Taking Turns?

The race for the GOP Presidential nomination is speeding up as of late, with Herman Cain rising in certain polls and tying with Mitt Romney in others.  Many people are virtually handing the nomination to Romney, based on the fact that Cain has no political experience and Romney is the most polished in the field right now.  He's been running for president for six years; he should be the most well prepared, right?

Wrong.  This race is far from over.  Assuming that someone will get the nomination at this point based on their lead in the polls means nothing.  Polls can change overnight, and we are still 65 days away from the first nominating contest.  A lot can and will change between now and then.  Based on that, no one, not even those candidates at the bottom of the polls, can truly be counted out (well, maybe a couple of them could ;).

Mitt Romney has been the frontrunner that people began crowning with the nomination back in May.  It has just been assumed that he would be the nominee.  One of the reasons for this is that many people in the GOP establishment feel this is his "turn" at the nomination.  That idea really is as far-fetched as it sounds.  When you look back at history, though, there is definitely a pattern to this that has been followed and gone unnoticed.  In the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon.  Later, in 1968, it was Nixon's "turn" in which he won the presidency.  Gerald Ford beat Ronald Reagan in the 1976 primaries, then went on to lose to Jimmy Carter.  In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the nomination and beat George H. W. Bush, who then became his vice president.  In 1988, H. W. Bush became president but lost reelection in 1992 to Bill Clinton.  Again, in 2000, George W. Bush beat out John McCain for the Republican nomination.  In 2008, apparently, it was John McCain's turn. 

I know that was a lot of names.  I hope you were able to follow it and see what it all really means:  the GOP establishment has found a way to work themselves into the actual nominating process, in ways other than simply choosing the actual nominee.  The people should be the ones who choose the nominee, based on our own vetting and our actual votes.  The establishment does not get to set up a list of people who will eventually be Republican nominees and the order they will do it in.  The media is a huge part of the nominating process as well, and may shape it in some ways to fit the mold they want it to, but at this point I believe the establishment is just as much to blame if the recent poll numbers are not correct.  The establishment needs to get out of the nominating process until the convention next year.  The people should be responsible enough to do their own vetting of the candidates and choose for themselves who they feel is the best candidate.

Mitt Romney has clearly been chosen as the establishment's candidate.  Herman Cain has, in a sense, been chosen as the media's candidate; their intentions are still fairly unknown.  Both of these "endorsements" may prove to be beneficial to these candidates, especially to Mitt Romney if the establishment decides to go against the peoples' wishes and choose their own nominee.  While he has been running for president for nearly six years, it has been made clear that Mitt Romney is not the peoples' choice.  He has consistently stayed at about 25% in polls and has changed his opinion on so many important issues, many conservatives have been turned off by his flip-flopping.  I, for one, am not a fan of his and do not feel he is the best possible person to lead our country out of this crisis.  At this rate, however, neither my nor your opinion will make a difference.  The establishment is pushing hard for Mitt Romney to be our nominee.  If we wish to stop that from happening, people will have to sound their true opinions loud and clear and let them know that "We the People" will choose our own nominee, not them.  We do not take turns trying to defeat incumbent presidents.  What we need is someone who has never run for the presidency before to come in and show the establishment that their choice is not always the right now.  Just something to note, both of the current frontrunners have run for president or explored a run before (Mitt Romney ran in 2008 and Herman Cain formed an exploratory committee in 1996).

UPDATE: Grizzly Fest Alternate Link

The main Grizzly Fest site has crashed through the many, many people trying to access it to listen to this event!!  You can also listen through their page on BlogTalkRadio, found here.

Grizzly Fest Today!

Today from 2-5pm EST an event is taking place called Grizzly Fest.  It is an event based on Sarah Palin that was created by Sarah supporters who wish to continue her message and not give up the fight.  The goal of this conference is to continue the message Sarah put out during her October 5th announcement that she would not be running for president:  "We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the 'fundamental transformation' of our nation, and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law."  It will also feature several prominent names such as Tammy Bruce, Jedidiah Bila, and many more!  Please consider joining us!  The main website for this event is found here:  http://grizzlyfest.com/, or you can listen to the livestream below.

Listen to internet radio with Grizzly Fest on Blog Talk Radio

Happy Birthday to Lady Liberty

It's been called Lady Liberty, Mother of Exiles, Liberty Enlightening the World, The New Colossus, and Liberty's Lady.  Today, the Statue of Liberty celebrates its 125th birthday!

The Statue of Liberty was dedicated on October 28th, 1886.  A gift from the French symbolizing our newfound independence.  We had recently ended a civil war when this idea originated.  The French agreed to pay for the Statue that would be placed in New York Harbor on Ellis Island.  A sign of hope for people coming from war-torn lands.  People were coming here for a new life were first greeted by Liberty's Lady, standing strong and proud and helping to remind the world that we are a free nation indeed.

From the base of the pedestal foundation to the tip of the torch, the Statue of Liberty stands at three hundred five feet, six inches.  Her face is more than eight feet tall.  At her feet lies broken chains and shackles, a symbol that we are no longer tied down by another country; we are a nation free from chains.  "The broken shackles of oppression and tyranny."  Anything is possible in America.  On her head is a crown with seven rays, one for each continent.  The tablet in her left is inscribed with "JULY IV MDCCLXXVI" (July 4, 1776).  In 1986 the torch she holds was carefully covered in delicate 24k gold.  There are thousands of stories about emigrants coming here to America and seeing Lady Liberty for the first time.  They pride in it even before they are officially citizens.  Today, in honor of its 125th birthday, the Statue's torch received new HD cameras so those who make it up to the top can have a close-up view of the people on the ground.

The Statue of Liberty is a sign of American pride in this country.  The flag and the Statue are two things every true American's heart should swell at the sight of.  Today, we remember the Statue of Liberty and what it represents.  When a person comes to American for the first time, their eyes are greeted with the sight of Lady Liberty!  A symbol of hope for all those seeking American citizenship.  The Statue of Liberty embodies patriotism and teaches an unspoken lesson that all should read.  Patriotism is given off through the message that the Statue of Liberty represents and everyone can learn from it.  Patriotism is the heartbeat of this nation's success.  It is everything we are.  We were founded on the basis of hard work, faith in God, and a dream, and the underlying theme in that was patriotism. 

The Statue of Liberty turns 125 today.  All Americans should stop and think today about what America would be without it.  Yes, to some people it may be only a statue; but to many it is so much more than that.  Written on the Statue is this phrase:  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."  This is what people from all over the world come to America for; to rid themselves of the worries of their former homes and to create a new life in the greatest nation on earth.

That is what the Statue of Liberty is.

What happened to baby Lisa?

On October 4th, Deborah Bradley claims she put her baby to bed around 6:30pm the same way she does every evening.  However, this story is proving to be false as the search for her missing daughter intensifies and the pieces to her story are just not adding up.

Mom Deborah Bradley's story has changed numerous times as to what she believes happens to her baby girl.  She says that around 6:30pm she put Lisa Irwin to bed, then checked on her a few hours later.  The story then changed to about an hour after putting her to bed.  When Lisa's father, Jeremy Irwin, came home from work at 4:30am that morning, he found his daughter gone.  In an interview with Megyn Kelly a few weeks ago, the baby's mother admitted that she had been drinking the night Lisa disappeared.  With a friend, she drank at least four glasses of wine and "may have" blacked out as a result.  This coming after Deborah Bradley miserably failed the polygraph test performed by police soon after Lisa was reported missing.  Lisa's parents believe someone broke into their home and abducted their baby. 

Lisa's parents have done numerous interviews, and while police are still searching for her, they have questioned Lisa's parents.  Experts in dealing with children have also questioned Lisa's two young brothers.  An additional interview with the two young boys was scheduled, and then this morning was cancelled.  Video footage of a man possibly carrying a baby while emerging from the woods near the Irwin family's home was found as well.  This man was spotted three times that night, twice appearing to be carrying a baby that matches Lisa's description.

This beautiful baby will turn one year old on November 11th.  Hopes are high that she will be found alive before that.  However, as the days that Lisa has been missing increase, it is sadly looking like that is less likely to happen.  This is yet another example of parents not properly caring for their children.  While responsible for three young children, Lisa's mother should not have been drinking at all, much less been getting drunk.  The example of the American family has been so damaged by those who oppose it, it barely even exists anymore.  Parents should be responsibly caring for their children, not drinking to the point that they black out.  The traditional American family needs to be strengthened or this country will continue to go downhill.  When people continue to be irresponsible in caring for their children, this sort of thing will happen more often and the entire nation will suffer the consequences of it.

This is a step away from what I normally write about.  I feel that it is important, though, to realize the things that are going on aside from politics as well.  These are real-world happenings that are damaging our society.  If we do not work together to stop them, nothing will change and very soon, the American family will be a symbol of the past.  We must stop that from happening.

First TV Ad in Iowa for Rick Perry

Below is Governor Rick Perry's first television ad to air in Iowa. 

"The Dangers of an Apathetic Youth"

Below is an excerpt from my piece in Smart Girl Nation, the magazine published by Smart Girl Politics Action.  You can read the rest here.

-----------------------------------------

“We need you, we need your youth, your strength, and your idealism, to help us make right what is wrong.”  President Reagan's words still have meaning for every youth in America today. Our goal should be to continue his idea: for American youth to give their strength and ideas to governing this country. Our age does not mean we remain silent. We need to work together to conquer this apathy that has overtaken American teens. At this rate, the next generation of Americans will be so uninformed about current affairs that America could be in danger of losing its superpower status. Prevention of that is impossible without a huge intervention right now. In order to accomplish this, together we must understand how critical it really is.

Where did this apathy come from? It most likely comes from parents. Political apathy is not only concerning among teenagers, it is rampant among adults as well. It is more than likely that apathy is passed from one generation to the next. Many parents developed apathy growing up after the Great Depression. Those who grew up before and during the Depression were brought up believing in the American Dream, which included faith and hard work. After the Depression, government became much more involved in peoples' everyday lives, bringing a sense of entitlement to many in that new generation. Even more concerning, apathy is not only in politics; more recently, it's been found in the areas of religion and school. The number of teens who attend church regularly is dropping, and high school graduation rates are at some of their lowest points yet. Clearly, apathy is not limited to politics, and all areas need to be addressed. If teens do not become more knowledgeable about the things going on around them, we as a nation will suffer the consequences.

Afghani President Karzai would side against U.S.

President Obama released a statement last week saying that Operation Iraqi Freedom is over.  The war in Iraq is over and all the American troops that are currently fighting there will be home by Christmas.  I really do not think this is realistic, as there are more than 30,000 troops in Iraq right now.  I think the president made a false statement that is going to cause heartbreak for the hundreds of military families who will be expecting their loved one to be home by Christmas, when in reality they will not be.

Before I continue, let me say that every war we are in is important in some way.  American life is in jeopardy wherever our soldiers are fighting and we should never take any conflict of that sort lightly.  Approximately 4,400 American lives have been lost in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and nearly 32,000 have been wounded.  This is a sacrifice no American should ever forget.  However, if President Obama is determined to end our wars abroad, I think his first priority should have been pulling us out of Afghanistan.  This is especially true due to the fact that the president of Afghanistan would have no problem siding with Pakistan if they and the U.S. went to war.

Afghani President Hamid Karzai, in an interview on the Pakistani television network Geo, said, "If there is war between Pakistan and America, we will stand by Pakistan."  He placed his hand on his heart and described Pakistan as a "brother" country.  All this, after we have been helping build his nation for ten years.  Our military intervention is the reason he was elected Afghani president in the country's first democratic election.

Some are saying that his statement is due to the fact that other leaders in the Middle East are calling him a "lap dog" of the United States.  He has non-Pashtun groups in that area that are concerned about him getting too friendly with Pakistan.  He is being pulled from all sides, yes, and while the possibility of war between the U.S. and Pakistan is remote, this was still a rude thing to say.  We have been building his nation for ten years!  American lives have been sacrificed in an attempt to turn Afghanistan into a free, democratic nation.  We have made huge strides, but everything is not completed.  However, most signs are pointing to the fact that this is as good as it's going to get anytime soon.  This is proven by the fact that the Afghani president cannot choose whose side he wants to be on.  The United States, who has built his country from the ground up, or Pakistan, who is in his area and has possibly harbored terrorists.  He wants an alliance with Pakistan (maybe he thinks they can help protect Afghanistan from Iran in the future?) but he also wants the United States' help as he has been receiving it.  Honestly, I believe we have done all we can in Afghanistan, and the fact that their president openly says he would side against us in a war after all we have done there, is unacceptable.  We have done all we can, and I think this is the statement that should have sealed the deal to pull us out.  But no, we are pulling out of Iraq; we do not need to be there, either.  I think, though, that President Obama needs to look ahead a bit and see what could happen by staying in a country like Afghanistan.  I am glad he is taking measures to bring our troops home from Iraq.  I also think, though, that he needs to be making efforts to bring us out of Afghanistan as well.  After these comments, I would say, the sooner the better. 

Greed in the Political System

Presidential primary dates are always a big deal.  States always push their dates up as early as possible, while still attempting to stay within the RNC rules.  The story was the same in 2008, when states pushed up early.  This time around, some states are choosing to defy RNC rules and hold their primaries much earlier than allowed, possibly changing something that has been in place for years.

According to RNC rules, the only states allowed to hold a primary or caucus before the first Tuesday in March in an election year are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.  Those states can hold their contests at any time on or after February first.  This year, Florida decided to move their primary up to January 31st, which means that even if they were in that group of early states, they still would have been violating both rules.  This sent the "primary world" into utter chaos, with the four states ahead of them concerned with losing their early status.  If Florida was defying the rule, they said, they would too.  As long as they kept early primaries.  Now, the dates are set for the Iowa caucus to be held on January 3rd, the Nevada primary to be held on January 14th, South Carolina primary on January 21st, and Florida on the 31st.  The New Hampshire, first-in-the-nation primary, has yet to set schedule a date.  According to their own state rules, their primary must be held at least seven days before another contest of similar standards.  In order for this to be done more quickly, and still ensuring they could keep the first-in-the-nation status, New Hampshire asked Nevada if they would consider moving their primary back three days; from January 14th to January 17th.  The first thing Nevada said was, "no way." 

This is just yet another example of the negative role greed plays in politics today.  Instead of moving back only three days, Nevada is forcing New Hampshire to consider holding early December primaries.  This would make them have virtually no relevance.  These states are becoming ridiculous with the early dates they are choosing.  The convention to choose the nominee is not until August!  Why drag the primary season out longer.  Beginning the primaries in March leaves plenty of time for all the states to hold their contests.  I believe that would be a better system to go by; rather than holding primaries months ahead of time.

Greed is in nearly every aspect of politics right now; even to the point where the leaders in Washington cannot agree to pass a bill because neither side wants to compromise.  They want something, and the other side wants something different, so neither compromises and nothing ever gets done.  This is, honestly, all because of career politicians.  Career politicians who were never meant to be.  When this country was founded, there was no such thing as a "career politician."  Regular citizens aided in the running of this country for a certain period of time, then went back to their normal lives as regular citizens.  They didn't go back with a regime of Secret Service agents, either.  At first, presidents didn't even have Secret Service to follow them around.  Although, back then the president probably did not receive daily death threats.  As much as some of them have hurt it right now, we do need politicians in Washington today, not as much "regular citizens" in the higher positions of power, like we did back then.  With the world evolving so quickly into a completely different place than it was 100 years ago, we need people with proven records of executive leadership in dealing with another party to make America as strong as it can be.  We need someone who knows how to compromise sometimes in order to get things done.  Ultimately, we need leaders who love America.  If they truly love this country, they will be less likely to get involved in politics for personal gain and more for the bettering of the "land that I love."  While a career politician would probably not be anyone's first choice, we do need people with proven records of leadership. 

With the leaders in Washington exhibiting such greed on a daily basis, it is really no surprise that some citizens are picking up on it as well.  The Occupy Wall Street crowd is a perfect example.  They are mad that their college loans aren't paid, that they don't have jobs (when many simply aren't looking), and that their are people who have more money than they do.  Instead of looking for ways to fix it on their own, they are looking for free handouts, which translated is:  Greed.

All of this to say, greed needs to get out of our political system immediately.  It is engulfing it and making it nearly impossible for us to get the things done that need to be.  Greed is a cancer that will eat away at the heart of whatever it controls; whether it be a person or an entire nation.  Politicians need to start working for "We the People" rather than themselves and stop looking solely for personal gain.  If they do not, we as a nation will continue to go downhill and my generation will not have the means necessary to thrive in the greatest nation on earth.

Another ad released by Perry camp

The tensions between Governor Perry and Mitt Romney continue to escalate, with the Romney campaign releasing http://careerpolitician.com/ and the Perry campaign releasing this video.  Personally, I think this video speaks volumes.

President Reagan shares his debate tips

Debate Review 10/18/11

Let me start off by saying, I do not like when CNN sponsors these GOP debates.  They are too biased against every one of these candidates to properly moderate a debate.  Last night's debate was crucial for a couple reasons.  First, this was Herman Cain's first debate as an "official" frontrunner.  Second, this was looked upon by many as Rick Perry's last chance to gain his momentum back.  Third, Mitt Romney just needed to "keep his cool" and for him, nothing would change.  Here is my order, who did the best, to who did the poorest, based on what was said last night.  I will have facts to support all of my conclusions (since my order is almost always different from everyone else's).

#1: Rick Perry.  I know that there will be many people who disagree with me on this.  They will say that Governor Perry came across as rude, arrogant, and sometimes, just downright obnoxious.  However, for the most part, I have to disagree.  I think the governor came across as much more aggressive in this debate.  He proved that he would be able to debate President Obama.  He showed some energy and was prepared to take on both Romney and Cain.  I believe he truly did enough to bring this back to a two-man race.  He was the first person to really trip Mitt Romney up with true facts.  Here are facts to support why I put him in first place:  I believe that he is the first person to truly challenge Mitt Romney's "frontrunner" status.  There was a moment that was very intense between them, going back and forth over immigration.  Every word that Governor Perry said about Governor Romney's stance on this issue is true.  Secondly, I agree with Governor Perry that we need to drill for our own energy and create more jobs through that.  I agree with him that "the idea that we should not have our freedom of religion" is not right.  Lastly, we should defund the UN.  All of this is aside from the fact that I believe Governor Perry is the most qualified to be our president.

#2: Rick Santorum.  I believe Rick Santorum came in second in this debate, based on his statement that "the basic unit of society is the family."  I agree with him that, while creating jobs is important, every other candidate on that stage continues to overlook that fact.  Without the family, our society would be completely different.  They are the reason we are what we are today, and people need to remember that.  Another answer of Santorum's that I liked was his response to a question about a candidate's religion.  Asked about whether a candidate's religion should come into play when people choose who to support, his answer was that people need to not only look at religion, but at a person's values as well.  They should look at what their religion teaches and come to conclusions on what their values are.  Those are the reasons I believe Santorum placed this high.  Honestly, I do not think he has a chance at getting the nomination.  I do, though, believe that he is a strong voice for the traditional family that should not be ignored.

#3: Newt Gingrich.  Where to start with Newt?  I always say, he comes out strong in every debate.  One thing I do like about Newt is that he hardly ever attacks his opponents.  In fact, he sometimes even praises them.  He said that Herman Cain "deserves a lot of credit" for proposing a "very big idea" on tax reform.  I agree with him that it would be "very troubling" to have a president who would not take any faith into consideration when making decisions.  Where, he wants to know, would that person receive their guidance from?  It just doesn't work that way.  It would be very troubling to have a president who abandons religion.  (Just a quick fact, it was Mitt Romney that said he would abandon all religion as president.)

#4: Mitt Romney.  I really am not fond of Mitt Romney.  I don't know what it is, but something about him makes me believe he is in this solely for personal gain.  This debate was the first time, I think, we have seen him "lose his cool."  Many times through the duration of the debate, he was attacked hard, accurately, which made it harder for him to respond.  One thing I did agree with him on was that "we are an energy-rich nation that is acting like an energy-poor nation."  Other than that, I felt it was mostly downhill.  I felt he was very rude to Governor Perry on the issue of immigration.  He broke in during the governor's speaking time, then asked Governor Perry to stop talking.  He used a patronizing tone that I don't think will sit well with very many people.  Telling another candidate, "if you want to be President of the United States, you've got to learn to let other people speak" is not something you have a right to say.  The way that he put his hand on Governor Perry's shoulder and referenced his previous bad debate performances was disrespectful.  Mitt Romney has lied to the American people, evidenced by the fact that his book in paperback was not the same book that was in hardcover.  He edited words out when it suited his presidential run.  One thing I've noticed about Mitt; when he starts to lose composure, he laughs and his eyes get very red.  Watch videos from this debate and see if you notice the same thing.  Overall, this was Mitt's first, real, bad debate.

#5: Michele Bachmann.  Honestly, I feel like we hear most of the same things from her in every debate.  I do agree with repealing ObamaCare, as she does.  As she puts it, even the Obama Administration wants to repeal it, and they are arguing with themselves over it.  I agree with her that "we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel", and that we should "look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for involvement in their wars."  We should also be looking to Egypt for reimbursement.  All of that foreign aid was wasted taxpayer money, as Congresswoman Bachmann makes clear.  As much as I do like her, I think her campaign has deflated beyond repair.

#6: Herman Cain.  We didn't hear much from Herman in this debate.  The first fifteen minutes were entirely devoted to his 9-9-9 plan, but after that he pretty much remained silent.  I do not think he did a sufficient job of defending his 9-9-9 plan, I think he could have done better.  His answer about negotiating with terrorists was not exactly clear to me.  One thing I do agree with is the fact that he will not apologize for wanting to "protect the American people, protect our border agents, and protecting our border."  Other than that, I am tempted to say this debate was a loss for Herman Cain.

#7: Ron Paul.  "Those people at Guantanamo aren't terrorists, they haven't been convicted of anything!"  Enough said.

Overall, I believe this debate was damaging for both Cain and Romney.  It was Romney's first bad debate.  Whether it was beneficial to Perry is yet to be seen.  It was very interesting to watch the exchange between Governor Perry and Governor Romney.  You can watch video of it and read the transcript here.  So interesting that Governor Romney says, "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals."  From this, it sounds like he only cared about employing illegals because he was running for office and didn't want it to hurt his chances.  This debate, though, like all of them, was fun to watch.  Debates are definitely good ways to get to know a candidate.  Not the only way, but a good way.

Rick Perry: America's Jobs Governor

The latest ad released by the Rick Perry campaign.

More Interesting Reads...

This first one is by the political analyst who was the first to say, in 2007, that Barack Obama would be our next president.  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/24/five-reasons-why-believe-texas-governor-rick-perry-will-be-our-president-in/

Next is an article by Politico that says Mitt Romney may be "too unlovable to be inevitable."  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66113.html

Last article is about Herman Cain, and an interview he did on Meet the Press yesterday.  It outlines one of his opinions on gay marriage and some thoughts on foreign policy.  While most are covering what was said about 9-9-9 in this interview, these are two things most news stations are not sharing.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/cain-missteps-on-foreign-policy-and-gay-marriage/2011/03/29/gIQAJWbtpL_blog.html

Drill, Baby, Drill!

Rick Perry unveiled the first part of his jobs plan this morning, promising to create 1.2 million jobs.  "The quickest way to give our economy a shot in the arm is to deploy American ingenuity to tap American energy,"  the governor said at a steel plant in Pennsylvania.  Today is his first major policy speech and is what he hopes will give his campaign a boost as well.  "My plan will break the grip of dependence we have today on foreign oil from hostile nations like Venezuela and unstable nations in the Middle East to grow jobs and our economy at home."  Governor Perry is right.  We have nearly unlimited natural gas, oil, and coal resources that are being wasted.  By not drilling on and off shore for our own energy, we give other countries the chance to do so.  An example of this is the fact that Cuban workers are set to begin drilling for oil off the Florida Keys in the coming months, using a Chinese-funded Spanish rig.  These nations will be profiting from our oil, that we could be taking advantage of, but we are not.  Not only that, but the odds of another disaster like the BP oil spill happening while these Cuban workers drill are at nearly 100%.  Those workers are just not skilled enough in how to drill properly, while the American oil workers are the best in the world.

Governor Perry believes that this is the best way to create the millions of jobs that are needed right now.  It would create thousands of jobs instantly.  Workers are needed to drill the oil, process it, then transport it across the country.  Not only that, but energy and gas prices would go down, since we would be supplying them ourselves instead of depending on another country for it.  We currently import nearly 49% (net) of our energy needs.  Drilling on and off shore is something we need to do, and have needed to for a long time.  This message of "drill, baby, drill" has been echoed by politicians before.  Probably most familiar, former Governor Sarah Palin put forth a similar message.  We need to actually do it.  One of the ways we can, to quote Governor Perry, is to tell the government environmental agencies to step down. 

I have personally read through this first part of Governor Perry's plan (energy is the first and largest part, but there is "more to come" for a further jobs plan in the near future, he says).  I found nothing that could be counted even controversial, unless you consider taking environmental agencies out of power to be controversial.  Governor Perry also wants to get rid of President Obama's Clean Air Act.  Unnecessary programs like that, that are costing millions if not billions of dollars, will be removed and that money will be used for drilling.  Governor Perry's plan is pure common sense.  Common sense solutions are something we need more of right now.  He says that it would not need Congressional approval to pass, making it realistically possible to begin drilling within the first 100 days of a Perry Administration.  This sets his plan apart from Mitt Romney's and Herman Cain's, both of which would need Congressional approval.  I have to admit that I have not read Governor Romney's plan, simply because I cannot find it.  Mr. Cain's plan, I have read, however when you read it, it just sounds "too good to be true," because it is.  When you look deeper, you can see the flaws, as aforesaid. 

I'm sure there will be flaws found in Governor Perry's plan, whether they be real or they come from those who oppose the governor.  Either way, I have read it through, and I believe it is an absolutely great idea that could create thousands of jobs instantly.  This is only the first phase of his plan, and I cannot wait to read the rest of it.  I encourage you, please, read Governor Perry's plan for yourself.  Do not rely on the national media to tell you about it.  Check it out for yourself and form your own opinion before you listen to the biased media.  Even this morning, Governor Perry went on five morning talk shows, where hosts were attempting to trip him up on questions.  The media has made it clear they oppose him.  Do not let those be the people who form your opinion on this plan for you.  Look at it for what it is; a good plan that could be exactly what we need right now.  This plan, even in its first stage, would erase dependency on foreign oil as well as create millions of jobs.

You can read the plan here:  http://www.rickperry.org/.

This video is not all about his jobs plan; the governor discusses a few different issues,

including Iran and securing the U.S.-Mexico border, along with his jobs plan..

9-9-9!

Herman Cain's "9-9-9" program has drawn national attention since the last debate on Tuesday night.  He has been promoting it across the country, and many people are becoming drawn to it based on the "simple" concept it represents.  Anyone who hears 9-9-9 in connection with a tax plan are more than likely going to support it, thinking all single digits is a good thing.  Mr. Cain has not released specifics about his plan as of yet, so the people are left to inspect it ourselves.  Most will not.  They will agree that a 9% tax, along with doing away with the entire current tax system, is something they agree with.  However, people need to actually look at the fine print before they sign their support to this.

The 9-9-9 plan is based on three taxes, 9% each:  a 9% consumer (sales) tax, 9% "business" tax, and a 9% income tax.  This may sound simple, and it is.  Simple, though, does not mean lower taxes or anything of the sort.  Under the 9-9-9 plan as it is right now, the poor will have their taxes raised and the rich will have theirs lowered.  A 9% tax for everyone, most negatively impacting those at the bottom of the ladder with much smaller incomes.  This means that the roughly 38% of Americans that pay little to no taxes would have their rates raised to about 27% of their total income.  Yes, 27%!  That is the number the federal government would need to even function properly.  The rich, who pay higher taxes, would have theirs lowered to the same rate as the poorest people in the nation.  Overall, this does not spread out who pays what based on their income.  This makes everyone pay the same, no matter how much money they bring in.

With a 9-9-9 plan in place, it would give Congress ample opportunity to raise those.  Congress would never be content in leaving all taxes at 9%.  It leaves too much "power" to the people instead of to them.  According to Mr. Cain, a family who takes in $50,000 a year will come out ahead under his plan.  However, the numbers just don't add up.  Everyday items such as milk and bread, and even clothing, would have a 9% sales tax added to the price.  Not only that, but the current system which 9-9-9 would follow opens the door for a value-added tax, or VAT, in the future.  This would add a tax to a product at different stages of its manufacturing.  For example, for clothing, you could be charged taxes for the price a seamstress had to pay to actually get the material.  It is little things like that which will add up and make such a difference for middle-income Americans. 

The plan would also open the door for something called a phantom tax possibly inserted on previous savings.  For example, if you bought a new car with money you had in a savings account, had accumulated in earnings, investment gains, or interest, or dividends, and you had already paid taxes on it, you would have to pay yet another 9% on that car.

I'm not sure if much of this is making sense, as much as I would love for it to.  The truth is, we really do not know the specifics of 9-9-9 since Mr. Cain has not yet released them.  All we have to go on right now, are those three numbers.  Of course, this is the system in its first stage, meaning it could be compromised in some areas.  Although, judging from how adamant Mr. Cain is about how wonderfully it would pass through Congress and work the way it is, I doubt he would be very willing to make many changes.  He insists that his plan would bring in enough money to replace the current tax code and not add to the federal budget.  However, since, as aforesaid, no further details have been released from Mr. Cain, those numbers are impossible to verify.  The fact that the details have not come out, and that much of this plan was written by a personal banker, make you wonder if 9-9-9 is all it is claiming to be.  We'll have to wait and see if, quoting Michele Bachmann, "the devil is in the details."

Take out the attacks, and....

Challenge:  Look for videos of what each candidate says on their own in Presidential debates.  Take out all the attacks, all the rubbish that goes on in some of these debates, and it will amaze you how different some of these answers sound.  They can show you who really knows what they are talking about, and who is only focused on tearing their fellow competitors down.  Here's one example of a video like that.

Book Review: "Don't Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid: Confronting the Left's Assault on our Families, Faith, and Freedom"

Don't Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid:  Confronting the Left's Assault on our Families, Faith, and Freedom, by Marybeth Hicks, is a parental perspective on what the Left is doing to indoctrinate the next generation with socialist views and values.  Through her thorough research Mrs. Hicks shows that the Left is gaining control of all areas of childrens' lives, even to the point of not allowing score-keeping at Saturday morning soccer games-- the Left is teaching them that "everyone is a winner even when they stand mid-field dancing a jig while the rest of the team scurries for the soccer ball.  This way, no one is blamed for a loss, because technically, there are no losers."  Since children want things to be fair all the time, what better way to introduce them to socialism than to make everyone a winner, no matter the effort they put forth.

Mrs. Hicks also shows how deep into public school curriculum the socialist agenda is being pushed.  Through social studies, some schools are teaching that Islam is a "religion of peace", glorifying it while removing the Christian faith from the story of our founding.  One textbook for seventh graders, called History Alive!, defines jihad, and says that the "Qu'ran tells Muslims to fight to protect themselves from those who would do them harm or to right a terrible wrong."  Following that, Mrs. Hicks includes a statement from ATC:  "TCI leaves "those who would do them harm" and "right a terrible wrong" to the reader's imagination.  The textbook's chapter summary reads:  'Muslims also have the duty of jihad, or striving to overcome challenges as they strive to please God.'  Since TCI describes jihad as being 'the struggle against oppression,' students who hear of repeated Islamic calls to jihad against Christians and Jews that include the destruction of the United States and Israel much wonder who and what is at fault."  These children will grow up to believe that no, we are not the greatest nation on earth.  We are all one "global community", all equal, and there is nothing special about America.  When they should be taught patriotism, they are being taught what it means to have "global citizenship."

The Left is painting God as a distant, cold figure, who wants us to love one another but Whose opinion isn't all that important.  In President Obama's Inauguration speech in 2009, he described America as "a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers."  Just like that, the president brought atheism up to equal with the most prominent religions in the world, including the one America was founded on.  Not only are the Leftists trying to ban prayer in schools, Mrs. Hicks says, they are banning God Himself.  When a fifth grader cannot invite her classmates to a Christmas party at her church, it is obvious that they are succeeding in their mission.  When the Left states it is "unconstitutional" to do these things, they are showing that they are uneducated in that area and are only concerned about their own agenda.

Mrs. Hicks did a wonderful job writing this book.  It is full of facts that are very important for every parent, and even teenager, to know.  It is important to know how the Left is working to instill their socialist views that "everyone is equal" into the minds of kindergarteners and high schoolers alike.  They have already succeeded; we have the first generation of truly socialist-thinking voters coming out to vote in this next election; but it is not too late to change things.  We can reclaim the minds of children and teenagers by exposing the Left's campaign for what it really is:  An attempt to brainwash the next generation and mold them to fit their own needs.

You can buy your copy of Mrs. Hicks' book here, and I promise you will not be disappointed!

GOP Debate Review 10/11/11

Tonight's debate in New Hampshire was very important for some of the candidates, for different reasons.  It was important for Governor Rick Perry, as this was probably his last chance to bring himself back up to frontrunner status.  It was important for Mitt Romney to keep his frontrunner status.  It was important for Herman Cain to prove that he has the intellect and knowledge to be able to govern a nation with no prior experience in governing anything.  For the rest of the candidates, well...I think this was truly their last chance at getting anywhere.  Some succeeded in that, and others did not.  Here is how I viewed each candidate's performance, going from who I believe did the best, and ending with who I believe did the poorest.

#1: Newt Gingrich.  Newt always comes out strong in these debates, and it is a shame he was never able to connect to the American people.  As a former Speaker of the House, he truly does have experience in dealing with people on both sides of the aisle.  As for tonight's performance, I definitely agreed with him that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has too much secret power, bailing out "one company but not another."  As always, the former Speaker took a jab at one of the moderators.  Instead of this becoming commonplace, I think it proves that Mr. Gingrich is not afraid to stand up to those who oppose him.  I love nearly all of his answers and I believe that, if given the chance to completely start his campaign over, he could have had a real chance.

#2: Rick Santorum.  His last answer in the debate put him in second place for me.  His answer about the reason for a struggling economy being a result of the family structure being destroyed was spot on, and I believe he deserves more credit for it than he will actually receive.  The truth, when you look at the numbers, is that families with two parents do better than families with one (in some cases, this is unpreventable.  What he meant was, marriage needs to once again become the definition of family).  Mr. Santorum did not receive much talking time prior to this answer in the debate.  As has been proven, though, one solid answer can be the difference between a mediocre debate performance and a stellar one.

#3: Rick Perry.  The Texas governor was in comfortable territory tonight:  Talking about economy and job creation.  Since Texas is number one in job creation, I believe Perry had a good chance of doing very well, and he did not disappoint.  He is not a "Mitt Romney debater", meaning that he does not come across right away as poised, polished, and sometimes, arrogant, but rather, he states what he means in a way that is easy to understand.  I do believe that the governor helped himself tonight; whether it was enough to bring him back into the lead is yet to be seen.  I do think, though, that he did do enough to at least regain co-frontrunner status with Mitt Romney.  Overall, I thought Gov. Perry improved immensely since the last debate and that he did a great job of reassuring the American people that he is very well qualified to be our next President.  My tip for the governor:  Go on every talk show you can.  Get yourself straight to the American people without seven other people, plus a couple moderators, just itching to make your words seem meaningless.  Talk straight to the people about what is of concern to them, and show them that you have a proven record of leading with successful results.

#4: Michele Bachmann.  I think the Congresswoman did very well tonight.  She answered her questions thoroughly and gave detailed answers, something that is not always easy to do.  There was nothing that really stood out about her performance, however.  I believe that, sadly, her campaign has gone downhill and cannot recover.  I did like how she went after Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan, since there are flaws with it that no one had seemed to address until then.  Overall, nothing very spectacular about Congresswoman Bachmann's performance tonight.

#5: Mitt Romney.  This man is definitely a very well-poised and polished debater.  He knows what he is talking about and he knows how to say it.  However, in tonight's debate, he avoided quite a few of the questions directed his way.  When asked by Herman Cain, for example, if he could name all 59 points in his proposed jobs plan?  He did not answer, meaning no, but instead took the opportunity to talk about how great his plan is.  The problem is, by publishing a 59 point plan, a majority of people will not actually read the whole thing.  Mitt Romney is a very smart man, who I am sure has brilliant ideas for this country, but I believe he has too many flaws to actually be the president we need in 2012.  He is very moderate on many of his opinions, and his RomneyCare/ObamaCare issue continues to elevate.  Many times in the debate tonight, the former governor appeared very weak and afraid during his answers. 

#6: Herman Cain.  Honestly, some of the businessman's facts tonight were not straight.  How can he just, outright, say that the Washington Post Government findings are false?  He never looked at them.  Since they were negative toward the chances of his 9-9-9 plan succeeding, they were immediately false.  Also, he did say the federal reserve did not need to be audited, and tonight he claimed to have never said that.  His 9-9-9 tax plan does have flaws that need to be considered.  Every plan will, but when a plan is proposed by someone with a position such as Mr. Cain has right now, it should be looked into more thoroughly.  I believe that now that his 9-9-9 plan is receiving criticism, and people see that it may not work, he will begin to drop in the polls again.  He will remain a leader, but he will not be a frontrunner.  That is my personal opinion of what will happen.

#7: Ron Paul.  I think this is a first for me; not putting the Congressman in last place.  His debate performance can be summed up for me in one sentence:  get government out of everything.  Which really means:  everything would be even more chaotic than it is right now.

#8: Jon Huntsman.  Nothing I can even say about him.  I understood absolutely none of his answers, period.  I will not be a bit surprised when, in the coming weeks, he drops out and most likely endorses his cousin, Mitt Romney.

Latest Ad Released by Rick Perry Camp

Rick Perry on Immigration

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been very criticized on many issues since announcing his Presidential campaign in August.  Some of that criticism has been understandable for those who did not previously know his record, and some of it has just been ridiculous.  Either way, I believe people should truly listen to his explanations, rather than listen to the media and those who want him to fail for the answer.  It is not fair that one candidate is so thoroughly vetted, while others are getting overlooked and nearly handed the nomination, all because the media has decided who they like best.

Illegal immigration and border security are two issues the governor has been criticized on the most harshly.  Most of the country had never heard of Rick Perry before he ran for president, nor did they know anything about his record.  Naturally, they would look to the media to tell them.  Since, from the start, the media has not been fond of Gov. Perry, they used this given opportunity to come down hard on him and sink his poll numbers.  They continue to lift up the candidates they like best, which will mean real trouble if people vote for them simply based on that.  That's another post, though.

When you look at Rick Perry's immigration stance on the surface, it does look weak.  He offered in-state tuition to children of illegals, and he does not support a border fence.  That is what the media will tell you.  They want you to believe every word they say.  When you really look deeper into his true record, though, you see that there are things the media is not telling you. 

When people say that the governor is opposed to a border fence, it sounds like he is for open borders.  Simply not supporting a border fence is not a border security position.  Being opposed to a border fence means that, since he is the only candidate with experience in dealing with the border firsthand, he believes a fence is not the only solution.  We need boots on the ground, something the federal government has repeatedly denied to give him more of.  What he really said was that a continual fence along the entire border was not the solution; he did not say he supports taking the current fence down.  Also, if you have ever been to the border, you would know that building a 1,200 mile fence along the entire thing would be horribly expensive, along with being bad for the environment, public and private.  He does support fences in strategically placed areas.  While you're thinking about weak stances on border security, why aren't the other candidates called weak on border security?  They could be, with good reason:  1) None of them have actual experience on the border; they just read about it and take opinions from that (I'm not saying that is their fault, but they do not have that experience), and 2) Every one of them believes a fence is the solution; and people actually do jump over that fence.  It could not possibly be the only solution.

People are overlooking the good things, which are clearly visible, that the governor has done on the border.  He opposes amnesty for illegals.  He signed a bill refusing them drivers' licenses.  He does not offer them Social Security or Medicare benefits.  That is only touching on what the governor has done on the border.

NumbersUSA gives every candidate a grade on issues they find important.  They have given the governor a D- on illegal immigration, the same grade given to Mitt Romney.  Michele Bachmann received a B-, the highest grade of the whole field.  This proves that their grades are not credible.  In fact, they state on their website, "These are not Report Cards on past actions, which matter but not as much as what these politicians now say in the news media or on official websites.  These grades and ratings are about what a Hopeful says a President should do about immigration.  We look at contradictions and changes in stances.  We generally give the most weight to the most recent statements and actions."  Based on that, they are not giving credible information.  Gov. Perry has never changed his stance on immigration.  Have any of the other candidates?  We do not know.  The only person whose position on immigration and border security matters, at least to the media, is Gov. Perry.  The rest of the candidates have coincidentally taken the same stanceo.  None of them "can" be attacked for it that way.  When the only candidate with real border experience has a different opinion than the people who have never governed that region, it ought to make people take a second look.

Sarah Palin Announcement

Sarah Palin announced through a statement, read by Mark Levin, this week that she will not be seeking the GOP nomination in 2012.  The reasons, she said, were family related, and she also believed that the title of president would somewhat "limit" her, and that she would somehow be prevented from being a "maverick."  This was a huge disappointment for many, many people, as huge numbers of them have been avid followers and fans of hers since she gave her RNC speech in 2008.  Governor Palin does have a patriot's heart, and it is obvious that she loves her country dearly.  I do believe she will one day be in a high office.  Perhaps not President, but a Cabinet position would not be at all surprising.

As much as I believe she would have made the race a bit more exciting, I think there are pros and cons as to her decision.  Cons, of course, are what I said above -- a true patriot who cares about fixing America's problems.  Pros could be, the fact that if she had announced her candidacy, nearly every media source would have hounded in directly on her.  It would have taken a huge amount of coverage from the rest of the candidates.  It also may have taken the spotlight from some of the very important issues being discussed within the race right now, since the media has shown repeatedly that they find Gov. Palin an open target (wrongly-- everyone should be vetted, but hers was just a bit much).

Sarah Palin fans everywhere are now deciding what to do next.  Many of them may wait to see if Gov. Palin endorses a current candidate.  If she does that, there is a very good chance that many of her supporters would turn to that candidate.  Some of them will turn toward other evangelical, grassroots Conservatives in the race, such as Governor Rick Perry or businessman Herman Cain.  Either way, those votes will now be divided up and could help choose the actual nominee.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also announced that he is not running-- again.  He has said it repeatedly for the past year, but decided a few weeks ago to "reconsider" a run after being implored by so many.  Since he has kept the same decision for so long, I don't think anyone was really expecting him to change his mind in a week.  I personally do not see Gov. Christie the way most people do, in that they believe he would be the perfect candidate to come in and shake things up.  I believe that if he really did run for president, as he will probably do in the future, issues will come up regarding his past, just as they have for every other candidate.  No candidate will be perfect-- regarding their past, or in other areas such as speaking.  The longer someone has been in a high leadership position, such as governor, the more mistakes they will have in their resume.

Interesting Reads

Here are a couple of articles I found very interesting.

First one is about Mitt Romney, and his increasing elusiveness the longer he runs for president (pushing five years now).  http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8208708-the-relatively-unknown-mitt-romney.

The second one is about the importance of endorsements when choosing the GOP nominee.  Records show that endorsements had a bigger impact than money or name recognition.  http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/romney-leads-endorsement-race/.

More Information Surfaces Regarding Operation Fast and Furious

More findings are coming about through Chairman Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley's investigation of Operation Fast and Furious and its link to the death of border patrol agent Brian Terry.  You can read my previous post about it here.  One of the people being investigated is Attorney General Eric Holder.  Information has surfaced regarding his knowledge of the program that is very troubling.

The Attorney General reportedly received at least five weekly memos on Operation Fast and Furious, all of which he ignored.  These began in July 2010.  At that time, he ignored at least four of those memos in a row regarding this program.  They were to Attorney General Eric Holder from Michael Walther, from the National Drug Intelligence Center.  The memos said specifically that these buyers were "responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels." 

I cannot make any sense out of this.  Why would Attorney General Holder ignore any memos that came to him, much less ones about a program of this magnitude?  It was very important that he was aware of what was going on with it, since it was giving so much more power to the drug cartels that have no problem firing at our border agents.  This was evident in the murder of Brian Terry, who was killed with a weapon purchased by drug cartels through Operation Fast and Furious. 

Mr. Holder told Chairman Issa at a House Judiciary Committee in May 2011 that he had only learned of the program and its specifics weeks before.  That would mean he learned about the program months after Brian Terry's murder.  However, at a meeting on January 31st, 2011, Senator Grassley personally handed the Attorney General two letters with information about Operation Fast and Furious.  It greatly disturbed both Chairman Issa and Senator Grassley that the Attorney General knew about this program so much earlier than he let on, and also that he knew many more details than anyone realized.  The Attorney General does say that he ignored the memos received regarding it, but cannot give an answer as to why he did. 

As Senator Grassley said, given the amount of information Mr. Holder had at his disposal, he should have at least thought to ask the question, "Why haven't we stopped them?" 

President Obama released a statement today, saying:

I think both Holder and I would have been very unhappy if someone had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the United States of America.” 

Obviously, someone did mention to Holder that guns were being allowed to walk and he either overlooked the tip (which is what he claims, but again, cannot give an answer as to why) or he simply didn't care.  Either way, the president's statement is wrong and it makes for a frightening thought.  Someone who is in a position such as Eric Holder is, with so much power and resources at his disposal, overlooking something that was so important.  If he had looked, the murder of Brian Terry might have been preventable.  It makes you wonder what else our elected officials are overlooking and what in the past could have possibly been prevented.

Must we stoop to this level?

Another of the "Leftist" media's attempts to unravel Rick Perry's Presidential campaign.  Instead of focusing on the more important things, this is what a huge number of journalists and researchers were doing today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-hunting-camp-controversy-what-you-need-to-know/2011/10/03/gIQANl3oIL_story.html.

President Obama: Underdog?

President Obama told the truth this week:  Americans are not better off today than they were four years ago.  When asked about the unemployment rate, he said that 9% was "way too high."  He claims that his proposed American Jobs Act will provide more jobs for construction workers, teachers, and veterans and will give "more consumers more confidence." 
(This should be President Obama's reelection photo (: )

When ABC News' George Stephanopoulos asked if the odds were against him in 2012, given the economy, the president responded, "absolutely."  "I'm used to being the underdog.  But then at the end of the day people are going to ask -- who's got a vision?"

Yes, those words came from President Obama.  I do not see how he could feel like an underdog; in 2008 he was elected with the help of his youthful campaign and the national media.  How much more support could this "underdog" receive?

As for this "vision"...I don't think his vision will be anything different than it was last time.  His 2008 campaign, I must say, was brilliantly won.  It was one of the biggest reasons he was actually elected.  His campaign was youthful, energetic, and promising to the American people.  Now, as they can see, most of it was just a ploy to get elected; and it worked.  Hopefully, they will not believe his "promises" in 2012. 

President Obama's excuse as to why we are in the position we are in?  You guessed it.  "At every step of the way, I have tried to get the Republican Party to work with me on the biggest crisis of our lifetime.  And each time we've gotten 'No'."  Apparently, this is all the Republicans' fault, even though they do not control the White House or the Senate. 

President Obama also said the 2012 elections will be a "contest of values and vision."  It will also be a referendum on whether Americans believe the government should invest now in long-term improvements in education and infrastructure.  (By the way, the answer on education there is no.  The federal government spends enough money on education; that money is not being useful, as test results prove.)

President Obama was praised this weekend in the gay community, and says that his stance on marriage is "evolving."  He ran in 2008 as pro-traditional marriage.  Now, since his stance is "evolving", he will run for re-election as pro-gay marriage.  This is just his slow, subtle way of changing his belief.

We do not need a president who changes his stance on social issues every four years.  Nor do we need a president who says he is an "underdog" to gain sympathy.  President Obama is not an underdog.  He has the help of Democrats everywhere, plus the national media.  With so many people, especially young and new voters, listening to the media to tell them who to vote for, this support is unmatched.  It would be mind-blowing to see how many people actually do research on candidates versus how many vote for who the media says is the best fit for the job.

Primary Dates!

Things have been in the works for a few weeks now for Florida to move up its Presidential primary.  The date has officially been set:  January 31st, 2012.  No state is supposed to hold its primary before the end of February, besides a few states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.  These, because of history are allowed to be before that; it has just always been that way.  Now, Florida wanted a sooner date.  I believe this was unnecessary, and for a number of reasons it will actually hurt Florida's impact on choosing the actual nominee.  Firstly, this causes the need for four other states-- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina-- to move their primaries (or in Iowa's case, caucus) up as well.  They want to maintain their early-primary dates, too.  This not only violates rules in place by the GOP, it may cause possible violations of some private state rules as well.  For example, a rule in New Hampshire is that they are the first-in-the-nation primary by at least one week.  The scheduling change may cause a lot of conflict in the next few days.  New Hampshire is saying they may hold their primary in December of this year-- a first in Presidential politics.

Florida will most definitely lose some of its credibility around the nation by disobeying party rules.  They were set to be a huge part of the nominating process.  The original number of delegates they would have was 99-- after breaking one rule, that number went down to 96-- now cut that in half for holding the primary before the earliest legal date, and they only have 48.  That is a huge difference-- 96 to 48!  I think it would have been better for Florida to keep its primary the way it always is.  Fifth in the nation is not a bad standing, plus the 96 delegates that would go with it just add to it.  Florida claims it wanted to be a bigger part of the nominating process; there is not much more they could do, especially since the Republican National Convention will be held there next year!  The place where the candidate who was chosen announces it will be in Tampa, Florida.  Overall, this was just a selfish move on Florida's part.

Below is an email from Paul Senft, Republican National Committeeman from Florida (written on September 29th).

------------------------------------

Why Moving Florida's Presidential Primary

To January 31, 2012 Hurts Our State

As was outlined unanimously by all the commentators on Fox News at 6PM – It makes no sense for Florida to move up to January and blow up the Presidential Primary Calendar. They all agree that we will be the first large and diverse state to go and with our full complement of delegates we will be more significant.

Since a story was leaked today saying that we were going to hold our primary on January 31, 2012, my phone and email have melted down. I, therefore, have been asked to do one summary to help inform people about our position. The only thing others will say is that going early will help Florida be more significant. I would submit that we will be less significant because no candidate can get momentum from the few delegates they will get from Florida. Further, how much more significant can we get than hosting the convention?

HERE FOLLOWS THE SUMMARY:

Our full allotment of delegates is: 99

After the three officers are removed our base becomes: 96

Cutting us as the penalty, we get only: 48

The rules require proportional allocation of delegates as follows – Example:

Candidate “A” gets 30% of the vote would get 14 delegates
Candidate “B” gets 20% of the vote would get 10 delegates
Candidate “C” gets 15% of the vote would get 7 delegates
Candidate “D” gets 10% of the vote would get 5 delegates
And so on until the 48 delegates are gone.

The rules as adopted by the RPOF do not define proportionality – thus the RNC will decide on our definition of proportionality for us. The RNC is on record stating that they will honor the rules of state parties if proportionality is limited to state wide at large delegates. They indicated the Congressional Districts could still be awarded on a winner-take-all basis. The RPOF did not choose to define proportionality at all.

With the total delegates available in the six or seven states that are attempting to go before Florida, there will only be 212 delegates available. With a normal distribution of delegates among the candidates it is probable that several candidates will have 75 or 80 delegates if they are in the lead. Florida would be in a position to really lock up the lead and momentum for a candidate if it voted to go March 1,2,3,4 or 5 and still had its full allotment of 99 delegates. There is no penalty provided in the RNC Rules for those five days. It would be possible, with the proper definition of proportionality for a candidate to get 60 to 80 of Florida’s delegates and thus have a nice lead. (Again IF we were at full strength)

If Florida goes as early as is being discussed (January 31), we will have little, if any, impact on the delegate count for any candidate. Further, we will be slapping the RNC in the face after they gave the convention to Florida and we have not given the new rules a chance to see if they work.

Republicans have always been law abiding people who obey the rules. If we don’t want to go by the rules – if we want to be arrogant and only abide by the rules we like or agree with - then we should consider another party. As long as we are a member of the Republican Party we should go by their rules. If we want to change things, we should do it through the proper channels and procedures, not break the rules because we think we are better than other states. I agree that we have better demographics and are more representative than some of the four states that are authorized because of tradition and history to go early. They are small and we will be more meaningful if we are close to the front and at FULL STRENGTH.

If we break the rules again (this will be two in a row) we will alienate the remainder of the country. We have to demonstrate and prove that we can and will play by the rules before we can ask to legally be allowed to go early to help the country get our view (which we think will be a better view) of how the candidates will do with large state which has the many different voter groups that we have.

Republican National Committee Co-Chair & Florida's National Committeewoman Sharon Day and I will now be embarrassed for our state as we host the convention from the back row and have a hotel 30/40 miles away. It will also be sad that we will not have the guest passes we would normally have, even if the Nominee does give us a few.

I hope that this information is helpful. I wish our leadership had been more open to input and suggestions from the RNC and our representatives.

Paul Senft
National Committeeman,
Republican Party of Florida

------------------------------------