s probably a deal-breaker for a lot of Republican caucus/primary voters, it clearly hasn’t hurt his popularity with his committed supporters.

      But, let’s take a key point he made and it apply it to other pieces of his rhetoric: “If you have… inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty.” In other words, politicians who are inconsistent in their words and actions are not going to defend liberty.

      One of Rep. Paul’s first campaign commercials this time around touted his military record. Yes, he wore the uniform — he was a gynecologist in the Air Force — and he has routinely talked about “keeping our promises to our military veterans,” but what is his record on matters of military and national security?

      Actually, the Congressman’s recently released budget plan would cut $200 billion in defense spending — a proposal co-championed by Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, hardly a stalwart of conservatism. Meanwhile, he said he would like to redirect our military assets in Afghanistan to protecting our southern border with Mexico.

      But…

      Paul’s own past rhetoric would seem to belie the need for military on the border, in his own words. When campaigning for President the first time in 1988 (as a Libertarian, not a Republican), he championed an open borders policy and said he would eliminate the Border Patrol — which he said was unconstitutional — if elected.

      Granted, he may have “seen the light” on the importance of border security. Then again, maybe he hasn’t. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, who served with Rep. Paul in Congress for a decade, seems to think the latter is far more likely, based on an Op-Ed the former presidential candidate wrote for WorldNetDaily a few days after the aforementioned South Carolina GOP Debate.

      According to Paul, deporting illegal immigrants would be “incompatible with human rights.” That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law…

      The truth is that we do not need to deport all illegal aliens to make them go home. If we simply prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens by using E-Verify and step up interior enforcement as Arizona, Oklahoma and other states have done, most illegal aliens will go home on their own. Paul comes out against both these policies… He absurdly calls the idea of fining employers for hiring illegal aliens ‘involuntary servitude.’

      Pretty much a hit-piece by a guy who has an axe to grind against the guy who threatens the “establishment,” right? Not so fast. Even Roy Beck, founder of the anti-illegal immigration group NumbersUSA, was unimpressed with what Rep. Paul had to say in his own book.

      Beck’s organization downgraded Paul to an “F” grade for his positions on amnesty and illegal immigration. The only other presidential candidate to get the same grade from the group was the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Barack Obama.

      Quoting directly from Rep. Paul’s book:

      “Neither the determination or the ability [for mass-deportations] exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights.”

      That came from page 153 in the book. He then went on a few pages later — page 156, to be exact — to champion, as Beck put it, “amnesty with an asterisk”:

      “Maybe a ‘green card’ with an asterisk should be issued… It could be argued that [this system] may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits — a much better option than deportation.”

      Yet, just one page earlier, he wrote the following:

      “(The United States should) not grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, deliberately or accidentally.”

      OK, so that’s just one issue. Surely, he hasn’t shown signs of inconsistency on others, right?

      Sadly you would be very wrong. If there’s one thing Rep. Paul has been consistent about, it’s his inconsistency on issues of greatest concern for conservatives. For instance, we have his introduction of 95 discretionary spending “earmarks” — pork for his constituents — for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, while publically decrying government spending and voting against the very earmarks he added to bills.

      Then, we have his declared support for traditional marriage, while he simultaneously voted against an amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. So, when he had a chance to further clarify his position in front of an otherwise receptive audience, he said:

      I think this argument about what is marriage and who can get married and to whom, in a fre society, is totally irrelevant. I think the government — national or state — should stay out of it. If someone wants to call themselves married, fine.

      That’s hardly a conservative viewpoint. It would seem Rep. Paul is implying there is some “wall of separation” at play. His being a well-versed scholar of the U.S. Constitution considered, one can only assume he certainly knows there isn’t any separation clause keeping religion and government exclusive from one another.

      But, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure out that under Paul’s philosophy, a liberal-leaning church would be free to marry gays, lesbians, and even polygamists.

      Well, at least Rep Paul — a medical doctor — is consistent on his pro-life message. Surely that’s the most important factor, especially for social conservatives, right?

      If that’s the case, please explain his latest campaign commercial, which supposedly touts his adamant support for the pro-life position. You know, the one where he openly admits to abandoning a living, breathing, but unwanted child “in a bucket” following a late-term abortion, without even a hint of remorse.

      So, that leaves us with just one question: Would the real Ron Paul please stand up? We’d really like to get to know him, so we can vet him properly for the Republican presidential nomination.

 

      Bob Eschliman is an Iowa journalist who has been covering politics and government for more than a decade. He is the founder of the Ben Franklin Journalism blog, which promotes citizen journalism.

Filed under Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

GOP Presidential Field: Scapegoating Nevada

October 18, 2011 by Leave a comment

It has been more than one year since the Republican National Committee and the Democratic Committee came together in a bipartisan fashion to adopt updated rules governing the nomination process. This was done in an effort to prevent the kind of confusion and chaos that occurred after Florida and Michigan moved their primaries into January in 2008. The modified rules would in effect give provide for the punishment of any states that would attempt to change their primary or caucus dates in opposition to the approved rules. It was naturally assumed that this rule change would prevent a repeat of 2008.

All was going smoothly until Florida decided to buck the rules and moved their primary date to January 31st. This in turn prompted South Carolina to move their primary date to January 21st which in turn led Nevada to pick January 14th for their caucus date. This prompted to the state of New Hampshire to contemplate picking and early December date for their primary and Iowa to select January 3rd for its caucus date.

As you can see, Florida’s violation RNC rules have created a domino effect on the early part of the 2012 nomination process. When the State of Florida decided to blatantly flout the rules of the nominating process they created a chaotic and uncertain atmosphere that has spread across the country. Clearly Florida should be subject to punishment from not just the RNC for its rules violations, but the candidates themselves can and should boycott the state to affirm their support for the integrity of the nominating process.

However this does not seem to be the case. Instead there seems to be a movement shaping up within the GOP field to scapegoat Nevada. There is a clear desire to place the blame on one individual state for the chaos and confusion that have been wrought on the nomination process, but that blame is being placed upon the victim. It is like blaming the rape victim for getting raped. Several GOP Presidential hopefuls have already spoken up with a vow to boycott the Nevada contest. In fact Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman have all vowed to boycott the Nevada contest.

Like I said these boycott’s are the equivalent of the blaming the victim for being the victim. If the Presidential candidates wanted to preserve the integrity of the nominating process they would absolutely boycott the State of Florida’s contest. It was the date change in Florida that initiated this chaotic snowball that we are now experiencing. Florida was and is the origin. If they ant to punish someone, punish Florida.

However, I don’t really see that happening because there are just too many votes in Florida for the candidates to ignore. And this really shows the candidates in a different light. Do they really want to preserve the nominating process or are they just attempting to pander and appear tough. And the RNC has been all too quiet on the issue as well. If the RNC will not hold states accountable to the rules, then what good are they? If the RNC refuses to punish Florida you will see an unraveling of the nominating process. If you think the chaos that we are feeling now is bad, wait until the other states catch a whiff of the stuff at the RNC.

Filed under Commentary, Iowa Caucus, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rick Perry: Beyond Texas DREAM Act and Gardasil-gate

October 15, 2011 by Leave a comment

      As an uncommitted voter in the Republican primary/caucus process, I’ve taken my responsibility as an Iowa seriously — probably more seriously than several of the presidential candidates, but I digress.

      I’ve been trying to vet the candidates, and unfortunately, I find many of the candidates offered on the GOP slate lacking. But, I know I’m not alone. Most Iowa Republicans seem disenfranchised with the 2012 crop.

      It’s easy to bash on the media-appointed frontrunner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. His actions speak far louder than his rhetoric: he’s in favor of “partnership agreements” for homosexual couples — gay marriage, just by another name — and his “RomneyCare” program — by which “ObamaCare” was modeled — allows $50 copays for taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

      But, Romney wasn’t the only candidate to find himself the darling of the national mainstream media. Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign has been driven largely by media pressure and, apparently, some healthy prodding from his wife, Anita.

      And, for the couple of weeks, Perry found himself immediately at the front of the pack. But, after some lackluster debate performances, and revelations that he supported in-state tuition for the children of illegal aliens through the Texas DREAM Act, and issued an executive order that required young girls to get Gardasil vaccinations for the human papilloma virus (now referred to by his critics as “Gardasil-gate”), he quickly fizzled.

      But, the third-quarter financial reports provided Gov. Perry with a much-needed lifeline. Suddenly, the media was reporting how Iowans were giving the former frontrunner a fresh look. Even my good friend, Jen Green, acknowledged Perry could possibly find a way beyond the Texas DREAM Act and Gardasil-gate troubles.

      Her boss, conservative talk show host Steve Deace, suggested perhaps the two major controversies surrounding the Perry campaign had run out of impact. He wondered aloud during a broadcast last week if there were any other red flags fluttering in the breeze.

      And, indeed, there are.

      In July, as Gov. Perry was still flirting with a potential presidential run, Laylan Copelin of the Austin American-Statesman asked the question, “Should Perry get the credit for Texas’ growth?” Her breakdown of job growth in Texas seems to knock almost all of the shine off Perry’s bragging about his state’s economy.

      …(A)lmost half of the state’s job growth the past two years was led by education, health care and government, the sectors of the economy that will now take a hit as federal stimulus money runs out and the Legislature’s 8 percent cut in state spending translates into thousands of layoffs among state workers and teachers in the coming weeks.

      Also, Texas is tied with Mississippi as the nation’s leaders in minimum wage jobs. And conservatives argue that Texas can do more to lower its tax burden on businesses, which is higher than the national average and states such as California and Massachusetts that have a personal income tax…

      …Construction, manufacturing and information sectors lost jobs overall. Education and health services led in job creation (32 percent of all jobs added), followed by professional and business services (23 percent), petroleum (18 percent) and government (12 percent). Other industry sectors, ranging from utilities to hospitality, had smaller job gains…

      Copelin’s article went on to ask economists if Gov. Perry was the root cause of Texas’ economic success. Their responses — even among those willing to give him the most credit — were lukewarm, at best.

      Texas was the last state to allow homeowners to tap into their equity, and even then it came with numerous protections for both lenders and homeowners. The state also benefits from an economy that relies heavily on the energy markets, and its residents benefit from low taxes and an overall low cost of living.

      But, the Lone Star State also has the highest percentage of its population — tied with Mississippi — earning at or below the federal minimum wage. In fact, its total number of employees making no more than minimum wage was more than California, Florida, and Illinois — combined.

      For the “it’s the economy, stupid” wing of the Republican Party, those aren’t facts you likely throw around at campaign appearances. But, there’s more.

      Gov. Perry has touted himself as a champion of the Tenth Amendment, that the federal government just needs to butt out of the affairs of the states. But, when Washington handed out stimulus money to help states shore up their budget gaps, Texas ponied up — big time.

      According to Tami Luhby of CNNMoney, Texas was the most dependent state on federal stimulus money in 2009 and 2010. So much so, the state plugged 97 percent of its budget deficit with one-time money from Washington.

      Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

      “Stimulus was very helpful in getting them through the last few years,” said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers, said of Texas.

      Even as Perry requested the Recovery Act money, he railed against it. On the very same day he asked for the funds, he set up a petition titled “No Government Bailouts.”

      “Join our fight and add your voice to a growing list of several thousand Americans who are fed up with this irresponsible spending that threatens our future,” Perry wrote on his blog on Feb. 18, 2009.

      In Iowa, for instance, the entire one-year state budget is $6.3 billion in the next fiscal year. But, in Texas, the idea of using one-time stimulus money was about as effective as it was in The Hawkeye State — legislators have been left looking for ways to balance the states’ budget without it, now.

      In January, the Texas State Legislature began working on an austerity budget based on $15 billion in less revenue, including more than $7.5 billion in federal money for Medicare and education. Legislators were tasked with finding $31 billion in spending cuts, including deep cuts in healthcare and education — chopping away almost all of the job gains Gov. Perry has been touting.

      Meanwhile, the state’s “rainy day fund” has only grown to $9.4 billion, which even if fully depleted will only cover less than a third of the budget gap. Schools will close, teachers will lose jobs, and the poor will find it more difficult to get healthcare.

      Not exactly the kind of stuff you talk about when trying to attract middle-of-the-roaders on the campaign trail. But, there’s even more. After all, middle-of-the-roaders aren’t the most likely voters in a caucus state, such as first-in-the-nation (for now?) Iowa.

      The base shows up for the caucus, meaning you have to appeal to true-blooded conservatives to have a shot. So, where would Gov. Perry stand on one of the biggest issues for “original” Tea Party members: the NAFTA Superhighway.

      Or, if you like, we can call it by its official name, the North American Supercorridor COalition (NASCO) Corridor.

      A key component of the NASCO Corridor, if you’ve listened at all to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on the campaign trail, is the Trans-Texas Corridor. And, Gov. Perry’s involvement in the project is so deep, it prompted TownHall.com’s Rachel Alexander to call it “Rick Perry’s NAFTA Superhighway Problem.”

      Perry’s campaign website lists the Trans-Texas Corridor as one of his accomplishments, “Rather than taking decades to expand these important corridors a little bit at a time, Governor Perry developed the Trans-Texas Corridor plan.” But is it something Perry really wants broadcast as an achievement?

      The Texas Republican Party’s 2010 platform includes a plank specifically opposing the Trans-Texas Corridor. Some of the opposition to the NAFTA Superhighway has been dismissed as conspiratorial, but loud objections also came from people concerned with border security and one million rural interests and farmers that stood to lose their land to eminent domain.

      According to Alexander’s report, Perry received campaign contributions from the company that constructed the Trans-Texas Corridor, as well as the Spanish-owned company that retained ownership of the roadway and collected the tolls from it. Where have we heard of Gov. Perry doing that before?

      Alexander sums it up this way:

      Unlike Romney, Perry has not completely disavowed his controversial history as governor. Romney distanced himself from Mass-Care by promising that the first Executive Order he would sign upon becoming president would be a waiver to all 50 states from Obamacare. Perry, on the other hand, proudly lists Trans-Texas Corridor as one of his accomplishments on his website.

      The state of Texas, multiple factions within the Republican Party, and significant numbers of Democrats oppose the Trans-Texas Corridor. They are not going to sit back and risk repeating an “accomplishment” like this on a national scale.

      So, perhaps it’s not just a “NAFTA Superhighway problem” for Rick Perry. Maybe, it’s a Rick Perry problem for America.

Filed under Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Occupy DSM: Intentionally Confrontational?

October 14, 2011 by 4 Comments

David Goodner, one of the Occupy Des Moines protesters arrested last Sunday who seems to be intent on a repeat performance.

There is a new twist in the continuing saga of the Occupy DSM protests today. This morning the organizers of the Occupy DSM protests had their application to renew their permit to stay in the park they have been occupying has been denied. According to the Iowa Department of Administrative Services the permit was denied because the state has had the practice of limiting overnight stays to just three nights. This means that if the protesters ignore the 11 P.M. curfew they will once again be subject to arrest as well as criminal charges.

The uproar that has resulted from this decision has been entirely predictable. One of the chief agitators at the moment is David Goodner from Iowa Citizen’s for Community Improvement. This group has been well documented as a confrontational organization that will resort to disruption and chaos in an attempt to push their point of view. It was this group that heckled Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney during the Iowa State Fair in August. According to the Des Moines Register Mr. Goodner is attempting to claim that because the State denied the renewal of the permit that the State is suppressing their freedom of speech.

I cannot stress this strong enough. The State of Iowa is not attempting to limit the protesters ability to protest. The State of Iowa is not attempting to limit the protesters 1st Amendment rights. There is, however, someone that is working to limit the protesters right to protest, the protesters themselves. That’s right; the only one that is working to limit their ability to protest is the protesters themselves. They have rigidly stood by their demands to protest in that particular park. It seems to be that the protesters themselves feel that they are above the law. They continuously espouse the belief that they have a right to violate the curfew law governing that park because they want to protest there. By continuing to be wavering in this demand the biggest hindrance to their ability protest is themselves.

I find it simply astonishing that a group that has supposedly assembled to protest and attempt to affect change has acted so irrationally. This begs the question, if their message is so important that they have to be able to protest around the clock, why in the world are they so rigid in their protests location? And while I do not have an answer to this question, I can develop a few assumptions. Perhaps the some of the protesters are simply there to create a confrontation. Perhaps someone like David Goodner wants to try to get arrested in an attempt to become seen as a “leader” in this movement. Or it could be that the protesters are so blinded by their hatred for Governor Branstad that they are forcing a potential confrontation in an effort to embarrass him. Then again they could simply not realize that they do have options.

I have learned that the Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie has extended an invitation to the Occupy DSM protesters to utilize a city park to the east of the State Capital with a seven day permit. Personally I don’t think that these protesters will accept the invitation. They have the ability to protest at the State Capital, just not in the location that they want. Furthermore, there will be no line of sight between them and the State Capital officially neutering their protest. Additionally, as I said before, I believe that a number of the protesters are intent on provoking a confrontation with the Iowa State Patrol. No, I think that the use of the city park will be refused and that the end result will be the arrest of two to three dozen protesters. I could be wrong of course. We will find out at 11 P.M.

Filed under Commentary, News, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

They’re Still Asking: Why Not Huckabee?

October 11, 2011 by 2 Comments

The article that follows was written by JustGrace and originally published online at Wise Republic on June 14, 2011:

How are they doing now–those enthusiastic Huckabee believers posting “Run, Huck, Run” signs on Facebook just before Mike Huckabee’s momentous announcement of whether he would run for President for 2012?

Not surprisingly, his loyal political supporters were saddened, shocked, and let down by his announcement that he will not run “this year.” But they are trying to understand. And they are looking for signs of hope for a future run.

May 14, 2011—the date Governor Huckabee chose for his statement—was the day many thought he would enter the Republican presidential primary race. In Iowa, supporters planned a Stuck on Huck rally for June. Another Huckaboom (you have to know his history in Iowa, 2007-2008) was set to begin. However, the live announcement, tacked on to the end of the Fox News Huckabee show was not what they expected.

“All the factors say GO,” Huckabee told the nation, “but my heart says NO.”

The race that had been ready to explode out of the blocks would wait for another day.

All the political signs looked promising for a victorious outcome, both in the primary election against other Republicans, as well as in the general election against President Obama. Polls consistently placed Huckabee at or near the top; his name recognition was growing; and his favorability ratings were consistently best among Republican “likely” candidates. Ed Rollins, his 2008 national campaign director, wanted him to run. (He has now gone off to help Rep. Michele Bachman, R-MN, whom Huckabee in typical, gracious manner calls a friend.) It seemed that everyone was convinced Huckabee should run except himself.

As runner-up in the 2008 Republican primary and now a popular television show host, the former Governor from Arkansas and 2008 presidential candidate has maintained an enviable cadre of grassroots supporters and has gained many new fans as well. If he decides at some future point to run, or if he is drafted as a candidate or picked as a Vice Presidential running mate, you can be certain he will have an immediate group of supporters still eager to help him.

Hope does not die easily for their candidate from Hope, Arkansas. Fans note that Huckabee has not said “never;” he only said, “I will not seek the Republican nomination for President this year.” Perhaps, they dream, this leaves a door open for “next year” or in 2016. Or, by some miracle, the Republicans might come begging him to run! Huckabee has not ruled out anything completely, because he believes it is foolish to say “never.” But he is definitely not planning a 2012 candidacy.

But then, George Washington said he would never run, either. Maybe the reluctant candidate makes the best President, after all.

The reasons to hope may not be all that far-fetched, as time will perhaps tell. Huckabee has one big advantage that has widened his appeal—his own amazing ability to communicate with people. He is a master at debating calmly and with reason. And when he talks directly to the people he connects. His personal kindness and humor, as well as his common sense and simple government politics, have immediate appeal. The Huckabee show on Fox News and his Huckabee Report on ABC radio affiliates have allowed him to gain the public ear with what he is best at: meeting people, hosting guests on his show with unusual grace, and talking about life and politics in a way that resonates with most Americans.

So what stopped the popular and successful former Governor of Arkansas (amazingly the first Republican to hold that office in his state since Reconstruction) from running? Clearly it was the calling of God that was most important to Mike Huckabee, the man. Not what the pundits said was possible or impossible. And he said that God did not give him the go-ahead to run this time.

His fans wanted a different answer, yet most of them can appreciate Huckabee wanting to follow God’s will. Even though political strategists ranging from Lanny Davis, Democrat strategist, to Dick Morris, Fox News commentator/consultant, agreed that he was the one to beat President Obama, Governor Huckabee gets his marching orders from a higher commander-in-chief. As he said, God gave him the “a peace that exceeds human understanding” about this decision. Of course, that is what his supporters would hope candidates have before they run: peace with God, family, and others, but mostly within the person running for office. The presidency is a demanding and serious job. I would guess most candidates privately pray at least a little before attempting something so life changing.

In the 2008 race, the former Arkansas governor did feel a clear calling from God that he was supposed to do this–to enter a campaign that almost no one expected him to win. He surprised everyone by winning the Iowa caucuses and finishing second to Senator John McCain in the Republican primaries. Had he received a little help from the Republican establishment and a little less opposition from talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Levin and some in the Republican establishment, we might now have a President Mike Huckabee. Americans would all know how to pronounce his last name by now. Yet this year God apparently gave him a different direction. As Huckabee explained it, God just did not make him comfortable with that “Yes” answer. Huckabee is unlikely to change his mind unless God changes it for him.

As one who has studied Governor Huckabee and became a fan of this genuinely likeable and accomplished man over the past several years, I find him to be a man of his word. I cannot recall a time that he promised things he did not intend to deliver. He never purposely led people astray or lacked gratitude for his avid supporters. Because of the groundswell of support for him to run, he saw the need to not let this indecision drag on. Early May he realized there was a need to make a difficult decision and give an announcement. People could not be held in limbo much longer. Fox News was soon to ask for a “yes” or “no” on a new contract for his popular Huckabee show.

The part that Huckabee regrets most deeply is hurting his loyal, hard-working, and expectant supporters. In his announcement he mentioned “especially…those who have faithfully and so sacrificially been part of the process. I know I will deeply disappoint many people I love. So many good and dear people have put forth extraordinary effort without any assurance I would mount a campaign. It pains me to let them down.”

On various websites, posts like this one by a Huckabee loyalist show that most are working through the stages of grief: “I was sad and upset for a couple of weeks. But you will always be the best man for the job. If you decide to run I will still work to help you win.”

Most of the folks who admire Huckabee understand his unashamed beliefs and relationship with Jesus Christ; they cannot help but admire that he puts God above fame or fortune. So their disappointment is eased by their admiration and acceptance. Americans in general still respect a person who wants to be at peace with God regarding such a major decision, even if they do not understand God’s ways in this instance. They like a person who is true to his principles. While the army of Huckabee loyalists floundered a bit, most will take a deep breath and begin to pray that some future day God will give the opportunity, the loud and clear call that would lead Huckabee to the White House or at least to the Vice Presidency. In the meantime (if the former governor has his way) they will throw their efforts behind some of his other projects, such as helping Huck PAC to elect a strong majority of Republicans in the House and Senate, as well as in state governor races in 2012.

For now, God seems to be calling Mike Huckabee to be more of a Jeremiah — a prophet to draw this nation back to its godly heritage and Constitutional roots. Some of the projects that will be keeping him quite busy–like the Learn Our History video series he is helping produce for kids–give indication of that direction in his life. And he will be fighting against big government growth with efforts such as his recent phone appeals and television ads calling for a repeal of Obamacare. We can expect that he will have plenty to say on Fox News as a political commentator this next election cycle. He can understand better than most the inner dynamics of the presidential and gubernatorial races, certainly far better than pundits who have never subjected themselves to the grueling, grinding election process that has become today’s political climate of personal destruction.

But we can’t leave this discussion without remembering our first reluctant President, George Washington.

As the popular commander of the colonial forces, Washington believed that the new Republic that was being formed after the American Revolution needed to eschew the idea of imperialistic Great Britain and other European kingdoms, of making one popular, powerful man too powerful. “No King but Jesus” was our country’s political cry of the late Eighteenth Century. When the newly formed United States of America had its own critical struggle to come to agreement on the wording of the Constitution, they realized what was needed was a man in charge who could bring the various states and their ideas of government together. They needed Washington’s example, courage, faith, experience, and strength of character, as well as his ability to lead people. And he had a quality that Huckabee has, of finding the best in all the leaders and putting it together so that progress could be made and a goal accomplished.

George Washington was the first Commander-in-Chief of the colonial army, but in 1783 he voluntarily resigned so that concentration of power would not lie in one man. However, the people loved and appreciated this humble leader; the consensus at home and abroad was that he should become the first President and retain the role of commander-in-chief for the fledgling nation. When the electors of all the Thirteen Colonies had cast their sealed votes it was unanimous. And when the news came to him that he was elected Washington said, “I cannot give a greater evidence of my sensibility for the honor my fellow citizens have done me, than by accepting the appointment.”

Could the day come for Governor Huckabee to be drafted and for him to say that he will accept the appointment in honor of his fellow citizens? While we live in a vastly different United States from the one in which Washington lived, the government and its future success are hanging in the balance as then. Anything is possible. Many political advisors and people recognize that Governor Huckabee may be exactly what America needs. Like Washington, Huckabee is reluctant to place himself in a political process that has become, unfortunately, a demolition derby instead of a race.

When the need seems so great, hope does not die. Many people believe Governor Mike Huckabee would have made one of the more outstanding Presidents our nation has ever had. In this troubled time it is evident that the wrong choice of President could cause the nation to fail, as is occurring under President Obama. Yet, by God’s grace an exceptional choice could be found to inspire us again to greatness, to be a “shining city on a hill.” If it were clear that Huckabee would get the kind of support needed, I think God might just change His answer to, “Go ahead and win.”

The article is no longer available on Wise Republic and is reprinted here with the permission of the author

Filed under Guest Commentary, Politics Tagged with , ,

Occupy DSM Arrests: Rhetoric vs. Reality

October 11, 2011 by 3 Comments

As I am sure you are by now aware, thirty-two protesters were arrested last night at the Occupy Iowa protest at the Iowa State Capital. Now, in an attempt to deflect criticism, participants and supporters of the rally are attempting to claim victimhood. They are attempting to control the dialog to make it appear as if they had been wronged by a bullish government intent on silencing their voice. Fortunately there are those of us that are rational enough to see what truly happened are and are willing to shed light on the subject.

Last night shortly after the events unfolded The Des Moines Register’s Regina Zilbermints reported that after repeated warnings to vacate the park by 11P.M the Iowa State Patrol began arresting the assembled protesters. According to Zilbermints several of the protesters intentionally resisted arrest by linking arms and sitting down; thus forcing the Troopers to carry many of the protesters to the awaiting vehicles.

In the hours since the chaotic turn of events occurred the protesters and their supporters have come up with all sorts of excuses for what happened last night. Some, such as the Marion County Iowa Democrats, have attempted to claim that the protesters did not know that the park was closed after 11 P.M. I have since learned that this is an entirely fictitious statement based upon this post that I found on the Des Moines Registers Facebook page. Just before 6 P.M. the protesters commented that they expected the Iowa State Patrol to kick them out at 11 P.M. when the park closes.

Facebook Screenshot

In spite of the rhetoric that we are hearing, no one’s Constitutional rights were violated last night. The protesters that were arrested were provided ample time to, five hours to be exact, to relocate their protest to another spot. The thirty-two protesters that were arrested could have simply done as their fellow protesters did and move across the street. Instead they intentionally disregarded a lawful order from multiple Iowa State Patrol officers in accordance with the law. And due to their arrogance they were arrested. I hope that they will come to understand the consequences of their actions, but somehow I doubt that they will.

Filed under Commentary, News, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Mainstream Media: Willful Ignorance

August 17, 2011 by Leave a comment

It has long been asserted that there is a bias among a large portion of the mainstream media. Just this past spring I brought you some pictures and videos from across the country where union members and their supporters not only held up their vile signs that spewed their own particular brand of toxic venom, but I also brought you videos that showed those same union members and supporters attacking those that held opposing viewpoints. And as I pointed to these events, the mainstream media repeatedly and blatantly ignored the rising tide of violence from the left side of the political spectrum.

The left leaning media instead attempted to denigrate members of the Tea Party and the courageous politicians that support them. They took former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to task for what they construed as overheated rhetoric that they claimed was the motivation behind the attempted assassination of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Never mind the fact that the gunman, Jared Loughner, listed the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf as two of his favorite books. Sure sounds like conservative Tea Partier to me. Indeed it seems that the left leaning media in the US is always looking for something that they can blame on the right without regard to the facts of the matter.

And it appears that the left leaning media is still at it. Take the comments in a report by Chuck Todd on the Today Show this morning. The title of the report was “The Politics of Anger: Tea Party Tactics Change Race for President.” They seemed to take offense to the fact that anyone could possibly have a difference of opinion with the President. And to assert that Ryan Rhodes, the Tea Party leader that had the unique opportunity to question President Obama, was confrontational in any way was disingenuous at best. Both Rhodes and Stacey Rogers were entirely polite and courteous to the President. But the media is attempting to make out like they were physical threats to the President.

And while the media seems to have no problem talking about perceived threats from Tea Party members, you will most likely not hear them report on the real threats from the other side. Take for instance the case of a Toledo, OH electrical contractor that has been harassed for years by union thugs. Unfortunately for John King the harassment that he has received from the union thugs in the Toledo area recently turned violent. According to reports, Mr. King stepped outside of his home when he noticed his security light on. When he stepped outside a man that had been in the process of vandalizing Mr. King’s truck fire a shot at him. Mr. King was hit, but thankfully his wounds were not life threatening.  To the best of my knowledge the assailant has yet to be apprehended, but it is clear that this was perpetrated by a union thug.

I am under no illusion that the media will change it’s biased ways anytime in the near future. That is why I do what I do; I want to make sure that our side is always represented. And while we may not have near the audience that NBC or CBS has, you can rest assured we will always be honest.

Filed under Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Iowa Straw Poll: A tale of success and failure

August 15, 2011 by 4 Comments

This past Saturday I had the opportunity to attend the Republican Party of Iowa’s Ames Straw Poll. For those of you that were unable to attend you missed out on an incredible spectacle that is an important step in the Presidential nomination process. You missed the opportunity to mingle with the various Republican Presidential candidates. You missed the opportunity to learn what a wide variety of conservative organizations were up to. And most of all you missed the opportunity to help shape the debate in the election process. And once the dust had settled there it was clear those that had successes and those that had disappointments.

First off, for those of you that do not understand the significance of a non-binding straw poll I would like to explain the significance. The significance of the Ames Straw Poll is that it is the first real test of the various campaigns organizational strength. Basically it tests how well a campaign can motivate it’s supporters to come out and spend the day in Ames to vote for them. At the end of the day it is up to the campaign’s to determine how well they accomplished that task and plan accordingly. Now without further ado I would like to give you my thoughts on the outcome of the 2011 Ames Straw Poll.

Michelle Bachmann – 4,823 votes

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann emerged from the Ames Straw Poll as the victor. Last Saturday Congresswoman Bachmann was able to lay claim to the mantle of the first woman to win the RPI Straw Poll. This in and of itself is a major success for Team Bachmann, more so considering that it happened in a state that has never elected a woman to serve in the federal government. Despite this symbolic victory it cannot be overlooked that Congresswoman Bachmann just barely managed to hold off Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Most Republican circles began to write off the Texan after the horrid debate performance he had on Thursday evening. One reason for this apparent disappointment could stem from the fact that in the weeks leading up to the Straw Poll many media outlets began to launch a constant stream of attacks designed to diminish her performance. And in spite of these attacks she managed to pull off the win.

Ron Paul – 4671 votes

I would categorize Congressman Ron Paul’s performance at the Straw Poll as a success. As I mentioned above, many Republicans that I spoke with prior to between Thursday night and Saturday morning expected his performance to drop after his performance in the Fox News debate. Despite this performance I still fail to see Congressman Paul winning enough support to emerge from the Iowa Caucus victorious. The reason that I believe this is his stance on foreign policy. It remains to be seen if American foreign policy was the cause of the irrational hatred felt by many Muslims toward the United States. However, we do not have the luxury of traveling back in time to change the past. We must live in reality, the here and now. We cannot allow attacks upon our nation to go unanswered. And once we were engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq we could not withdraw our troops until their nations were once again stable, to do otherwise would be irresponsible. And as for Iran, it is the only nation in the world that has publicly stated that their ultimate goal was to destroy another nation. If we were to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons it would have disastrous consequences for every other nation in the world. And after Congressman Paul publicly announced otherwise, it marginalized him as viable candidate in my opinion. I am confident that very few Iowans’ subscribe to Congressman Paul’s idea of foreign policy.

Tim Pawlenty – 2,293 votes

I would say that the biggest disappointment of the day belonged to Team Pawlenty. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was banking on a great finish in the Ames Straw Poll that never materialized. Governor Pawlenty’s biggest impediment in the race was his lack of excitement.  He just couldn’t fire up the voters the way that Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann could. As a result of his disappointing finish on Saturday, Governor Pawlenty made an announcement that he was dropping out of the race on Sunday. The expertise and wisdom that Governor Pawlenty brought to the race will be missed, but the Ames Straw Poll succeeded in helping Iowans to vet the Presidential candidates.

Rick Santorum – 1,657 votes

One of the biggest success stories from Saturday’s Straw poll was the emergence of Rick Santorum. Last week I was one of the few commentators to predict that the former Senator from Pennsylvania would jump up and surprise some people at the Straw Poll. And while I did expect him to fare better than Governor Pawlenty, I wasn’t off by much. The reason that I consider fourth place a success for Santorum is because he finished above many candidates that have been in the race longer. The fact that Santorum was able to fire up almost seventeen hundred votes in just a couple of months is a testament to his ability to campaign. I look forward to the next six months as we get closer and closer to the 2012 caucuses. I think that we may see another rise similar to the one Governor Mike Huckabee had post 2007 Straw Poll.

Herman Cain – 1,456 votes

I would also characterize Herman Cain’s performance at the Straw Poll as a success. In my prediction last week I thought that Cain could surprise Iowa Republicans, even though I thought it was unlikely. With his fifth place finish the former Godfathers Pizza CEO has proven to be a tenacious campaigner with the drive to win. However, he still finished in fifth place after having campaigned for longer than most candidates. Perhaps his refusal to answer surveys has held him back. Many Iowans, myself included, have to wonder why he would avoid this free advertisement. Unless it is because he doesn’t want to go on the record in his own handwriting.

Rick Perry – 718 votes

The biggest surprise to me was the fact that Texas Governor Rick Perry who came in sixth with 718 votes. To say that this wasn’t a success would be utter madness. Governor Perry was successful beyond my wildest imaginations. At the same time I find it disappointing that 718 Iowans voted for a candidate that had never campaigned within the state. I find it disappointing that 718 Iowans voted for a candidate that they could know little about. To be perfectly honest I cannot fathom any reason for Governor Perry to finish this high without any campaigning at all. Still I have the nagging feeling that when Iowans begin to actually get to know him, that his campaign will fall back to earth.

Mitt Romney – 567 votes

I know that the defending Straw Poll victor, Mitt Romney, decided not to participate in the 2011 version but I still expected him to do better than Texas Governor Rick Perry. At least Romney has done some minimal campaigning within the state. Furthermore, Romney did campaign extensively in the state during the last caucus. To have him fall so far was hard to imagine. I would say that this does not bode well for Team Romney as we get closer to the 2012 caucus. To say that his performance was disappointing would be an understatement.

Newt Gingrich – 385 votes

I would say that former Speaker of the US House Newt Gingrich suffered neither successful nor a disappointing Straw Poll, although it is still astounding that Rick Perry finished better than Gingrich. Instead, I believe that Gingrich managed to tread water in spite of refusing to participate in the event. We know that he was on the ground in Ames on Saturday, so it is probably because of a lack of campaign funds that held him back from participating in the event.

Jon Huntsman – 69 votes

To be perfectly honest with you, I did not expect Huntsman to fare this well. The man has openly dissed the Iowa Caucus and the Straw Poll. That sixty-nine Iowans voted for him simply astounds me. Due to this I would without hesitation that Huntsman experienced a success at the Straw Poll.

Thaddeus McCotter – 35 votes

You might be asking just who McCotter is. Well the best way to describe him is probably as someone that wanted to be able to put candidate for President on his resume when he leaves Congress. If you had been at the straw poll you would have noticed that his tent area had very few people in attendance. In all honesty I was surprised he received as many votes as he did. It was definitely a disappointing day for McCotter.

There you have it, my take on the results of the 2011 Iowa Straw Poll. I am sure that most of you will have your own opinions as to the aftermath, and you are entitled to them. That is the beauty of our great nation.

Filed under Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 695 other followers