A Tough Choice for Florida Voters.

Once upon a time, voting was simpler.  Through the late '40's and early '60's, the choices for president seemed easier.

President Truman was a logical choice for his time, direct, honest and unafraid. Eisenhower, a national hero, liked and respected, a calm and astute leader.  Kennedy, a breath of fresh air, representative of a new generation, ready to lead.

Consider the situation today.  Our current president seeks fundamental changes as to how we are governed.  His policies both implemented and contemplated are in sharp contradiction to constitutional principles and history.  We need to change direction---we are at a critical crossroad.  For those of us who oppose Obama, it is critically important to nominate a candidate that will soundly defeat him.

There is no question as to the complexity of the problems we face.  The nominating process, however, does not provide much clarity. We now have a climate of charge and counter charge, a biased media in pursuit of trivia 24/7, sensationalist and irresponsible and secretive super pacs financing misleading ads.  Add to this, the public's low opinion of politicians.  It is no wonder that voters may be skeptical and conflicted!

We select candidates on factors such as their policy positions, credibility, leadership and character. But we need to be realistic and discerning in our judgement.  Remember when a candidate is criticized for "flip-flopping" that Ronald Reagan, a man of principle, changed his views from that of a registered Democrat to a conservative Republican. As to personal behavior, if a person sincerely states that he is at peace with God, who are we to question?

For me, a candidate's outlook and character are key.  Is he a person of integrity, says what he honestly believes, stands by his principles and is clear on where he wants to lead the country?  Does he look to the future, optimistic and confident but also pragmatic?  We have in the end only our own common sense, principles and judgement to choose a candidate seeking to be our president.

The Public's Mood and the Establishment

The public's mood is one of anger and apprehension.  Anger at the mishandling of our affairs by the political establishment as well as the loss of jobs, a decrease in personal wealth and a crushing debt; apprehension as to what the future holds for all of us.

The establishment is generally thought of as the nation's power structure represented by those politicians who hold office and their appointees.  But it can also refer to those who influence decisions such as lobbyists, special interests and the news media.  Its members come from both political parties. 

We did not reach our current crises in one day or even one year.  Prolific spending, undue political influence in the private sector, burdensome regulations and decisions made in favor of special interests have been going on for years under the aegis of both parties.

One of the reasons for Obama's election in 2008 was his call for change which he left undefined.  We now know what he meant.  His record shows:
 
     No significant changes to address those problems caused by government malfeasance and inefficiencies.  There was, however, a changing of the guard from one set of special interests to another.

     Changes that were not aimed at the roots of our problems but at  programs that would fundamentally alter our government and society as well as diminish our personal freedoms.

     A waste of resources to promote a political vision for a government directed economy in disregard of our huge debt and the adverse impact on the country's future.

Obama did not initiate the process leading to our current problems.  But he has aggravated them significantly.  The public mood reflects a deep sense of being let down by the very people, especially the President, who should be representing the public interest and not special interests.

In the current election cycle, Ron Paul was the first beneficiary of the public's mood.  He currently has a loyal and dedicated following among young people who are naturally inclined to be against authority.

Newt Gingrich has recently turned his campaign around by effectively tapping into the public mood.  His demeanor and aggressiveness toward government bureaucracy and to the press has touched a deep seated sentiment. We now see Mitt Romney also responding, if somewhat timidly, with an emphasis for government reforms.  But it is Gingrich who is now dominating the debate and has the attention of the public.

The establishment is now concerned that the status quo, and their position in it, will be undermined by Gingrich's ascendency.  They will do all they can to defeat him.  But consider this: How much consideration should we give to an establishment that is largely responsible for our current problems?

"Flawed Candidates"?

I've heard more than once the term "flawed candidates" in connection with the Republican candidates for the Party's nomination.  The term was not meant as a compliment.

According to my dictionary the word "flaw" means "a fault; defect; blemish" and its synonym is "imperfection" which I suppose means less than perfect. Now imagine that! The candidates for the Republican nomination are less than perfect.

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that anyone inclined to support one candidate or another would be predisposed to tailor his language accordingly.  As for instance, a candidate may be described as "purposeful" by a supporter but "stubborn" by an antagonist.

Other words may be used in the same way.  For example:

Intelligent vs. shrewd
Fighter vs. belligerent
Communicator vs. showman
Value oriented vs. uncompromising
Empathetic vs. panderer
Politician vs. politician?
Open minded/generous vs. liberal
Cautious/moderate vs. conservative.

The next time you hear a pundit, newsman or anyone else, describing a candidate's character or personality, listen to the words. They'll tell you a lot, not necessarily about the candidate, but of whoever is the source of the description.

(My thanks to Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" this morning for the last two examples).

One Choice; Competing Goals

Historically, there has been a conflict among Republican voters.  Conservatives want a nominee who passes certain litmus tests.  Other Republicans stress the need for a candidate who will appeal to a broad section of the electorate in a general election.

The current primaries present other issues as well, different from the historical conflict but not separate.  In the current debate, some emphasize the need to beat Obama.  Others stress the need to elect a president who will lead the country in a different direction.

The difficulty of the choice can best be understood by the statement of an anonymous voter.  He wished he could choose Gingrich to run in the general election but Romney to be President. Others might be disposed to reverse that selection or to choose a completely different one.

Complicating the choice is a tendency to view a candidate from our personal perspective. For example, do you prefer a candidate who is a fighter or one who is conciliatory?  Each of us has a different opinion.  These are my impressions of each of the remaining candidates:

     Gingrich is a fighter, a good debater who speaks with authority and assurance.  He is intelligent and  prolific in generating ideas. At times, he can be impulsive.

     Romney is conciliatory but can be a forceful debater; projects an image of personal integrity and "presidential" demeanor.  Could be viewed as playing it too safe; sometimes ambiguous in his statements.

     Santorum is a values based candidate whose primary appeal is to voters who share his views.  Seems belligerent at times; attempts to force debate on a variety of topics, a transparent effort to attract more voters.

     Paul's libertarian message resonates with voters who are angry and frustrated with the political establishment and the country's direction.  His weakness is in foreign policy and defense. He sometimes rambles.

Each of these candidates represents different skills, backgrounds, philosophies and character.  Which one will you choose to be the Party's nominee to campaign against Obama and to be elected President?

On Spending and Taxes: What is "fair"?

In discussions of our nation's financial problems, there are several points of view regarding solutions.  They revolve around whether to increase taxes, cut spending or a combination of both.  Inevitably, the question of fairness becomes part of the discussion.

To understand this issue, many will turn to the moral precepts of their faith.  In the Catholic Church, guidance may be found in its teaching.  The Church's guidance regarding fairness relative to earthly goods and property is summarized in the following:

"The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one's neighbor and wronging him of any way with respect to his goods.  It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruit of men's labor.  For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and the respect for the right to private property.  Christian life strives to order this world's goods to God and to fraternal charity."

"The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with 'communism' or 'socialism'.  She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of 'capitalism', individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.  Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice for 'there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market'.  Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, with a view to the common good, is to be commended." (quoted from "Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Seventh Commandment" par. 2401 and 2425))

In discussing the country's financial problems, we should emphasize:

     *We are $15 trillion in debt, a burden that is detrimental to our economic well being and to future generations.

     *That much of federal spending has been and continues to be irresponsible, used for narrow and selfish purposes and not for the common good.

     *That our tax system is broken and subject to political favoritism and manipulation.

     *That a large percentage of our national resources support a bureaucratic system that goes beyond the "---reasonable regulation of the marketplace---".

     *That our national government has overly expanded the power granted to it by the sovereign will of the people as specified in the Constitution.

None of the above is to suggest that some programs are not well intentioned.  But as in many government programs, they have been susceptible to becoming bloated and inefficient thereby "---not in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view of the common good---."

What is "fair"?  I've concluded from history, the teachings of the Church and common sense that we cannot leave this question alone to those controlling the government's purse strings.  We have seen in too many instances where politicians have taken the path of least resistance in order to gain favor with voters. This process has been aided and abetted by the campaign donations of special interests.  The results can now be seen in an acrimonious, divided and troubled country.

What is required of each individual is to determine how we should treat our brothers and sisters and to support those organizations that help those in need.  Because true charity, by its very nature, can only be given of one's free will and cannot be forced.

Ideas Count! Ron Paul and the Case Against the Status Quo

Candidates for the Republican nomination all seem to have their moments, then fade. Except for Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  Romney has maintained his status because he seems "presidential" and safe, speaks well enough and has a good reputation.

But what explains Ron Paul's staying power? He doesn't project especially well, considers his candidacy "dangerous" to the status quo, speaks haltingly and is a long time member of a maligned Congress.  The only possible explanation is in the power of his ideas.

The primary campaign has covered many issues: jobs, the economy, national debt and government spending for instance. But these issues are subordinate to the underlying concern of all of us: the Federal Government has exceeded its proper and legitimate constitutional role. This increase in power has led to results no longer acceptable to a free people.

Our Government in Washington D. C.:

     *is dysfunctional, too big and too powerful,
     *is out of touch, aloof, complex and unresponsive to most of the citizenry,
     *consists of agencies (such as the Federal Reserve, NLRB and Consumer Protection Agency) that are insular, arrogant and not answerable to legitimate authority,
     *issues a multitude of regulations that stifle individual initiative and freedom,
     *has a tax code that is complex and has been corrupted through political and corporate manipulation to the detriment of average citizens,
     *has allowed spending to get out of control leading to a $15 trillion debt, an unconscionable burden for future generations,
     *has waged military actions without proper authorization of our elected representatives,
     *has promulgated policies that have led to an economy in trouble, a huge loss of jobs and low economic growth,
     *and by its actions, has diminished our individual liberties and opportunity for all.

It should be no surprise that these conditions have led to an angry and aroused citizenry!

Ron Paul is an advocate for a better way.  His message highlights the Constitution and the basic rights of all Americans:

     To the right of individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

     To the individual right of private property and economic freedom and

     To have a  Government that is limited to the powers specified in the Constitution
                                            
                                                and to no more!                

Ron Paul's vision of the proper role of government resonates with voters because it speaks to their concerns, is clear, compelling, consistent and is based on time-honored principles.

                                  He is a voice that should be heeded.

            

Voters Decide Elections, Not Polls!

Every time I hear of poll results on the upcoming elections, I'm reminded of the presidential election of 1948.

In that year, Republican Thomas Dewey was running against incumbent President Harry Truman.  It was nearly unanimous among all polls that Dewey would win by a wide margin.  Pundits were quick to jump on the bandwagon.

On election day, the polls and pundits were proven wrong.  Truman won reelection by over two million popular votes and over 100 electoral votes.

Why were the polls and pundits so wrong?  One theory faults the incorrect polls to the fact that they were taken by phone; in 1948, many voters did not have phones and so were missed.  If correct, I guess someone forgot to tell those voters that Dewey was supposed to win!

As one writer said at the time:"-- the American people couldn't be ticketed (labeled) by polls, knew its own mind, and picked---Truman--".  R. Strout as quoted in "Truman"/David McCullough).

The lesson for today is obvious.  Although polls of today are arguably more "scientific", they can still be misleading. Don't let polls and pundits influence your own judgement.
                          
                                 Voters decide elections, not the polls or the pundits! 

IOWA RESULTS REFLECT KEY ISSUES

The votes for Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul demonstrate that Iowa voters were most concerned about the economy, the national debt and what may be described as character issues.

All of these candidates emphasized the economy.  Romney: that  his private sector background and experience would help him lead the country to economic recovery.  Santorum: the need to create jobs especially in the manufacturing sector.  And Paul: that the economy would improve by his call to reduce the size of government and making substantial cuts in spending.

On the issue of debt, the candidates supported a balanced budget by a combination of cutting spending,  entitlement reforms and/or increased revenues from a recovered economy.

As to character, these top candidates projected sincerity in the debates. None made a major mistake.  Neither did any of them have a major character issue with which to contend.  Romney's image is squeaky clean.  Paul seems both sincere and consistent in advocating his libertarian positions.  Santorum projected himself as strongly pro-life and supportive of family values, a position which helped him with Evangelicals.

The character image of these three candidates contrast favorably with politicians in general as indicated by the abysmal approval rating of Congress. But the voters also had, as a comparison, allegations made against Newt Gingrich in his dealings with Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac. These allegations and the attack ads prior to the caucuses cost him dearly.

We will see what happens next week in New Hampshire.

RESPONSE TO INITIAL COMMENTS

As I just started this blog, it is gratifying to receive initial feedback. Comments by "Big Ryan" and "Kathy" are not only constructive but also provide a spur to more dialog.

I too am frustrated and fed-up with the country's current condition.  Instead of solutions, we are getting deadlock by a self-serving and ethically challenged political establishment.  Instead of leadership, we have a president who seems more interested in the accumulation of a war chest for his reelection campaign.

A candidate's character is an important factor for all voters to consider.  But it is only one of the factors that voters need to take into account.  Most of us do not have the opportunity for personal contact with the presidential candidates as in Iowa and New Hampshire.  So we rely, to a large degree, on the mass media which tends to be sensational and biased.  There are alternatives such as discussions with our friends and family or to participate in a blog such as this one.

The Constitution, as originally intended, was designed to check the concentration of power.  It does this in several ways. For example, it divides power among the three branches and by specifying that  powers not granted to the Federal Government be reserved to the States and to the people.  Further, the Constitution staggers the terms of Congress and the President  thereby diminishing the chance of ill considered legislation after a heated campaign.

That is the theory.  But as we have seen, the Federal Government has been increasing its power over the last few decades to the detriment of the States and individual citizens. There are many reasons for this but chief among them, in my opinion, is Congress's tendency to abuse their power of the purse.  Through that power, including that of taxation, the Federal Government has extended its reach to such aspects of our lives as health care and education as well as others.  In addition, the current President seeks to extend that power which could only lead to more control and abuse by entrenched politicians and moneyed interests.

It's time to get back to basics and to the principles of the Constitution. We need to get this Government back to its proper and legitimate role. We are at a cross road.

                                         The process starts in earnest today in Iowa.