As a politically active person I have spent, and still spend, a lot of time weighing issues. I read about them, think about them, consider them, think about how my beliefs agree with or contradict my values. I read every book that teachers and professors assigned me, then went out and read a lot more.
I love to read most about the lives of great men and women. Reading about their thoughts and philosophies is eye opening as well. I certainly do not admire Mussolini, but the three biographies I read on him give me an idea of how he came to power and the dangers that poses to anyone else.
Reading Bastiat, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, James Madison, and many others helped to shape my thoughts on what I believe. The works of Marx, Stalin, Hitler, and others convinced me of their enormous evil.
All of this helped to shape my values and beliefs about general issues, such as the economy, and specific issues, such as abortion. I learned that you have to apply your thoughts on an issue to a values test. If you find that you have to support an issue that seemingly contradicts your values, then you at least have to explain that contradiction to yourself, if not others.
I assumed that anyone running for high office, such as senator, governor, or president, would put themselves through the same rigorous preparation. If they had weaknesses in knowledge or experience, they would bring on people to help to bridge those gaps and be ready. Then, once engaged, they would throw their entire efforts into performing as well as possible.
I found myself disappointed in 2008 when I signed on early for Fred Thompson. He still strikes me as a gravely intelligent individual who could have won in 2008 with a strong effort. Thompson gained supporters, raised money, then dissipated.
Rick Perry troubled me in the same way. Here was a guy with unquestioned experience. I liked him early. Perry touted success in Texas, raised gobs of cash, and seemed ready to bring some Texas back to the White House. However, he could not explain his departures from conservative belief. In the debates, he ran into trouble explaining anything.
What angers me is that these candidates convinced people to spend time and give money when they had not even done their most basic homework. Learn about public policy and its philosophical foundations. Look at your record and be prepared to defend it on practical and ideological grounds. Let me know by example that you are working as hard as your best volunteer.. This is how you convince voters that you are ready to be president. Most voters, except those who voted for Obama, do not want a messiah, but a first citizen. They want someone whose efforts, understanding, and abilities match the job.
Hard work, physical and intellectual, forms the foundation of that.
So those of you planning to run for president in the future. Work hard. Study harder. Above all, do not waste our time.
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Ron Paul As Winston Churchill
As most of you know, I am leaning towards Sarah Palin or Rick Perry at this point. I think that they combine visibility, conservative ideals, and electability.
That all being said, Ron Paul's campaign is going to make things very interesting. He has certainly moved from fringe candidate of 2008 to economic prophet of 2011. Last week's debt debacle really moved him to the forefront of the discussion because events are playing out as he has predicted for years.
In the 1920s and early 30s, British politicos laughed at Winston Churchill. His warnings about Hitler and prophecies of war fell on deaf ears. As Hitler began to bare his teeth, Churchill garnered more respect. Finally, when all seemed lost with the 1940 fall of France, Britain turned to him to lead.
Make no mistake. Our policies for decades have led us to the precipice. We expected our productive sectors to pay for too much government even as we taxed and regulated them out of existence. It was a situation that could not continue. We now see disaster staring us in the face. Obama and the Democrats have their heads in the sand. They would tax the private sector to balance a budget, but that would tank the economy even more. We must radically cut spending to solve the debt crisis and get our finances back on track, but Obama would rather spend more, not less. This week the markets dropped rapidly, losing two hundred points during Obama's speech on the subject. If conditions continue to worsen, Paul will gain more and more credibility and become a major factor next year.
This is not a negative. We need elected officials who take these issues seriously. Paul may not win nomination, but he will help to keep debt, the economy, and spending at the forefront of public debate. That in itself should help the right people win election next year.
That all being said, Ron Paul's campaign is going to make things very interesting. He has certainly moved from fringe candidate of 2008 to economic prophet of 2011. Last week's debt debacle really moved him to the forefront of the discussion because events are playing out as he has predicted for years.
In the 1920s and early 30s, British politicos laughed at Winston Churchill. His warnings about Hitler and prophecies of war fell on deaf ears. As Hitler began to bare his teeth, Churchill garnered more respect. Finally, when all seemed lost with the 1940 fall of France, Britain turned to him to lead.
Make no mistake. Our policies for decades have led us to the precipice. We expected our productive sectors to pay for too much government even as we taxed and regulated them out of existence. It was a situation that could not continue. We now see disaster staring us in the face. Obama and the Democrats have their heads in the sand. They would tax the private sector to balance a budget, but that would tank the economy even more. We must radically cut spending to solve the debt crisis and get our finances back on track, but Obama would rather spend more, not less. This week the markets dropped rapidly, losing two hundred points during Obama's speech on the subject. If conditions continue to worsen, Paul will gain more and more credibility and become a major factor next year.
This is not a negative. We need elected officials who take these issues seriously. Paul may not win nomination, but he will help to keep debt, the economy, and spending at the forefront of public debate. That in itself should help the right people win election next year.
Friday, July 22, 2011
The Two Biggest Contenders Are Not Yet In
The Republican polls mean nothing today. Romney, Cain, Bachman, these names all bounce around different polls like ping pong balls in a lotto machine. But until we know for sure about two individuals, the polls mean nothing.
Rick Perry. Sarah Palin.
These are your heavyweight contenders, even though Palin's name often gets tossed into the polls now despite not having announced.
Simply being governor of Texas makes Perry a factor. His state is prospering relative to the rest of the nation. Texas has to deal with border issues, the EPA's maniacal war on nartural resources, and has taken on the Department of Education's incompetence. He has been an effective anti-Obama.
Sarah Palin has tremendous weight and resources that have not been fully applied as of yet. No one has the name recognition of Palin, for better or worse. It is not even a question now of whether or not she will run, considering her blitz on television and motion pictures. She and Perry both have placed themselves on the moderate edge of the Tea Party/libertarian movements in that their candidacies will be palatable to traditional Republicans and the newer movements.
Palin's advantage in a general election is that she will attract "history" voters in the way Obama did in 2008. A lot of folks have no problem with a woman in the White House and will support one to be a part of history.
Once these two heavyweights jump into the fray, I predict that they will dominate the show. Both have experience and enough media savvy to hold off on their official announcements. I would say that at the end of the day, we will see Palin as nominee and Perry as the running mate.
Rick Perry. Sarah Palin.
These are your heavyweight contenders, even though Palin's name often gets tossed into the polls now despite not having announced.
Simply being governor of Texas makes Perry a factor. His state is prospering relative to the rest of the nation. Texas has to deal with border issues, the EPA's maniacal war on nartural resources, and has taken on the Department of Education's incompetence. He has been an effective anti-Obama.
Sarah Palin has tremendous weight and resources that have not been fully applied as of yet. No one has the name recognition of Palin, for better or worse. It is not even a question now of whether or not she will run, considering her blitz on television and motion pictures. She and Perry both have placed themselves on the moderate edge of the Tea Party/libertarian movements in that their candidacies will be palatable to traditional Republicans and the newer movements.
Palin's advantage in a general election is that she will attract "history" voters in the way Obama did in 2008. A lot of folks have no problem with a woman in the White House and will support one to be a part of history.
Once these two heavyweights jump into the fray, I predict that they will dominate the show. Both have experience and enough media savvy to hold off on their official announcements. I would say that at the end of the day, we will see Palin as nominee and Perry as the running mate.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll: What Does This Mean?
For the second year in a row, Ron Paul has taken CPAC's presidential straw poll. Is this a statement on the state of the conservative movement? Does this mean anything for Representative Paul?
Probably not. CPAC is a gigantic gathering of conservatives and libertarians that takes place every year. It attracts the most dedicated, but has in recent years been struggling to find its identity. Its economic conservatives and libertarians want it to go one direction and social conservatives prefer it would go another.
Poll results went as follows:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul: 30 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: 23 percent
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson: 6 percent
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: 5 percent
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty: 4 percent
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann: 4 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels: 4 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: 3 percent
Former talk show host Herman Cain: 2 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum: 2 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune: 2 percent
U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman: 1 percent
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour: 1 percent
Others: 5 percent
This list of names is definitely not exhaustive of those who can, or might contend for the presidency in 2012. Governors Jindal, Perry, and Perdue of Louisiana, Texas, and Georgia could still emerge. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is also stronger than his 1% might indicate.
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both heads of different organizations that send their supporters to CPAC, so they naturally will vote for their patrons and heroes. However, Romney is persona non gratis to much of the conservative movement for his support of government health care. Ron Paul's ideas on economics and domestic policy have gained favor. Most conservatives would not argue that the Federal Reserve needs greater oversight. Support for the gold standard has also picked up recently. However, his rigid stance on foreign intervention keeps him on the outside for a conservative movement that cherishes the liberator of Grenada. His son, recently elected in Kentucky, has emerged as a much more moderate voice on this subject. Eventually Rand Paul could make a much better libertarian Republican presidential hopeful after some seasoning.
In the next election, a Southern governor will probably step up and break from the pack. Perdue might be held back by the fact that Georgia's economy is currently much less than peachy. Jindal, however, has stood up to Obama. Rick Perry is perceived as soft on immigration, but has battled the EPA and the Department of Education. The economy of his Texas has outperformed most states. Economics and states' rights should be at the forefront in 2012, helping active and successful governors to potentially launch strong challenges for the nomination. Sarah Palin remains in any discussion, but the governors who stayed at the helm will always have an advantage over her.
In essence, CPAC's poll represents the different factions that are diehard enough to travel to Washington and spend money to have a great time and socialize with other up and coming conservatives. However, it is not accurate to see them as a true bellcow for the movement.
Probably not. CPAC is a gigantic gathering of conservatives and libertarians that takes place every year. It attracts the most dedicated, but has in recent years been struggling to find its identity. Its economic conservatives and libertarians want it to go one direction and social conservatives prefer it would go another.
Poll results went as follows:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul: 30 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: 23 percent
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson: 6 percent
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: 5 percent
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty: 4 percent
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann: 4 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels: 4 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: 3 percent
Former talk show host Herman Cain: 2 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum: 2 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune: 2 percent
U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman: 1 percent
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour: 1 percent
Others: 5 percent
This list of names is definitely not exhaustive of those who can, or might contend for the presidency in 2012. Governors Jindal, Perry, and Perdue of Louisiana, Texas, and Georgia could still emerge. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is also stronger than his 1% might indicate.
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both heads of different organizations that send their supporters to CPAC, so they naturally will vote for their patrons and heroes. However, Romney is persona non gratis to much of the conservative movement for his support of government health care. Ron Paul's ideas on economics and domestic policy have gained favor. Most conservatives would not argue that the Federal Reserve needs greater oversight. Support for the gold standard has also picked up recently. However, his rigid stance on foreign intervention keeps him on the outside for a conservative movement that cherishes the liberator of Grenada. His son, recently elected in Kentucky, has emerged as a much more moderate voice on this subject. Eventually Rand Paul could make a much better libertarian Republican presidential hopeful after some seasoning.
In the next election, a Southern governor will probably step up and break from the pack. Perdue might be held back by the fact that Georgia's economy is currently much less than peachy. Jindal, however, has stood up to Obama. Rick Perry is perceived as soft on immigration, but has battled the EPA and the Department of Education. The economy of his Texas has outperformed most states. Economics and states' rights should be at the forefront in 2012, helping active and successful governors to potentially launch strong challenges for the nomination. Sarah Palin remains in any discussion, but the governors who stayed at the helm will always have an advantage over her.
In essence, CPAC's poll represents the different factions that are diehard enough to travel to Washington and spend money to have a great time and socialize with other up and coming conservatives. However, it is not accurate to see them as a true bellcow for the movement.
Monday, January 17, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)