I recently said that I was looking very strongly at Fred Thompson. There's a lot to like about Fred. His positions are outstanding. But as much as I admire a person's words, it comes down to the ability to execute, and I have to say that Mitt trounces Fred big time in ability to execute. Runs rings around the guy without even breaking a sweat.
So after much consideration, I'm firmly with Mitt. I think regardless of what happens, he'll go the distance and execute well. Now that he has Tancredo's stamp of approval, Mitt has gained more oomph against Huckabee's love of illegal immigrants. I expect Tancredo to campaign hard in support of Romney. Tancredo hates Huckabee's stance on immigration and will fight to make sure he loses.
(By the way, I appreciate Huckabee in the sense that the competition will make Mitt stronger. That said, I also expect that Huckabee believes he has been destinied for the presidency by God, so I expect his deep consideration for a third-party run if he doesn't get the Republican nod. More on that in bit...)
I might be wrong, but here's how my prediction for the Iowa caucus on January 3rd shakes out:
Obama and Romney finish first in very tight races. Clinton and Huckabee finish second. Edwards and Thompson finish third.
I almost put Paul finishing third, but while his support is stratospheric in terms of passion, he just doesn't generate broad appeal. So serve him up as a wildcard for the night, but no higher than third.
In New Hampshire's primaries, I expect Romney to hold the lead and eke out a win. His organization will prove better and churn out the turnout. McCain will finish second. Huckabee will finish third.
Democrats in New Hampshire? It's a toss-up for Clinton and Obama, with John Edwards a distant third.
South Carolina gets interesting, and harder to predict. But if I'm right in these first two early states, I expect a lot of fallout happening for the third tier candidates, and this is where we see Duncan Hunter fall out and support Romney. Giuliani will be rumored to be considering throwing his support to someone, but will say it isn't so quite yet. He'll end up supporting Romney or McCain after not winning one state primary. Huckabee's support will fade a bit, but he'll still win South Carolina. Romney in a strong second. McCain in third. McCain will then fall out and support Romney.
Democrats in South Carolina: Chris Dodd falls out and endorses Clinton. Joe Biden falls out and endorses Clinton. Bill Richardson falls out and endorses Clinton, and Hillary wins South Carolina easily. Obama second. Edwards third. Hillary gets her mantle of "inevitability" back.
Ultimately, it's going to come down to the best organization on the ground. This is where Romney has an edge. If Thompson had the organization, he'd have a chance, but it just isn't there - he never executed to achieve one. McCain doesn't have a strong organization anywhere. Giuliani either...
And while Clinton has an edge here with organization, Obama will give her a run for her money, but lose when it's all said and done.
The Christian Right will court the hell out of Huckabee to run third party because they hate Romney's faith. Here's where we measure Huck's ego. And this is where Huckabee negotiates hard with Romney behind the scenes. I have no idea how that will turn out, but I think at least 50% of the Christian Right vote to follow Huckabee, wherever that leads, be it third party or backing Romney.
I expect Romney to choose Sarah Palin for VP, a very successful evangelical Christian who is also the very conservative governor of Alaska. That will cement his conservative credentials, bring a strong woman to his team, and help heal any rift with evangelical Christians.
And I expect that Bill Clinton will overpower Hillary as he increases his desire to win her the election. He's starting it now. That machismo, on his part, will lose her the election. Doesn't really matter who her VP is. Bill is the co-president and can't help but drive from the back seat of the bus, no matter how far back you put him.
And that will be that. President Romney and Vice-President Palin, our first woman vice-president.
Of course, I could be completely full of it. But this is my last post about politics until the general election starts, so I thought I would put all of my thoughts out there.
America is a unique country, with wide open passions and concerns among its electorate. We have everyone from the "corporations are evil and greedy" crowd to the "business creates jobs and prosperity" crowd. We have the "separation of church and state" crowd to the "morals and God/Allah-fearing leader" crowd. We have folks who believe that "government can solve problems" to those who "revile and distrust anything that stems from government." "Consitutionalists" vs. "living document." Guns will protect me and mine vs. guns kill innocents. Tax the rich vs. no taxes. And so on...
Everybody has a pet issue or three.
In the course of it all, it's inconceivable to some that "the other side" can arrive at the conclusions and the decisions that they do.
Ah democracy, this great soup of every pathos known to man. In that soup, there is power in numbers.
Unions kicked that into high gear back in the 19th century. Unions found safety in numbers. Collectively, they made the business owner bow to the will of the workers. Chutzpah!
Today, we have self-aggregating groups: AARP, blacks, Christians, feminists, and so on. Every one has a pet issue or three. People connect with like-minded people and stir up others. Money pours into the cause, marketing springs from it, activity swirls around it. Busy busy busy. The cacophony becomes the white noise of life, and occasionally something catches someone absentmindedly listening and they are found murmuring, "Yeah! Me too!"
The danger in this is that we then look to leaders to guide our actions. To be effective in numbers, we want to be routed in the manner that helps achieve the goal of the group.
Mankind has always looked for safety in numbers. It's not that unions did something new; they just did it to someone who seemed impenetrable: the boss. And they succeeded. Together. Formula!
Seeking out others to help strengthen your voice to create a chorus and volume is not a bad idea. But I think it's human nature to take it further than is responsible to go. We abandon our individual identity in the wash of those with whom we stand. We are then tarnished by the company we keep. We become individually weaker at the expense of becoming collectively stronger.
At the suggestion of Annette, I read Atlas Shrugged a while back. In it, Howard Roark says:
It's so easy to run to others. It's so hard to stand on one's own record. You can fake virtue for an audience. You can't fake it in your own eyes. Your ego is the strictest judge. They run from it. They spend their lives running. It's easier to donate a few thousand to charity and think oneself noble than to base self-respect on personal standards of personal achievement. It's simple to seek substitutes for competence - such easy substitutes: love, charm, kindness, charity. But there is no substitute for competence.
That, precisely, is the deadliness of second-handers. They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They're concerned only with people. They don't ask: 'Is this true?' They ask: 'Is this what others think is true?' Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egotists. You don't think through another's brain and you don't work through another's hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. That's the emptiness I couldn't understand in people. That's what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. They've been taught to seek themselves in others. To seek joy in meeting halls. I think the only cardinal evil on earth is that of placing your prime concern with other men.
Unfortunately, to an increasing number of people, if you care - if you really care - you sacrifice yourself to the cause. Self-sacrifice is lauded and necessary. (Cue applause...)
Howard says further:
Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give what has not been created. Creation comes before distribution - or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the suffering of others. But suffering is a diease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer - in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creator has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man's body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceieve.
Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.
Men have been taught the the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge, or act. These are functions of the self.
Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative - and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism - the sacrifice of self to others. This tied men irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that one must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal - under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind.
This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. This is the basic issue.
You don't hear those words much any more... "independence" or "personal responsibility" or "achievement." And the thing is that those who place a lot of weight in those words won't be looking for a cause to join or a leader to guide them. Personally, they don't need that. The tragedy is that such folks are then seen as greedy and uncaring and selfish. That's so high school - jeering the successful. Ayn Rand calls it the "greatest fraud ever perpetuated on mankind," this knee-jerk desire to hold high the victimized and punish the self-sufficient.
My writing of this comes from listening to campaign ads recently. Hillary wanting give out gifts of government. Edwards lambasting greedy corporations and hailing himself as the would-be hero who was "born to this fight." Huckabee rallying Christians to him by hoisting his evangelical banner high overhead, ready to embrace and baptize the world. Obama holds out "Hope" to the people of America in the form of giveaway after giveaway. All of them pandering to be a leader to save us.
Of course, none of these folks have ever created anything that spawned jobs. Instead, each of them leached off the forced and unforced donations of others. That's their recipe for success: champion the victimized.
That's horrifying.
We need a party of the Achievers, those who believe that personal responsibility and independence are the highest public virtues. It would be the "Don't Mess with Me" party, which has the simplistic platform: leave me alone in my personal life and don't let other nations mess with our nation.
I have to say, as I watch the campaigns, I shudder big time.
You know, John F. Kennedy had it wrong in his famous quote.
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
Better rendered, it is:
Ask not what your country can do for you, or what you can do for your country, but what you can do for yourself.
"Rugged Individualism" doesn't represent our nation so much any more as does "Anticipated Dependentism."
That's crap. I'll quote it again because it's said so well:
Creation comes before distribution - or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
That's something that the second-handers - Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Huckabee and all of their devotees - don't fathom at all.
We need the party of the Achiever. Do you know of one? I don't. Because it's neither Republican or Democrat, and unfortunately those who esteem personal responsibility don't have the numbers. I hear hints of promise in the words from Fred Thompson's campaign. I see Mitt Romney's individual executive successes. Other than that... not a drop.
So, the Des Moines Register has issued its endorsements. Big deal. But there is this nugget of self-promotion in the article:
In 2004, the newspaper’s endorsement of John Edwards coincided with his dramatic surge in the state. Edwards, then a North Carolina senator, moved from single digits in an Iowa poll taken in November 2003 to a second-place finish in the state’s 2004 January caucuses.
This year? Clinton, she might get a bump because a few of the few Democrats in Iowa who actually read the Des Moines Register might think that the Register editorial staff is informed enough to help them make a decision. But it won't dent Obama's 9% jump on Hillary.
And no Republican voter looks to the Des Moines Register for advice on voting. The editors at the Register don't get Republicans. Which is why they backed McCain.
After I expressed my support to nominate Mitt Romney, my long-time friend, Kelly, said that he's behind Fred Thomson. I respect Kelly's opinion enough that I wanted to find out more about Fred, so I perused his official web site.
I didn't seriously consider Fred because he appeared to squander a lot of good vibe that he had, and you can't do that when running for president. You can't win without organization, and so he didn't make my list of folks to learn more about.
But aside from Kelly's influential opinion, Fred also gave it to Carolyn Washburn, editor of the local Des Moines Register, at the last debate. Good for him to thump a media priestess. Running for president is not about a show of hands; it's about intelligent considerations, and we the people have a right to hear the substance due the candidates running for president.
So, I'm giving what bit of room I can for Fred's voice to be heard. On his web site, he has a list of "first principles." I'll quote Fred and comment:
Individual Liberty . As Jefferson spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, our basic rights come from God, not from government, and that among these inalienable rights is the right to liberty. We must allow individuals to lead their lives with minimal government interference.
"Minimal government influence..." amen brother! Mucho applause to that.
Personal Responsibility . The corollary to liberty is responsibility. No society can succeed and thrive for any duration unless free people act in a responsible way. All of us must take responsibility for our actions and strive to improve our own lives and to contribute to building a better society.
Oh. My. God. Did Fred just utter the words "personal responsibility" in a presidential campaign? What happened to government giveaways and wealth redistribution and a chicken in every pot? Fred's exactly right - personal responsibility is a corollary to individual liberty. I'm digging Fred's principles, lemme tell ya.
Free Markets . Free people are best equipped to order their own affairs, and the common interest benefits from and is improved by the aggregate success of all. We must reform our tax system, encourage investment, support entrepreneurial spirit, open markets abroad to American goods, and minimize burdensome government regulations to continue to expand the economy and bring increased wealth to all Americans.
Fred, my man - you're hitting it out of the park! He definitely knows what drives business and economy.
Limited Government . Government must be strong enough to protect us, competent enough to provide basic government services, but limited by the delineated powers in the Constitution.
Federalism . Our Constitution innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the three branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. In considering any action by the government, we must always ask two questions: is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform the task and, if so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to do it. Washington is not the seat of all wisdom.
It's starting to feel a bit redundant, although my enthusiasm is not diminished for it.
Protecting our Country . The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect the nation and the American people. There is no more important task. We must have a strong and effective military, capable intelligence services, and a vigorous law enforcement and homeland security capacity.
"No more important task." Yes, exactly... because nothing else American matters if there is no America.
Traditional American Values . A healthy society is predicated on belief in God; respect for all life; strong families centered on the institution of marriage - the union of a man and a woman; and self-respect and tolerance of others. While we are all free to live our lives in the pursuit of our own happiness, the government has a responsibility to respect the right of parents to raise their children and to promote the values that produce the strongest society.
This one is worth delving into a bit.
"A healthy society is predicated on belief in God." Whether you believe in God or not, that's a true statement. Because otherwise, rather than having inalienable rights granted by God, you have alienable rights doled out by the whim of man. Which sounds better to you, o person of faith / agnostic person? If there is no God, then man is the supreme ruler of this world, and what man giveth, man can taketh away.
The Rule of Law . We protect our liberty, secure our rights, and promote a just and stable society through the rule of law. We owe to ourselves and our fellow citizens our own adherence to the rules, but tough law enforcement and punishment for those who do not. A free and independent judiciary that interprets the law by adhering strictly to legal text and respects its limited role in our system of government is essential to our security and freedom, and we need judges who understand that role if we are to preserve our republic and freedom.
Conserving Our Nation’s Resources . Each of us is put on Earth for a limited period of time. We must always strive to ensure that the resources we use to lead our lives are here for future generations to enjoy and use as well.
I don't disagree with these last two, but they need no comment.
(Unfortunately, Fred's web site was written with .NET, and .NET does this really irritating thing where not every page has its own web address, so it's quite hard to link to his white papers and his list of statements on issues because the link doesn't change by clicking on the tabs in the First Principles page. A little persistence through the menu at the top of the page resolves my need for links, however...)
Fred's a good guy, and his stands are very appealing to me. If the guy could show some organizational muster, I'd donate to his campaign and volunteer my help. Will that happen before January 3rd here in Iowa? Let's hope so...
Mike Huckabee is so not a Republican. And that's okay, if he doesn't want to be a Republican, but c'mon. Let's not nominate the religious bigot. Maybe he should run on the Holier-Than-Thou ticket.
ETC: Actually, I might be onto something. Remember when James Dobson threatened to run a 3rd party candidate if Giuliani got nominated? It's almost as if Huckabee is gunning for either the Passion of the Huckabee turnout, or if that fails, he's setting himself up to be the Christian Right's Golden Boy 3rd party candidate.
Either way, he wins. But if he runs as a straight Republican, he can lose.
I wasn't really gung-ho to attend the Iowa Caucus, but after seeing more of Pastor Huckabee's religion-based campaigning and how he will stoop so low, I'm mighty motivated to keep that guy from becoming the nominee.
Want to go with me?
Call the Republican Party of Iowa (515-282-8105) and find your caucus location. If you've read this site much, you know that I've examined the candidates pretty closely. Tamara and I choose, like the editors of National Review:
Mitt Romney
Here's why I personally choose Mitt:
He's an incredibly effective large-enterprise manager. His time as a business executive, his deft salvage of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his work as governor of Massachussettes all demonstrate that.
He embodies much of what I want in a candidate - lean government, strong military, America-loving, optimistic.
He has a very organized campaign, which we saw at the Iowa Straw Poll.
He handles the media well and comes across presidentially.
We'll be there, excited to vote for him. He's a good man, and in our opinion, the right person to be the Republican nominee.
After writing yesterday about Pastor-in-Chief Huckabee, I got to thinking... what role should faith have in presidential politics?
What I came to is this... I know what I don't want. I don't want a president who uses Jesus as his or her barometer for action. Or Muhammad. Or Buddha. Or any of the other folks who cast their eyes heavenward. They lived for a different purpose than politics, and this earthly realm wasn't really their bag.
I know Christianity, so I'll discuss that. And Christians, by the charge of their Lord and Savior, are to live in view of eternity as they live to serve their Lord. Does that really make for a good president?
A president is the Commander-in-Chief of armies. Armies kill people. By design. That's their mission. To wreck things and ruin lives. That's why they carry weapons that sport real - not rubber - bullets.
So imagine you're a Christian. You love Jesus and want to be a good servant for him. As president, you might ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" And that's where you go off the rails into Jimmy Carter-land.
The world is not made of people who want to play nice. On the world stage, the world is made of people who want power. That requires ruthlessness. Our president should not be willing to nationally turn the other cheek, but to diplomatically and ferociously kick your ass if you mess the people of America.
Jesus taught people that it's better to pray in a closet than in the public square. Faith is a private matter. It's between you and God. So anyone who grandstands their faith on the national stage in pursuit of political office begs skepticism from the audience about their intentions with both politics and faith.
I once hopped into an elevator with a guy at a hotel who wore a HUGE cross around his neck. He was a hotel employee.
"That's quite a cross." "Yeah," he smiled. "You're obviously quite devoted." He looked me up and down and then smiled all the wider. "No. See, the thing is," he said as his voice smoothed into a whisper, "chicks love this. This gets me so laid all the time."
At that point, I reached my floor. The bell chimed.
"Seriously?" He nodded with vigor. "Oh yeah."
I stepped out and the elevator doors shut. I've never forgotten that moment.
That's how it feels to me when candidates for office trot out their faith.
I want a ruthless, America-loving, optimistic tightwad running this country. This country, and not heaven, needs to be the citizenship declared by any president.
I think the zealots get it wrong. It's not that America was founded by people expecting politics to be soaked by the faith of its leaders. No, America was founded by people who simply wanted to have their worship in private without fear of being persecuted.
What would Jesus do? I think he'd want that declaration of faith made in the closet, and not in the town square.
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
That is low and offensive. Mike Huckabee is not just a faith-plastering suck-up, but a crass man as well.
So after much consideration, I'm firmly with Mitt. I think regardless of what happens, he'll go the distance and execute well. Now that he has 
Fred's a good guy, and his stands are very appealing to me. If the guy could show some organizational muster, I'd donate to his campaign and volunteer my help. Will that happen before January 3rd here in Iowa? Let's hope so...
