The Conservative's Guide to the Republican Primaries: Part 1

Although the Republican nomination for the next Presidential election will not be chosen until early 2012, those who intend to run for the position are beginning to make themselves known, with two notable debates taking place over the last month. Over the next two article, I’m going to give a brief rundown of some of the main candidates.

Mitt Romney

If you were a betting man or woman, the wise money would be on Romney. The former businessman and governor of Massachusetts was a strong candidate for the 2008 nomination, but just missed out to John McCain, and therefore has been named “the establishment choice.” Strong in debates, good with the media, generally solid on conservative issues and with a somewhat presidential look about him, he has the potential to be a strong candidate for 2012. He has three big problems facing him; the first is the Massachusetts’ healthcare law he passed, dubbed “Romneycare”. With one of Obama’s weaknesses being his unpopular healthcare reforms, Romney will find it difficult to take advantage of that particular weakness due to the similarities between the two laws. His second problem is linked to the first – many conservatives are sceptical about whether he is a “true” conservative; with commentators pointing both to Romneycare, and to his flip-flopping on the subject of abortion. Finally, his Mormon faith – although more common in the USA than the UK – is still perceived by many Americans as weird, and will also make the evangelical segment of the conservative grassroots uncomfortable. Romney is still the bookies favourite, but he is by no means perfect, nor is he a shoe-in.

Michelle Bachmann

Unfairly, Congresswoman Bachmann was, until a few months ago, seen by many as a poor man’s Sarah Palin. A darling of the Tea Party, the ex tax attorney and mother of 5 (as well as foster carer of 23) was known for her strong conservatism, combatative stances on issues, and fiercely polemic rhetoric against the Democrats and the current President, and was seen as much more of a fringe candidate – possibly second in line to Palin. Yet her performances in the Republican presidential debates have been outstanding, and she was considered by many (including this writer) to have easily won the most recent debate. A lot more straight-laced and less folksy than Palin, and with a fiercer, clearer speaking style as well as a successful record of leading and getting things done in Congress, Bachmann has the potential to be a powerful candidate. She is still an outsider, but as is a rising star within the GOP who is even beginning to eclipse the once mighty Sarah Palin, it is by no means impossible that she could gain the nomination.

Tim Pawlenty

In any set of candidates, there is always one about whom there is little to say. Tim Pawlenty fits that role perfectly. The governor of Minnesota is running on a strongly conservative campaign, but it is sometimes difficult to tell due to his flat language and often poor delivery. His emphasis has been on social issues, specifically on opposing gay marriage and on limiting abortion for all but the most extreme cases. This could easily be a misstep, as the conservative mood at the moment tends to be less concerned with social issues and more concerned with the economy. Also, however socially conservative he may be, Bachmann will always match him, and do it convincingly. Some conservatives have also questioned his conservative credentials, pointing to some large tax-hikes as governor, a state-wide smoking ban and mandatory ethanol mixtures with gasoline. Ultimately, Pawlenty is supported by those who believe that all that is needed to win 2012 is to elect a standard candidate who won’t rock the boat and who will point to Obama’s failings. Those of us who believe that it will need more than that to beat Obama will want someone other than this uninspiring governor.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is the true radical of the Republican Party; he is best described as an out and out libertarian as opposed to a conservative. Famously given the motto by The Onion – “Fiscally I’m a right-wing nutjob, but on social issues I’m f**king insanely liberal”, this sums up Paul’s strengths and weaknesses at the same time. He has shown himself to have a broad base of support that reaches out well beyond traditional areas of Republican support. His fierce dedication to the free market and his small government, low tax economics makes him attractive to conservatives, while his isolationist foreign policy stance and social liberalism on issues such as gay marriage and drugs (but not abortion – he is pro-life) opens his appeal up to many on the left as well. Yet, while he has been winning straw poll after straw poll, leading many to believe he can win the nomination, his broad base is also his potential weakness. A Ron Paul presidential run risks falling between two stools by failing to appeal to conservatives due to his socially liberal policies and pacifist foreign policy, while failing to appeal to the left due to his economic policies. Simply put, a Ron Paul run would be an enormous gamble, and could result in a landslide for the Republicans, or an easy second term for Obama – there is no middle ground with Ron Paul.

Herman Cain

The Baptist minister and former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza is easily the character of the bunch so far. Sounding strangely like Samuel L Jackson (one is waiting for him to yell “They speak English in What?” at any moment), Cain has won many people over with his straight-talking yet jocular debating style. The unique appeal of the only black candidate currently running lies in his success in the private sector: he boasts that he is not a know-it-all politician, but instead a business man who knows how to get the right people in to get things done. In a straw poll as to who won the first Republican presidential debate, Cain won easily and has support from both the Republican mainstream and from the Tea Party. His strength is certainly his private sector experience, as well as his excellent debating style which leads many conservatives to believe he could destroy Obama in the debates. His biggest weakness is that his jocular style means people don’t take him seriously as a candidate. Additionally, his unusual claim that he would be uncomfortable appointing Muslims in his Cabinet as they may support Sharia Law is one that has drawn criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, and leaves many wondering whether Cain is a lunatic disguised as a legitimate candidate. Cain is still an outsider, but not be dismissed outright.

Conservatives Can Relax: Trump Isn't Running

The announcement that all sane people on the American right were waiting for has finally arrived; Donald Trump is not running for President of the United States. Such an announcement has not come a moment too soon, and there are many conservatives breathing a huge sigh of relief.

It was always tempting to dismiss Trump as a joke candidate from the beginning who never had any chance of gaining the Republican nomination. This may or may not be true, but it doesn’t mean that Trump did not pose any danger to a Republican victory in 2012. He had already caused a great deal of damage by first pretending to speak for American conservatives, and then going off on a wild goose chase for Obama’s birth certificate; making conservatives look like a bunch of conspiracy believing loons. The media had lapped up the sideshow, and it seemed that Trump would take the spotlight from any other candidate until he was defeated at the primaries early next year.

By that time however, it could have been too late. It seemed like Trump was set to also go after Obama’s education records in order to prove that the President was not smart enough to have gone to Harvard, and that he was therefore a recipient of affirmative action policies. Even if such statements were true, it would hardly reflect badly on Obama (he didn’t ask to receive special treatment) and regardless of the outcome the issue would be used against conservatives to demonstrate that Republicans were more concerned with side issues than with the real problems facing the country.

Trump represents one of two paths that the Republicans can go down for 2012. In football terms, they can either play the man or the ball; and Trump would represent trying to play the man. Trump is certainly not alone in wanting to attack Obama instead of the issues; with other candidates such as the irritating Michelle Bachman standing strong with a fair amount of Tea Party support should she choose to run. Such a path is doomed to end in failure. Although his nastier side has come out over the last year, Obama is still seen by many as a likeable guy, and his personal popularity ratings are much higher than his ratings on the issues – which remain stubbornly low.

It is on the issues where the Republicans can win big. This has been proved already; the 2010 midterms barely made any personal references to Obama at all, and focused almost entirely on the economy. It resulted in annihilation for the Democrats at the polls, and one of the biggest swings in United States political history. A similar swing for the Presidential Elections in 2012 would not only hand the Republicans the Presidency, but give them a landslide as well.

Obama is not a steady President. Despite figures in the media telling us that Obama would receive a massive boost from the death of Bin Laden, there has been very little of this, and Rasmussen actually reports a drop in approval for Obama over the last week. With gas prices at a very high level, 1 in 6 Americans on food stamps, Obamacare extremely unpopular, and unemployment stubbornly refusing to go down, Obama’s go to excuse of blaming Bush is wearing thin and will not carry him into 2012. It is on the issues where Obama is weak, and he has run out of ideas.

In a generally conservative country like America (where Obama’s ideas were never particularly popular), the Republicans only need to make sure that they have a candidate that will draw attention to the issues, and also to Obama’s failure to deliver anything but warmed up socialism. They therefore need to pick a solid, upstanding candidate with no hang ups, strange beliefs (nothing weird on evolution, please), or obsessions with birth certificates and college transcripts. If they can pick someone who can stick to the issues, and not get drawn into conspiracy theories and personal attacks, then 2012 could seal Obama’s fate as a one-term President, and 2013 could usher in a fresh era of conservatism in America.

Should the Republicans fail to do this, Obama will not need to win the 2012 election – the Republicans will lose it on their own.

How Obama Went From Hero to Zero in a Week

On Monday 2nd of May it was not looking cushy for the American right.  Yes, along with the rest of America they celebrated the death of global terrorist Osama Bin Laden, but politically they had taken a significant beating.

Only a few days before the death of Bin Laden was announced, the White House had revealed the long version of President Obama’s birth certificate, effectively ending conspiracy monger Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions.  While many on the right (myself included) were thankful that it finally killed off this nonsensical obsession with Barack Obama’s birthplace, it also meant that the entire American right were tarred with the “conspiracy theory” brush – even though the birthers only represented a minority of right-wingers.

The announcement of the death of Bin Laden only made the birther issue worse.  The narrative became that while the right-wing were thumbing through copies of Obama’s “Dreams of My Father” to find evidence that he was a closet Kenyan, Obama was off focusing on bigger issues such as killing the world’s number one terrorist.  Not only did the right look defunct thanks to its loony fringe, but Obama had overcome his reputation of being useless on foreign policy by killing the man that George W Bush had been searching for since 2001.

Immediately, commentators in both American and the UK were drooling over Obama’s prospects for re-election, claiming that his boost in the polls would be enormous, and that the 2012 election was all but over.  Yet a week later, no-one is saying that anymore, and the boost in the polls has (depending on whose polls you read) been either non-existent, or a small jolt that no pollster expects to last until November 2012.  A recent Gallup poll stated that 95% of respondents stated that the death of Bin Laden would not change who they’d vote for.  So what happened?

The first thing that went wrong was that Obama tried to do what he usually does – make himself the hero.  So instead of praising the men and women on the ground, and those who had been doing intelligence on Bin Laden for years, Obama’s announcement speech was filled with continual references about himself and self-congratulatory remarks about his administration.  People like applauding for an actor on stage, but are less likely to do so when the actor starts applauding himself as well.

Also, the blatant hypocrisy of Obama trying to take sole credit of this feat (along with the victory tour to Ground Zero) was fully exposed when it was revealed that the information that found Bin Laden was obtained at Guantanamo Bay (which Obama wants shut down) using waterboarding (which Obama banned) back in 2007, when Obama wasn’t even in office.  Trying to take credit for something that was achieved by methods that he expressly condemned has rightly struck many Americans as trying to have one’s cake and eat it too.

This childish display of taking credit for other people’s work (notably that of President George W Bush, who had to fight tooth and nail against lip trembling lefties like Obama in order to keep such effective methods in place) has been followed up by a laughable show of incompetence from the White House in providing information.

First we were told Bin Laden used his wife as a shield, then he didn’t, then he was armed, then he wasn’t, then he made an act of aggression, then he didn’t, then it was a kill order, then it wasn’t, then it was again, then they were going to release a picture, then they were definitely going to release a picture, then they definitely weren’t going to release a picture.  Even a political junkie like myself still cannot make out exactly what happened in that compound.

This isn’t just about information though, it is about how the Obama administration has been trying to both celebrate and cover up this action at the same time.  The truth is clear; Obama doesn’t like this and neither do the left.  From arch-leftists in Britain such as Ken Livingstone and the Stop the War Coalition to the usual leftist cronies in America such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, we have seen condemnation after condemnation as to how this action was carried out.

Don’t be mistaken; if this was a Republican President, Obama would be amongst those howling in agony at the thought of Bin Laden being “murdered in cold blood”, wailing about his human rights and the abandonment of “our common values of justice.”  Yet because he is President and his numbers were falling, he has had to become part of the American jubilation and patriotism that he finds so distasteful.

On that first day he was fine, but since then his attempt to balance his hard-left credentials with taking the credit for what was essentially a right-wing act performed predominately by other people, has made him seen weak, confused and hypocritical.

Back to business as usual for President Obama

The Vote on Obamacare Repeal Shows America's Vibrant Democracy

This week the US Senate held its vote on the Obamacare repeal bill that was passed overwhelmingly in the House.  The bill failed in the Senate as it was expected to.

This is precisely what was expected to happen - there was no way the Democrat dominated Senate was going to vote against Obamacare, and then even if it did there was no way it was going to be signed by Obama.  This had led a number of commentators to condemn this move as a political stunt.

Those commentators are incorrect.  What this move shows is how incredibly vibrant and responsive America's democracy is to the will of the people.  So many people believe that a democracy is really just an elected dictatorship and this vote shows that, in America at least, such a thing is not the case.

Obama was elected in 2008, and the response to his agenda has been overwhelmingly negative.  Although his personal approval remains stubbornly in the 40's, approval of his agenda is enormously low, and it is clear that most people want Obamacare repealed.  Within two years, the Senate and House of Representatives had been cleared of those who were enforcing the Obama agenda and replaced with those who wish to begin rolling it back.

Although the government cannot immediately repeal what has happened over the last few years, American democracy has allowed the people to slam the brakes on the Obama agenda. The House controls the purse strings, and so the unpopular spending policies of Obama have been stopped within the space of two years.  If the American people wish it to be so, in another two years they can begin actively overturning the damage done between 2009 and 2010 by electing a Republican President and Senate.  For now, they can at least stop it from going any further, and that is precisely what they have done.

In Britain, the electorate will usually have to wait up to 5 years before even being allowed to use their vote to stop the agenda being driven through Parliament.  Americans have to wait less than two years to stop the agenda, and begin putting pressure on for the agenda to be reversed.  While some may be dismayed that they are not able to repeal Obamacare and the rest of the Obama agenda just yet, the fact that the American people have been able to stop this destructive agenda in its tracks and start working to reverse it, all within two years of Obama's election, does great credit to the American system of democracy, and it is something that we in Britain can learn from.

Cautiously Delighted about the Midterms

Is it possible to be cautiously delighted?  I'm not particularly sure but that is how I am feeling about last night's astounding win by the GOP in the House and Senate.  Although one might point to the fact that the Senate power didn't officially change hands, everything else is pretty much win-win.

As I said in my previous post as well, the Republicans essentially have power now in both houses, as the Dem side of the Senate now consists of a lot of either moderate, or scared Democrats.  They know that their necks are on the line, and if they vote as a bloc against repeal of healthcare, against tax cuts, or against spending cuts, then they will not be in the Senate after 2012.  A vote for Obama and against the GOP at the moment is electoral suicide, and they know it.  So I wouldn't expect too many problems as long as the GOP stick together in the Senate.  The House of course is about as red as it gets, and considering the Representatives have the power of the purse, we should be slowly saying goodbye to the era of big spending.

However, it is important not to get too excited just yet.  It is especially important not to underestimate Obama.  This guy has a lot of trick up his sleaves, and if you think that he is just going to roll over for the next two years, you have another thing coming.  This guy will play every card, use every tool at his disposal (including the media) to get the American public back on his side.

If the Republicans are not clear about everything they do, or if they abandon their principles, or if they get lazy, Obama will strike.  He might not turn it around by moving to the centre like Clinton, but he could turn it around in other ways that we might not be able to foresee right now.

Don't get me wrong, I am not overestimating Obama either.  The guy is NOT the wonderful, super-intelligent guy we have been told about.  He is a hard-left ideologue and ultimately that always comes back to haunt him.  I don't think that he will go back on his leftist principles by any stretch, but I do think that he will try and control the debate.  For instance, he will spend the next 6 months (trust me on this) saying that "Ok, well, if we want to reduce the deficit, we need much higher taxes!"

He will seek to control the debate, and it will be at this point when the GOP will need to jump in, shout just as loudly as Obama and say "NO!  That doesn't work" and explain why.  If it doesn't, then Obama will chip away at Republican support, both amongst the electorate, and in the House amongst the more 'moderate' Republicans.

The Republicans have the momentum, and unlike two years ago, 2012 is the Republicans to throw away.  If they do what they have promised, control the debate, and stick to their principles, 2012 will  be a success.  But if they implode, then Obama or another Democrat will take advantage, and we will be looking at another 4 years of socialism, instead of a fresh conservative new beginning in 2012.  Now is not the time to relax!

Less than a week to go - Remember November

It's all getting very exciting in America.  Less than a week to go until the Republicans storm the House and Senate.  I'm not sure whether the GOP will gain the Senate, but I don't believe that the House is really in doubt.  It will be a massive rebuke to the Obama agenda, and will hopefully cripple it permanently.

But now is not the time to get soft.  We need to keep going, not getting complacent, not doing anything stupid.  This goes for the next week.  Those seats in a toss up can still be won and lost.  This will be a hammering, the only question is how much of a hammering will it be?

If you need some inspiration - take a look at this video, got to love American politics!

The New Christine O'Donnell Ad - Perfection!

A number of people have drawn attention to the latest Christine O'Donnell ad, and I thought I'd throw out my thoughts on the issue.

If you are one of the British readers on this blog, you might not know who Christine O'Donnell is.  Basically, she is the Republican Party Senate candidate for Delaware in the upcoming November elections.  By nominating the very conservative O'Donnell in the primaries (backed as the Tea Party candidate), the Republican voters overthrew so-called 'moderate' Republican Mike Castle in the biggest upset of the primary season.  Castle was seen as a dead cert to win if he had received the nomination, and because she is so conservative, O'Donnell is perceived to be less likely to win in what is a relatively liberal state, but if she wins, she is going to make more of a difference than a Mike Castle ever would.  With the Senate race being so tight, O'Donnell's defeat or victory may make or break the Republican chances of winning a majority in the Senate this November.  It has therefore received huge amounts of media coverage, mostly negative from left-wing sources trying to perform a hatchet job.

Since her nomination, O'Donnell has been subject to some outrageous smears.  The typical ones are obvious - she is an "extreme" right-wing nutjob (cut spending??  How dare she?), she is stupid, an idiot, etc etc.  Her enemies have also focused on a few videos of her in her younger days when she talks about her Christian faith - she mentions in one that she thinks masturbation is a sin, and in another one she talks about how when much younger she had flirted with witchcraft, before she converted to Christianity.  As a result she is being labelled a sexually repressed witch!  The witch smear seems especially amusing as they are trying to say that she is both a witch and a right-wing Christian!  Note to the left: She can't be both!

I don't know a great deal about her personality, but whenever I have seen her she always seems like a very pleasant young woman who is genuinely in the race to make a difference, not to be a careerist, and someone who will stick to her principles - exactly the sort of person we need in Washington.  With all the attempts to brand her an extremist nutjob with weird beliefs, her policies are simple - cutting spending and taxes are the big two, but also a focus on cutting out corruption, and a strong stance on illegal immigration.

So now we come to her latest video




Some people have claimed that acknowledging the "witch" accusation gives the accusation credence, and that the ad is too simple, but I think it is brilliant, and I confidently predict a surge in the polls over the next few weeks.

Why?  First, because just by showing O'Donnell's face (albeit with some slightly goofy music), it instantly makes it seem unlikely that she is some sort of lunatic frothing at the mouth - she is obviously just a normal woman seeking political office and trying to do a good thing.  But also it summarises perfectly what has gone wrong with politics in recent years, and that is that many voters don't feel like politicians are "us".  They are careerists, or people with weird beliefs, or corrupt criminals.  But they are "other people", not us.

The popularity of the Tea Party movement comes from the fact that it is just normal people calling for what normal people want.  Most normal people want to keep most of what they earn, they don't want the country spent into trillions of debt, they don't want to bend over backwards to politically correct groups, they don't believe that children should have pornographic sex ed lessons forced on them, they don't believe in apologising and grovelling to our international enemies, and they don't want illegal immigration rewarded with citizenship - and they want that reflected in their political candidates.

So when O'Donnell says "I'm you", she is perfectly tapping into that concern which could be said to be the central theme of this election.  As a result, she doesn't need to say exactly what it is she will do, because she says that she will do what we would do - and we know what we would do!

In conclusion, despite many in the Republican camp getting nervous about this candidate, I am not saying she will definitely win, but I do think that she will make a damn good fight of it!  She overcame the odds once, she can do it again!

Obama has a Tantrum - Part XII

For all the chatter about how angry and hateful the Tea Party are supposed to be, we are seeing the anger amongst Democrat politicians rise and rise as November elections approach, and popularity plummets.  Today we have seen a fresh outburst by none other than the President.

I have always said that the President is an angry man.  Read Dreams of My Father, and you will see a great deal of anger about America come through, and this has been seen various times throughout his Presidency.  His political ideology comes not from love, or a passion for something good - instead coming from a hatred towards certain people, groups and countries (including the UK.)  It is mostly concealed, but comes out occasionally, especially when he goes off-message.

According to reports, he gave an interview for Rolling Stone magazine, where he by and large stayed on message.  He finished the interview, left and then burst into the interview room again, sat back down, and proceeded to rant about Democrat supporters who were unenthusiastic about November and who might not vote in the upcoming November elections.

He proceeded to blast his own supporters as "inexcusable" and "irresponsible", telling them to "buck up" and vote for him - failing to account for the fact that they might not want to vote for him.  Such a rant shows not only that the pressure has got to Obama, but also that he fails to understand just why he is so unpopular.

The reason people who voted him in 2008 are now unenthusiastic isn't because they are lazy, or stupid, or bored.  It is because they didn't get what they voted for!  He claims that they should stop bitching as he got 70% of his agenda through so far.  But that is precisely the point - people didn't vote for his agenda, they don't want it!  The reason they don't want to vote for him is because he got 70% of his hidden agenda through.

In the 2008 election, voters were fed a great deal of fluff about "hope" and "change", and how with Obama there would be no more red state and blue state, how he would reach across the aisle, and basically how he was the perfect moderate.  Stir in with that a widespread dislike of Bush, a fawning media, and the race card being played as often as it could be laid upon the table, and that is really the short story of how Obama was elected without ever really revealing  his hard-left tendencies.

However, in his arrogance, Obama seems to have thought that he persuaded America to turn into a socialist nation, and that because he has managed to proceed with 70% of a socialist agenda, Americans should somehow be grateful and turn out to vote for him again in their droves.  In his arrogance, I don't think that it has crossed his mind that people don't want it all.  They don't want Obamacare, they don't want a weak foreign policy, they don't want higher taxes, they don't want outrageous spending and they don't want mass nationalisation of industry.

The fact that he doesn't get that, and chooses instead to blame his own supporters for his problems shows just how "incredibly intelligent" the prodigy really is.  However, the fact that he doesn't get it and lives in his own little make believe world is a very positive sign for the Republicans in the November elections.  Because if Obama starts turning on his own supporters, and failing to take responsibility for anything that he has done, then the Democrats are really screwed - both in November, and in 2012.

So in the meantime...more tantrums please Mr President!

Who are the extreme ones?

I know I am posting a lot of videos at the moment, and I am doing this for two reasons.  First, there are a lot of absolutely brilliant videos doing the rounds at the moment which deserve a mention.  Second - I am travelling to New York in a few weeks and have my dissertation on Thomas Jefferson to complete and hand in before I travel, so these videos allow a short snappy post when I am too tired to blog about something in detail.

The big story at the moment is of course the Ground Zero Mosque, and it is interesting to watch the supporters of the mosque constantly dodge the one single question that sticks out like a sore thumb - "No one is questioning your right to build, but why do you want to build there?"  I have yet to see an answer to this.

Instead of dealing with this question, the left are just trying to smear opponents as Islamophobic or extreme or racist or whatever.  The main argument they seem to be using is "Oh well, if we don't allow this mosque, then we are smearing all Muslims as terrorists."  This is of course nonsense, we are just recognising that the extremist branch of Islam would see such a building as a victory (the symbolism would speak volumes), and that however "moderate" the backers might be (although this is yet to be established - a story broke today about how they might be taking money from the Iranian government) this thing would be a magnet for extremists who would see this as the "victory mosque" whether we like it or not.  It is for this reason why there are a lot of moderate Islamic voices saying that this mosque should be a no-no.  Yet this is ignored by the left, who instead prefer simply to smear opponents as racist, extremist Islamophobes.

This leads nicely into this new video, which deals with this accusation that Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians etc are "extreme" etc.  You hear this a lot from the mainstream media - "Oh no, conservatives shouldn't listen to Limbaugh/Palin/Beck/De Mint etc - they are extreme!!"

Well the latest video asks, "Who exactly are the extreme ones?"  Take a look....