Your Reagan May Not Be My Reagan

In the buildup to the 2012 election, conservatives fretted about nominee Mitt Romney. Like the two Bushes before him, he felt the looming shadow of Ronald Reagan at his back.

Reagan biographer Lou Cannon said "it's (hard) to make a Reagan out of Mitt Romney."  The comparisons will be reset for 2016 as Reagan's image stubbornly keeps a hold on many Republican minds.  But which Ronald Reagan?

For conservatives, the epitome of Reagan comes through in "the speech."   This statement of political principles served as the platform for conservative Republicans for the next three generations. Ostensibly crafted to support Barry Goldwater, Reagan made the ideals his own.  They carried him to the California governor's mansion and eventually the White House.

Conservatives don't merely love the text, but also the strident and confident tone, quite unlike the rest of the GOP.  It exuded confidence in the future.  The delivery also convinced many conservatives that Reagan then and for all time was chiseling out conservative commandments in stone.  Somehow, he evolved after his death into a grim sentinel guarding against the idea of deal-making or compromise, hence the negative comparisons with Mitt Romney.

But is this fair?

Both men governed states with electorates to the left of themselves.  Reagan led a state determined to forge ahead on abortion, and he had to compromise with the tide of history.  Was it the right thing to do?  Maybe not.  Would the deal have been worse without his part?  You bet. Reagan also allowed passage of what Cannon described as "mammoth tax increases."

Romney had the same dilemma with Massachusetts, a state determined to get public health care.  Romney crafted a plan that satisfied voters and worked much better than the nationally touted Obamacare.  In fact, Obama's law wrecked Romney's design in his own state.

Between the governorship and the presidency, Reagan forged links with decidedly unconservative figures.  He reached out to the Rockefeller wing of the party during the 1970s to gain support.  In 1976, thinking himself on the cusp of upsetting incumbent President Gerald Ford in the primary, Reagan considered Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as a running mate.  Schweiker had fully backed labor unions during his tenure (tough to see how he could not in 1970s Pennsylvania and win elections.)  In a conversation with Schweiker, Reagan admitted "I am not a knee jerk conservative."

Tax increases, compromising with abortion, and saying "I am not a knee jerk conservative" would have doomed Reagan among post Reagan conservatives. Romney's "moderation" actually looks farther to the right of Reagan in the late 1970s.

Romney likely saw himself as a disciple of Reagan too, not the firebrand of 1964 or the candidate trying to navigate a diverse GOP ocean in the mid 1970s.  President Reagan likely looked much like aspiring president Romney.  The Reagan of the 1980s told advisers that he would rather get 75 percent of what he wanted than drive his wagon off the cliff all banners flying.  He worked with a hostile Democratic House of Representatives to hammer through a tax reform bill.  Conservatives of the 1980s were even shocked.  West Virginia congressman Mick Staton went so far as to write the president a letter of complaint, wondering if he had lost his way.

Staunch conservatives see themselves as disciples of Reagan.  And in a way, they are right.  But moderates are also right when they claim the same mantle.  No great man remains the same as he grows and changes.  Reagan did adhere to the same principles, but understood as he gained tangible leadership experience that some success was better than all or nothing.

In 2012, the arguments about the GOP nominee often made the perfect the enemy of the good.  All too often, that "perfect" was represented by a Ronald Reagan that never existed, a Reagan image that cobbled together the best parts of 25 years of politics while conveniently ignoring other important attributes.

As we approach 2016, it is time to choose a candidate from this century.  Reagan was great in the same fashion as Lincoln and Washington, and also like them, not an option today.

Hard Times For the Clintons

Give the Clintons credit.  They have at least enough self-awareness to understand when they have not been self-aware.

Hillary Clinton let slip a moderately damaging assessment of her family's post presidency finances.  "We were dead broke," she said.

Should she run for president, she will find those four words as ubiquitous as Mitt Romney's offhand 47 percent comment.  She will have to explain ad nauseum what she meant and that she does really understand what truly broke really means.

This will likely grow tiresome.  Neither Clinton entered the world with guaranteed millions and both, especially Bill, understand what poverty feels like. Saying "dead broke" instead of struggling to meet responsibilities was a huge error in judgment.

The Clintons, however, did the right thing.  When confronted with their own version of tough times, like good free market entrepreneurs, they cashed in.  People wrongly envy Bill Clinton's huge speaking fees.  There is nothing wrong with making top dollar.  The onus lies on those who pay the fees, especially if they pay from the public purse.  Bill Clinton or the town dog catcher can ask a million dollars to speak.  No one has to pay.

Problem is that being Democrats comes with connection to the party's ideology. One cannot just comfortably defend a million (or tens of millions) dollars honestly made. Nationally, the Democratic Party has moved well to the Left of the centrist comfort zone Bill Clinton always claimed.  If Hillary runs in 2016, Leftist candidates such as Martin O'Malley (does anyone doubt that this failure is running for president?) will hurl this statement back at her over and over.  Clinton will face class warfare, this time against her and the profits reaped by her family after the presidency.

Rick Santorum's Refusal to Focus

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum remains steadfastly dedicated to his agenda which appears increasingly socially conservative.

Most recently, he promised to nominate an attorney general that would help him to eradicate internet pornography.

Therein lies the divide in the conservative movement. Rights based conservatives have near meltdowns at the notion of government interference in the lives of individuals, even if that means accepting practices that they themselves disagree with. Santorum gives weight to the left wing notion that Republicans are closet theocrats looking to crush liberty.

Nevermind the mindnumbing list of agencies and bureaus created by Obama to reach ever more deeply into our educational, healthcare, and other major choices.

Santorum's moral agenda is, frankly, the wrong emphasis for today's Republican Party. We are at our best when defending religious freedom against Big Government. So why turn around and threaten Big Government action against what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Is culture rotten? Maybe. But it is a free society, so who cares. People make choices. We do not have to love them, but we should respect them so long as they do no direct harm to others.

Romney, to his credit, understands that this election is about the economy. Not birth control. Not porn. The economy, period.

And that is why he is winning.

Don't Give Us a Leader. Just Give Us Competence

It is time to stop looking for a “leader.” America does not need leadership from any movement or any party, at least not leadership as we conceive it in the 21^st century.

When you consider what the average American tends to expect from a president, or blame on him when things go wrong, an outsider might be forgiven if he assumed that the word “president” politically equated to “czar.” American ideas on what a president does and should not do have been driven relentlessly by the crises of the last century combined with the notion that if only we found the smartest man, we could plan well enough to avoid problems.

History proves that this just is not so.

Ancient sources of religion and wisdom argue against putting too much trust into a single earth made man alone. In I Samuel 8, God tells the Israelite judge Samuel that the people demand a king as the other nations have. They reject the idea of a limited government whose sovereign is God. God warned Samuel that the expansion of political authority would result in the seizing of property and enslavement of the people. Arbitrary power in the hands of leaders cannot end well.

Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching Chapter 17 wrote the following

The best rules are those whom the people hardly know exist

Next come rulers whom the people love and praise

After that come rulers whom the people fear

And the worst are those whom the people despise

The ruler who does not trust his people will not be trusted by his people

The best ruler stays in the background and his voice is rarely heard

When he accomplishes his task and things go well

The people declare: It was we who did it by ourselves.

Marcus Tullius Cicero watched the final days of the slow dissolving of what was once a free Roman Republic relative to his time and place. Rule of law gave way to a government led by ambitious and grasping men, such as Julius Caesar. The dictators of the late Roman Republic saw law as an obstacle to their plans, some of which were based on good intentions. However, the undermining of the basic law of the land ushered in the era of the Empire and all of its evils.

The people loved Caesar, but could never have imagined that his smashing of the law would lead to the depravity of Nero or the insanity of Caligula. Late in Cicero’s life, just before his own unnatural death, he railed against “the effrontery of Gaius Caesar, who, to gain that sovereign power which by a depraved imagination he had conceived in his fancy, trod underfoot all laws of gods and men.” He went on to write that “But the trouble about this matter is that it is in the greatest souls and in the most brilliant geniuses that we usually find ambitions for civil and military authority, for power, and for glory, springing; and therefore we must be the more heedful not to go wrong in that direction.”

While the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argues that man’s evil can only be contained by a strong government, many other notables fear more the evil of men when they ascend to controlling a powerful government. This is why we limit power and put blocks in the way of our elected officials. America does not need a czar, a king, an Il Duce, or any other authoritarian leader, either by name, or in power alone. We work best when under the type of executive described by Lao Tzu, the type that we never notice and who engineers his policies to enable the people to act for themselves.

Mitt Romney Will Be a Fairly Strong Candidate If . . .

I had my doubts about Romney. He was far from my first choice. I felt that the Republican Party needed to nominate a strong candidate who could sell a powerful dose of economic conservatism to the middle ground in American politics.

We don't have that guy this time. Those guys either dropped out or never ran.

Newt Gingrich flubbed when he attacked a Republican for being a capitalist.

Rick Santorum forgot what the election is about.

Ron Paul looks good 90% of the time. The other 10% keeps me from wanting him to be president.

And that leaves Mitt Romney.

Our remaining four represent the different strains of thought in the party. Newt appeals to the dreamer in us all. At his best, he is appeallingly Churchillian. He is the gamble that the Republican voters are obviously not inclined to make. Ron Paul hearkens back to the heydays of the Taft family, William Howard and Senator Robert. Old school Republicanism that appeals to the youngest conservatives. Rick Santorum electrifies the shrinking base of die hard social conservatives.

And Romney appeals to few, but he is eminently acceptable.

So why will he be a strong candidate?

Mitt Romney reminds me of Shelley Moore Capito in some ways, although Representative Capito is a much better communicator with a much better rapport and understanding of average people. The trait that they share in common is pragmatism. They listen to their constituents and do what they can to satisfy their concerns. Voters direct them, not the other way around. Some deride that as not sufficiently ideologically pure, but it is certainly a grounded approach that fits a democratic society with so many viewpoints.

Capito and Romney are the anti-Obama model. They thrive on their connection with the average non-political voter. Neither sell themselves as they only answer to the question and you get the feeling that they are willing to give any reasonable constituent a fair listen.

Outside of Ann Coulter, few of the hardcore conservative pundits like Romney. Do Republicans and Democrats honestly think that is a problem for Romney? Much as I like Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk, it helps Romney in the general election to not have their 100% support. Independents and moderate Democrats who have come to mistrust and dislike Obama will be more likely to support a candidate who is not the favorite son of the Right.

Some Democrats speculate that Santorum's support in the South will hurt Romney in the general election. Are people that insane to think that Santorum supporters will miss a chance to vote against Obama in November?

Should Romney win the nomination, an increasingly academic phrase, the election is his to lose. Moderation, attacks on the President made in good humor instead of anger, and an understandable plan to return to prosperity and reduce debt will give Mitt Romney a solid victory.

Just don't get sidetracked, understand that some humorous statements about wealth translate poorly to print, and stay focused. Don't sell yourself as the answer, emphasize teamwork with other experienced people including the other former candidates. That contrasts you with The Won. Most of all, exude optimism in yourself and, most of all, Americans.

Only Romney could beat Romney once he wins the nomination.

The Power of Social Media in Politics: Eye on Keyser

Politics and social media were made for each other, if only politicians could figure out how to use it.

Mitt Romney may be one of the worst examples, at least until recently. His Facebook page had almost zero level of interaction. Imagine sitting in a room with a dozen people, periodically shouting at them, and then putting in earplugs and going to sleep.

Other elected officials seem to have a better grasp. Delegate Gary Howell (R-Mineral) produces a live feed on Facebook of every action in the West Virginia House of Delegates. He updates constituents on votes taken, including his own vote and a brief explanation of it. Most importantly, Howell interacts with constituents. Even octogenarian Republican congressman Roscoe Bartlett from the western panhandle of Maryland maintains a Facebook page that responds to questions and comments.

In Keyser, concerned residents formed a group on Facebook called "Eye on Keyser." The purpose of the group seemed to be to discuss issues in city government. Participants swelled quickly, from hundreds to now over 1,500. It's not for the faint of heart. Discussion gets about as rough and tumble as can be imagined, with accusations and amateur background checks tossed about.

However, Eye on Keyser was able to move beyond a debate society and truly start to benefit the community. It organized a crime watch patrol in some key neighborhoods. The most active members have certainly rattled the town establishment, just based on quotes in the paper alone.

One way that they could be more effective is by crowdsourcing. Some members have obtained documents and records that they believe could contain inconsistencies. They should scan them online or provide a link to the sources. That way, they take advantage of the energy and expertise of 1,500 people, some of whom might have skills that could be useful.

Social media allows for debate, but also collaboration on a scale almost unimaginable. This is a positive development for democracy and civil society, even though the process might not always be pretty or harmonious.

If I Were Mitt Romney . . .

Because of CPAC, the eyes of American conservatism fall on Washington D. C. over the next few days. Here, Mitt Romney has the chance to state his case.

I have not had much enthusiasm for Romney, but he does bring strengths into the general election. Santorum's recent surge may be enough to jolt Romney into giving a strong and powerful address at CPAC tomorrow. What would I say, were I Romney?

Romney has a record as Massachusetts governor that does not match well to mainline American free market conservative ideals. No matter how often Ann Coulter tries to put lipstick on this pig, she cannot make it attractive.

That being said, Romney needs to admit that Massachusetts is a pig of a state for a conservative to govern.

As Reagan struggled to implement conservative ideals as governor of California, Romney faced powerful limits to what he could accomplish in his own state. Let's face it, most Massachusetts conservatives would be liberal in the heartland. He faced a totally different culture. All he has to do is repeatedly say that he did the best he could to hold the line against big government. The best defense of Romneycare is that such a plan was inevitable in the Commonwealth and that he did the best he could to keep it as limited as possible.

As far as Bain is concerned, attacks on his business make him that much more attractive to free market conservatism. He made tough choices and saved jobs that otherwise would have disappeared.

Romney must explain himself to conservatives. He needs their enthusiasm, as well as their support. We really want to enthusiastically support someone this summer and fall. Will some candidate step forward and give us a reason?

The Bigger Picture With Bain

So the other Republicans in the field are attacking Romney because he's a capitalist?

His company, Bain, bought up failing companies to make the hard choices necessary to keep them afloat. Sometimes that meant shutting down facilities and trimming large numbers of jobs. Why act like the alternative was not that these companies would die and all the jobs would be lost?

Romney gives his opponents a lot of ammunition for attack. Romneycare and other issues demonstrate that he has not been a down the line fiscal conservative. Republicans are right to scrutinize this part of his record.

However, Bain serves a purpose in the supposedly free market. Companies do not exist to provide jobs, add to the tax base, or anything else. They exist to turn a profit. When they do, they hire more people, pay more taxes, and do many other things as useful by-products. Why are we attacking the successful while pining over the failed?

The Bain story also gives insight into Romney that, objectively speaking, helps him. Presidents need to make tough decisions. Sometimes the alternatives are between bad and less bad, but a choice must be made, an action taken. Romney has experience making the difficult choices that result in short term pain, but long term success. Instead of backing off this important element of his past, the conservative thing to do is to embrace it. Proudly say that you saved x number of companies and jobs through making the tough choices.

Ann Coulter Could Decide the GOP Nomination

In the conservative world there are aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers . . . and then there are battleships.

Aircraft carriers project power hundreds of miles away in small or big chunks, whichever you prefer. Submarines stealthily ride beneath the waves, attacking from beneath, from where you least expect it.

Destroyers sit on top of the water, but mainly escort the bigger guys and have little pop by themselves.

Then there are battleships.

Maybe the navy decommissioned them, but they are alive and well in the conservative world. They are large, loud, and destructive. They also impress with the range and strength of their firepower. You can't miss the arrival of one, or its intent. Battleships change the game.

Ann Coulter is a conservative battleship. She has trained her guns on Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich has ranged himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, latest of about ten. Coulter is one of his biggest threats.

The conservative base reads Ann Coulter. She may have less influence in the mainstream world, but she packs a major punch within strongly conservative ranks. When she supports Romney and broadsides Newt, she cannot be dismissed as squishy, or a RINO, or whatever the buzzword is these days. Newt's support is precisely what she is gunning down. Here are her last two commentaries for Human Events.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48161

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48005

And, yes, Coulter knows exactly what she is implying with the phrase "tiny stick." She is a battleship of the conservative movement and the shells have been fired. Don't expect them to cease any time soon.

Mitt Romney Needs to Abandon the Thomas E. Dewey Strategy

What do you think of when you think of Mitt Romney? Certainly he is intelligent, accomplished, organized, and, in a way, looks like a president. Conservative ideology aside, we would have no reason to think that Romney could not be sound in office.

But is Romney inspiring? Does Romney exude what George H. W. Bush derided as "that vision thing?"

There lies the problem.

Romney's rope-a-dope style in the primary season may win him the nomination as the not-Romneys battle it out. Compared to most of the pack, he looks far better informed and ready to govern. Compared to Newt Gingrich, he definitely looks more predictable and, some say, safe. Unfortunately for Romney, that could have been said about Neville Chamberlain versus Winston Churchill in 1938.

Should Romney win the nomination, and that is a strong possibility, he must cease the pleasant little boat trip of a campaign that he has captained so far. His latest debate spawned criticisms of his "going through the motions" and resorting to platitudes. This will not do against a campaign in 2012 that promises to be one of the most vicious in American history.

Thomas Dewey took the field against Harry Truman in 1948. Dewey altered his strategy after accusations of going too aggressively against Franklin Roosevelt. That was a mistake in that FDR was a sick old hero, whereas Truman was somewhat unpopular.

Whatever accolades Truman deserves for identifying Soviet evil early on, he must be remembered as a bare-knuckled liar of a campaigner. FDR's successor got everything that he wanted out of the initially hesitant to spend GOP Congress in 1947. The Marshall Plan, National Security Act of 1947, aid to Greece and Turkey, all this and more came at the behest of Truman. Few presidents have gotten more out of their own party. But Truman, seeing Dewey as a likeable opponent, campaigned against the "do-nothing Congress."

Dewey responded by ignoring Truman and playing prevent defense, which in football usually translates to preventing the win. Truman had very low popularity with all voters and even faced major splits in his own party. The liberal Louisville Courier-Journal summed up Dewey's campaign in the following fashion:

No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

If you didn't already know....Truman won in 1948.

To be fair, Romney has been much more specific than Dewey was. However, he needs to show spark. Romney, if he wins nomination, needs that moment where Americans see that he can intelligently rise to the occasion. Ronald Reagan's famous 1980 microphone moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE) is an example.

It is still a long way to the end, and Gingrich is showing staying power and intellectual command. But if Romney should win, he needs to ignore the Dewey gameplan and go on the attack.

Gingrich Looking Past Primaries?

Newt Gingrich, in last night's debates, seemed to start positioning himself against not only his fellow Republicans, but also the incumbent president. The former Speaker of the House strongly advocated for a "humane" immigration policy that eases the enforcement of laws on long term illegals. His rationale lay in preventing family break-ups.

Gingrich runs the risk of losing the conservative support built over the past several weeks, following the trend of Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain when each fumbled in the right wing red zone. It lends credence to the idea that Gingrich actually lies more in the center than even Mitt Romney and opens the door further to criticism of his other non-conservative moves in the past.

It also opens the door for Gingrich to expand his support into different groups, especially if he wins the nomination. The Hispanic community is no monolithic creature. It divides along national and generational lines. Gingrich's move tactically targets Hispanics whose social conservatism could bring them into the GOP camp, or at least convince them to elect some Republicans. The family first mantra will attract Roman Catholic and other religious voters who have been pushing this line in many issues for decades.

The Republican Party itself has no consensus on all immigration policy ideas. Gingrich's gamble will cost him support now, but would definitely broaden his appeal if nominated.

Learning to Like Mitt Romney

I am learning to like Mitt. Why? Because odds are, he will be the nominee.

I don't dislike him personally. He seems to be a decent enough person. But he reminds me all too much of that Thomas E. Dewey northeastern establishment Republican set. Romney will not heartily embrace the kind of conservatism that galvanizes the rest of America outside of New England. Romney's positions, to put it mildly, seem to change a great deal over time. On one or two issues, that's fine. Doing that on several leaves him vulnerable. His Mormonism is not a concern for me, actually it is a plus. Mormonism requires a strong spirit and self-discipline. I respect the heck out of that. Romney also has administrative experience and seems to run his operations and communications fairly smoothly.

No, he is not a guy the conservatives love. But he could be what we have.

Instead of hating Romney and peeing in our own Corn Flakes if he wins, we have to strategize for success.

First of all, get the man elected president if we nominate him. He is not a revolutionary prophet of conservative change, but he is not the incompetent Il Duce that we have now. Romney's foreign policy speeches should bring comfort to anyone at home and abroad who understands that America has a positive mission in the world. Domestically, though, the right must hold Romney's feet to the fire and pressure him into supporting the shrinking of government. We can do that through the congressional Tea Party factions.

There is a potentially great president on the horizon who bowed out of this year's contest. Bobby Jindal has almost no negatives. He is experienced, has terrific conservative credentials, highly intelligent, and has shown strong leadership at crucial times for Louisiana. Jindal is what Palin could have been had she stayed at her gubernatorial post and worked at it aggressively. Getting to a Jindal, or some other strongly conservative administration without four more years of irreparable damage to our system is paramount. Romney may not have great conservative credentials, but I cannot imagine that he will make things a lot worse. We need to get rid of Obama and his leftist cadre first so that we can turn this thing around.

It looks more and more like the first step in turning this thing around could be the election of Romney as president.

Romney's "Ism" Problem Has Nothing to do With His Religion

Herman Cain this week told the Washington Times that Mitt Romney's main obstacle to the Republican nomination is his Mormon faith. Cain reasoned that southern evangelicals would hold his religion against him, even though he is a good candidate.

Cain is a good man and would make a good nominee himself. However, he is dead wrong on both Romney and southerners.

Romney's main problem is his faith in state based solutions. His signature program as governor od Massachusetts was a government health care system. In today's environment where Republicans hate big government more than they have in years, Romney really has a shaky resume. He has to emphasize free market economic solutions and play down his problematic health care past.

This is the core of my issue with Romney, as well as many Tea Partiers. It is also why the mainstream media seems to love this guy. Conservativism is different from place to place. Romney may be conservative for New England, but the South and Midwest, economically and otherwise, see him as moderate or even liberal. This is why he will not be nominated, not his religious faith.

Republicans are more focused on economic and domestic policies than in any time that I can remember. Additionally, Mormonism faces less prejudice than at any time in that faith's history, except among Christian hating liberal and leftists. They benefit from the success of the HBO show Big Love (even though that show's emphasis on polygamy does not reflect current official Mormon practice) as well as the increased prominence of Brigham Young University in collegiate athletics.

It hurts the Republican Party to continue making Mormonism an issue. They are a different brand of Christianity, but they are strong backers of the kinds of values Republicans believe in. Most Republicans would have no problem with a Mormon nominee, provided that he or she was dedicated and devoted to free markets and smaller government.

How to Manufacture An Image of Popularity

The Associated Press last week was all a titter! They cited polls and proclaimed that Barack Obama would trounce the Republican competition were the election held today.

Sounds pretty sad until you read the story.

The polls matched him up against Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee. Two of these people would have trouble getting Republican votes. Romney supported government health care in his state and Mike Huckabee likes nanny state policies to promote fitness. Neither one of them are going to do well in the new Republican Party.

Sarah Palin has the same issues as Newt Gingrich or Hillary Clinton. She is popular, yet polarizing. Great for fundraising, but a lot of baggage, some of which is not her fault. I like Sarah Palin, personally, but she probably does not give us our best shot in 2012.

The pollsters picked these three because they didn't dare put Obama up in a hypothetical race against Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, or another strong and popular GOP governor. Obama might look good against a campaign has been like Romney, but probably not a rising star like Jindal.

Keeping it Real

"I don't believe Bible-believing Christians should participate in the mainstreaming of Mormonism." -- Brian Bigelow, Fayette County Delegate (and Huckabee voter) to the West Virginia GOP Convention on February 5, 2008, as quoted in USA Today.

Is this what our party stands for? Mindless sectarian fear of another faith as a basis for electing (or not electing, in this case) the President of the United States?

I don't know who Brian Bigelow is, except that he originally supported Rudy Giuliani. So, for Mr. Bigelow it's more important to defeat--gasp!--a Mormon than to defeat someone who supports abortion rights and the gay agenda? Is that what "Bible-believing Christians" stand for?

I more than realize that the issue is more or less moot with the exit of Governor Romney from the presidential race, but this is something that we--as a party, as a conservative movement--must confront and defeat. Someday there will be another Mormon running for president. Someday, a Mormon will run for your county commission, or for the legislature, or for a statewide office. Are we going to allow this same hate to torpedo those future candidacies as well?

Will evangelicals of Mr. Bigelow's ilk require future candidates to sign off on a particular creed or statement of religious beliefs? Does a candidate have to be a young-earth creationist to get his OK? What about a rejection of UPC bar codes? Mark of the beast, you know.

Perception and Leadership

I was speaking to former Helping Hands director Cheri Alt the other day. She was discussing the issue of how the middle class is perceived to be shrinking. Alt described how the perception of the middle class most people have appears almost unobtainable to many poor. The effort to reach the next level is overwhelming. This has helped to create a strong perception that America is somehow out of whack and needs some kind of serious adjustment.

First, this made me wonder. What is "middle class?"

It used to be that middle class meant that you had a reliable roof over your head, a decent automobile, and the capability to feed your family and pay your bills. After this, you usually had a little left over every month to save for retirement and a vacation. Sure bills caused stress, but more often than not the family did just fine. Until recently, this was not just middle class, but "the American Dream." This middle class still exists in America. The problem lies in what people perceive as "success." We have revised it upward. Now we don't see ourselves as successful unless we can afford all the latest electronics, a house much larger than necessary, new automobiles, and still not worry about bills. The gap between expectations and reality causes anxiety to many. We stress about what we do not have rather than being thankful for the gifts God gave us. I make the same mistake myself very often.

The media does not help. Its views of middle class have been skewed for a long time. Shows like Roseanne, Mama's Family, and Sanford and Son were meant to represent people who in some way were poor. However all had homes and vehicles. Fred Sanford was even a small business owner. Bill Cosby represented middle class, although to many of us in West Virginia, he certainly appeared rich. The Democrats play upon this anxiety when they announce that the United States has a poor economy.

An expectation of rewards without effort, experience, or proof of competency has also helped create the perception that the economy and society itself has problems. The burgeoning sense of entitlement is the sad result of the 1990s liberal experiment with scholastic self-esteem. Children learned that they were all considered excellent regardless of whether they earned it in any way. The same awards went to everyone regardless of whether the individual had actually done something worthwhile. Effort was given the same praise as competency. Students find a rude awakening when they hit college or real life. The shock comes when professors or employers expect actual results, an end rarely demanded before unless the youngster played in athletics or band.

The liberals demand equality of outcome and they offer government as the solution. Achieve too effectively and watch them cut you down to size. If people get left behind it becomes an indication that something is inherently wrong. No other country in history offers opportunity like the United States in the 21st century, if only people will stand up and seize their chances through hard work from the first they they hit adulthood. We just need to remember as individuals that nothing worthwhile comes without struggle and few lessons are remembered better than those learned because of failure. We also need to thank God for the good things in our lives. We may work hard towards certain goals, but American values do not include a guarantee.

*********************************************************************

Isn't it amazing that even though the Left has dominated higher education for at least the past three decades, the Republican Party continues to turn out better candidates for leadership in presidential elections? Perhaps the universities of practical business (Romney), military style character (John McCain), the school of hard knocks (Mike Huckabee), etc. do a better job creating leaders than academia. It could also reflect the fact that conservatives constantly must defend their principles and beliefs against established authorities while in school. This forces conservatives to think about what they believe in and why. The result is a much more reasonable and capable leader, as opposed to a guy who throws out inane causal linkages and expects them to be believed without question.

When listening to liberal Democrats, always question the assumptions they make in their arguments. It is here, at the foundation, that their logic always fails. They rely on ideas such as collective guilt, conservative or private sector greed as a primary motivating factor, conservative lack of insight as a truth, the idea that individuals pursuing their own success are somehow immoral, the concept that global warming is an acknowledged truth. If you accept their assumptions, their logic is fine and their conclusions are valid. It is their assumptions that defy reality. Take for example the economy. Obama insists we need significant change because the economy is poor. The economy is still growing! Furthermore the Fed says it will pick up by fall. Get your time machine and bring someone in from the 1970s or 1930s and ask them if 2% growth with low interest rates and inflation are bad. That looks like heaven to those folks.

*********************************************************************

A hundred years ago, hucksters sold products called patent medicines. These drugs promised to cure what ailed you, but never informed the customer what composed them. Obama's campaign works on a similar premise. It promises to make you feel better while refusing to offer any substance. Turns out these medicines did make people feel better in the short term because they were chock full of morphine. People get convinced to take the medicines even when they are not ill because the salesmen were extremely slick. A little exercise and better diet would have gone a lot farther than patent medicines.

Republicans offer the reasonable path to a better tomorrow because individuals are expected to work towards their own benefit. Obama offers the patent medicine of government solutions without any expectation of individuals. That's not how this country was founded and built into greatness.

Barney, Mr. Rogers and Charles Manson

So you want your kids to watch a wholesome television show that may help shape their lives. Something that can help instill values like respect, courtesy, and personal responsibility. Growing up you were a big fan of Mr. Rogers, the trolley, Mr. McFeely, King Friday and the rest of the Neighborhood of Make Believe.

Unfortunately Mr. Rogers has passed away and you're not a big fan of the purple dinosaur, so the next obvious choice for someone to instill proper values in your kids is Charles Manson! Well to me that seems to be the current attitude among some Republicans around the nation. These so called Suicide Voters, seem to be following a similar logic.

They may have been a Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney supporter and now they are saying they will vote for Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton over John McCain. Even political commentators like Anne Coulter have made the same statement. While there is large emotional attachment that develops between a supporter and their candidate, at some point logic must begin to take hold.

McCain may not be our first choice, but he is no Clinton or Obama. Just as Barney is no Charles Manson. We now have to ask ourselves do we really want to vote for a Obama-Manson ticket or do we want to stay the Republican course and vote for the McCain-Barney ticket?

What Got Lost In the Convention Furor

A lot has been said and written about the West Virginia presidential nominating convention good, bad, and ugly. Some expressed pleasant surprise, others complete dismay. Thanks ought to go out to the team that made it happen. They received a thankless assignment and achieved their goals. They made money, got the state party some attention, and made the West Virginia GOP a real factor on the most important primary day. Beneath the big picture some sore feelings emerged, but at this point it looks as though reconciliation is likely.

The big question no one asked is why did John McCain do so poorly in West Virginia? Those who did not attend might reason that the more evangelical candidate, Mike Huckabee, had the inside track in a heavily Protestant state. Not true. The power of public speaking played a large role here.

Some performed well. Mitt Romney gave a flawless delivery both at his morning breakfast with supporters and later on the floor. He gave a great speech that few Republicans could possibly disagree. Romney has a strong presence in person and one can understand why his supporters back him with such passion.

Others did not. Ron Paul gave a somewhat rambling address. Just when he made a strong point about values that libertarians and Republicans share, he would haul out an extremist comment or historical errors. Historical errors are forgivable. Romney claimed that John Adams wrote the Constitution when Adams was actually serving abroad. That's fine because Romney did not base his policy plans on those errors. Paul asserted that Congress passed laws forbidding "entangling alliances." That actually came from Washington's Farewell Address and many historians believe that he only meant that for the temporary period in which the US would be vulnerable to foreign intrigues. Paul then blundered by forgetting that the United States Navy, not privateers, defeated the Barbary Pirates. His reference to being a Baptist seemed forced.

McCain's guest speaker, former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer, looked like a great singer who kept hitting false notes. He seemed congenial and had I been a Louisianan I would have enjoyed his speech. Roemer proclaimed that LSU was the greatest college football team in the nation and implied that he'd rather have been in New Orleans than Charleston. Later he made a small joke about Presbyterians while mentioning the different denominations that helped Hurricane Katrina victims. In doing so he omitted the West Virginia National Guard who played a very important role. A delegate behind me asked if he was trying to get people to vote against McCain.

Mike Huckabee spoke extremely well. Coming from a poor small town background in an impoverished mountain state, he knew how to speak to West Virginia Republicans. Contrary to Democrat claims, many current West Virginia GOPers came from poor and difficult backgrounds. Huckabee joked about Lava soap, a product often used to get dirt or grease off the hands. He claimed that it was not until he was about twenty that he understood that a shower was not supposed to hurt. Huckabee was warm and endearing and swayed many delegates to at least see him as a vice presidential possibility.

In many ways the convention proved a success. For me personally it was a fascinating experience. As a student of the history of politics, this was a rare opportunity to witness how our candidates were chosen before the era of primaries. Hopefully the hard feelings that emerged during the convention will pass quickly so we can get to the business of getting our state behind the next president

Romney shows true leadership and respect for our nation

Yesterday Romney announced he is suspending his presidential campaign. He stated, "This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters ... many of you right here in this room ... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming president. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America,"

With the writing on the wall, a lessor man with Romney's financial means could have very easily stayed in the race and in the process damaged the chances of a win for Republican party for the upcoming general election. This, in my opinion, is a mark of true understanding and leadership.

Romney understands that after a long, tough, and emotional primary season that the party will need time to come together. By dropping out he makes that time longer and leadership is more about making the hard decisions than the easy ones. Romney, a true leader, just made a hard leadership decision. Now it is the time to move forward and do what is best for the nation, elect a Republican President.

No Convention Deal, come on...

The Romney camp was outflanked by a misuse of the rules. Or I guess we could call it the Washington interpretation of the rules, or just darn good strategy. How I know? Several people asked me for directions to room 105, where McCain supporters journeyed to and then returned from convinced to vote for Huckabee. Granted Huckabee's supporters could have simply convinced the McCain people to reconsider their positions and been overwhelmingly persuasive to 95% of McCain followers in just about an hour. However, I happened to be standing next to a McCain supporter who had refuted efforts at a conversion to Mitt Romney even quoting that his integrity would be open to question if he switched his vote for political reasons, when he was approached by one of McCain's people and told to vote for Huckabee. That settled it, the fix was implemented, and so the vote went. I have left out names, but would be happy to provide them if denials continue.

What bothers me is not the "deal". Rules allowed for such a deal, and a well timed lunch hour gave the needed break to provide organization from each side. Not to mention, that I am not sure that WV votes even matter as far as this race is concerned. What bothers me is the willingness of the Republican Party leadership to entangle themselves in a nationally publicized mess. McCain and Huckabee are denying involvement in the proceedings...executive privilege already? The leadership from the McCain-Huckabee team gets to take credit for the deal when the time is right and McCain gets the nod and can reward their courageous action. The rest of us are left looking just as bad as the democrats we bash for voter fraud and corruption from Charleston to Washington. Let's be honest, do we republicans actually want to distinguish ourselves, or do we want to keep playing the valiant underdog in each campaign? We are a conservative state, but can't get local and state Republicans elected!? I know the arguments of old school democrats that live conservative but vote democrat, but I have lived here for several years and NEVER heard a republican stand up and advocate their platform in a meaningful way.

The Republican Party is not going to out-maneuver the Democrats in WV. It's not in our blood and is contrary to the message that was on the large banner at the convention.


We advocate less government then design a convention that is so laden with political bureaucracy that we were set up from the start. The well timed lunch was announced as a time to trade horses. At the very least the McCain people could have hidden their intent a little better and wait until McCain was out of the race to dump into the Huckabee camp. But that would have left the second vote up to the delegates and that is something we can't have. So a backroom (room 105) deal was made and the convention was settled. Not to mention that some constituents didn't even know that their primary vote had been superseded by a convention until yesterday; leaving most of the spots for the usual suspects, Party loyalists, executive committee members, and a few hand-picked delegates. A slight tinge of disdain was even evident when I discussed the Ron Paul delegates who had, at the last moment, changed their political affiliation to republican and slipped into a delegate position. Consequently, Ron Paul supporters were the only group in the convention with any level of diversity in their ranks.

Republicans win elections by sharing their message, not through clever political maneuvering. In ideological battles, we win. The American spirit resonates truest in an open market with limitations on government. Those limitations allow individuals to prosper in the endeavors of their choosing, whether those are family, faith, financial, service, or other. It may be too late for this election cycle, but next cycle we might have a chance to band together and come up with a plan and an agenda for this state much like Newt Gingrich came up with in the mid-90s. A coherent message could give us the opportunity to bolster the Republican Party to a position where real change can occur in our state.