In some ways, the first two states in the 2012 contest for the GOP nod for President have created more confusion and indecision than they have clarity. The problem is that Iowa is not a bellwether indicator of Republican preferences nationally and New Hampshire is even less so. Iowa is a bit of a conundrum because it is an atypical Midwestern state. It regularly re-elects far left Senator Tom Harkin and elects an odd assortment of Republicans and Democrats to state and federal office. While other heart of America states like Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Indiana have a core conservative base, Iowa is schizophrenic at best. Yes, you probably heard much about the evangelical voters in Iowa who propelled an underfunded Rick Santorum to a tie with Mitt Romney. But in fact, Iowa has a sizable RINO block of Republican voters. All this is compounded by the fact that the caucus process is cumbersome and unreliable in predicting who the leading Republican choice for President should be.
situation is New Hampshire is even worse. While the Republican Party
is a private organization that puts forth candidates for public offices
across the nation, New Hampshire allows independents to vote in the
Republican primary. What a mess. This sloppy system allows folks who
will never vote for your candidate for President in the general election
to choose who your nominee will be. Years ago New Hampshire was far
more representative of the Republican Party, but today the voting
constituency of New Hampshire looks a lot more like Massachusetts than
the New Hampshire of old. Thankfully it has been a long time since the
New England Eastern Establishment of the GOP has had the power to choose
the Republican nominee for President.
in recent years this minority bloc of the GOP has once again picked
RINO losers in the tradition of Tom Dewey—men like the 2008 nominee,
John McCain. Who are these candidates? They stand to the farthest left
in the GOP (admittedly much farther to the center than the far left
crazies of the Democratic Party). They are also the folks who are the
most likely to lose. Why vote for an imitation liberal when you can
have the genuine thing?
All of which brings
us to Mitt Romney. Don’t get me wrong. Mitt Romney is far, far
different than the man in the White House. He is proud to be an
American, he loves and reveres his nation, he generally believes in free
markets, he believes in traditional moral values, and he honors the
legacy of the Founders. But the problems with a Mitt Romney candidacy
Would he be better than the
current incumbent of the White House? Of course he would, but that’s a
pretty low standard. A better question is would he be more like Ronald
Reagan or more like George Bush ’41? That’s the real question. Being a
President of Ronald Reagan’s caliber is a very high standard. No one
can really claim that mantle, and just saying you are a Reagan
Republican does not make it so.
once said, “Ronald Reagan could have governed from a closet.” What does
that mean? It means that in spite of the power of the White House, the
isolation of the Presidency is so great that if you do not have a firm
understanding of foundational free society values you can be swayed by
the last articulate advisor that speaks with you. This was the failing
of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush (’41). Smart men
all, these men were less than stellar Presidents and all left office
with the tail between their legs. The one common failing of Dewey,
Nixon, Ford, Bush ’41, Bush ‘43, John McCain and Mitt Romney is that
they do not have the coherent philosophy of government that was shared
by the Founders and by Ronald Reagan. It is this philosophy that
enabled the founders and Ronald Reagan to do great things.
is this philosophy? It begins with an understanding of the frailty of
the human spirit, an appreciation that if not constrained, man will
always devolve into self-interest that will limit the freedom of
the citizens of the United States. Or as Lord Acton said, “Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In essence all great
American leaders have understood the tendency of human nature to
personal corruption. Because they understood this truth, all great
American leaders have feared the centralization of power in the federal
government which left unchecked always leads to tyranny. There are no
exceptions in history. And as long as humans exist, there will be no
But so-called "moderate"
Republicans did not and do not have this understanding. Republicans like
Nixon, Ford, Bush ’41, Bush ’43, John McCain and Mitt Romney can be
persuaded to move toward more government power in the lives of American
citizens. They design and support legislation like Romneycare and
praise Obamacare. They raise taxes without understanding that any tax
increase is a decrease in individual freedom for American citizens.
They provide support for continuing failing institutions like Social
Security and Medicare instead of replacing them with more effective,
more just, and more sound free market solutions. After all, it was
Dwight Eisenhower who created the forerunner to the Health and Human
Services Department. It was Nixon who created the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Consumer Protection Agency. It was George
Bush ’41 who approved the zero wetlands bill, raised taxes, and signed
the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. And they did it all with
the intent and belief that they were doing good.
doing good has to do with limiting the power of government over the
lives of its citizens. It has to do with ensuring the freedom of the
American people by adhering to a government of laws and by providing for
a defense that protects US citizens from foreign enemies. Freedom is
such a priceless treasure that it can never take second place to any
other perceived “good.”
On a practical side,
liberal Republicans are losers. Dewey was a loser. Nixon lost to
Kennedy. Ford lost to Carter. Bush ’41 lost to Clinton. McCain lost
to Obama. As it says in 1 Corinthians 14:8 “…if the trumpet doesn't
sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?” That’s the
problem. A RINO Republican cannot sound a clear call to battle or even
to fight the right battle if he does not understand the battle plan or
the enemy of freedom. And any candidate that does not sound a clear
call will be defeated. On March 1, 1975 Ronald Reagan spoke to the
annual CPAC Conference in Washington, DC. He said, following the defeat
of Gerald Ford…
“I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed
into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party” - when what
they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between
ourselves and our opponents.
Our people look for a cause to believe in. [We must raise] a banner of no
pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we
stand on all of the issues troubling the people.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest
provider for the people.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government's
coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the
ownership of our industrial machine.
It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view. And if
there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go
Five years later Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.
That needs to be said again…
Five years later Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.
we learned nothing? Principled conservative candidates with clear
views and who hold foundational principles succeed and are victorious.
who wander from left to right, sometimes supporting socialist programs
like Romneycare and other times espousing freedom in the marketplace
lose. They lose because they do not sound a clear trumpet, and when
they do not they confuse and diminish the ardor of the troops that are
needed to win the battle.
Yes, Mitt Romney
would be far, far better than the current occupant of the White House,
but if elected in spite of his confusing and sometimes conflicting
positions, he will be a disappointment. Worse yet, you and I will have
squandered a wonderful opportunity to shrink government and expand
personal freedom. We may save our nation from bankruptcy and from the
great depression into which President Barack Obama is surely leading us,
but we will not have made any advancement toward expanding freedom for
this and future generations. We may dodge a bullet, but we will have
missed the opportunity to expose socialism as the fraud it is.
And on the political front, we will miss an opportunity for a Reagan-like sweep and substitute for it a slim political victory.
right now the Republican nomination is still up for grabs. Romney and
Santorum tied in Iowa and not surprisingly Romney handily won
Massachusetts II (New Hampshire), but bigger and more reliable tests lie
ahead. In no poll or contest, statewide or nationwide, has Mitt Romney
topped 40%. It is fair to say that 60% of Republicans do not want Mitt
Romney as their standard bearer in 2012. They want a true, consistent
conservative with an understanding of foundational limited government
It’s not going to be Ron Paul.
That’s a fact regardless of your passion for Ron Paul. It’s not going
to be Huntsman. Who will it be?
nomination hangs by a thread. If and only if he can convince Republican
primary voters that he is the inevitable nominee can he win the
nomination. That’s why there is so much ballyhoo from the news media
and from the RINO republicans that he is now the “presumptive nominee.”
It’s simply not true.
the only chance the 60% Republican majority has of selecting their
candidate is for the choices to narrow rather quickly. Gingrich and
Perry need to quit attacking Romney from the left, complaining about
Bain Capital and how some folks fail in a free market. The freedom to
succeed and the freedom to fail are critical to maintaining the power
and purpose of an economic system that has created the most effective
wealth generating system in the history of the world. It is the free
enterprise system that is the envy of the world. It is a system that
puts financial success within the reach of every American and has
provided prosperity on a scale and to more citizens than any other
system ever tried by man. It is the fairest, most free, and most just
economic system ever devised. So knock it off Gingrich. Knock it off,
Sound a clear trumpet. Rick Santorum
needs to remind people that he never supported any form of Romneycare
or Obamacare. He needs to remind voters that while Mitt Romney
supported the TARP bail out, he opposed it. He needs to sound a clear
trumpet of conservative principles.
the candidate will come out of the primary process, perhaps not.
Personally, I prefer a candidate selected via state conventions, not
primaries in which those outside the Republican Party can participate. I
want the nominee to be the choice of rank and file, committed
Republicans, not of the news media or of independent voters.
want a winner like Ronald Reagan. A man of principles. Please, no
more loser Republicans like Dewey, Nixon, Ford, Bush ’41, McCain or
Romney. I’ll support Mitt, but sadly, knowing that it will be an