Shamelessly begging Rubio to run. Why shouldn’t we?

The other night on Red Eye (my occasional guilty pleasure), during a discussion about whether or not Chris Christie would get into the presidential race, someone asked a question to the effect of,  "Who else is there?" Host Greg Gutfeld threw out (as sort of an afterthought), "Marco Rubio?" There was a pause in the banter and then everyone moved on.


I nodded my head in agreement and then I thought, "Why can't we, as conservatives, shamelessly beg a candidate to run?" If the RINOs and GOP establishment can drool all over themselves over Chris Christie and turn Christie Watch 2011 into a 24-hour Reality TV event, why shouldn't we do the same and demand a candidate that we really want?


While I realize that some are happy with the slate of Republican candidates, many are not. I am not.  Romney has never governed as a conservative and he has a long history of championing causes better aligned with the Democratic Party. Johnson and Paul are Libertarians and belong in that party, not the GOP. I'm very concerned that Perry cannot recover and regain the turf he lost in recent debates. I'm even more concerned that he is not up to the rhetorical challenges of a modern-day campaign. Cain's lack of a clear foreign policy nearly disqualifies him in my mind (although ABO still applies). Bachmann has had serious, almost unrecoverable gaffes in recent weeks and everyone tells me that Santorum will not be the nominee.


Which leaves our party and the conservative movement longing for...someone else.  We need someone who is both an ideological conservative and who can beat Obama. In other words, someone who can effectively articulate conservatism - and mean it.  At the same time, the nominee must have some crossover appeal and be a magnet for money.


Nearly every conservative I know thinks Marco Rubio (R-FL) could be that candidate - but not this time around. It's too soon for him to peak. I disagree about the time frame. First, we don't have time to wait around while either Obama or a RINO plunges our country toward the abyss. Yes,  Rubio is young; he hasn't paid his dues by becoming an entrenched 20-year Patriarch of the Senate. But who really wants that? If Rubio hunkers down in the senate for 8 years before running for president, one of two things will happen. He will either become the kind of crony establishment Republican we all despise, or he will hold to his conservative values and be marginalized by his colleagues in the senate and the GOP leadership. Neither of those scenarios is a path to the 2020 presidential nomination. (Will we even have a country in 2020?)


Yesterday I re-watched Sen. Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library (see below). I was inspired all over again and had a big lump in my throat. (I'm not generally a lumpy throat kind of gal). His defense of the free-enterprise system and American exceptionalism draw such a sharp contrast to Obama's mantra that the men seem to belong to a different species altogether. Rubio's story of his Cuban exile parents and grandparents is the polar opposite of Obama's immigrant family story. While Obama and his family found reasons to blame and disparage America, Rubio's family was in awe of the opportunity here and taught their children to work hard out of gratitude for the blessings of liberty.




In addition to (obviously) being able to appeal to Hispanic voters, Rubio is uniquely positionedto be the game-changer in the Social Security debate. Here's what he said at the Reagan Library:

"Now, I personally believe that you cannot make changes to these programs for the people that are currently in them right now. My mother just – well she gets mad when I say this. She is in her eighth decade of life and she is on both of these programs. I can’t ask my mom to go out and get another job. She paid into the system. But the truth is that Social Security and Medicare, as important as they are, cannot look for me how they look for her. 

"My generation must fully accept, the sooner the better, that if we want there to be a Social Security and a Medicare when we retire, and if we want America as we know it to continue when we retire, then we must accept and begin to make changes to those programs now, for us... 

"...These changes will not be easy....It will be hard. It will actually really call upon a specific generation of Americans, those of us, like myself, decades away from retirement, to assume certain realities -– that we will continue to pay into and fund for a system that we will never fully access -– that we are prepared to do whatever it takes in our lives and in our generation so that our parents and grandparents can enjoy the fruits of their labor and so that our children and our grandchildren can inherit the fullness of America’s promise. 

"But you see, every generation of Americans has been called to do their part to ensure that the American promise continues. We’re not alone; we’re not unique; we’re not the only ones. In fact, I would argue to you that we have it pretty good.
"And yet I think it’s fully appropriate that those of us raised in Ronald Reagan’s America are actually the ones who are being asked to stand up and respond to the issues of the day. For we, perhaps better than any other people who have ever lived in this nation, should understand how special and unique America truly is."

Rubio, who was in 4th grade when Reagan became president, can make the argument that he will leave Social Security untouched for his mother, but will call on his generation to "take one for the country." It's a tantalizing, iconic image and perhaps the only way we win this debate and reform these programs.  Seniors will go for it and young people will as well, because (not to be cynical or anything...) it won't make a hill of beans of difference in their lives right now other than to make them feel good about helping their country.


Rubio has also proven that he's able to appeal to a wide variety of voters. He trounced both Charlie Crist (RINO-turned-I) and Democrat Kendrick Meek in the 3-way Senate race in 2010, receiving nearly half of the votes cast in the swing-state election.
Rubio raised $24 million for that race and has $500K remaining. If he were to jump in the race tomorrow, I suspect the big spenders who have been holding back would begin throwing money at him.


He's been on the national scene for the last two years and is at the top of his game. He has a national following including 245,000 Facebook fans and 50,000 Twitter followers. Impressive numbers for a U.S senator. Just for the sake of comparison, my senator, Rob Portman (R-OH) has 27,000/8,000 Facebook/Twitter followers respectively.


One other factoid/trend I'd like to throw out: If 2008 showed us anything, it demonstrated that the country has no appetite (shallow that it may be) for candidates who are grumpy old men. As many have noted, part of Herman Cain's appeal is his positive attitude and outlook.  In 2010, in addition to young, earnest enthusiastic Senator Rubio, we found conservatives like Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem, and Rand Paul are the new face of the GOP, replacing the overweight white guy with big hair.


In Ohio, a 32-year old Iraq war veteran and state representative ran for State Treasurer. In a stunner, Josh Mandel beat the incumbent and raked in 2 million votes, making him the top vote-getter in the entire state. Governor John Kasich only pulled in 1.8 million votes. What State Treasurer does that?


My point is that this is the conservative trend in the country. People will put their money and efforts behind an ideological conservative with a solid record, even if the record is not that long. In Ohio, it's possible Mandel will be our next Senator. He will likely challenge Sherrod Brown and he will likely win. Mandel has already raise over $2 million and hasn't even officially announced he's running.


After my Red Eye revelation, I decided to write this diary, thinking there were probably others who felt the same way. I started writing it Wednesday night, but put it aside and went to bed. I flipped on the radio early Thursday afternoon to Rush asking essentially the same question. Why shouldn't Rubio run? He said, "Rubio would walk away with the election." He would "win in a walkover."  Heh. If nothing, Rubio getting in the race would make Karl Rove, et al curl up in the fetal position and suck their thumbs.


If you haven't watched Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library, take a look (and reminisce about some of Reagan's great speeches). Rubio strikes the same chords. Transcript here.

Announcement: New GOP slogan for 2012

Not that anyone asked, but I have come up with a slogan for the GOP that will help them win big in 2012:

The Audacity of Liberty

It's the perfect antithesis to Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope, or more appropriately, The Audacity of Hopey Changey. From Obama's book we get this twaddle:

"For in the end, laws are just words on a page- words that are sometimes malleable, opaque, as dependent on context and trust as they are in a story or poem or promise to someone, words whose meanings are subject to erosion, sometimes collapsing in the blink of an eye" (p. 92) 

Doesn't that just give you a thrill up your leg and inspire you?  To our president, the law means what he says it means. It's malleable, and typical of postmodern thought, we can't really know what it means with certainty. 


I consulted the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary of the English Language and found the following definition for "audacity":

"Boldness, sometimes in a good sense; daring spirit, resolution or confidence."

And the definition of "hope":

"A desire of some good, accompanied with at least a slight expectation of obtaining it, or a belief that it is obtainable."

Doesn't that essentially describe the Obama presidency in a nutshell?  A bold, daring confidence with a slight expectation that some good will come out of all of this. 


I don't know about you, but I'm a little underwhelmed by "The Audacity of Hope."

Now add that daring and boldness to the concept of "liberty" defined in the 1828 dictionary:

"Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government."

"Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty."

Our country's Founding Fathers gave us a bold, daring experiment in self-government -  a view of  liberty that only reluctantly imposed laws upon its citizens, who were born with natural, unalienable rights. 


John Adams described it this way:

"All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness" (The Political Writings of John Adams).

Over a hundred years ago, Frederic Bastiat, a French statesman said,

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place" (The Law)."

Because of this common understanding of Natural Law, many people were wary of the Constitution at first, fearing it would create a powerful ruling class.  Madison, in Federalist 46 reminded them that the Constitution explicitly granted the power to the people:

"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone."

 President Obama swings so far to the left of the Founders and their contemporaries in Audacity of Hope that they would not recognize him as an American president:

"According to [Justice Breyer's] view, the Founding Fathers and original ratifiers have told us how to think but are no longer around to tell us what to think. We are on our own, and have only our own reason and our judgment to rely on....

"...As we read these documents, they seem so incredibly right that it’s easy to believe they are the result of natural law if not divine inspiration. So I appreciate the temptation on the part of Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed and unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation, and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow. Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. How could it be otherwise?" (Audacity of Hope, p. 90).

Obama rejects out of hand the collective wisdom of the Founders, who provided the framework for a very limited federal government, and the means by which the people can change it - the amendment process. This process, by design, is difficult, cumbersome, and rare.  Instead, he and other liberal progressives depend on activist judges and the Administrative State behemoth to impose their will upon the American people.  


That's why we need "Audacity of Liberty." A bold, daring return to freedom and self-government. 

Mitt Romney - GOP's Global Warming Candidate

The Huffington Post reports:

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire. “It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

"I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing."

And he's supposed to be the smart one - the so-called "technocrat" in the race?  "I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read...."  is a prelude to all sorts of nefarious oppressive government intervention.


And don't think this is merely academic posturing.  Romney thinks it needs to be legislated.

On the campaign trail in 2007,  Romney stated the importance of reducing greenhouse gases:

“We’re going to get ourselves off of foreign oil,” he said. “And to do that it’s going to take nuclear power, clean coal, more efficient vehicles, and then we’re going to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gases.” 

He also initially supported and agreement among Northeast states that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Business leaders and energy companies warned that it would raise energy prices, but Romney was undeterred:

“This is a great thing for the Commonwealth. We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs.”

Eventually, he reversed course and didn't sign on to the agreement, but it's clear that he considers global warming a threat that needs the attention of the government.  

In his book, No Apology,  he suggests a compromise of sorts with a carbon tax swap scheme whereby businesses would be taxed on their carbon output but in return, receive tax credits in other areas, such as capital gains or payroll taxes. 


This is better than outright cap and tax, but in essence, it's a total capitulation to the environmental extremists who insists the earth is getting warmer and humans are causing it.   With support for this point of view quickly eroding, the GOP has no reason to agree to -and push for - higher taxes on businesses and energy in the name of global warming religion.  


Prediction:  Romney is going to squirm and wiggle and obfuscate on this issue.  This position will fly in New Hampshire, just as ethanol subsidies will fly in Iowa, but in the rest of GOP primary country, this is a dead weight around his ankles.  Being a global warming alarmist is not going to excite the masses in Iowa and S. Carolina, so he will need to moderate, again showing his willingness to flip-flop and be a political pragmatist.  Not cool.  

Obama or Huntsman quote? Take the quiz.

Quiz time, kids.   Below is a series of quotes on various issues.  Each set has a quote from former Utah Governor/former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman and one from President Obama.  See if you can figure out who the Progressive is.  Answers below. 


1.    "I had many discussions...with many legal experts who informed me that individual rights, equal rights, could be taken up to the level of civil unions without compromising traditional marriage, which is something I believe in. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but I also believe that we can do a better job in enhancing equal rights for more of our citizens... It may need to be clarified, over time, by way of the courts, but I think there was a pretty broad level of interpretation from the beginning that certain areas equating in enhanced equal rights would be allowed under [the Marriage Amendment]..."  


2.    "I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex... "

3.    "But in order to get to the heart and soul of carbon emission, which is a problem, because it leads to polluted skies and air quality problems and climate change, we must put a value on carbon. Until we put a value on carbon, we've never going to be able to get serious with dealing with climate change longer term. Now, putting a value on carbon either suggests that you go to a carbon tax or you get a cap-and-trade system under way...[we will] develop a comprehensive energy program ... which will include issues of affordability, issues of energy independence, and issues of sustainability. And when I speak of sustainability, I talk about ultimately a cap-and-trade system."

4.   "The market will set the price, but unlike the other cap-and-trade proposals that have been offered in this race, no business will be allowed to emit any greenhouses gases for free. Businesses don't own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution."  


5.    "...I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith. That doesn't make faith any less important than science. It just means they're two different things. And I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry."  


6.    “Public schools are largely secular institutions. I would expect my kids in science class to be instructed in those things that are somewhat quantifiable and based on thorough and rigorous empirical research.” “If it comes up in sociology or philosophy as differing views on creation, I think that's appropriate, ... But that doesn't happen until college or maybe later in high school.”  

7.    “First and foremost I want to make sure people are taken care of. We'll find the money to cover them; I want to make sure they're taken care of.”  "I mentioned yesterday to somebody asking a question that I wouldn't shy away from mandates. I think if you're going to get it done and get it done right, mandate has to be part of it in some way, shape, or form whether it's the college age population or whether it's something beyond, it's got to be a serious attempt, and I'm not sure you get to the point of serious attempt without some sort of mandate associated with what you're trying to do.  Certainly a market-based approach is part of the solution as well. We forget that. If a tax credit is something that the federal government ultimately works out, then you've got some market solutions tossed in and nobody likes the word mandate, but without that kind of insistence--that directness, I don't know that you can achieve something this challenging in a short period of time, which is what I think we need to do as a nation." 

8.    “If we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable. If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it. While I believe that employers have a responsibility to support health insurance for their employees, small businesses face a number of special challenges in affording health benefits and should be exempted.  I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest.”

9.    “But the situation is such today that I don’t think we have a choice, and before we begin the conversation of processing 11 or 12 million undocumented workers, we’ve got to secure the border. I hate the thought of a fence on the border. I mean, for me, as an American, the thought of a fence to some extent repulses me, because it is not consistent with … the image that we projected from the very beginning to the rest of the world. There’s got to be an alternative rather than sending people back. That’s unrealistic."  "A lot of these kids were either born here or certainly were not in a position in their earlier lives to have any influence over the outcome of their journey. They were brought here. Does that mean we disregard them and we kind of cancel them out from achieving the American dream?" 

10.  "Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job. Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable."  

Scroll down for answers.....

1.  Huntsman Daily Herald

2.  Obama   The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.222-3 

3.  Huntsman   YouTube

4.  Obama   MarketWatch 

5.  Obama  York Daily Record

6.  Huntsman  ThinkExist

7.  Huntsman    ThinkExist    KUED

8.  Obama  NY Times

9.  Huntsman  Salt Lake Tribune    Deseret News

10.  Obama  WSJ

Leave me a comment and let me know how you did.  

Now,  can we please vote this guy off the GOP island right now and send him back to Team Obama where he belongs?  We don't have time for these distractions and RINO's.  


And if you haven't seen it yet, take a look at the clever video, "Not endorsed by Jon Huntsman or anyone in his campaign. Or by Mitt Romney."  

GOP Presidential Debate Winners and Losers

Last night's Fox News GOP Presidential debate had some clear losers, a couple stand-outs and some long stretches of forgettable moments.


Several "big name" (alleged) candidates skipped out on this early S. Carolina debate including Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin (is she or isn't she?), and Mike Huckabee (is he or isn't he?).  Oh, and "The Donald" also didn't make time for the event, reportedly having scheduling conflicts with his reality show, The Celebrity Apprentice.  I don't think these (alleged) candidates did themselves any favors by snubbing the conservative state of S. Carolina, one of the early primary states, and also thumbing their noses at Fox News.  


I liked that the debate moderators for the GOP primary candidates were generally not hostile to the candidates, the GOP, or conservatives in general.  There is no reason for a panel of Republican primary candidates to be grilled by leftist news readers who spend weeks thinking up "gotcha" questions that are designed to make the candidates look foolish rather than enlighten voters about the candidates' views.  


The moderators were Chris Wallace, Shannon Breen,  Juan Williams, and Bret Baier - Breen representing the only estrogen at the event since none of the potential female candidates attended.  While there were a few softball questions and a couple real stinkers, for the most part they were thoughtful questions - the ones GOP primary voters want to know the answers to.    "Debate"  the wrong label for the event.  If was more of a Q & A between the candidates and the moderators.  Chris Wallace treated it as if he were asking questions on his Sunday morning talk show, asking follow-up questions and debating the candidates on their answers. There was very little interaction between the candidates. 


If they really wanted people to watch these things they would have Rush, Beck, and Levin as the moderators.  Can you imagine Mark Levin asking the questions?  "You're an idiot! Shut up! Moron."  


Here are a few of my thoughts about each of the candidates:


Sen. Rick Santorum...
I thought the former PA senator was the best of the bunch tonight and I like him more every time I hear him speak.  He didn't blink when accused of being a social conservative and didn't back away from going after Obama and his bad policies.  In fact, he seemed to be the only one in the group who had the stomach to take a swing at Obama - and swing he did.  He defended his pro-live stand by appealing to the Constitution's guarantee of life and liberty and cited the family as the foundation of a strong society.  

"Rights come from God and the first of which is life and the second of which is liberty.  Those two concepts really transformed the world because it said the government was going to be limited and allow people to be free and to pursue their own dreams and to serve their own God and family and community."  

 He said it forcefully and with conviction.  


In the "lightning round" section he said that he had ousted incumbent Democrats three times in PA and would do it again with Obama.  He was going on the offensive against critics who say he is unelectable because he lost his most recent Senate race (in 2006, a horrible year for Republicans across the country).  It was a clever strategy, I thought.  


Santorum also refused to take the bait when Juan Williams asked him (apparently as the token social conservative) to comment on Newt Gingrich's moral failures.  Santorum took the high road and, perhaps following Reagan's 11th commandment to never speak ill of a fellow-Republican, demurred.  It was  a classy move.


Most pundits and pollsters don't consider Santorum to be a serious contender.  I think that could change if Huckabee and Palin don't get into the race.  I think his social conservatism resonates in places like S. Carolina and Iowa and he could make a good showing there.  He's also been campaigning for quite a long time and is said to have a significant ground game laid out in key states.  I think he could be a dark horse in this race.  


Gov. Tim Pawlenty (T-Paw)...
Meh.  Pawlenty was OK, but didn't excite me. I honestly can't think of one memorable thing he said that was great.  I like the guy and I could probably vote for him, but....meh.  Actually, the biggest issue I had with him tonight was that he came across as a flip-flopper.  He is pro-life but he's for stem-cell research on existing lines from previously destroyed embryos - apparently a change from his previous view.  He was for cap and trade before he was against it. He was against water boarding before he was against it.  


Juan Williams asked the lamest question of the entire evening: "Do you equate the teaching of creationism with the teaching of evolution as the basis for what should be taught in the public schools  Do you personally equate a faith-based theory with scientific inquiry?


Pawlenty completely dodged it by saying it should be left up to the local districts and families and then went back to a previous question about unions and used the rest of his time on that issue.  Williams called him on the dodge and asked him "What do you believe?" Again, he dodged and said it should be left to parents and local schools.  


This is the typical "gotcha" question that liberals like to use to make conservative Christians look foolish in the eyes of liberals and give them sound bites for spooky negative campaign ads. 


It was a no-win question for Pawlenty.  Still,  I have little respect for a dodger.  But shame on Juan Williams for asking that question that has no bearing on a presidential candidate's qualifications to lead the Executive branch.  Let's hope Fox News Patriarch Brit Hume wrote on Juan's Facebook wall tonight that he shouldn't ask such stupid questions. 


Out of all the candidates on the stage, Pawlenty has been leading in the polls.  I have no idea why.


Herman Cain...
On Sean Hannity's post-game show, Frank Luntz had a focus group that thought Cain, who made his fortune with the Godfather's Pizza chain, won the debate.   Cain lost me early on when he declared that he really had no idea what he would do in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He said he needed more information that he wasn't privy to and suggested that he wouldn't be able to make any decisions until he was elected.  It sounded a bit too much like Nancy Pelosi's  infamous "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."  How can we vote for someone with no plan on the wars we're involved in?   I think he's a good man and a solid social and fiscal conservative, but foreign policy? Not so much.


Rep. Ron Paul...
As usual, Ron Paul brought along his groupies who ignored the moderator's rules about not clapping after every response.  At CPAC last February, Paul swarmed the convention with his followers, who received free tickets to attend.  It's how you win straw polls and it's how you make it appear you have the overwhelming support of the audience.  But it's all smoke and mirrors.  Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the GOP nomination.  Zero.  He's in favor of legalized drugs, prostitution and gay marriage and against enhanced interrogation.   He wants to cut aid to Israel, close Gitmo, give the right of habeas corpus to terrorist, and pull out of the wars ASAP.  He's also nearly 80 years old and if you thought John McCain came across as the guy who was most likely to yell, "Hey you kids, get out of my yard!"  you haven't heard Ron Paul. 


After Ron Paul defended legalizing heroine (ostensibly as a 1st amendment right), his groupies roared their approval, to which Chris Wallace said, "I never thought heroine would get applause here in S. Carolina!"  This is the face of a Ron Paul campaign and would be the face of a Ron Paul presidency. 


In an odd moment, moderator Shannon Breen reminded Ron Paul that he was the founder of the Tea Party.  I don't know anyone who believes that. 


Gov. Gary Johnson...
I have no idea how this man was elected governor of New Mexico.  What are they smoking out there?  That's a legitimate question because like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson supports drug legalization and admitted that he illegally smoked post from 2005-2008 (for medicinal purposes, of course).  He's a solid dismantle-the-government libertarian and like Paul, has no chance of winning.   But, he had the Paul-bots in the audience cheering at his liberal policies, so  it made him look more promising than he actually is.  At one point he whined to Chris Wallace: "This is, like,  nine questions for these guys and none for me." Whining is never pretty in a debate. 


In the second lamest question of the night, Bret Baier asked Johnson if he had a reality show, what would it be?  Johnson had no idea, but was sure it wouldn't be climbing up the side of an ice floe like Sarah Palin.  


One trend we seem to be seeing in recent weeks is a deep distrust of "politicians" and a desire for a candidate who is outside the "establishment."  That's one reason for Trump's otherwise inexplicable rise in popularity and a reason Frank Lunz's focus group loved Herman Cain, who has never won an election or held public office.  Unfortunately, I don't think either Cain or Trump has a chance of winning the nomination, let alone the general election against President Obama.   That leaves us with a slate of candidates who are perceived as "establishment" and will have a difficult time shedding that mantle.  

Is there anyone out there who can energize the Republican party and get it out of this rut or will we end up with another John McCain?  Ideally, with the anti-establishment mood of the country, it would be a Tea Party candidate.  Many have suggested Florida Congressman Marco Rubio, but he has said repeatedly that he will not be on the ticket this time around.  The same with Chris Christie (who is not necessarily the conservative people think he is).  


If I had to pick someone today, I would choose Rep. Allen West, the freshman Congressman and Tea Party candidate from Florida.   When asked last week if he would run as Trump's VP, he didn't completely rule it out, so that's a start - he just needs to Dump Trump from his ticket. 


More important, he is charismatic, straight-talking, and fearless.  He's a 22-year Army Lt. Col. and a student of U.S. and world history.  In a debate, he would have Obama curled up in the fetal position sucking his thumb.  He's also a solid fiscal and social conservative.  The first bill he introduced in Congress cut a few billion in waste from the defense budget. He also raised a half million dollars last quarter.  That's no chump change.  He gave the keynote address at this year's CPAC convention and electrified the audience, which was on its feet most of the time.   He gave a beautiful speech for the National Day of Prayer yesterday.   And it's not one of those namby pampy "pray to the God of your choosing" prayers either!  


Most "experts" will remind us that we don't elect presidents from the House, and historically, that's true.  However, we must remember that we also don't elect black presidents.  We live in unique times and we are a people crying out for a new kind of candidate and leader - one who listens to and understands the heartbeat of "We the People."  Maybe it won't be Allen West, but it need to be AN Allen West - a person of conviction, character, and charisma who can energize and inspire the American people, beginning with the GOP. 

Ohio's Conservative Coalition

OH conservatives urge Mandel to run for senate - msnbc.com: 

"On Wednesday, a coalition of Ohio conservative leaders announced their hopes to draft Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel to run for U.S. Senate in 2012 against current Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.

In addition to Mandel, other names that are being considered by Republicans for the race include Congressman Jim Jordan, Lt. Governor Mary Taylor and former State Representative Seth Morgan. The conservative group said they are looking for “individuals of strong character, conservative principles, and ability to successfully challenge Sherrod Brown.”

I received a press release yesterday from "Friends of Seth Morgan" which names the members of the nameless "Statewide Coalition of Conservative Leaders."  Or is that the name?  If it is, they need a better one.  The following names are listed in the press release:

Chris Littleton, President & Co-Founder, Ohio Liberty Council 
Rob Scott, President & founder of the Dayton Tea Party (Dayton, Ohio)
Phil and Rebecca Heimlich
Lori Viars, Warren County Republican Party Board of Directors
Phil Burress, President of Citizens for Community Values Action
Linda Theis, former President of Ohio Right to Life
Bobbi Radeck, State Director of Concerned Women for America Ohio
John and Diane Stover, leader of North East Ohio Value Voters
Steve Christopher, former Republican candidate for Ohio Attorney General and tea party activist
Jim and Lisa Woods, founders of Medina County Friends and Neighbors and Northeast Ohio Conservative Council
Glenn Newman, founder of Marietta 912 and Board Member of the Ohio Liberty Council
Jack Boyle, President of Citizens United to End Ohio's Estate Tax and former Ohio State Director for American's for Prosperity
Mike Wilson, President, Cincinnati Tea Party
Janet (Folger) Porter, President, Faith 2 Action

It's interesting that Seth Morgan, who seems to be the spokesman for the group, is listed both as one of the potential candidates and as a member of the coalition.  


The article also notes that former state senator Kevin Coughlin is testing the waters:

"I've had a few conservative organizations approach me about making a run against Sherrod Brown. Though I'm not leaning toward or against it, I owe it to myself and my supporters to give it careful consideration. I have been meeting with party and opinion leaders around the state and in Washington, racking up mileage and securing commitments from contributors."

Coughlin also made a half-hearted attempt to get into the gubernatorial primary last time around, but backed out when it became clear he would be no match for Kasich.  


Is this early move to identify a conservative candidate an indication that the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) establishment is leaning toward Coughlin or another recycled establishment candidate?  It wouldn't be the first time the ORP chose and promoted a candidate well before a primary. 

Mandel, for his part, has demurred, saying that he is focused on his job as state treasurer.  It's no secret that, much like the U.S. Congress, there has been a struggle in Ohio in recent years between the GOP "establishment" and those who want to see a Republican party that is more transparent and more about "We the People" than "We the Party." 


The names listed above represent grassroots activists from across the state as well as individuals (Morgan, Christopher) who were edged (some would say shoved)  out of this past election by party establishment candidates (and the ORP). 


Clearly, though the election is still nearly two years away, a lot is going on behind the scenes. This move signals that the independent conservative movement (fiscal and social) is alive and well in Ohio and fully intends to have a voice in the 2012 election. 


And that's a good thing.