To those of us in the Carolinas, it has become clear that the Republican Party is counting on the “ABO” Vote in November. The ABO vote is: “Anybody But Obama” meaning, of course, that the GOP expects republicans will vote for anyone they nominate in order to defeat Obama.

Frankly, it’s the only explanation that makes any sense. Even the candidates, themselves, tell us that any one of the GOP candidates would make a better president than Obama. (Like that was really difficult to discern!)

I spoke to a politically astute friend recently who told me he is very afraid that Romney will win the nomination and lose the election to Obama. (I share that opinion.) But, my friend went on to say, I will vote for whoever is on the ticket against Obama.

See, the problem with an Obama vs Romney ballot is – one of them will win!

Maybe it is just yours truly, but I am more than a little tired of the milquetoast candidates the GOP continues to put forward for President. I mean, look at Dole and McCain. And, frankly, I was not impressed with George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism, which was nothing more that another way to say “moderate” or “RINO” (Republican In Name Only).

I’m past ready for a candidate with fire in his or her belly. In my less than humble opinion, the GOP needs a candidate who will get into the gutter where the democrats seem always to take their campaigns. We need a candidate who will trade blow for blow with the Democratic Party candidate — a candidate who will go for the jugular, grasp the throat of the opposition and hang on ‘til the election is won.

Politics is a dirty game. If a candidate is not willing to get dirty to win, then how in the world am I to trust that when he is up against the world’s meanest, toughest, “low-downest” scoundrels, he will be able to trade blow for blow – and – do whatever it takes to destroy America’s enemies.

Nice guys are, well, NICE. I’m tired of nice! It is past time to get mean and throw our weight around.

Look. We have enemies who are in our face proclaiming loudly, and with vigor, that they intend to destroy us, to kill every American they can — at the very first opportunity. Uh-uh. Nope. This is not the time for a nice guy in the White House.

Our current President seems to think that his flowery oratory will placate our enemies and we can have a global group hug, sing a few verses of Cum Ba Ya, and it will be all better. I’ve seen this movie — and it does not end well for the nice guy.

No. We desperately need a leader tough enough that when he speaks, the world stops what it’s doing to listen. We’ve had enough of a President who runs off at the mouth like a broken facet. Nobody’s listening anymore – if they ever were.

We also need a leader who leads from the front. Leading from the rear doesn’t happen. Leading from the rear is NOT leading – period. It should be clear by now that when America does not lead — the world goes to hell in a hand basket.

I am frustrated, and more than a little angry, that the GOP is holding to their practice of nominating the “next in line.” I am tired of limp wrists in the White House. I am tired of my President bowing and scraping to every tin horn tyrant he comes across, asking “permission” of the UN, and sucking up to our sworn enemies. It is embarrassing and deeply humiliating.

Sadly, when I see Romney – I see Al Gore with a GOP bumper sticker on his butt. I get the same uneasy feeling I got when Al Gore was running for President. It’s that feeling that something isn’t right, that something is out of place here. Plainly – it’s the feeing that I am looking at a hypocrite. I feel that I am being sold a bill of goods and that he is reading from a well-prepared script, which he has memorized down to the last dot and tittle.

I once interrupted a very young salesman at my door when he was about 30 seconds into his canned spiel. I asked him a question, which he could not answer. He apologized, and asked my forgiveness as he began his spiel all over again — from the very beginning — because that was the way he had memorized it. Back in the day we called that a “canned pitch.” THAT is the feeling I get when I listen to Romney in a debate or delivering a speech. There is no THERE there.

Barring an act of God, Romney will be the GOP nominee. I have to ask: If Romney wins the election and defeats Obama, short of being rid of Obama, what will America have gained? To me, it is comparable to the cancer patient placing his entire faith in a new miracle cure for cancer only to learn, after weeks of treatment, that it does not work, either.

I do not agree that beating Obama will be a walk in the park, as some of my fellow conservatives have postulated. I continue to have great respect for their opinions – BUT — I am convinced the “ABO” vote will be absolutely necessary in November to evict America’s would-be King, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.

J. D. Longstreet
***********************************
VOTE CONSERVATIVE IN NOVEMBER 2012
***********************************
Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/ Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America

What a let down. Here conservative Republicans were so close to respectability and even acceptance in polite society. In Prince William County, VA where I live,  conservatives convinced themselves we’d come far from that time in the recent past when the WaPost described evangelicals (essentially another word for conservative Republicans, since there is considerable overlap among the two demographic groups) as “poor, undereducated and easily led.”

Then TheAtlantic.com piled on with this description of former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, “People are sometimes caught off guard by [his] intellectual competence because of his rural Arkansas habits (he and his wife lived in a trailer while the governor’s mansion was being renovated) and his outspoken evangelical views.”

Not those rural Arkansas habits again! What was Huckabee thinking when he moved into one of those tornado–bait tin cans? I happen to know there’s a Hilton in Little Rock.

Conservatives, who are frequently optimists in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, chose to focus on the progress we’ve made since 2008. Why Gov. Huckabee is currently living in a house that doesn’t require you to check the pressure rotate the foundation every 5,000 miles. And nationally Republicans — if not all conservatives — have an almost–anointed presidential candidate who is articulate, thinks double–wide is an unfortunate term for the overweight and has perfect hair.

Why Mitt Romney looks just as good as that Democrat intellectual giant, John Kerry, without all the annoying French mannerisms.

Then last week all our hope for acceptance came crashing down. In a “news story” wailing about the clout Northern Virginia lost in Richmond when the GOP took control of the Senate, the WaPost complained, “Northern Virginia senators also worry about their ability to block legislation on social issues that play very differently in the more racially diverse, better-educated and liberal Washington suburbs than in more rural parts of the state.

It was only a passing reference that spoke volumes about ingrained, institutional prejudice. The phrase is simply elite shorthand that means we’re back to: Liberals = Smart and Conservatives = Dumb.

I hope to visit the WaPost newsroom one day, because I’m convinced its map of Northern Virginia still manages to leave Prince William County (PWC) out, much like the maps of the Palestinian Authority never seem to include Israel.

This county is in the top ten nationwide when it comes to household income, we boast the satellite campus of George Mason University — where taxpayer–subsidized “arts” groups can perform — and residents frequently shop at our very own Wegmans grocery store; yet we’re still pickin’ on the banjo with the rest of the Deliverance caucus as far as the WaPost is concerned.

And the really ironic element in this assault on the conservative intellect is the bias is based on geography, which I thought was forbidden in elite circles. Here we have an organization, which has never met an illegal alien with a sob story that it wouldn’t put on the front page, denigrating an entire class of human beings because their point of origin is South of Alexandria.

What’s next? The ideological equivalent of E–Verify for conservatives, along with a refusal to issue a Virginia licencia de conducir so they can’t drive in Richmond?
Have a heart. These migrating conservatives are yearning to live the American Dream, too. They just want to cast the votes in the General Assembly that liberals refuse to cast. Besides, they don’t actually want to live in Richmond. I’m sure they will return to their native counties once the job is done.

This current distress of Virginia and DC liberals is the result of something their Dear Leader Obama warned about, “Elections have consequences.”

And as a consequence of last November’s election, Republicans are now in control of both the House and the Senate. So in under four years Virginia has gone from a Democrat in the governor’s office and Democrats in control of the Senate to a Republican governor and Republican control of the entire General Assembly.

I think even a liberal can notice a trend here.

Specifically what this means for Virginia residents is an obstructionist Democrat Senate will no longer be able to block passage of bills that protect the life of unborn babies, defend marriage, eliminate Public Broadcasting subsidies, cut spending, reduce the size of government, prevent the appointment of activist liberal judges, discourage illegal immigration and recognize the Constitutional right of citizen self–defense.

Whew.

It’s time conservatives refuse to be on the defensive regarding intelligence. We used to ask know–it–alls, if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Now it’s time to update that and ask liberal Democrats, if you’re so smart, why aren’t you winning elections?

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He can be reached at michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

I don’t know precisely how many Republicans it takes to change a light bulb, but I can tell you that 289 are evidently not enough. That’s how many Republicans are in the House and Senate, yet they can’t accomplish a relatively simple task and repeal the ban on incandescent bulbs that went into effect January 1st.

And this repeal isn’t like overturning Obamacare, which will be Stalingrad for the socialists in D.C. Democrats don’t really have anything invested in the Twisty Light Bulb Act, other than their habitual environmental hysteria. The ban was passed in the waning days of “the Failed Bush Administration.” Repealing this law is not a repudiation of Obama, it’s a poke in the eye to George W and Democrats loathe him anyway. Yet House leadership is unable to persuade Democrats in the Senate to pass this small repeal.

Thus the first bulb to go is the 100–watt model, which means the invaluable 100–200–250 three–way bulb, so useful for reading, is going the way of the dodo. To be replaced by the single power twisty bulb, which either gives off a ghastly zombie–like white or a dingy yellow light. You’ll feel like you’re reading with the help of a whale oil lamp and for only three times the cost of the incandescent bulb it replaced. And this scientific breakthrough in illumination is like cars used to be: you have to warm it up a few minutes before it’s ready to go.

In addition to being more expensive, compact fluorescent bulbs (CFB) contain mercury, so if you drop one on the kitchen floor you suddenly escalate from a standard household cursing situation into a hazmat incident. Federal guidelines assure us that — like the batteries in a Chevy Volt — the small amount of mercury in a CFB is perfectly safe while rolling around on the linoleum.

Here’s an environmental hazard Rule of Thumb: Any given substance or activity is only toxic in direct proportion to the number of Republicans and capitalists that support its use.

This is why water and chemicals used in the natural gas fracking process, which occurs mile or two beneath the earth’s surface, are a civilization–ending threat to the water table located up to two miles above where the fracking takes place.

While the mercury right there on the kitchen floor is only a minor, Environmental Defense Fund–approved annoyance.

And while we’re in a fracking frame of mind, the Chicken Little Earth Protection Council is now blaming the process for Ohio earthquakes.

This is strange. I don’t recall underground nuclear tests being blamed for causing earthquakes. Yet “environmentalists” would have us believe that what is essentially a geologic enema is more dangerous to our threatened tectonic plates than detonating an atomic bomb!

Meanwhile, back on the surface, the House did manage to remove funds for enforcement of the ban from the December spending bill. This is a meaningless gesture not fit for inclusion in a campaign commercial. It’s like telling the trucking industry that drivers no longer have to obey the speed limit because Congress is not allowing the highway patrol to buy gas.

Republican’s futile efforts to make a real difference in Washington loom large in light of Obama’s recent ‘recess’ appointments. This action is a direct challenge to Constitutional government and House and Senate leadership does not appear to care.

The Constitution specifically states “Neither House…shall without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days…” The House has not consented to a Senate adjournment; therefore Congress remains in session. The fact this frustrates Obama does not make his appointments constitutional.

Obama doesn’t like checks and balances, and he knows his picks for the Labor Relations Board are so anti–business they would not survive the Senate confirmation process. Without an aggressive response an administration filled with appointees like Energy Secretary Steven Chu  — who justifies the light bulb ban by saying, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money” — will be able to run roughshod over Congress and the nation.

Sure Boehner and McConnell issued pro forma objections, but where is the line in the sand? Republican leadership should be making the case to the public and informing the President that no additional business will be conducted until these unconstitutional appointments are retracted.

If these appointments are allowed to stand the remainder of Obama’s first term will be government by edict, while Republicans in Congress hope they can be rescued from themselves by a GOP victory in November.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at

michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice

 

WesternFront America

It’s a dream come true for hysterical liberals and their fellow travelers in the ‘unbiased’ media. Pesky Republicans ARE actively working to discourage voter turnout in the 2012 Presidential election!

Unfortunately, in typical GOP fashion, the party is busy suppressing its own vote.
Thanks to a decision by the Virginia Republican State Central Committee, voters who may want to participate in the Commonwealth’s Republican Presidential Primary will be forced to sign a loyalty oath before the commissars allow them to cast a ballot.

Members of the Electoral College, who actually choose the President, are not Constitutionally required to swear a similar oath, but the committee — like Southern Baptists who frequently add qualifications for church office not found in the Bible — feel this is a vital improvement to the system.

The oath is brief and to the point: “I, the under​signed, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”

Prince William County Virginia’s redoubtable conservative Republican, Del. Bob Marshall strongly objects to requiring an oath, “Virginia’s Republican leadership wants to mandate a loyalty oath when Virginia’s Republican officials are in court fighting the Obamacare mandate? This sends the wrong message.”

I’m not sure I’m in agreement with Marshall’s analogy, since Obamacare is mandatory, while voting for the GOP is optional. (An option I fear many will choose not to exercise if it means signing this pledge.)

The oath manages to offend two groups that are key to winning in November: the conservative base and the independent. Longtime Republicans will be insulted by the presumption they are so fickle an oath is required to remind them of their loyalty.

Besides, as Marshall points out, Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Speaker of the House William Howell, have not always voted for the Republican nominee in November. Both supported an independent in an earlier race for Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney.

Equally important, the Presidential election in November will be won among the 40 percent that considers themselves independent — voting for the man and not the party. What a shock it will be to the commitment–phobic independent who decides to participate in the GOP primary, only to be hit with a contract that requires him to swear an oath to a November candidate who might not even be on the March 6th primary ballot.

Which brings us to another problem. Although nationally we currently have a fluctuating total of approximately ten GOP candidates, in the Virginia primary the ballot will resemble the inventory of a Soviet supermarket with only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul to choose from.

It seems that organizing a petition drive to get his name on the ballot is the latest entry on the lengthening list of things Rick Perry can’t do.

Perry, who does have someone on staff who can file a lawsuit, and Virginia resident Newt Gingrich are attempting to gain access by judicial means — a particularly ironic move for Gingrich who blasted federal judges last week proclaiming “Judicial supremacy is factually wrong. It is morally wrong, and it is an affront to the American system of self–government.”

Unless, of course, you can find a judge who will overturn Republican rules and get you on the ballot.

The fact is if the yang and yin of presidential politics can get on the ballot under the existing rules, then the rest of the candidates should be able to clear the same hurdle, too.

This whole affair reeks of Paulophobia. Evidently the fear is that Ron Paul voters can’t be relied upon in November to support the Republican nominee if it’s not Ron Paul. It would make more sense to have Paul himself sign the oath as a condition of appearing on the ballot, since a third–party run on his behalf would only serve to re–elect Obama.

So naïve central committee members believe signing this worthless piece of paper is going to persuade a herd of black–helicopter Libertarian paranoids that they have to toe the line in November.

Fors Fortis, as the Romans say.

The other fear is wily Democrats voting for Paul in an effort to sow dissention in Republican ranks. The way to prevent this is to post a large sign informing Democrats their name will appear on Republican mailing lists and their mailboxes stuffed full of GOP direct mail and fund–raising appeals for the next four years.

My wife, Janet, still rues the day she voted for Hillary Clinton in one of those fruitless crossover voting schemes.

In the meantime, GOP Chairman Pat Mullins has scheduled a special meeting on January 21st. The only agenda item is the “loyalty oath.”

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at
michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

We’re neck deep in the run-up to Primary Season.  On the national scene, the Republican horse-race for the presidential nomination has been something of a circus.  No less than half the field of candidates have had a turn carrying the banner of “front-runner”.  This “flavor of the week” elevation and deflation of the candidates is exhausting both to the voters and the office-seekers!   Voters are confused, and “undecided” garners more votes than any single candidate!  Primary contests for House and Senate seats and even some lesser state and local offices have been no less contentious and chaotic.  There must be a way to make sense of it all and select the best choice of candidate to represent our viewpoints!

In today’s educational and political paradigm, where certain people propose to indoctrinate you with what to think rather than train you how to think – and encourage you to do so; it is difficult to even set a criterion by which to analyze and evaluate the various options.

Therefore, I propose to do just that.  I will not promote any particular idea or candidate over another here.  This method will work for everyone regardless of your political ideology.  It will help you analyze how well a candidate represents YOUR views and interestes – not mine.  And it can apply outside of politics.  It can, for example, be used in hiring decisions when selecting between candidates for a job!

The candidate should be evaluated against the “6 Ps”:  Platform, Positions, Policy, Plan,Past Performance and Personal Integrity and Character.

This will help quantify the major questions you need asked and answered:  What are his guiding principles?  What’s his philosophy?  How will he approach implementing it?  How’s he done in the past?  Can I trust him?  (Please assign gender neutrality to the male pronouns – it’s tedious to keep specifying him/her)

You want to understand the candidate’s philosophy, his strategic plan, and his tactical plan.

First, you want to understand where the candidate’s coming from.  What’s his philosophy?  His core values.  What are the non-negotiables for him?  What’s his motivation?  Understanding his Platform and Positions will give insight here.  What is he FIRM on, and where is he “squishy”?  Is he uncompromising or pragmatic, and in his pragmatism, will he negotiate away YOUR non-negotiables?

Next, you want to understand what he intends to do with that philosophy!  What are the Policies he seeks to pursue and what is his Plan to implement them?  Does it make sense to you?  Does it seem workable to you.  Can you support it?  Can you understand it?

What’s the candidate’s track record?  How’s he done at what he’s attempted before?  As any investment’s prospectus will tell you “past performance is not a guarantee of future results”… however it is a pretty good indicator – especially when used to compare between the various choices!

Finally, character counts!  As we learned from the Clinton Era, there are those who will support and defend an individual no matter what he does, as long as he espouses their political view.  But if we, as a people, don’t hold our leaders to a certain standard of integrity and character, we will all reap the consequences.  No matter how rhetorically “pure” a candidate is on the political issues of the day – if he will compromise his personal integrity, there is no reason to believe he’ll hold fast to a political philosophy and not sell it out for self-interest.  Therefore, we must demand from our elected officials a higher standard of character.

Will there be a perfect candidate for you?  Only if you yourself are running!  Everyone has their own warts.  Everyone will have some area of disagreement, whether philosophically, strategically or tactically.  But you can analyze the field and put your support with the candidate who most closely represents your views and interests.  This method will simply help you logically determine which of the available candidates is closest.

Once you make that determination, go all in.  Support your candidate.  Remember, however, that once the primaries are over and one candidate has prevailed, he may or may not be your first choice.  If your candidate fails to win the nomination, don’t  be a “sour grapes” voter and sit out the general election.  Your second, third or even fourth choice in the primary still probably represents your interests and values better than the opposition in the general election.

Copyright © 2011 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, writes for the St Louis Examiner, at http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-st-louis/doug-edelman and was a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work has appeared on ChronWatch, Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com.

 

WesternFront America

Why are the GOP frontrunners talking about “getting in line,” for the forty million Mexican nationals  who have invaded America, in an active bid of annexation of American territory by Mexico, called “La Reconquista?”

Should American politicians be allowed to commit treason against the nation, by promoting the dangerous attitude of a tolerance romantic, toward the massive third world invasion of industrialized nations seen in both hemispheres of the planet?

Concessions should never be granted to burglars who break into our national house and there certainly should NOT be a so-called “line” for the gang-rape of our republic, under the Second Mexican War.

Mexico has full intent to make a baby, in prosecuting its “politically correct” rape of America.

Are these GOP frontrunners as insane as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

These sappy and sentimental politicians of the GOP, are the ones who need to “get in line,” lest they find themselves fresh-out of constituents.

 

WesternFront America

Generally overlooked in the midst of the many debates and the usual competition between Republican candidates for the Party’s nomination is the fact that a rather impressive number have thrown their hats in the ring. It is testimony to the health, depth, and diversity of the Party. Compare that with the Democratic Party’s lone candidate, a President already ceded the title of worst ever.

As campaigns proceed toward the on-rushing primaries, Republicans are increasingly focused beyond the usual circus atmosphere, including the latest problems encountered by Herman Cain and Rick Perry’s gaffs. Selecting the GOP candidate has now reached the critical stage.

That is why a lengthy editorial in a recent Wall Street Journal is noteworthy. “Romney’s Fiscal Awakening” was a thorough analysis of a November 4th Romney speech on the subject of reversing the nation’s economic problems. The Journal said “his remarks deserve more attention than they’ve received as a guide to how he might govern.”

Romney has run a smart campaign to this point, not attacking the other candidates and waiting for them to exhaust themselves while he maintained a fairly constant 25% of support to this point. Unlike the boxer who spends all his energy in the first or third round, Romney has tended to the grassroots kind of effort necessary to succeed in the early primaries.

He’s been here before–losing the nomination to John McCain the last time and it is likely that many Republicans have some very serious regrets about that. He learned from that effort, probably in the same way Ronald Reagan did when he challenged Gerald Ford for the nomination. McCain was an updated version of Bob Dole, the kind of GOP candidate who gets the nod because he was judged to have earned it even if he couldn’t campaign is way out of a paper bag.

Increasingly, Republicans are asking themselves, “If not Romney, who?”

While many believe that almost any GOP candidate could beat Obama that kind of optimism is unwise because an incumbent president has a lot of resources to draw on between now and Election Day. That said, Republicans have seen their own incumbents, George H.W. Bush and the aforementioned Gerald Ford defeated.

On Saturday, November 12th, Rasmussen Reports reviewed the week’s polling results. “Poll after poll shows former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to be the Republican presidential contender voters are most comfortable with and the GOP hopeful who continues to run most competitively with President Obama. But that’s not enough for a lot of Republican voters.”

“Just this past week, new surveying found that Romney is the GOP candidate viewed most favorably by all voters. This parallels other recent findings that voters see Romney as the GOP hopeful most qualified to be president and the candidate for the White House closest to the mainstream in a group that includes Obama.”

I would recommend reading “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics” by R. B. Scott (Lyons Press) because it is not an authorized biographical profile, the author has excellent journalistic credentials, and he provides useful insights regarding the Mormon Church you are not likely to read elsewhere.

I have concluded that Romney’s religion is not going to play that much of a role in the forthcoming election. Consider that he won the governorship of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states and a Democratic stronghold. Romney knows how to win elections.

In saying that, I am also saying he is a very skilled politician. In addition, he has also a proven record in the world of business and finance. These are two elements that are going to be vital to his election in 2012. Yes, I think he will get the GOP nomination. Yes, I would vote for him.

The highest hurdle Romney must overcome is his reputation as a “flip-flopper.” There is no question that he has changed his views over the years on many topics, but that can be easily countered by merely listing the many times that Obama has done the same or, in his case, voted “present.”

Whether it’s been about abortion and choice, stem cell research, gun control, immigration, or taxes, Romney has been on one side of the issue or the other over the years. What is called “flip-flopping” can also been seen as a process of growth, of examining his positions on these issues and—yes—changing them.

Here’s where Romney’s religion really plays a role. The Mormon Church, in which he has been an active leader, is famous for its moral code. They don’t drink. They don’t smoke. And they have positions on major moral issues that are not dissimilar from the Roman Catholic Church.

As R.B. Scott says in his book, Mormons have values that include “veneration for the experience, wisdom, and caution of the elderly; respect for the talents and pragmatism of skilled tradesmen; honor and gratitude for those who perform heavy labor; deep admiration for poets, musicians, writers, entertainers, and athletes; and veneration for religious, academic, and secular achievements.”

Romney has diverged from the church’s positions on occasion, but Mormons also hold to a fundamental tenet, the doctrine of free agency. “Regardless of existing laws, faithful Mormons had the obligation to make moral judgments for themselves”, says Scott. Romney has done that.

Romney has been the clear winner of the recent debates. Rick Perry was the biggest loser and the rest of the candidates increasingly look like window dressing.

Romney has been successful at almost everything he has ever put his hand to. He is the right man at the right time to defeat Barack Hussein Obama in 2012.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

 

WesternFront America

In the movie, “Cool Hand Luke” the warden of a prison camp utters the now famous line, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” The decision of the Democratic members of the Congressional Super Committee to refuse further discussion of revenue issues is a failure to negotiate.

I have a friend, Jim Camp, who is one of the world’s authorities on negotiation, a coach to international corporations and others that engage in multi-million dollar deals requiring major negotiation skills. When the news was reported on Wednesday that the Democratic members had walked away from the negotiation table, I picked up the phone to ask for his reaction.

“We live in an era when the conventional wisdom is that compromise is the goal,” said Camp. “The real goal is a valid mission and purpose. What’s missing is that the committee as a whole is not focused on the real mission which is the best result for the American people and the nation. Instead, their goal is political gamesmanship, a massive over-reach by both parties to the negotiation.”

Based on more than twenty years of coaching negotiations, Camp said “Tactics do nothing more than create conflict.” The news media reports on tactics, but Camp said “Neither party is negotiating to the benefit of the American people.”

What is at stake? It’s not whether Democrats or Republicans “win” the Super Committee negotiation.

Created under the Budget act of 2011, the law was passed the first two days of August when the nation’s $14.294 trillion debt ceiling was raised to avoid a potential national default. It was the fourth increase of the mandatory borrowing cap during President Obama’s first term; one that saw the first down-grade of the nation’s top credit rating in its history.

Consisting of six members each from the House and Senate, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the official name for the Super Committee is the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. The amount of debt is comparable to the annual Gross Domestic Product, meaning that every dollar the economy earns is equal to the amount of debt that exists.

In the basic terms, Democrats want to raise revenue through taxation to address the debt and permit for more spending. Republicans have committed themselves to avoid such an increase during a period of recession.

The decision to walk away from the negotiation reflects one of Camp’s major warnings. “To act according to how you think the other side will react to you and your actions creates great conflict. To think you know what someone is going to do or say based on how you impact them is to attempt suicide.”

It would be naive to think that the Democrat and Republican members of the Super Committee are not negotiating with an eye on the 2012 elections. As a November 10 Wall Street Journal editorial notes, Republicans have offered a plan “to raise revenues by $500 billion over 10 years as part of a tax reform that would lock in lower rates in return for giving up deductions. Democrats have rejected it, which is puzzling since it would achieve so many of their stated goals.”

Refusing to negotiate makes sense only if Democrats are positioning themselves to blame the Republicans for the failure to avoid another potential down-grade of the nation’s credit rating. It’s not the truth, but the truth is often a rare commodity in politics.

“What we are witnessing,” said Camp, “is a textbook definition of incompetence.”

All negotiation, says Camp, is based on emotion. When both sides share a vision of the end result of the negotiation it can move forward. When emotions blind one or both sides, it is doomed.

As a recent Los Angeles Times editorial noted, in order to slash federal borrowing by at least $1.2 trillion over the coming decade, “members will have to bridge a deep partisan divide over taxes, spending programs, and the effect of government spending on the economy.”

That is the mission, the purpose of the Super Committee, and the editorial warned that “If they have any doubts about the need to cut a deal, however, they should turn their attention to what’s happening on the other side of the Atlantic.”

The turmoil in Europe, based on decades of excessive borrowing and spending by several nation-states, is a reflection of how critical it is for the Super Committee to achieve its mission.

Automatic cuts, not guided by the need, for example, of maintaining our military strength could have disastrous consequences if the U.S. was perceived as weakened and vulnerable by its enemies. Diminishing our military capabilities at this time is not an option.

The Super Committee is an admission of the failure of the U.S. Congress to fulfill its responsibility to conduct the nation’s borrowing and spending in a prudent fashion and it’s been a failure in which both Parties have participated for a very long time.

The deadline for the Super Committee to reach agreement is November 23, the day before Thanksgiving and one side has walked away from the table.

I wish the Super Committee could bring Jim Camp in to help resolve the impasse. Simply stated, failure is not an option.

Editor’s note: Jim Camp is the founder of the Camp Negotiation Institute and the author of “Start with No” and “No, the Only Negotiating System You Need for Work and Home” which has been translated into twelve languages.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

 

WesternFront America

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s successful effort to open the rest stops on I–95 was a very good idea. His current effort to open tollbooths on I–95 is not.

McDonnell obviously faces a dilemma: Virginia desperately needs road improvements and faces a backlog of maintenance expenses. Yet the General Assembly refuses to increase funding, much like other GOP–controlled legislatures across the country who are trying to deal with years of Democrat overspending.

McDonnell’s situation reminds me of a high school booster club president trying to buy desperately needed new uniforms. Bake sales are over–regulated. Car washes face competition from pee–wee teams. And the parents refuse to pony up additional contributions. So the wet t–shirt contest is looking better and better.

The governor justifies his wet t–shirt contest that charges a toll on a road that’s already paid for by calling it a “user fee.” But this toll is simply a tax on your destination.

Goods shipped North to Prince William County via I–95 will be subject to a destination tax that goods shipped to Petersburg via I–85 will avoid. The same goes for travelers to those destinations.

McDonnell has received permission to put one tollbooth on the North Carolina border and the second South of Fredericksburg. Drivers will soon discover that both locations will function as construction zones that never go away. Even with E–ZPass there will be new slowdowns adding the lost time insult to the increased expense injury.

Strangely enough, the American Trucking Association (ATA) supports an alternative that is not only more practical and has the added bonus of being supported by business. According to the ATA, adding a few pennies to the gas tax is a more equitable and efficient way of raising road money “because it doesn’t require governments to hire workers to man toll booths or spend millions of dollars to build and maintain toll plazas.”

Virginia’s 17.5 cent a gallon gas tax has not been raised since the mid–1980’s and prospects for an increase in this century are dim even though a gas tax is a reasonable pay–as–you–go user fee on highways.

Morally superior types who operate granola–burning vehicles or only drive two days per week— to allow their electric vehicles time to recharge —will hardly pay anything at all. While modern day road warriors will pay their fair share.

Unfortunately drivers are deadlocked between Republicans who won’t raise taxes a penny and Democrats who won’t cut spending by a penny. Conservative Republicans contend the state has plenty of money and it’s time to repay the money that has been “borrowed” over the years from the highway trust fund.

In theory this is true. In practice Democrats won’t allow it to happen. You can’t even get Democrats to end subsidies for “public broadcasting” during a recession. (Although, “public broadcasting” could be part of Democrat’s long–term transportation strategy for world domination. Drivers stuck in a traffic jam could tune to NPR out of boredom and be subject to “progressive” indoctrination in spite of themselves.)

Another Republican objection is that under Obama’s leadership from behind, gas prices have approached record levels and Virginia drivers can’t afford the additional expense. This is untrue (the driver’s part not the Obama part). North Carolina’s gas tax is almost double Virginia’s, but per–gallon prices on a recent trip to Charlotte were about the same or occasionally lower than in PWC.

A better solution to transportation funding is for Republicans to lead from the front and increase the gas tax and make it a percentage instead of a fixed amount. If conservatives in state and local government can’t persuade voters that paying for highways is a core function of government then we won’t ever be able to persuade voters to stop wasting money on non–core functions.

Both arguments require the courage of your convictions in the face of kneejerk criticism.
If this bit of candor is too bracing for my fellow conservatives, then let’s try the semantics approach. Republicans support cost of living increases for social security recipients and cost of living increases for government employees, so how about a cost of living increase for the gas tax?

Or Republicans could take Norman Leahy’s advice and increase a gas fee that already exists. In addition to the 17.5-cent gas tax, Virginia also charges 2.2 cents per gallon in fees. This is very low. West Virginia charges 11.7 cents in fees, in addition to 20.5 cents in gas tax. Raising the gas “fee” doesn’t make a politician any more vulnerable to the “tax raiser” charge than increasing the charge to renew your driver’s license.

Every driver uses Virginia’s roads and every driver should be responsible for paying their share. A toll on an already completed road is double taxation: once for the gas and once for the trip.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at
michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

During my misspent youth, I was a Democrat. Consequently, when I started my political consulting firm I wanted to be true to my mistaken convictions, so I only worked for Democrat clients.

[Note: Now that I’m a Republican who has seen the error of my ways, I often find myself trying to rationalize my membership in the party of debt, dependency and degeneracy by telling people I was a “conservative Democrat.” This is not all that uncommon among those of us who have seen the light and puts me in some pretty august company.

Recently I was watching a rerun of ‘Booknotes’ with Gertrude Himmelfarb — now a respected historian and neo–conservative, but in her youth a Trotskyite, which — for those of you suffering from recent history instruction in public schools — is a variety of Communist. When asked how she made the ideological journey from Trotsky to Reagan, it warmed my heart when explained that she was always a pretty conservative Trotskyite.]

In 1990 I found myself working as media consultant for Tom McRae who was Bill Clinton’s last gubernatorial primary opponent in Arkansas.

At that time Clinton was eight to ten years into his affair with Gennifer Flowers, had played jack–in–the–box with Paula Jones, reportedly used the state troopers to ferry women and was generally known as someone you wouldn’t leave unsupervised with your college–age daughter.

Yet our TV spots featured none of this lurid material for the simple reason that, regardless of the truth, the rumors were old news to voters and reporters. Clinton had been re–elected previously when Flowers was just starting to bloom. The fact that she had now taken root, along with a complete inventory of other women, was simply not a factor as he sought his fifth term.

Instead, our spots were built around “It’s time for a change” and highlighted the fact Clinton was just going through the motions while preparing to run for president. Our woefully underfunded campaign held Clinton to a meager 54 percent.

Two years later Clinton was in for a rude surprise during the New Hampshire Presidential Primary. Rumors he thought dead and buried arose in the form of tapes secretly recorded by Flowers and played for the news media.

Why was his old squeeze from the Ozarks suddenly relevant? Simple, Clinton changed the scope of his campaigning, from statewide candidate in Arkansas to nationwide candidate and new voters were unaware of his randy streak. These voters were encountering information that he thought was safely behind him and Clinton was caught unprepared. Overcoming the shock required a comprehensive campaign of lies to a gullible news media that just barely saved his campaign.

The same phenomenon is being repeated today — minus the lies and the lingerie.

Texas Governor Rick Perry is encountering past issues he previously overcame. If Perry had been content to stay in Texas and run for governor, US Senator or Congress the forced HPV vaccinations for schoolgirls and in–state college tuition for children of illegal aliens would have been non–issues.

This is because winning an election, similar to baptism, washes one clean of all past political sins. Where Christian baptism differs from elections is Christ doesn’t care about geography. You’re just as clean in Austin as you are in Arlington. But in politics absolution doesn’t travel across the border.

In Florida and elsewhere conservative Republicans are appalled at Perry’s executive decision to require schoolgirls to be vaccinated for a disease that comes through sexual activity and his signature on a law that grants in–state college tuition to the children of illegal aliens.

Perry appears to be appalled that voters have found out.

His debate answers are awkward and off–message for Republicans. He says his decision with regard to HPV vaccinations was wrong and he would not do it again. So far so good, but then he rationalizes by saying it would save lives. So would requiring every citizen of Texas to wear a ballistic vest when leaving the house, but it would not be a conservative policy.

His most recent answer to the tuition controversy only served to drive his poll numbers down. Telling opponents of granting special privileges to children of illegals that they “don’t…have a heart” is simply stupid. Democrats are the land of “follow your feelings,” Republicans prefer to follow the rule of law.

If Perry’s answers don’t improve his campaign will be the second bubble to burst, following that of Rep. Michelle Bachmann. But either way, he serves as an instructive lesson for politicians who are looking to expand their political horizons in the future.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America