In Part 1 of this series we talked about ELECTABILITY. In Part 2 - POLICY, where I graded the candidates by SINCERITY and AUTHENTICITY, (something both GOP and American Voters will likely crave in 2012). Now we move to how these candidates would MANAGE or GOVERN. A Complete PolitiJim ScoreCard ends this post.
POLITIJIM NOTE: This should my last “novel-sized” blog. Thanks to those of you that had the patience and interest to read each of these parts in their entirety and for your feedback. (Thanks also to OnTheIssues.org, Race42012.com, FindTheData.com, and individual candidate and candidate supporter sites for information.)
It is clear our President lied to get elected, and after a couple of years in office, even the mainstream media is wondering why machine advertised to dispense "licorice" is spitting out loogies. None of us want to elect someone who is Bush #3 or Reagan 0.25 Beta. So HOW they will govern is important to TRUE CONSERVATIVES. (In Part 2 we rehashed the ideas of whether a "True Conservative" can get elected and @TheTonyLee's article at Human Events linked in COMMENTS there is worth a read.) I'm assuming Rush Limbaugh reads all my writings, since he made the point yesterday I had just written about in Part 2 of this series. Namely, that it is likely that ANY Republican could get elected against Obama or the Democrats in 2012. Even Gary Johnson.
Rush is right that we have a chance to elect a TRUE conservative who will actually propose and implement policies that will make this country stronger. And, as Bachmann has been astute to point out - many Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen are needed for majorities to make this a sure thing.
So what makes an EFFECTIVE EXECUTIVE and How do our candidates measure up? What is LEADERSHIP as it relates to being President? As we now are 100% sure, experience in "community organizing" is insufficient. Peanut farming can also be crossed of the requisite list.
As a seasoned CEO, I don't evaluate people like most people do. Kind of like the infrared computer vision of THE TERMINATOR, my management experience sets off alerts on small clues - both good and bad - that many people just don't pick up. It often confuses those around me why I don't pursue a deal that looks promising, or DO pursue a person others think isn't sharp looking or smooth talking enough. I can't tell you the number of times others pursue something I know has a very low probability of being successful and they come back to me admitting I was right. Funny thing is, I'm not that smart or clairvoyant. But stubbing my toe (or worse) over and over again when I ignored signs of peril have made me more careful to pay attention to little things.
As I discussed in my Saturday article about Bill Clinton, being good on one important characteristic can’t possibly balance the damage a leader can do in other areas. Despite a proven economic stagnation at the end of his term he did (finally) sign welfare reform, lower capital gains and preside over a better job growth record than either of the Bush’s. But his policies contributed to missing clues that might have prevented the 9/11 attack, passing on killing Bin Laden multiple times, severely enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act (directly responsible for 2008 financial crisis) and he directly gave nuclear secrets to Iran. And that’s not the half of it. So a candidate who can only fix the economy and replace Obama is not sufficient.
The PolitiJim Prerequisites for Presidential Proficiency (aka gettin’ er done) are:
EQUIPPING FOR THE JOURNEY
TEAM BUILDING – Again we start with NOT to do. Don’t:
- Hire a tax cheat to oversee the IRS.
- Hire a recovering drug addict and open pedophile to oversee drug-free schools.
- Appoint a self-described Marxist revolutionary to create capitalistic jobs even if they are in “green” energy.
- Hire a Communications Director to defend your administration against charges of socialism who says "Mao is one of her favorite political philosophers."
And if you truly want to enforce justice, make sure your Attorney General hasn't admitted to obstruction of justice or comes from a law firm that defended and channeled money to terrorists. But hey. That's just me.
The ability to choose good subordinates is easy to identify. First, make sure they have a consistent history of hiring others with executive experience who have been successful. If a former Governor produced accurate annual state financial reports, you know they CHOSE someone well. If they gave adequate notice of revenue needs and paid bills on time for their entire term, you know they MANAGED well. Crap happens and you can be assured NOTHING ever runs smoothly by itself when you manage a gas station (let alone highly powered executives with egos). Conversely, you can predict disaster ahead if the candidate has:
-
Only hired PR people, lawyers and administrators
-
Never employed and managed other executives
-
Has not balanced the budget of an executive for-profit entity for 5+ years or more.
-
Has had more than one occurrence of being associated with criminals, Marxists or morally questionable people.
JC Penny would invite prospective “associates” out to lunch. If they salted their meal before tasting, he assumed that if these people did not collect information before making decisions in small things – they wouldn’t do so on large ones. People don’t have a track record of one thing – and then completely morph into someone else overnight with different habits.
PROBLEM SOLVING TRACK RECORD – The role of an executive is a tough one. You may THINK you understand your bosses job, until you have to make the million decisions he or she does every day. I wrote the script for a short film I was producing. I had a good sense of music, pacing (editing) from just being a consumer of entertainment gave me decision making characteristics to manage what should be in the end product quite well. But I hired a director who had never directed before. (it is why she was so inexpensive I suppose!) We had a very tiny budget and it required us to shoot 5 scenes a day for 3 days (18 hour days). Mid-way through the first day we had not completed the first scene! Now this director had gone to film school (actually was still IN film school) and had studied lighting with some limited experience in classes. She had even served as an assistant director on another film. But when she did it herself, her time estimates flew out the window. The camera didn’t work at first. We had a location problem. Then, when we finally started the first scene, she became Martin Scorsese and insisted on reshooting the same scene 5 times until she was happy with it. (This was BEFORE digital by the way and was costing us even more money).
I was a business guy! If I pay someone to build a cabinet I get 3 bids and 3 references for each and yell at the guy if looks bad or if he’s slow.
So I fired her. I took over. How hard could it be, right? I had been on movie sets from peanuts to Paramount, been to all sorts of film school classes and had even spent serious time at the Panavision main office. The cameraman lights and shoots, the grip hauls the cable, and the wardrobe and makeup people make the actor look as they should. Ten takes later I went back to my disgraced director and begged her to come back and finish the film. I didn’t realize that there were about 400 tiny decisions my untrained eye wasn’t looking for, nor was I keeping in mind how this particular scene had to match the one before and after it. Scorsese would have done all 15 scenes in 2 days because he’d been through those decisions a million times before. EVEN if he didn’t have answer to a new problem – he would have an idea on how to solve it because he had faced something like it before. My director was still learning. Paying ten times more for a more experienced director would have saved me that twice the time and expense since I paid for everyone’s work which slowed down to fit her methodical decisions.
I very much agree with those who think former executives are best suited for the Presidency. Even a mayor has dealt with lawsuits against the city, making payroll of different divisions, city planning, providing services on a budget when tax revenues fall,etc. Someone who was a judge or a legislator may have run a staff – or even a campaign – but not an ongoing corporate ORGANISM with multiple managers, goals and operaitons.
Many “conservatives” cringed with the mainstream media when Rush Limbaugh uttered his “I hope he fails” comment about Barack Obama. Some of us immediately understood that if you looked at Obama’s track record of previous education, previous associates and supporters and what he actually “did'” – he didn’t just suddenly change into a “moderate” over the past 5 or 10 years before being elected. He certainly had never managed anything of significance and become qualified to run a state, much less a country in his 1.5 years before announcing a run for President. I hoped we were wrong (and knew we weren’t). If you had foreknowledge that he planned to… DO EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE… don’t you wish he had failed at implementing ObamaCare, grinding business investment to halt, wasting trillions of dollars, devaluing our currency, embarrassing us before our allies and weakening us in the eyes of our enemies?
The good or bad that children do shows what they are like.+
How much more adults right? The mother of the 15 year old who raped the neighborhood girl shouts, “he’s really a good boy.” NO HE’S NOT! Our fore founders understood this. It’s why Benjamin Franklin said, “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
The Constitution gives immense freedom to those who will manage their own greed, temptations and selfishness. But those who are intent on gaining power, controlling others or manipulating the system for their own gain have very little immediate consequence to abuse these freedoms and can do much damage. Your odds of finding people who SEEK to do good and manage their worst vices are those who seek God. There aren’t a whole lot of “moral” atheist. Look at the data.
But as Mike Huckabee proves, electing a cleric isn’t the goal either.
In addition to wondering if they’ve walked through some trials and formed a habit of choosing "good” – the same is true with the mechanics of any executive position. Has the candidate been trained to LEAD and MANAGE an organization toward or goal, and, have they had EXPERIENCE in addition to education. This is the question that must be answered,
| Built big operation Exec Teams? | History of Exec Problem Solving? | Past Grade
“Equipping” | PJ Projected Grade
“Equipping” |
| Bachmann | N* | N | D | C |
Cain | Y | Y | B | A |
Newt | N** | Y** | C | C |
Palin | Y | Y | A | A |
Perry | Y | Y | A | A |
Romney | Y | Y | A | A |
*Built small business with husband and co-founded a charter school ** As Speaker ran Senate Body Conceived and executed CONTRACT W/AMERICA and many say for a while was running country from Speaker’s position instead of Clinton. However, he resigned after threatened challenge to his Speakership after disappointing ‘98 election losses for GOP.
Some may feel I’m too easy on both Newt & Cain. That is very possible. I am giving Cain benefit of doubt that he had to learn how things worked in an area he WASNT taught/experienced in to turn around BK and GodFathers even though it wasn’t government. Newt had some experience ‘running’ the House but never substantially focused on profit, loss and efficiency.
SETTING THE DESTINATION
PROPOSE INITIATIVES A king asked two captains how they would find new lands that might bring wealth and commerce to his kingdom. Captain Morgan described a new method of navigation that would allow them to systematically map uncharted waters for 5 years. They would never become lost with this system and it would provide future aid to fishing and merchant ships. When they found land – they would explore and send a second party to exploit the resources. Captain Crunch listened quietly. When the king asked him the same question he said, “I’m going to head straight West where the sun sets. I’m not coming back until I find you gold and I’m asking you to make Captain Morgan my navigator. Guess who got the commission?
Does your candidate have the three components needed by Presidents to lead? They are::
- The ability to inspire people to a unified vision or conquest, and,
- The ability to create a framework to accomplish it.
- The timing for when it will be embraced.
John Kennedy had a vision to beat the Soviets in the space race (Sputnik), bring the country out of the recession and campaigned on – you got it - “change.” Reagan had a vision for a soaring economy putting people back to work, standing up to the Soviet Union, and, most of all, giving America a sense of pride. Obama painted a rosy future with racial harmony, the government taking care of the problems of the poor and ending the tensions of war where all the nations would love just love us. Which one of these is not like the others?
Kennedy’s vision to land on the moon (it turns out) was more like Captain Crunch and less like Captain Morgan. But it gave a concrete goal to work toward and he recruited not only scientists with skills to accomplish it – he also recruited experienced managers to MANAGE NASA. George Bush offered the idea of landing on Mars – but it earned mostly ridicule because he didn’t have a sense of the mood of the country, and it’s purpose didn’t directly give a sense of empowerment over an immediate threat or need. The Soviets were a real MILITARY threat and were setting records in space every month (it seemed). Going to the moon accomplished a number of things with one bullet. Someone stirred up and stepped out on faith that America was superior to an “evil empire.” There was a collective goal, mission and reaffirmation of that all in one policy.
Obama’s big vision was to “fix” all the evils of George Bush – Whatever he thought the American people assumed that was primarily to fix the economy and stop the wars. Even with a complicit mainstream media who no longer report the troop casualties (which are higher than GWB by the way), there wasn’t even a core “know how” that the White House could articulate that hasn’t already failed in the past two years. People who inspire have to also be able to discern a WAY to succeed. But, this “way” must focus on a perceived national solution to obtain unity to sustain it.
ENGAGE YOUR BIGGEST DETRACTORS
Again, our current leader shows what NOT to do. Despite having a huge advantage in press and publicity in media, Barack used his total control of Congress to first pass STIMULUS (with zero GOP votes). With a contempt for those the GOP members represented, he led an assault on both the spirit and rules of the Congress to force through ObamaCare. When the two things for which he was elected failed to materialize – so did his popularity, power and pernicious plans.
At his Reagan Library speech Christie talked about how “leadership” involves setting a course, arguing your case, and eventually compromising. An article I referenced somewhere on RANTS this week made the same point about Reagan. But both of these guys didn’t make compromise the goal. They pushed their ideals as hard as they could, and took what was obtainable to make progress. In poker we call that pocketing your stake. Reagan was smart enough to work WITH his opposition on Reagan’s terms.
I suspect there are some conservatives on our side who think a Cain or Palin Presidency would yield elimination of Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, Zero Cap Gains, a Balanced Budget Amendment, Closed Borders, an Anti-Abortion Amendment and total elimination of the Federal Reserve – all in first session of jointly held GOP Congress. We have to remember to LEAD instead of FORCE America our direction.
Getting to far ahead of the majority’s understanding and comfort will create fear and backlash. Don’t forget – Clinton was known to have overtly lied to American people, possibly raped someone as Governor and given defense secrets to the Chinese – and he still left office with a 66% approval rating. How is that possible? Because (unfortunately) the majority of Americans do not share the same conviction to moral principles that most of us conservatives do. We will loose all power very quickly if we overestimate it.
| Demonstrated Ability to Inspire a ‘big’ goal? | Demonstrated a Method that Worked? | Past Grade
“Vision” | PJ Projected Grade
“Vision” |
| Bachmann | N | N | C | C |
Cain | Y | Y | B | A |
Newt | Y | Y | A | A |
Palin | Y | Y | A | A |
Perry | N | N | C | B |
Romney | Y | Y | B | B |
Explanations: Bachmann hasn’t really demonstrated a “Big” idea with a roadmap where she attracted followers to accomplish it (and follow her). Romney did with a few initiatives in his state even though I didn’t like them – he pulled them off. Cain certainly had to convince franchisees and employees to follow him down a path as fellow employees got fired and succeeded marvelously. No one can see “Contract With America” wasn’t a “big” idea that was successful for Newt. Palin is the Queen with her accomplishments on corruption and new revenue initiatives in AK while maintaining 80% approvals of both DEM and GOP. Perry is the most difficult because Texas politics doesn’t lend itself for the Governor to initiate “big” ideas. He did well on a lot smaller policy implementations but has waffled enough, like Romney to not believe either will be a “JFK” or “Reagan.”
MANUEVERING THE COURSE GOALS GONE BAD – NOTHING ever goes the way we plan. Nothing. The American electorate was sold on “Supply Side Economics” during Reagan’s campaign, but when jobs and growth didn’t manifest by the end of his 2nd year – his popularity plummeted from a high of 68% down to a low of 35%. While both Bushes abandoned their free market principles (“Read My Lips” reversal and TARP respectively) when they said “realities forced them to,” Reagan had faith in his plan and kept selling it. Within 6 months he was above 50% and went on to defeat Walter Mondale in a landslide. Both Bushes ended up leaving on a low note.
And let us not lose heart and grow weary and faint in acting nobly and doing right, for in due time and at the appointed season we shall reap, if we do not loosen and relax our courage and faint. (Gal 6:9 AMP)
If you don’t have the “right” plan – like raising taxes, increasing government debt and adding even more onerous regulatory burden to a sputtering economy, this tenacity is worthless. You have to be doing “good” for persistence to pay off. Japan, Carter and now Obama have all realized this. There ARE economic laws. Like “gravity” you can’t ignore them without consequence. President Obama showed great tenacity in ignoring the obvious disaffection for ObamaCare and has now paid for it – 56% or more demanding it’s repeal. And this after Scott Brown won the seat of Ted Kennedy, the Democrat’s patron saint of universal health care. Only experience and the study of history can tell you what fundamental changes are the right one.
GOVERNMENT IS A DIFFERENT BANANA – A group I know tries to network the best thinkers in Media, Business, Education, and Government to increase learning and find opportunities to improve each sphere. They have had many businesspeople who have thought they could “change” government by applying business techniques. Most who began at local and state levels quit, commenting that government just didn’t work like a business. And it doesn’t. Although you have a board of directors to whom you (are supposed to) be accountable – most CEO positions are like small dictatorships. If someone continually sabotages the progress toward the goal, you fire them. But it pretty darn tough for a Mayor to fire a City Councilperson….or four.
This will shock 99% per of you but I’m not an expert on government. (The 1% are my friends who laugh at me every time I post…Or is it a shock to the 1% are no longer my friends after reading my blog? I don’t know. I’m also not an expert on math.) How do ideas become reality in government? There’s an app for that! Or blog. In my
article I discuss the 3 factors needed for Political Ideas to Become Reality. William Wilberforce, Winston Churchill, and others were willing to facilitate “CHANGE” (abolition and militarism respectively) in the form of law and policy. But these changes happened by an execution of parts PUBLIC OPINION, LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY (how to write a bill that would get passed), and PEER LOBBYING. Running “government” is different from running business or academia. Romney proved you can do it, but many do not. Being a career politician isn’t any insurance either because power corrupts.
A Political Executive will fall prey to the everlasting law of pride just like everyone else. If they think too highly of themselves or their power, if they think they are Pontiff or Monarch they run into the same spirit of this country that overthrew King George, Richard Nixon and Boss Tweed.
Tom Delay had been a very effective legislator and minority whip for quite some time. However, when the GOP came to power he adapted a slogan of “No Retreat/No Surrender) and found himself in legal, political and popular disfavor. Clinton, Reagan and even FDR likely had no less conviction in the righteousness of their ideas but were amiable enough to not come across as moralizing. Tone overcomes much.
ENGINEERING EFFECTIVENESS (from Government "Departments")
It is one thing to know ‘how’ government works. It is quite another to fix it. Reagan’s failure to shut down the Department of Education (as well as adding the Department of Veteran Affairs) came as a disappointment to many. Reagan said there wasn’t enough support in Congress to abolish the DOE, while others have said he gave it up willingly for winning support on other policies. If you want to REALLY have some Halloween Horror Hell – watch the documentary Burzynski - Cancer Is Serious Business.
It confirms how corrupt our FDA really is. (I had a client once whose product was banned by the FDA and FTC. The scientist that led the research for the government, against my client, went BACK to their job at Roche Laboratories that manufactured the #1 competitive product to my client’s over-the-counter one. And they have comparatively unlimited resources.)
Herman Cain has talked of serious reform in the DOJ and EPA, Bachmann and Palin the DOEnergy and Ron Paul wants to abolish almost everything including the Pentagon and White House Visitor Center. The truth is that there is very little modern day precedent for eliminating ANY bureaucracy in Washington. MAJOR reform is needed. While Newt had success in implementing reform of welfare as legislation, Newt also pledged abolishment of 5 Federal agencies in the Contract With America but ended up growing government (albeit with a balanced budget). Palin and Perry are the only candidates who actually cut government (Palin reduced Alaska spending by 7% – Perry by $3 Billion although the Texas per capita state debt rose 140% under Perry) although no one doubts Ron Paul would be a cutting maniac. And I mean that in the most endearing way. Overall only Palin reduced Total Liabilities of her state.
| Saw Big Goals Thru To The End? | Worked with Legislature as Executive To Pass Big Goals | Cut Gov’t Spending as an Executive? | Past Grade
“Manage” | PJ Projected Grade
“Manage” |
| Bachmann | N | N | N | C | B |
Cain | Y | N | Y* | B | A |
Newt | Y | Y | Y* | B | B |
Palin | Y | Y | Y | A | A |
Perry | N | N | Y | C | B |
Romney | Y* | Y | N | C | C |
*Romney’s “big” goals were not conservative, but he did accomplish them. Bachmann has voted for cuts, but hasn’t been in an executive role to determine a track record of leading them. Cain did as CEO of private business, but not a governmental entity. Newsweek called Newt the ‘defacto Executive’ for a short time when he was Speaker, setting an national agenda and overseeing it’s implementation. Those not in government executive leadership are tough to grade – both past and future. Here I rank executive experience slightly more worthy than political experience. Newt’s position both helped and hurt him. I give him enormous credit for what he accomplished until resigning as Speaker, but also ‘ding’ him for overall government growth and failure to eliminate more bureaucracy. Romney actually did quite well in increasing revenues to the state with the glaring exception of RomenyCare which is now creating enormous financial problems.
DROPPING ANCHOR KNOW WHEN TO HOLD ‘EM – I’m not sure when I first heard the quote “Politics is the art of compromise” but I’ve always despised it because I’ve equated “compromise” with “weakness” and “debasement.” Indeed, many times compromise can be good where a minority prevails with less than they wanted – but more than they would have otherwise gotten. Like the funding for the Revolutionary War. (For an excellent dissertation on Political Compromise read this.)
Would I settle for getting Barack Out of the White House. Yes. Do I have any confidence we would make meaningful, long lasting change that would make America strong economically, militarily and culturally? No. Not without the right leader. And I suspect without a clear leader of strong conservative values unwilling to SEEM to compromise – but willing to not be perceived as unreasonable - we will be in worse shape than we were at the end of the Bush term. It is the nature of history.
HERE is my Report Card from all 3 sections of Electability, Policy and Governing. NOTE: These are based on HOW the candidates fair based on the assumptions in each article, projecting forward.
| Electability | Conservative
Policy | Managing | Weighted AVG |
| Bachmann | C | A | C | C+ |
Cain | B | A | B | B+ |
Newt | B | A | B | B+ |
Palin | B | A | A | A- |
Perry | B | B | C | B- |
Romney | A | C | C | C+ |
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
| Bachmann | Strong economic and social conservative with Tea Party credibility, understands how to campaign, fair debater. | No executive experience and couldn’t retain poll leads she had early. Not taken seriously by non-conservative elements in GOP. |
| Cain | Shown brilliance against Clinton during Hillarycare debate when he was President of Restaurant Assoc and huge job creation experience. Plain talk/outside DC helps this election as does contrast with Obama’s career trek. No weakness in his social conservative credentials for party base. Unspoken plus: GOP won’t dare criticize him much and secretly wants a black candidate to prove to world GOP isn’t racist. | To be seen how he does under assault in debates since not strong in beginning of debate season. Foreign policy was glaring weakness early and would be helped by announcing support from Schwarzkopf or someone early. His speech cadence will likely work against him in general election at first – but if he holds his own on facts/policy, can be overcome. |
| Newt | Incredible depth at understanding policy and historic success in 1994 Contract With America including balanced budgets. Communicator extraordinaire. | His personal life will hurt against social conservatives and seem like hypocrisy to detractors in general election. His campaign is heavily in debt and only way to win is with meltdown by Cain/Perry Palin to be the McCain factor in 2012 aka “person we least hate.”
I am convinced Newt should be the GOP Party Chairman to live out his days on Sunday talk shows. |
| Palin | Unparalleled in her track record for fiscal policy, environmental & energy policy, and nothing for opponents to attack her on in social policy track record. Middle of road on immigration but border governor cred. Pin-up girl for 2nd Amendment, anti-Abortion, and ability to energize base – get out vote is also unparalleled. I maintain she has a secret independent/liberal woman following yet to show in polls. Fearless in attacking BHO and liberal mindset. BONUS: She is already vetted by press. No ‘new’ revelations can derail her. | Perception to be overcome in public that she is stupid and unelectable by non-conservative GOPers. Will face relentless attack by MSM and liberals relying (as Reagan did) for the people to see her in action. As she did at VP announcement, GOP Convention and Biden debate, she can be very good but the Couric interview will be in everyone’s mind until she overcomes it. |
| Perry | Job record in comparison to Obama, Federal attacks on Texas, and seeming “Presidential” are huge pluses for general election. Immigration problems with conservatives might actually help him in general election. Enough “Christian” cred to get strong base support if nominee but enough big government, big corporation friendliness to get remainder of GOP. | The man can not debate and his slow answer mannerisms make him seem stupid in them. (I don’t believe he is stupid at all – just not quick.) His immigration problem offsets his Christian credentials with conservatives but leaves no enthusiasm like Palin has to stir that base. The debt he racked up in Texas would look fine against Obama but not against Hillary if she ran on her husband’s record. |
| Romney | Looks Presidential. No one doubts he will do better than Obama fiscally. Was a successful Governor and will appeal to non-conservatives in general election - especially if he uses his ‘friendly attack’ like he did against Perry on Obama. He has more than enough money – and ability to raise it for a general campaign. Actually scores only 2nd behind Cain on Illegal Immigration scorecards. More centrist views on gay rights, abortion etc might actually help him general election since conservatives would be wrapped up. | In primary simply will not win over the GOP base. I suspect social conservatives would go for Newt before Romney. Doesn’t excite base for general election due to flips on abortion, RomneyCare record and pro-gay agenda. Like all except Newt (to some degree), no foreign policy experience. Most on conservative side absolutely convinced he would be Bush 41 with a younger wife. |
I entertain ALL questions and comments on how I arrived at these conclusions (apart from my obviously lengthy forethought in each article of course.)
WHY I LEFT OUT SANTORUM, PAUL & HUNSTMAN: Each candidate had their chance at the debates to put their best foot forward. Paul rose, and dropped. Huntsman still didn’t move after two strong showings and Paul’s negatives among conservatives eliminates mathematical probability (to me at least) that he is unelectable. I still maintain some candidate should announce they are appointing him Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
RESOURCES: Best pitch for each candidate (IMO):
| URL Link |
| Bachmann | |
Cain | |
Gingrich | |
Palin | |
Perry | |
Romney | |
Of course, you are free to say any damn thing you want. In any way you want. If you want to tell me to “go to hell” (I won’t) or “screw you” (please send me your picture first), you have every right and I’ll fight for your right to do so. But if you love this country, are tired of liberals calling us “racists” and worst – could we finally just grow up? Please? Doesn’t the opposition see us as this guy (to the right) already?
Buy a Brain: To those who assume whatever your candidate decides is fine and you don’t need to read the fine print of their policy: Really? You want George Bush 3? Didn’t we all believe him when he said he wanted smaller government? RINO-crap! You have to find out WHAT your candidate believes. Not just for your own sake, but so you can intellectually lead the rest of us to understand pro’s and cons. Even Jesus said to “believe” because of what he could do – not just what He said. Don’t insult yourself or the rest of us by asking us to do more for your horse in the race. Or elephant.
Shut Your Pie Hole: Yeah, it’s corny but God did give you 2 hears and 1 mouth – so at least make an attempt to try and figure out not only WHAT your fellow anti-Obama conservatives are saying, BUT WHY! Just today a wonderful follower said she didn’t like Cain’s 9-9-9 plan because the National Sales Tax would be regressive. Honestly, I haven’t really studied VAT since Jack Kemp proposed it to encourage savings back in the 80’s. Rather than spout something off to her, I got excited that I could either a) validate my assumptions about it (that it might be good) – or b) warn us all about it it turns out to be dangerous or worse. I’m not going to agree with it just because I like Cain or disagree with it because I like Perry. And will you people please validate those who disagree with you? It ain’t so hard. Even if you HATE Perry, you will keep doors open to convince them of your love for Santorum or Bachmann in the future, if you just admit you like the fact Perry wasn’t afraid to have a prayer rally or appreciated his military service, you will maintain access. And if you have “negative” information – please use facts. I have been bombarded over this whole “Perry is being controlled by the Bilderberg society” thing. You know what? There is ZERO evidence for it. I didn’t just believe or not believe it. If you look at the list of attendees, there are many people who are ‘salt of the earth’ types who attend as there are Soros-types. I’m not saying there aren’t bad people who want to control other people through power. Or that some of them aren’t there or involved with the B people. You only have to look at your local school board or Kiwanis Club to see that. But if you are gong to call someone “evil” have facts. I call Bill Clinton “evil” because of the testimony that he raped at least two women and used many more. That isn’t emotion – it is using fact. I don’t think there is any proof that ANY of our candidates (including Huntsman or Paul) are remotely evil or have an intent to do harm. Words mean something. The more you use them without evidence, the less impact they will have the next time you speak. 
Feelings. Nothing more than Feelings: I tweeted this week that watching the OCCUPY WALLSTREET tweeters trying engage us conservatives on Twitter with logic and their minds, was like watching my little boy when he was a baby discover his penis for the first time. Those of you whose entire argument rests on “emotion” do nothing for your argument or your candidate. I had a very good Twitter friend tell me he didn’t support Palin in large part due to the lack of intellectual arguments by her supporters! And it’s true! “Palin Good, you bad” not only will lose you a primary debate – it won’t make any inroads with independents who need to be won. And wait until we want to change Social Security or dismantle the Department of Education. “DO IT BECAUSE I SAID SO” is for our kids until they can think. (And if you’re still doing that by the time they CAN think – you will loose their respect.) It’s no different here. Rick Perry and I sold books and bibles door to in college. We learned all “sales” is equal parts LOGIC and EMOTION. Only logic, they’ll never have the excitement to step out and buy. Only emotion and they’ll forget why they bought it 10 minutes later and return it. Use both please.
