Newt, Get in to Win, or Get Out of the Way

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich announced this week that he is exploring whether he will possibly, maybe, but probably at least consider whether he will officially announce what we already all know:  he is running for president in 2012.  He claims he needs 6-7 weeks to "explore" the viability of his potential candidacy, which, translated into Washingtonese, simply means he will see how many donations his exploratory organization can generate in 6-7 weeks as an indication of the support he can expect from conservative backers.  Am I the only observer out there who finds it ironic that in the same interviews in which Newt criticizes the Obama Administration for exhibiting indecisiveness in its handling of uprisings in Libya and Iran, Newt himself exudes indecisiveness on running for president?

Newt, President Obama may be indecisive in handling world affairs, but at least he did not hesitate for one second to make it clear to the world in 2007 that he wanted very much to run for and win the presidency.  We knew what he wanted, even if we were unsure of exactly what he was politically, or what he might do once in office.  His ambitions were no secret.  Neither are yours, yet you approach them as if you should keep them to yourself until the last moment.  Campaign seasons are starting earlier and earlier, and those who know what they want and go all out for it, like candidate Obama did in 2007-2008, have more opportunity to influence voters.

Newt has had since the late 1990s to explore his viability as a candidate for the presidency.  He has been a rumored candidate in several previous presidential elections, and his strengths and weaknesses (skeletons may be a more accurate term) have been vetted in the media ever since he led the Congress that impeached President Clinton.  The media will continue to attack him and dredge up any and all past indiscretions whether he throws his hat into the presidential campaign ring or not, because Newt has palpable influence on conservative political thought.

Whether he enters the race today, 6 months from now, or not at all, he will be targeted by the White House and its media accomplices who view him as an ever-present threat to liberal ideology.  President Obama does not want to participate in any televised debates with Newt, who is far more prepared, articulate, and experienced in world affairs.  The White House would prefer almost any other potential GOP candidate to square off against.  What Newt will discover during his announced 6-7 week exploratory period is that he scares people on the left, and I don't mean because they consider his views radically conservative.  He scares them because he would be their most formidable foe.  Likewise, fellow conservatives seeking the White House fear Newt above all other potential opponents.  Newt's war chest is already building more rapidly than any other potential conservative candidate's.

In his sharp criticisms of the Obama Administration delivered at CPAC 2011, Newt aggressively stated his domestic priorities:  dramatic cuts to Federal government spending; dramatic permanent tax cuts for all taxpayers, which leads to business expansion and more jobs; and aggressive pursuit of domestic energy sources to lessen our dependence on Middle East regimes.

Although Newt wasn't exactly decisive on running for president in his exploratory announcement, his broadside attack on President Obama's foreign policy and national security indecision covered a lot of ground in just three sentences and illustrated why a debate matchup of President Obama and Newt Gingrich would be intriguing:

This was an administration which was very aggressive about an American ally, Mubarak in Egypt, and very confused about an American opponent, Gadhafi in Libya. This is an administration which doesn't notice the demonstrations and the brutality in Tehran, and it confuses Israelis building apartments with Iranians building nuclear weapons. And I think it's very, very dangerous.

Newt, if, as you say, at the end of your exploratory period (that you've had 15 years to explore) you expect to be in the race, get in now and be a decisive conservative leader.  Candidate Obama was in the race to win it already by March 2007.  He even had Secret Service protection that early, which certainly enhanced his image of viability as potential winner of his party's nomination.  Potential voters knew his ambitions, and he was not apologetic or modest about them.  Voters want decisiveness in their leaders.  Be all in, or all out, but never waffling in between two choices.  The Bible tells us it is better to be hot or cold, than to be lukewarm in our commitments.  If you lack the heart or the stomach for the long-haul campaign and the incredible pressures of the presidency if victorious, step aside now for someone with more vigor who is sure of what he or she wants.  If you have the heart and stomach for the brutality of a campaign and the job itself, then get in it to win it.

Rudy/Mitt Ticket Marginalizes Bystander Thompson

Rather than issue debate report cards for each candidate as we have done after each of the GOP candidate debates thus far, we can save ourselves and our readers from repetition by declaring that, despite the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, the candidates finished with precisely the same grades we assigned after the previous debate. Additionally, with few exceptions, they set forth the same clichéd sound bites on issues significant to conservatives and paid mandatory lip service to Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

Readers can review those previously assigned grades, insert Fred Thompson in a tie for third place, and draw the conclusion, accurately, that nothing substantive changed since the previous debate, in content, personalities, or format. The only difference was the addition of one principle actor, pun intended, to the distractingly large and unwieldy cast of GOP characters on stage. Thompson made no notable gaffes, was not challenged directly by any of his fellow candidates, and left an underwhelming impression after months of blogosphere hype about his potential role as savior of the GOP’s 2008 campaign hopes. While he did nothing to hurt his chances, he likewise did nothing to set himself apart from his competition or inspire mass defections of his opponents’ followers to his camp.

Thompson’s ho-hum debut should have been the major media story from this debate, but it was not. Consider today’s headlines: “Romney, Giuliani Spar on Taxes, Spending (AP),” “Romney, Giuliani Spar During Thompson’s Debate Debut (CNN),” and “Giuliani Clashes with Romney Over Taxes and Spending (New York Times),” among many others. Each of these news articles focused on the “quarreling,” “sparring,” “heated exchange,” and “increasingly fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani.

It seems appropriate at this point to make a few general observations of what happened on stage and what appears to be going on behind the scenes.

We stand by our previous observation/prediction that despite any perceptions of rancor or “fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani, their body language and demeanor when they personally interact before and after such events indicate a familiar camaraderie and genuine respect for each other that belies any barbs exchanged on the debate stage.

They appear to be comfortable with each other and share a perception that together they would make a formidable team, with Giuliani’s strength as a mafia-busting, 9/11 crisis managing, national security candidate, and Romney’s remarkable record as a scandal-free financial manager, governor, and same-sex marriage obstructionist, who also happens to be a model family man, all traits which Giuliani lacks.

Giuliani and Romney are already de facto running mates, and last night’s debate was shared political strategy at its finest. By firing their best salvos at each other, they prevented Thompson or any other candidate from offering any memorable or substantive return volleys.

The post-debate headlines above illustrated just how effectively Romney and Giuliani stole Thompson’s debate debut momentum and shifted it squarely in their direction. Nearly every article describing the debate included statements similar to these: “It also left Thompson, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and the other contenders as something of bystanders for the several moments that Romney and Giuliani went at one another;” “Mr. Thompson often found himself a bystander as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney attacked one another;” or “Thompson was largely spared direct fire from the other candidates.”

Nothing is more deflating to a political candidate than thinking he will be the main attraction at an event only to realize that others have taken over the spot light and are receiving the coveted applause of the audience. Marginalizing one’s opponent is critical to successful politics, and the sparring between Giuliani and Romney achieved that goal.

We use the term sparring intentionally, because in boxing, one’s sparring partner fulfills the role of presenting a target to punch for the mutual goal of improving the prize fighter’s skill and chance for success. Sparring partners take a few good blows but are adequately protected from any serious damage, and they likewise jab at the prize fighter sufficiently to expose his weaknesses so they may be addressed through better training preparation for his shot at the title.

Romney is Giuliani’s campaign sparring partner. They will take shots at each other throughout the primaries, but once the dust settles and Giuliani is left standing with the GOP nomination and marching orders to beat Hillary, this dynamic duo will save every KAPOW! for their Democratic rival.

Giuliani’s debate performance further solidified his position as the GOP front-runner, and by keeping the cameras and the audience focused on their exchanges Giuliani and Romney limited Thompson’s opportunities to impress potential voters. After months of speculation regarding his charisma, desire to campaign, and knowledge of the issues, Thompson needed a strong debate stage performance to propel him upward in the polls and differentiate himself from his already familiar opponents. He appeared to rely on the strategy of “Here I am, I’m new to the race and new automatically means better.”

Ultimately, as a result of his vanilla answers and more interesting exchanges between other candidates, Thompson did not make the grand entry into the race that his supporters practically guaranteed. He was not the conservative savior riding in on his white horse to rescue the party.

Instead, he hardly got a word in edgewise and Romney and Giuliani rode off together into the Michigan sunset, victorious partners in this GOP political shootout.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Running Mates Candidates Debate Michigan Campaign Strategy GOP Nomination Presidential Candidates 2008 Election

Mistake for Romney to Follow JFK Lead

Many observers of the 2008 presidential campaign are convinced that Republican candidate Mitt Romney should deliver a speech similar to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 explanation of how his religion would influence his political actions. The fact that JFK’s speech on his Catholicism ultimately succeeded in blunting criticisms from Protestant activists, political analysts suggest, is reason enough for Romney to adopt a similar strategy to assuage evangelical concerns over Romney’s faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormon). The temptation for Romney to provide potential voters with a JFK-style declaration on his faith is very strong, and Romney’s comments on the subject indicate he is likely to follow JFK’s example. That would be a mistake.

Romney should be wary of evangelicals or others who insist that a speech clarifying the role of faith in his life would benefit his campaign. When weighing advice given, one must consider two simple questions: what is the motive of the adviser, and who benefits from following the advice? For Romney, the answers to these questions as they relate to the advice that he should give a JFK-style religious speech suggest that Romney stands to gain little or nothing, while those giving the advice will receive their intended reward: the derailment of Romney’s candidacy.

First, Romney should examine the motives of those advising him to give a speech on his faith. Who are they? Some, of course, are fellow members of Romney’s faith who naively believe that by candidly discussing his faith and its influence on his politics he will silence criticism of the LDS church. Some are misguided but not malicious political pundits who take the lone example of JFK and extrapolate from it predictions of similar campaign success for Romney. Most are evangelicals and others who are far more interested in keeping Romney’s religion front and center in voters’ minds than they are in actually reconciling their doctrinal differences with his faith. This third group poses the greatest risk to Romney’s campaign because it capitalizes on the religious ignorance, indifference, or blatant bigotry of potential voters. The third group is well aware that as long as Romney’s religion is talked about more than his political views or policy positions, he will never be taken seriously enough to win the GOP nomination regardless of his early poll strength and impressive fundraising prowess.

Who benefits if Romney decides to deliver a speech addressing concerns over his faith? The prime beneficiary of such an act would be the media, through an endless stream of stories on every conceivable aspect of the LDS church and its history. One need only observe the media frenzy that occurs whenever an obscure polygamist from Arizona or rural Utah is discovered to get a sense of what would be in store for Romney. Every religion has some doctrine or controversy in its history, but the media rarely point out that very few Mormons ever practiced polygamy and the church ordered those who did to terminate the practice in the 1890s.

Romney should expect unfair characterizations, misleading headlines, and biased articles by the thousands in response to whatever he chooses to state about his faith. It is important for Romney to remember that anyone who advises him to stand in front of television cameras and reporters and talk about his membership in a church that is frequently stigmatized by the media likely does not have the candidate’s best interest in mind. It is revealing that the same choruses shouting for Romney to defend his religion are unwilling to demand that other candidates state their level of religious activity or explain their failures to live the tenets of their own faiths.

By following JFK’s example, Romney also will forever lose the constitutional high ground he now enjoys when he and his supporters point to Article VI and remind Americans that no religious test should be applied to candidates for office. Currently the talk of Romney’s faith emanates mainly from religious critics or media figures seeking to stir controversy where none should exist. If Romney addresses his faith in the manner he is considering, he would give the issue ample fuel to compel him to spend the remainder of a short-lived campaign answering endless questions about religion rather than why he would be a good choice for president. That aspect of his life is what makes him uniquely different from the other candidates, but what he should seek instead is to stand out from them through knowledge of the issues and charismatic leadership. Being different from the other candidates is a positive, but Romney must be mindful of what differences he chooses to emphasize.

This does not mean that Romney should evade all questions of religion or be secretive. On the contrary, Romney should allow the media to discover firsthand, as Reverend Al Sharpton did recently, that the LDS church routinely makes spokespersons or leaders available to address public and media inquiries about the doctrines and history of the church. Rather than stand as an unofficial representative of his church, Romney should refer his critics and the media to those who are officially qualified to answer questions such as what influence church leaders would have over an LDS president or to address controversial portions of LDS history. If Mike Wallace’s “60 Minutes” interview of LDS church President Gordon B. Hinckley several years ago or President Hinckley’s interviews with Larry King and the National Press Club in Washington DC were any indication, Romney’s church appears quite capable of engaging the media. The LDS church reportedly does not endorse any candidates and declares political neutrality. That fact is evidenced by the antics of Harry Reid on the left and polar opposite views and votes by Romney, Orrin Hatch, and others on the right.

Critics of Romney’s faith and his GOP rivals for the nomination are counting on religion to be the anchor that will hold Romney’s campaign securely in port rather than steaming confidently toward the presidency. By casting that anchor at the feet of his church’s highest leaders for handling, Romney’s campaign ship could sail far more smoothly and with fewer detours or course corrections than if he tackles the issue of faith on his own. The media and evangelical sharks are circling Romney’s boat, eager for a taste of religious debate. Romney would be well advised not to swim in those waters. Anyone in his camp who suggests otherwise should be made to walk the plank.


Technorati Tags:
Mitt Romney, JFK, Article VI, LDS, Mormon, Presidential Candidates, Campaign Strategy, Evangelicals, Gordon B. Hinckley, Religion in Politics

Assessing Rudy's 12 Commitments

During a speech Monday in New Hampshire, GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani unveiled his “12 Commitments to the American People,” reminiscent of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 GOP Contract with America. Anytime a candidate provides a firm outline of his policy positions and promises to voters, it should be welcomed and then scrutinized carefully. Unfortunately, candidates for high office rarely offer specifics about how they intend to achieve their stated goals. Capital Cloak offers the following assessment of Giuliani’s 12 Commitments to the American People:

1) I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
Winning the terrorists’ war on us is the greatest responsibility of the 9/11 Generation. We need to continue taking the fight to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists by increasing the size, strength, and support of our military — beginning with ten new Army combat brigades.

Giuliani has good advisers and speech consultants if, like most politicians, he does not write for himself. With his first commitment Giuliani achieves three critical feats: first, he alters the politically divisive and mostly ambiguous phrase “War on Terror” to “the Terrorists’ War on Us,” which unites America into “us” and reminds Americans that we were attacked and thus are justified in conflict against terrorists; second, Giuliani introduces the phrase “9/11 Generation” as a formal title, drawing a historical parallel with the revered Greatest Generation that fought WWII and the evil totalitarianism and brutality of Nazism, which in its aims and doctrines differed little from the current brand of radical Islamic terrorist rule with which we are engaged in war. This formal title unites all Americans who can remember 9/11 and more importantly, prepares Americans for what will surely be a generational struggle requiring sacrifice and patience over a very long period of sustained engagements; and third, Giuliani calls for increased military buildup, which is necessary not only for combat with terrorists, but also as preparation for potential conflict with more powerful nation states such as Iran, Syria, and if relations deteriorate, Russia or China.

2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation. We can end illegal immigration with tough but realistic laws that put security first. We need to secure the border with a physical fence and a technological fence. We need to require a tamper-proof I.D. card for all non-citizens coming into the United States and tracking their entry and exit. And we need to encourage Americanization by requiring new citizens to read, write, and speak English.

Candidates should be careful not to promise what they cannot deliver. Even if Giuliani achieves the most securely enforced border in the history of modern man, he cannot put a 100% end to illegal immigration. There will always be enterprising and desperate foreign nationals with good and bad intentions who will probe incessantly until a vulnerable border area is identified. I do not mean to imply that because 100% is impossible it should not be the goal, but the media and his opponents in both parties, if he is elected president, will beat him over the head with the 100% promise anytime a report surfaces of an illegal alien who commits a crime. I can already picture Wolf Blitzer, with gleeful sneer in full bloom, asking: “President Giuliani, an illegal alien recently killed a family of 4 in a DUI incident, but according to your promises you put an end to illegal immigration. Doesn’t this make you personally liable for the deaths of this family since you allowed an illegal alien across our border?” Giuliani should learn from Former President Bush’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. A broken promise, unintentional or calculated, will spell doom for candidates and sitting presidents.

The rest of this commitment is solid; an ID (though nothing is tamper-proof, as I wrote yesterday) for all non-citizens, tracking entry and exit, and requiring English language proficiency are all in line with conservative principles. I would have preferred that he first commit to full enforcement of the existing laws to determine how well they could work if actually implemented before entering a long legislative battle to adopt new laws. Voters should beware Giuliani’s phrase “tough but realistic laws” when it comes to illegal immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has certainly been criticized by conservatives for suggesting that amnesty “bows to reality.’ Thus it is critical for voters that Giuliani identify the specific meaning of the word “realistic” as used in this commitment. I do not see how “realistic” and “end illegal immigration” coexist in the same sentence, as much as I wish it were possible. Limit, yes. Curtail, certainly. Eliminate? That is unlikely, as long as there are foreign nationals who are willing to risk arrest or deportation because life here is better than life in their homeland.

3) I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending. Over the next two presidential terms, 42 percent of the federal civilian workforce is due to retire. We should only hire back half, replacing non-essential workers with technology. I’ll ask agency heads to identify annual budget cuts of 5 to 20 percent. With entitlement costs scheduled to explode, we need fiscal discipline to avoid passing an unsupportable burden on to the next generation.

Giuliani makes an interesting argument here. Apparently Giuliani believes that the most egregious source of government overspending is the federal workforce, rather than the combination of pork barrel projects, earmarks, subsidies, and grants that empty government coffers at an alarming rate. This commitment will not win him any votes from federal employees, or roughly 3 million voters. While I concur that there are agencies and departments that could and should be disbanded because they offer services or fulfill responsibilities that exceed the constitution’s vision of a limited central government, across the board federal workforce reductions and budget cuts may exacerbate already understaffed agencies struggling to retain capable employees. I am no Ron Paul fan, as the ire of his supporters toward me has demonstrated, but Giuliani should instead consider a Ron Paul-like reduction of federal agencies that are extra-constitutional. Doing so would likely eliminate a significant portion of Washington’s wasteful spending. Addressing earmarks and legislative pork would eliminate most of the rest. A workforce, especially in important national security related agencies, is an asset, not a drain.

4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code. Pro-growth policies lead to broader prosperity. The next president needs to simplify the tax code and keep taxes low — including the personal income tax, the capital-gains tax and the corporate tax. And we can eliminate double taxation and protect family businesses by giving the Death Tax the death penalty.

Cutting taxes will always be an effective political promise to conservatives, and if Giuliani actually reduced government spending as I outlined above, there would be far less need for taxes. Simplifying the tax code is a political cliché that has meant nothing and will continue to mean nothing until someone actually simplifies it by, gasp, eliminating income tax and replacing it with a simple tax policy, whether that is a flat tax, fair tax, or consumption tax. Giuliani did not mention any of these, stating only that he would keep taxes low, which implies that he intends to keep the existing income tax in place but cut the rate. This would be good, but it could be better.

5) I will impose accountability on Washington.We need to restore Americans’ faith that government can work again. That’s why we’ll implement the first constant measurement of government effectiveness, known as “FedStat,” and put the results online so the public can hold agencies accountable.

How does a president impose accountability on Washington? Isn’t that what elections are for? I find it ironic that Americans complain long and loud about out of control spending, arrogance in Washington, and the “disconnect between Americans and Congress” mentioned frequently by Sean Hannity, yet they expect a president to ride in on a white horse and restore sanity and accountability in the nation’s capital. Rather than hope for a political messiah to deliver them from their unfeeling and seemingly deaf representatives, Americans have the power to replace their elected officials when necessary, through recalls and special elections. Giuliani here appeals to the sense of outrage all Americans feel when they read of government corruption, waste, or incompetence, but the reality is that only the people have the ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their performance. While “FedStat” sounds catchy, who will determine the “measurement of government effectiveness?” Another government agency? The White House? Rather than relying on “FedStat” to tell them how government is performing, voters should make clear for their elected officials what they want accomplished by government agencies and then vote out or recall anyone who does not work to achieve the electorate’s wishes.

6) I will lead America towards energy independence. We must decrease America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We can meet this challenge through diversification of our energy portfolio, innovation, and conservation. We must increase public and private investment in nuclear power, clean coal, and alternative-energy sources across the board. America must lead the world in energy-efficient, environmentally responsible, commercially viable innovation, including wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, and biofuel technologies.

I agree with everything in this statement. It is to President Bush’s condemnation that Giuliani is using a near verbatim version of the president’s 2000 and 2004 election promises regarding energy independence. In over 6 years, the president has not accomplished any of these goals, which sounded good then and sound good now. How will Giuliani specifically accomplish what President Bush could not, even with a Republican-controlled House and Senate up to November 2006? Note also Giuliani’s lack of confidence in this policy area. With illegal immigration he committed to end it. With energy independence, he commits only to lead America towards it.

7) I will give Americans more control over their health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions. We can improve the quality of health care while decreasing costs through increased competition. Solutions can include reforming the tax treatment of health care, expanding portable health-savings accounts, encouraging state-by-state innovations, and reforming the legal system.

If by reforming the legal system here he is referring to placing caps on malpractice lawsuits, then his stated priorities in health care are solidly conservative.

8) I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children. We need to take advantage of the common ground in America to reduce abortions by increasing adoptions and assuring that individual choice is well informed. We need to measure our progress toward these goals. We need to reduce the high costs of adoption. And we need to protect our children against sexual predators and online pornography.

Encouraging adoptions is Giuliani’s way to join hands with conservatives who would otherwise shun him for his pro-choice convictions. Reducing adoption costs and fostering the “culture of life” eloquently spoken of by Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee in the GOP debates are welcome ideas to combat Roe and its tragic results. There is nothing in this commitment to oppose.

9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges. America must reform its legal system. We need to eliminate nuisance lawsuits through “loser-pays” provisions. Tort reform can help us reduce costs passed on to the consumer, such as higher insurance premiums. Activist judges threaten to expand the power of the courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution; we must reassert the proper balance.

A Washington, DC area judge is currently suing his dry cleaner for losing a pair of pants, which was subsequently found. He is suing the cleaner for $54 million for the treatment he received. Giuliani’s commitment to eliminate such lawsuits and champion tort reform should be welcomed by conservatives and should be taken seriously given Giuliani’s reputation as a prosecutor. A man who can dismantle the mafia in New York could strike fear in the ambulance-chasing mafia fattening their bank accounts in America’s courtrooms.

10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.Homeland security and national security are now inseparable. We need to ensure that local first responders are trained to meet natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks. We must improve information-sharing between local, state, and federal authorities. And we need to repair vulnerable infrastructure to minimize the impact of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

I agree that homeland security and national security are inseparable but disagree strongly with the notion that natural disasters are homeland security related. Should hurricanes and tornadoes occupy the time, resources, and attention of intelligence and national security agencies? The inclusion of FEMA within Homeland Security has diverted that department’s attention away from terrorism and other domestic threats and focused it instead on weather reports and a desire never to repeat any Katrina-like snafus. I am also skeptical of the idea that the federal government is qualified to train local first responders to meet natural disasters or terrorist attacks. In most cases, local police, fire, and rescue personnel are experienced and well trained and do not need federal training or guidance in the performance of their duties. If by stating “ensure that local first responders are trained” Giuliani means through minimal federal grants in the interest of protection for citizens, it would eliminate my concerns over the wording here.

11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents. Education reform is a civil-rights struggle and the key to improving America’s competitiveness in the global economy. We need to empower parents and children by expanding school choice. We need to promote math and science, while ending the digital divide.

School choice and vouchers are great ideas that are working in some areas (Utah is pioneering this concept currently). “Digital divide?” Could a politician be any more cryptic? If Giuliani believes there is a gap in computer literacy between segments of our society or between American children and their counterparts in other nations, then he should say so, not use a cliché like “digital divide” that sounds ominous but explains nothing.

12) I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.We need to strengthen our country by engaging aggressively the global economy. The mission of the State Department needs to be focused on acting first and foremost as an advocate for America. Fostering trade and educational and cultural exchange will promote the expansion of freedom.

I appreciated the fact that Giuliani chastises the State Department for not always advocating American interests. No department in government contains more liberal, anti-American sentiment among its employees than State, as ironic as that may seem. I also agree that increased trade and cultural relations is the surest way to spread freedom or at least the seeds that could one day sprout up as liberty in unexpected places. Hopefully during the coming months of the campaign Giuliani will explain the phrase “engaging aggressively the global economy” as committed to here. It is good practice for voters to demand clarification when a politician wields the term “aggressively” in an ambiguous manner. Likewise, conservatives should demand explanation of the phrase “expand America’s involvement in the global economy.” There are many methods an administration could use to expand involvement, but Giuliani does not outline the ones he would favor.

On the whole, Giuliani’s 12 Commitments contain many encouraging features and many seemingly unrealistic political promises offered by all politicians seeking votes. With additional clarification of meanings and implementation logistics, Giuliani could cement himself further as the clear front-runner among candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008. The Contract with America was a novel and successful election strategy, and Giuliani’s advisers were wise to move him to present his 12 Commitments before any of his opponents did so. Will he live up to them? Voters have 7 months to make that determination, but for the candidate in most need of firming up his conservative credentials, these 12 Commitments were timely and decidedly conservative.

Technorati Tags:
Rudy Giuliani, 12 Commitments, Presidential Candidates, Terrorists' War on Us, Illegal Immigration, Tort Reform, Ron Paul, Tax Cuts, Campaign Strategy, 9/11 Generation

Romney Advisers Give Ill-Advised Advice

In the rush to differentiate themselves from President Bush as they vie for the GOP nomination, the current candidates and their advisers at times choose the wrong issues on which to differ from the President. Mitt Romney made this error yesterday, and he is paying a price for it among conservative elements of the Republican Party on the Internet today. One very brief AP story that appeared in this morning’s New York Sun is beginning to erode Romney’s carefully constructed image as a strong executive who can, when necessary, make tough decisions unilaterally if necessary. Here are the key paragraphs of the Sun article that has conservatives reexamining Romney’s potential leadership on national security:

Mitt Romney yesterday jabbed at President Bush, saying the image of America has suffered globally based on the perception that it invaded Iraq unilaterally.

"I do think that we have suffered over the past several years for a number of reasons, and I think you probably know what they are," the former Massachusetts governor told civic and business leaders, citing the absence of strong international support in the lead-up to the war.
"There has been the perception that we have not been as open and participative with other nations as is our normal approach," he said.

Romney’s campaign advisers chose poorly if they believe conservative voters consider America’s international image to have any bearing on the decisions a president must make. On the contrary, conservatives applauded President Bush for his courage in enforcing the UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein even when most of the international community refused to confront what all intelligence services agreed was a dangerous regime developing and stockpiling WMD. Conservatives likewise appreciated President Bush’s speech at the UN in which he challenged that body to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant in world affairs. The President made that statement and invaded Iraq not because they were globally popular actions but because, as Romney himself stated in the GOP candidates’ debate Tuesday, they were the right things to do based on available intelligence at the time. Not only does Romney now appear to be contradicting his defense of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, he is also heaping conservative scorn upon himself by making it seem as if he believes the U.S. should seek international approval before taking actions in the interest of national security.

As an example of how conservatives are interpreting Romney’s criticism of President Bush for not securing more international support for invading Iraq, the following are selected registered reader comments posted on Lucianne.com, a news forum popular among conservatives:

Comments:
#1 You dont ask for permission to do what is right Mitt. We are not beholden to international approval when it comes to matters of American safety. This statement proves Romney is not ready for the Oval Office.

#2 Mr. Romney: Maybe it will help the U.S. "image" if, as President, you schedule a world tour. You could travel to each world capital, and approach the Person In Charge on your knees, begging them, "Oh, please, please, please like us!" (preferably while weeping uncontrollably.) Start with Mugabe, then Castro, then Ahmadoinjihad, then Putin, then...

#3 I don't support Romney but this is probably taking something he said out of context to stir up trouble and slam Bush. Having said that, Romney should have known this would happen and should have been more on guard. If he did mean it, its more evidence that this guy shouldn't be president if he actually thinks that we had any control over that perception with a global MSM that was out to portray this as badly as they could.

#4 I sent Mitt an eMail telling him he isn't going to garner any primary votes with tactics like this. Conservatives and republicans don't judge America's success by how much the Europeans like us. One thing the president has done right is ignore the whining of our foreign enemies (although he is starting to weaken).

#5 I agree that it has been the media that has caused the US perception to be sullied. But that in no way a subject for a presidential candidate venue to discuss. There are many more important things that to harangue about what the feeling abroad is of the United States. Just look at the requests for immigration and look at the southern border and one can see the true feelings about this country. I also don't think we should have to have the worlds permission to defend our interests either. Mess with the bull and expect to get the horns shoved up you Heine! The President did what a good portion of the citizens and the congress approved of felt was necessary, and that was to take regimes out of existence that were a threat to our sovereignty and well being.

#6 #4 I did the same thing! This article so angered me I had to send Romney an email & tell him this kind of rhetoric is expected out of the mouths of rats & lamestream media hacks but it is not what we expect from our presidential candidates. Mitt is off my short list.

Romney supposedly hired an experienced team of campaign and political policy advisers, many of them veterans of Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004, yet none of them foresaw that Mitt’s comments would create this sentiment among conservative voters. Conservatives remember all too clearly the strenuous efforts the President made to convince nations who should be our allies to join together to enforce the UN resolutions and disarm Saddam. He could not force them to do what was right based on available intelligence, and so he gladly welcomed support from those he could count on (Britain, Australia, S. Korea, Spain-for a time-, Poland, and several others) and made the choice to do what was necessary. Conservatives are now questioning whether Romney is capable of making tough decisions without international approval, and that is not a quality any GOP candidate can afford to create doubts about if he wants to win the party’s nomination.

With a few brief sentences, Romney convinced many conservatives that he is not like President Bush- but on an issue where he should be convincing voters he would also do what was right for America while the rest of the world stands on the sidelines. There are plenty of issues on which to demonstrate a difference from the President, like illegal immigration or better management of the Iraq War, but Romney and his advisers chose poorly and voters may associate Romney’s criticism with another Massachusetts politician’s attacks on President Bush for his allegedly poor relations with other nations. After all, that was one of the central themes in John Kerry’s bid for the presidency in 2004: restore America’s international credibility. Romney should be wise enough to recognize that most of the nations that stood idly by when we invaded Iraq have undergone political changes, with conservative leaders who work well with President Bush winning elections. Germany, Canada, and France are all under new conservative leadership and each has vowed to restore better relations with America now, not waiting for a different American president to be elected.

America’s international image is strongest when it demonstrates strong leadership and leaves no doubt that America will keep its word, honor its commitments, and defend and advance freedom at every opportunity. If Romney wants to cast himself as a strong executive, he should make it clear that the President was right to invade regardless of international opinion and that he would do likewise if other nations refuse to join in their own defense. Romney’s campaign should learn from this misstep and give more consideration to how the media will present the candidate’s statements and how that will influence conservative interpretation. In just a few sentences, Romney lost several potential votes on the conservative news forum quoted above. That was just one such Internet forum, and the reaction on others is similar. Despite the President’s low approval ratings, GOP candidates should exercise caution and good judgment when choosing the issues on which they want to distance themselves from him. This was not one of them, much to Romney’s chagrin. With Fred Thompson definitely entering the race in July and Newt Gingrich waiting in the wings in case he is "drafted" by the GOP, Romney cannot afford any more ill-advised advice from his campaign advisers.

Technorati: Mitt Romney George W. Bush Iraq War International Opinion Presidential Candidates Unilateral Action Bush Administration Critics International Diplomacy

Thompson's "Fireside Chats" Leadership

Pundits, radio hosts, and bloggers are working feverishly to identify every conceivable comparison between undeclared (but clearly fundraising and campaigning) presidential candidate Fred Thompson and the most revered conservative in modern memory, Ronald Reagan. They point out several traits Thompson appears to share with Reagan: a successful acting career; a commanding personal presence; possession of plain, articulate speaking skills; and a deftness with handling the media. While it may be unfair to compare any candidate to the larger-than-life legacy of Reagan, many conservatives go to great lengths to insist that Thompson, perhaps more so than any other candidate (except perhaps the likewise undeclared Newt Gingrich), could carry the Reagan mantle to victory in 2008. Yet perhaps Thompson supporters are missing another important comparison they could and should be making: Thompson bears similarities to Reagan and to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Whomever conservatives choose to nominate in 2008 must concern himself with carrying the dual mantles of Reagan and FDR.

Why is the mantle of FDR important for a conservative candidate in 2008? Stated simply, FDR led America through the Great Depression and World War II by talking directly to the people and explaining the challenges facing the nation and what Americans could do to overcome them in terms they could understand. He did not do this by depending on newspaper reporters to be objective and inform the people of his policies and decisions on his behalf. He did not rely on the entrenched media figures of his era to make his case for him or put media spin on current events. FDR instinctively understood that a president leads best by making direct appeals to his countrymen or if not appeals, at least informing them of current events from his perspective rather than passing through any political correctness filters. FDR’s famous Fireside Chats, thirty direct broadcasts to the nation between 1933 and 1944, were a tremendous use of existing media to unite farmers and laborers enduring the Depression, to describe war in Europe and America’s neutrality, and to explain eventual American entry into the war and provide progress reports designed to promote continued sacrifice and commitment to victory.

As an example of the direct and simple appeal to citizens commonly found in the Fireside Chats, on December 9, 1941, FDR gave the following update on the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attack (Chat #19):

We are now in this war. We are all in it -- all the way. Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history. We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories -- the changing fortunes of war.

So far, the news has been all bad. We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that Commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized.

A politician could not speak more plainly than FDR did on that occasion. Undoubtedly the honesty and simplicity of the message created trust and loyalty among his listeners, who in short order served under his leadership as Commander in Chief. Direct communication resulted in direct and vigorous involvement in the war effort. He minced no words. Things appeared bleak, and that bleakness would only be reversed by all out war and total victory.

Fred Thompson, more than any other conservative candidate to date (except perhaps Newt Gingrich), is utilizing today’s available media to communicate his ideas directly to Americans. People are not gathered together as families around the radio to hear these modern versions of the Fireside Chat, but they can subscribe to Thompson’s “chats”, which come in form of columns or news commentary, via email or read them through links on nearly every Internet news site. He covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from confronting Iran, to Israel’s remarkable patience under fire from Palestinians, to calling for the U.S. to renew the practice of broadcasting pro-democracy programming via radio and Internet directly into nations oppressed by totalitarian governments. FDR chatted with the American people in his broadcasts, and Thompson’s guest columns on National Review Online, Townhall.com, or the Wall Street Journal’s online OpinionJournal give readers the sense that he is speaking informally and directly to them. Like FDR and Reagan, Thompson has a knack for communicating in an endearing and sincere manner that is best experienced without media filters or punditry. Americans joke, only slightly facetiously, that current presidential addresses take 45 minutes but the pundits interpret or translate what the president meant to say for days afterward. Great communicators need no pundit interpreters.

For all his charisma and organizational skills, it is mind boggling that Mitt Romney, arguably the most articulate of the current GOP candidates, did not adopt Thompson’s media strategy. Thompson’s guest columns are brief, usually approximately one page at most. They appear regularly, and are met with great interest and broad readership on the conservative Internet sites. Romney has frequented radio talk shows and news channel studios, and has aggressively advertised in early primary states via television spots. Thompson has also done all of these except the TV spots. Romney’s official web site, however, only offers readers a skeleton glimpse of his policy positions. Writing guest columns for conservative blogs or Internet sites, as Thompson does, would increase his Internet presence and allow Romney to communicate directly with potential voters rather than relying on news channels to report accurately the substance of his ideas. All news organizations seem to have an agenda, and Romney should join Thompson in chatting directly with the American people on a regular basis through guest columns or posting and podcasting for established blogs.

It should be remembered that Reagan employed his own version of FDR’s Fireside Chats while serving as Governor of California. The popular appeal this type of communication generates with voters should not be underestimated. President Bush, though he has tried through televised speeches, has never resonated with the American people, except in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when any president could have done so. As a direct result of the President’s lack of direct communication with the American people, he has relied on the MSM to broadcast his remarks, which are then diluted by mostly left leaning pundits or reporters and rendered virtually ineffective. His leadership in wartime has suffered, and the American people still have no idea what sacrifices and costs will be involved in a Global War on Terror except for ambiguous phrases like “it will be a long struggle,” or “we’re fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here.” The Bush administration seems to have forgotten that Americans live in the golden years of the Information Age, a time when citizens demand detailed information and will get it somewhere else if they are not receiving it from the White House. Unfortunately, most of the sources they turn to are liberal and the truth of an issue becomes the ultimate victim. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were wartime presidents with poor communication skills and no practiced history of direct communication with Americans. As a result, neither successfully conducted the Vietnam War or convinced citizens that the war could and should be won. Bush faces the same fate, and future presidents must learn from his experience.

If Fred Thompson successfully runs for the presidency, he will already have an established loyal base of readers and a track record of direct communication with citizens. He would further possess the vehicle for making his case to the people in the event of any crisis, be it war, terrorism, natural or economic disasters, or simply a piece of proposed legislation, like immigration reform. Fred Thompson has, through his columns, laid the groundwork for effective future leadership, and his conversational communication compares favorably with former great communicators who have served as president. In the modern era of the 2008 election, an effective Commander in Chief must also be an accomplished “Communicator in Chief,” utilizing all available media to enlist citizens in just causes and rallying them to victory if conflicts arise. Fireside Chats worked for FDR and Reagan, and their modern equivalents, guest columns or blog posts, may prove decisive for whichever candidates use them most effectively.

Click here to view NRO’s archive of Thompson’s guest columns.

Technorati: Fred Thompson Ronald Reagan Mitt Romney Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Candidates Fireside Chats Campaign Strategy

McCain Misses Point Of Democracy

If you hired an employee who only showed up for work 50% of the time, would you fire him? Any budget conscious employer would object to paying a full wage in return for a 50% effort. If you are an Arizona resident, you are paying the salary of someone employed to represent your interests, but who only shows up to represent you 50% of the time. You would not tolerate that from your personal attorney, or from your physician, but for some reason 50% is all you require from someone who influences your border security, your highway funding, your national defense, how much you pay in taxes, and other trivial matters. The Washington Post’s Capitol Briefing Blog tracks presidential candidates who masquerade as senators or congressmen if it does not cut into their visits to key early primary states. Which candidate leads the pack in dereliction of the duties voters hired him to perform for them? The culprit is Arizona Senator John McCain, who has now missed 42 straight votes in the Senate. To put that in context, voters have paid McCain’s monthly salary from mid-April to mid-May, and with the salary for that month McCain did not vote once in the Senate. Post reporter Paul Kane cleverly edited McCain’s political byline, which normally reads (R-AZ) to (R-Campaign Trail), and for good reason.

Of course, the demands of campaigning are very real and often underestimated by those who have never witnessed the daily operations of a campaign staff, security, and the candidates themselves. I do not begrudge McCain the need to be out on the road getting his message out, which if you’re an illegal alien celebrating the proposed Senate immigration bill appears to be “we’re glad you’re here and don’t care that you broke our laws, and we’re giving you a leg up on legal immigrants who continue to wait patiently and obeyed our laws.” But I digress. Additionally, other candidates who unfortunately (for their constituents) are also hampered by the pesky demands of holding public office are missing votes, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although both have missed far fewer votes than McCain (1.8% and 6.4%). Others seem to find time to campaign and continue doing the job for which they were elected, but not McCain. What caught my attention in the report of McCain’s missed votes were the criteria used by McCain and his staff to determine that missing 42 straight votes would not matter.

The following is a paragraph from Kane’s report that also contains a brief statement from the McCain campaign:

Granted, McCain isn't the only senator missing votes in favor of the presidential campaign trail. And as his staff has pointed out repeatedly, none of McCain's missed votes has made the difference in a bill's fate. In a statement to Capitol Briefing, McCain's campaign said, "Regrettably, it is impossible for a presidential candidate to avoid missing votes. The Senator has not missed a vote where his vote would have affected the outcome, and he will make every effort to be in the Senate on the occasions when it would."

The next time you hear a politician urge citizens to be actively involved in politics and to exercise their right to vote, or when you hear the bleak reports after each election in which barely 40% of Americans care enough to vote even when the handling of a war is at stake, the statement from McCain’s campaign should come to mind. When citizens in a democracy adopt the attitude that they should only vote when they are sure their vote will influence the outcome, democracy no longer functions. Yet McCain has adopted just such an attitude, and instead of voting so that his support or opposition is officially recorded he just skips the opportunity to cast his vote. The hypocrisy of McCain’s actions is clearly illustrated in his urging young Americans to become more active in politics and to vote.

The following is an excerpt from an article John McCain wrote for Washington Monthly in October 2001 titled “Putting the ‘National’ In National Service”:

Beyond such concrete needs lies a deeper spiritual crisis within our national culture. Since Watergate, we have witnessed an increased cynicism about our governmental institutions. We see its impact in declining voter participation and apathy about our public life---symptoms of a system that demands reform. But it's a mistake, I think, to believe that this apathy means Americans do not love their country and aren't motivated to fix what is wrong. The growth of local volunteerism and the outpouring of sentiment for "the greatest generation" suggest a different explanation: that Americans hunger for patriotic service to the nation, but do not see ways to personally make a difference.

What is lacking today is not a need for patriotic service, nor a willingness to serve, but the opportunity. Indeed, one of the curious truths of our era is that while opportunities to serve ourselves have exploded---with ever-expanding choices of what to buy, where to eat, what to read, watch, or listen to---opportunities to spend some time serving our country have narrowed.

Perhaps the decline in voter participation and the growing apathy about public life is a direct result of declining voter participation in the Senate. Why would McCain expect young Americans in particular to seek out opportunities to serve their country when he does not make good use of his ample opportunities to vote on important legislation? He decried selfishly serving ourselves, yet he avoids voting in the Senate while serving his own personal desire to be president. The excuse that a bill’s fate does not hang in the balance is inconsistent with conservative principles. If the constitution is to be taken seriously, then Senators should lead by example, conducting the people’s business and voting regardless of any predicted outcome.

Consider the case of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. One of the most intense controversies occurred when CNN, CBS, and other liberal-leaning networks declared that Al Gore was the projected winner in Florida long before the polls had closed in the western panhandle of the state, which is strongly Republican. Many voters in the panhandle, upon hearing that Gore was projected to win the state regardless of votes that had not yet been cast, made the unfortunate decision not to drive to the polls and wait in long lines. Like McCain’s Senate voting attitude, the outcome did not appear to be in the balance. The reality, realized later of course, was that every vote did count and had Florida panhandle voters not adopted the McCain criteria for voter participation, a large number of Republican votes would have made the entire vote count fiasco in West Palm Beach County completely unnecessary.

Senator McCain is a war hero and a patriot, but he appears to have missed the point of democracy, a point that we have been trying to teach in the fragile Iraqi democracy: we do not vote only if our vote will clearly make the difference, we vote because we can. Once we no longer appreciate that privilege, we have surrendered our right to freedom.

Other posts referencing John McCain:
McCain’s League Proposal is “Super”
Brit Crew Claims Opposing Captors “Not An Option”: Heroic POWs In History Considered It The Only Option
McCain: “I’m Sure I Have A Policy On That, I Just Need To Check What It Is”
Forgetting The Unforgettable: Pills May Soon Erase Traumatic Memories

The Romney Campaign's Baffling Mistake

For a man who has gone to great lengths to downplay the role of personal religious practice in the selection of an American president, 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney may have gotten what he deserved in his recent verbal exchange with Al Sharpton. By that I do not mean that Sharpton was right, or that his comments about Romney’s faith were not bigoted (they were). On the contrary, Sharpton insulted Romney and Romney’s faith in the same manner Sharpton insults nearly all faiths and ethnicities that differ from his narrow world view. Romney deserved the follow-up criticisms of his faith and subsequent media scrutiny because Romney demonstrated poor judgment by acknowledging and commenting on anything spoken by Al Sharpton in the first place. If the decision was made by a campaign advisor, Romney should start seeking new talent in a hurry. Romney and his team should have recognized Sharpton for the race and religious baiter that he is and not given it a second thought.

If Romney’s goal was to run for president on his substantial and impressive record in politics, business, and family life without having to pass a religious “litmus test,” he could not have chosen a worse course of action than publicly complaining about Sharpton's statements. This was a religious debate in New York City between a raving racist self-proclaimed “reverend” (Sharpton), and an avowed Atheist (Christopher Hitchens). If Romney intends to decry every disparaging remark made about his religion by anyone of prominence, he will ultimately spend far more time doing so in his campaign than describing his views and convincing voters he would make a good president.

What did Romney hope to accomplish by entangling himself in a religious tug of war with Sharpton? Why, if he did not want his religion to be a determining factor for voters, did he engage in religious discussions he knew would draw national attention? Some may argue that Romney was shrewd to allow himself to draw fire from a known bigot and an Atheist, as doing so would arouse the sympathy of religious conservatives (and it did, including Ralph Reed, who staunchly defended Romney on Hannity & Colmes last night). While this may seem a plausible explanation in the immediate aftermath of the incident and continuing verbal exchanges between Sharpton and Romney, it is more likely that this questionable decision will harm Romney’s campaign by making religion the defining issue, or at least the issue receiving the most media coverage.

Sharpton will not back down. He will never sincerely apologize. He will only continue to do what he has already done, which is to escalate his rhetoric against Romney’s faith by raising questions about his church’s restriction on blacks receiving the priesthood, which was discontinued in 1978. Simply by acknowledging Sharpton and commenting to the press, Romney opened himself to attacks publicized in the national media questioning whether his faith is truly Christian (which it clearly is) and whether it practiced discrimination (which it did not, if one accepts the LDS Church’s official declaration issued in 1978). Few will remember what Romney’s stances on terrorism and the economy are while the media focuses on his faith and its mysterious or misunderstood past, depending on one’s point of view.

Romney granted extensive media access to his family and addressed his religious views and the role of religion in his life in Hugh Hewitt’s book, A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney. As I read the book it seemed that Romney was hoping that Hewitt's work, written as it was by a popular radio host, blogger, and Evangelical, would satisfy national curiosity and answer any question as to whether a candidate’s faith should influence his perceived qualifications for the presidency. Instead of letting the book serve that purpose, aided by his low-profile responses to questions about his faith, Romney has now allowed others to frame the debate over his religion and he finds himself responding defensively. If the best defense is a good offense, then Romney made a tactical error by stepping into a defensive role in a national arena.

Romney would have been well served to do what most Americans do: ignore Sharpton’s vitriolic attention seeking. The "reverend" does not represent the beliefs and values of even a tiny fraction of African-Americans, and Romney could have further marginalized Sharpton by refusing to take his bait. Instead, Romney has now become the only GOP candidate who voters will mentally connect with Sharpton. In mudslinging, the innocent party is often splattered but needs not remain in range of further salvos or join his adversary in the mud. Romney can expect more attacks and will deserve them, not because they are fair, but because, like a matador, he could have side-stepped a perpetually charging Sharpton but chose instead to be gored.