Santorum's Conservative Credentials Not Spotless

Rick Santorum is a faithful husband and devoted father.
Mitt Romney is a faithful husband and devoted father.

Rick Santorum supported a massive expansion of NATIONAL Goverment healthcare - Medicare Part D.
Mitt Romney supported a massive expansion of STATE Government healthcare - "Romneycare."

Rick Santorum opposes abortion and worked on the partial birth abortion bill in the US Senate.
Mitt Romney opposes abortion and as governor refused to sign a Massachusetts bill that would have allowed embryos to be created solely to be destroyed for medical research.

Rick Santorum openly campaigned against a true conservative in PA, for a liberal (Specter) whose victory and defection to the Democrats resulted in Democrat control of the Senate.
Mitt Romney campaigned as a moderate in order to bring some conservatism to a staunchly liberal state, MA, but as governor campaigned fiercely for conservative governors nationwide.

Rick Santorum supported voting rights for felons.
Mitt Romney supported permanent stripping of voting rights for felons.

Rick Santorum worked as a DC lobbyist for a giant health insurance company immediately after losing his reelection bid in PA.
Mitt Romney has never been a DC lobbyist.

Santorum is a good man and has worked for many conservative causes.  However, as the list above illustrates, GOP conservatives rallying to him are glossing over his liberal dalliances, much as they initially downplayed Newt Gingrich's open marriage proposals and philandering.  Why?  Because he is not Romney.

Perhaps conservatives should dig a bit deeper into Santorum's conservative credentials, and compare them with Romney's.  The contrast is not nearly as stark as the "he's not Romney" mob attempts to portray.

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

Conservative Anti-Mormon Bias is Self-Defeating

If the adage is true that "statistics don't lie," then there is deeper bias in America against Mormons than there is against African-Americans or Jews. According to a Newsweek poll cited by Robert Novak in his latest Washington Post Column, "A Mormon in the White House?":

28 percent of Americans would not vote for any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- demonstrating much greater hostility than to a Jewish or African-American candidate. Mormonism is the only minority category toward which bias in America has deepened.

What do these poll results really mean? Is it the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that causes such prejudice? Is it the behavior of individual members of the LDS Church that convinces 28 percent of Americans that a member of that church should never be president? Considering that the poll question apparently did not single out Mitt Romney for scrutiny, the root cause of the bias runs deeper than personal or political dislike of Romney himself. 28 percent would not vote for "any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

You probably have a friend or neighbor who is a member of the LDS Church. From what you know of him or his family, would you withhold your vote from him if he were politically viable and urged to run for the presidency? If the answer is no, and you are a political conservative, what is the criteria on which you based your decision?

Was it the specter of polygamy, a topic favored by the media for its potential for stories of prurient interest? After all, in their recent titillating coverage of the capture of polygamist fugitive Warren Jeffs or conviction of a polygamist for "marrying" and raping his teenage cousin, very few news organizations bothered to explain to viewers or readers that neither of those men were in any way affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as Mormon or LDS. The church officially outlawed the practice of polygamy in 1890, and had stopped preaching or encouraging the practice of it long before that date in accordance with the federal law prohibiting polygamy in U.S. Territories. The church excommunicates anyone who defies the national law and church doctrine by engaging in the practice of it.

The fugitive and convicted polygamists belong to what is known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which broke off of the original faith and established itself in sparse, rural areas of Southern Utah and parts of Arizona. These Fundamentalists are the only polygamists in Utah for nearly 120 years, but the news media never quite mention that fact in their stories. Even though there are no Mormon polygamists in Utah, the state is synonymous in the minds of many voters with polygamy.

Lumping together members of the LDS Church with the separate Fundamentalists is the equivalent of arguing that all scientists must be Scientologists simply because they share the same root word, science.

Perhaps your hesitation stemmed from skepticism about stories of gold plates containing writings of ancient prophets, or visions of angels and heavenly beings. It is interesting that anyone who believes in the bible would find such claims outrageous. I have never seen or touched any of the scrolls that biblical prophets and apostles wrote upon, but that does not invalidate for me the bible as a holy book of scripture. There are ample Biblical accounts of visions and appearances of heavenly beings, yet I do not believe them contrived or fictional.

Deepening voter bias against Mormons may actually represent something flattering about the LDS Church and its members. While family values and parental responsibility in American society steadily decline, the LDS Church emphasizes core conservative values clearly and concisely. While various religions adopt acceptance of open homosexuality and civil unions or gay marriages, the LDS Church encouraged its members to support amending the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. While society becomes permissive of and celebrates promiscuity before and throughout marriage, the LDS Church teaches its youth to maintain their virtue and cherish chastity. Saving oneself for marriage is not a quaint, unrealistic, or old-fashioned notion to Mormons. While abortion has become an accepted method of birth control in society, the LDS Church operates LDS Family Services and advocates adoption and the sanctity of life.

Did you recognize genuine conservative ideology in these teachings? How about dedicating one evening each week exclusively for family activities? Encouraging members to donate charitable funds to temporarily care for the financial needs of struggling fellow members to keep them off of government welfare rolls? If conservatism is synonymous with self-reliance rather than government handouts, then Mormonism is synonymous with conservatism when it comes to finances and rugged individualism.

Conservatives like big ideas. Newt Gingrich was wildly successful leading the Republican revolution in 1994 because of the Contract with America, a document that clearly spelled out what conservatism stands for and what the Republican Congress would achieve if elected. Churches also at times set forth their teachings in clear public documents. In 1995, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." In this document, the LDS Church clearly stated its positions on the divine nature of mankind, gay marriage, gender, abortion, chastity, preservation of the nuclear family, and the importance encouraging world governments to preserve the family as the central unit of society. If you are conservative, consider whether you would vote for a candidate with the following beliefs:

...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

...We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

...We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

...Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

If bias in America is deepening against members of a church that unashamedly proclaims these decidedly conservative values, then we should be asking ourselves why. If conservatives would not vote for any LDS candidate for the presidency, then perhaps they are conservative in name only. Society is morally adrift and floating further out to sea at a faster pace than ever before. As the gulf between itself and the above teachings of the LDS Church grows ever wider, its animosity toward Mormons increases in equal proportions because society does not like to be told it is morally corrupt regardless of the messenger.

Thus, deepening bias against the LDS Church, in a sadly ironic way, may actually be a moral badge of honor for maligned Mormons. After all, African-Americans and Jews used to be the groups voters indicated they would not vote for, and yet both made marvelous contributions to and became integral parts of both political parties once bigotry took a back seat to shared ideology.


Technorati Tags:
LDS, Mormon, Mitt Romney, Religious Bias, Prejudice, Newsweek Polls, Robert Novak, Conservatism, Family Values

Ahmadinejad Cannot be Denied Ground Zero Visit

Americans are up in arms over the much-publicized proposed visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ground Zero memorial site during his stay in New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly next week. Presidential candidates from both parties tripped over each other in the scramble to get out in front of this controversy and issue the most forceful condemnations possible, indicting everyone from Ahmadinejad himself to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for their roles in facilitating the visit. While the visit of a radical leader who actively sponsors global terrorism to a site held by Americans to be a sacred shrine to the fallen heroes and innocents of 9/11 is obviously in poor taste and insulting to our sensibilities, the bluster by politicians, and calls by talk show hosts like Sean Hannity urging Mayor Bloomberg to prevent the visit are either craftily contrived or incredibly naive.

The New York Sun broke this story today, surprising New Yorkers with the headline, "U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero." Presidential candidates immediately seized on the "controversy" as an opportunity to flex their foreign policy issue muscles, but like the proverbial bully at the beach, reality will soon kick its sand in their outraged faces and limit the campaign mileage they hope to gain through their outspoken opposition to a visit that has not been finalized. Even if it were an established part of Ahmadinejad's itinerary during his stay in New York, there is nothing that any of the current presidential candidates or sitting politicians can do to prevent it, if in fact Ahmadinejad insists on visiting Ground Zero.

Here is how some 2008 presidential candidates reacted to news of Ahmadinejad's proposed sightseeing tour of the 9/11 site:

"It is an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11 at the hands of terrorists, and those who have fought terrorism for years, to allow the president of the world's top state sponsor of terrorism to step foot at ground zero," a spokeswoman for Senator Thompson, Karen Hanretty, said. "Iran is responsible for supplying weapons and supporting extremist who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to this very day."

A Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, called the plan "shockingly audacious."

"It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at ground zero," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."

Struggling to reignite the flickering flame of his once roaring campaign, Romney's comments conveyed a significant lack of awareness of diplomatic and security protocol for visits of foreign heads of state to the United States and specifically for visits that incorporate attendance at the United Nations General Assembly. Quite simply, whether Americans like it or not, Ahmadinejad is the internationally recognized elected head of state of Iran, and part of America's role as the host country for United Nations headquarters is an international agreement that America will provide protective services to any represented nation that requests such protection. For certain countries whose leaders are considered high value threat targets, their leaders are provided mandatory protection by the Secret Service. Simply stated, America will not allow high threat level foreign heads of state to visit the United States unless they accept the protective services of our government. America takes full responsibility for their safety while on our soil.

Ahmadinejad certainly would fall into that category and thus if he chooses to attend the United Nations meetings next week, he will receive Secret Service protection, with logistical assistance from NYPD and other entities. There is ample historical precedent to justify the diplomatic and security reasons for providing this mandatory protection. World War I was triggered in large part because of the assassination of a visiting foreign leader, and in today's era of increased vigilance against terrorism or retribution, nothing would be more embarrassing for Americans than to have a foreign head of state harmed while on American soil.

A successful attack on a controversial figure visiting the United States would diminish international perceptions of American strength and forever fuel accusations of an American conspiracy to effect regime change through assassination in our own backyard. Presidential candidates did not seem to give much, if any, consideration to the repercussions of not providing Ahmadinejad with the mandatory protection afforded to visiting heads of state. Thirty percent of our own citizens claim to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy concocted by the "Bush-Cheney Axis of Evil." It stands to reason that international conspiracy buffs would number in the millions if something happened to Ahmadinejad in America after our government has spoken so openly about its desire for regime change in Iran.

Which brings us to the second fact conveniently ignored by the radio talk show hosts and politicians. There is likewise no provision in our agreement with the United Nations that allows the host country, America, to dictate to a foreign head of state where he can go and where he cannot go while visiting America, with the exception of sensitive national security or military sites. Even that exception has its exceptions, depending on the nature of the site and the stated purpose of the visit. Ground Zero rightly may be considered a shrine, and the idea of Ahmadinejad strutting around it and mocking it with his notoriously smug grin naturally outrages us. Presidential candidates are justified in their sense of anger over the contempt Ahmadinejad would show to all Americans by visiting Ground Zero. However, they have directed their outrage at the convenient targets, Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, the Secret Service, and the U.S. government for not preventing Ahmadinejad from making the proposed stop.

It is the job of these officials and law enforcement agencies to provide safe transit throughout Ahmadinejad's stay in America, not to dictate to him what his itinerary should or should not include. Protective agencies can warn heads of state of potential negative consequences their decisions might bring, but they cannot stop Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero any more than they could stop Bill Clinton from "entertaining" Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Ultimately the head of state must decide whether he wants to go ahead with his proposed action, and the protective accommodate the request in by providing a secure environment.

I know of no instance where a foreign head of state has expressed a desire to visit a famous site in America and was denied the opportunity regardless of his political, religious, or terror-sympathizing views. It is the job of the Secret Service, with the help of the NYPD and Port Authority Police to facilitate the secure visit of a head of state to whatever site, tourist or otherwise, he chooses. The old Secret Service motto, "You elect 'em we protect 'em" is a promise that extends to the citizens of other nations when their presidents or prime ministers visit America.

This is not Ahmadinejad's first visit to speak at the United Nations, and he has thus far not offered any explanation as to his reasons for wanting to visit Ground Zero. He may wish to gloat internally over the terrible damage wreaked on 9/11. It may even encourage him to offer increasing support to terrorist groups in hopes they will pull off similar spectacular attacks on America or our allies. Yet at the same time, it may just as likely give him a firsthand view of our resiliency, our ability to rebuild, to move forward, to rise from the ashes of horrible carnage like a phoenix burning with new and brighter flames of resolve and patriotism. He will likely witness that crumbling our buildings will not crumble our spirit or our economy.

Part of the price we pay as the host of UN headquarters is an annual pilgrimage to New York of hundreds of foreign heads of state. Some are our allies, and some are avowed enemies who speak openly of annihilating Israel with nuclear weapons or refer to America as the "Great Satan." Hugo Chavez may have complained about the "stench" left behind by President Bush after our president spoke to the UN, but even the America-hating socialist Chavez received full diplomatic and security resources throughout his visit to New York and will again every time he returns. That is what we as a nation represent; equal treatment under the law, even for those we dislike or who openly despise us. Unless the 2008 presidential candidates specifically propose that UN headquarters be relocated to another country, the Secret Service, NYPD, and Port Authority Police will continue to perform the duties they are mandated by law to perform.

Despite being the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran's elected president will receive the full diplomatic and security resources mandated by law and expected by protocol. That is, after all, what we agreed to when we invited the UN to build its headquarters in New York. Unless we are willing to seriously consider sending the UN packing, it behooves our politicians to play the role of good hosts. Politicians and talk show hosts should remember, "someone elected them, so we'll protect them."

Technorati Tags: Ahmadinejad United Nations Visit to Ground Zero Secret Service Mitt Romney Fred Thompson NYPD Michael Bloomberg 9/11 Iran

Morris' Outrageous Outrage at ex-Lobbyist Thompson

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a clever phrase that is often true, but when it comes to Hillary-hater Dick Morris, conservatives have accepted the phrase far too trustingly. Because Morris so vehemently and convincingly attacks the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, conservatives tend to laud him as a shrewd political genius who confirms the worst opinions of Hillary with insights only an insider could offer. Sean Hannity and Dick Morris may differ in political party affiliation, yet both are working almost in tandem to "derail the Hillary Express" and thwart her campaign for the presidency. Listening to both men on Fox News programming, there is little that distinguishes one from the other when it comes to their near obsession with defeating Hillary. The political differences between the two remain intact, but are suppressed in the service of a higher cause.

There is no doubt that Morris is an accomplished political adviser who knew the ins and outs of the Clinton White House, but for conservatives there is the potential for great folly in taking the entire spectrum of Morris' political views at face value. Political pitfalls await conservatives who subscribe to Morris' general political predictions and theories simply because he despises Hillary Clinton as much as or more than they do.

Morris has made a lucrative living by stoking the fires of anti-Clinton sentiment, authoring bestselling books, writing columns for The Hill and other publications, and appearing on Fox News as a political analyst. His writings and television appearances are embraced warmly by conservatives seeking for validation of their Clinton suspicions from a Democrat who worked closely with the Clintons and learned to loathe them.

Yet, in the glee over finding such a bitterly avowed enemy of their enemy coming to their aid, conservatives tend to lose sight of an important fact: Morris will do anything to prevent another Clinton presidency, but his loyalties remain squarely in the liberal camp, and thus his books, columns, and commentary on other political figures, especially conservatives, should be viewed with a far more critical eye than his views on the Clintons.

Morris has deep-seated and understandable motives for his anti-Clinton crusade, but he still considers conservatives to be political infidels. He likewise has motives for his attacks on conservative politicians and presidential candidates. If looked at from the proper perspective, the motives for his verbal and written criticisms of conservative figures are no different than Hillary's; both are working to defeat conservatives, conservatism, and to elect Democrats who champion liberal causes.

Morris' latest diatribe against a conservative presidential candidate appeared in his regular FoxNews.com column, "Fred Thompson: First Lobbyist for President." When reading the following excerpts, your blood may start boiling about lobbyists, greed, and Fred Thompson's cozy embrace of lobbyists who have joined his campaign staff. After the initial "Outrage" subsides, we will look more closely at Morris' argument and at the messenger himself:

We’ve already seen the first woman candidate, Hillary Clinton and the first African American with widespread support and a serious chance at winning the presidency.

But now there’s another groundbreaker: the first lobbyist candidate — Fred Thompson.

...Now Fred’s campaign is attracting other lobbyists, who are bundlers and donors to the Thompson campaign.

Most Americans feel strongly that a presidential candidate should not accept any money from lobbyists. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 75 percent of Americans find it unacceptable for candidates to finance their campaigns with contributions from lobbyists — and 80 percent want candidates to return any contributions they do receive from lobbyists.

But Fred definitely doesn’t agree with them. His promising campaign is positively overflowing with advisers and donors who are lobbyists, former lobbyists or employees of lobbying firms.

...So the "Fred Thompson for President" campaign — based on his promises to shake up Washington — is being run by and paid for by corporate insider lobbyists.

Do you think Fred will make any big changes if he’s elected?

It is no secret that Fred Thompson worked as a paid lobbyist for various organizations and corporations prior to and after his service in the Senate. It is likewise no secret that Morris' most recent book Outrage presents a fairly damning case against lobbyists and political influence peddling in the nation's capital. Clearly, lobbyist influence is a legitimate issue of concern, but Morris' newly found aversion to lobbying and politicians who accept soft money from lobbyists seems more than just a little contrived.

During the 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, the Clinton's made an art form out of accepting lobbyist donations, brazenly taking money from a wide variety of shady shell corporations. Later, the Clinton-Gore White House accepted campaign donations very clearly traceable back to foreign governments, specifically China. Taking this soft money from the seediest of lobbyists was bad enough, but the Clintons demonstrated their appreciation for these donations by providing China with military technologies that significantly reduced the technology gap between the U.S. and Chinese armed forces. Where was Morris' "Outrage" over lobbyist donations and influence during his former employers' terms in the White House?

Here Morris is performing at his shrewdest level, smearing Thompson with the tainted label of lobbyist and thus implying that Thompson is not presidential material. Are we expected to forget that when given the opportunity to strut the halls of the White House, Morris was perfectly comfortable affiliating himself with the Clintons and considering Bill Clinton worthy of the presidency despite his campaign war chests overflowing with lobbyist donations? Having read "Outrage" we know that Morris now considers the American Trial Lawyers Association to be a powerful and overly influential political lobbying group, but we're still researching to find one instance where Morris spoke out against the Trial Lawyers' donations to the Clintons while Morris worked for and with them or urged the Clintons to give the money back to the lawyers. Somehow we think that search will be a long and fruitless one.

Apparently, in Morris' view being a former lobbyist or accepting lobbyist money should disqualify only a Republican candidate like Thompson for the presidency, while such corrupting influences in no way affected Bill Clinton's loyalties and agenda as a candidate or as president. Morris is right to point out the lobbyist corruption saturating both parties in his book "Outrage" but his well researched arguments might carry more weight if he had not proven so willing to overlook the corruption when speaking out about it might have hurt his career as a political adviser. Morris was silent on the issue until his falling out with the Clintons and subsequent celebrity status as a Fox News political expert and prolific author.

Morris has attacked presidential candidate Mitt Romney by characterizing him as a "flip-flopper" on certain issues, and now assails Thompson for his former employment as a lobbyist. Yet it is Morris who has "flip-flopped" on the entire issue of lobbying and lobbyist donations, having once turned a blind eye to them but now wielding the issue like a crusader's sword against the newly declared and potentially formidable presidential candidate Thompson.

Conservatives should continue to enjoy Morris' personal quest to defeat Hillary in 2008 while keeping in mind that his expertise on the Clintons does not also signal general expertise as a political analyst. Rather than viewing Morris only in context of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," conservatives should adopt an added slogan: "the conservative Morris attacks most is he whom liberals fear most."

Based on Morris's opening salvo against Fred Thompson's candidacy, containing as it did name lists of known lobbyists who have donated to or work for the Thompson campaign and portrayals of Thompson as an unsavory character beholden to special interest groups, the liberal fear factor Thompson induces feels almost palpable. Morris only attacks those who pose a risk to his personal or political interests. Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, respectively, appear to pose the greatest risks for Morris in each category.

Technorati Tags:
Dick Morris, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Outrage, Fred Thompson, Lobbyists, Influence Peddling, Campaign Donations, Presidential Candidates

Matador Mayor and Thompson Win GOP Debate

Although the announced candidates who participated in Wednesday's GOP debate in New Hampshire would disagree, Fred Thompson may have done himself a favor by skipping the debate and announcing his candidacy on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno instead. After all, the first seven minutes of Wednesday's debate were dedicated to him, with each candidate offering light jabs at his absence while ultimately welcoming him to the race as a formidable and charismatic candidate. Thompson aired his first official thirty second campaign ad on Fox News immediately prior to the debate, but, courtesy of Fox News' choice of questions, received seven minutes of free publicity and praise at the expense of his rivals, who surely bridled at having to talk about the qualities of a candidate who leads all but Giuliani in the polls and intentionally skipped the debate itself. The decision could not have worked out better for Thompson, who was running a strong second in GOP polls even before his official announcement Wednesday night.

After each GOP candidate debate, Capital Cloak has published an analysis of each candidate's performance and assigned a letter grade. The results from Wednesday's debate follow, in grade order:

Rudy Giuliani A-
It was interesting to observe that in Fox News' post-debate interviews of New Hampshire residents, Giuliani was criticized for over emphasizing his accomplishments as mayor of America's largest city. One alleged GOP voter expressed her desire to ask Giuliani, "What else did you do?", in reference to his qualifications to be president. Apparently she had done no research on Giuliani and missed his mention of having been the third highest official in the Justice Department, in which capacity he actively prosecuted the mafia and terrorists prior to becoming mayor, it bears repeating, of America's largest city. To nearly every question asked in the debate, Giuliani had a ready response that included documented achievements he was responsible for as mayor, and not coincidentally, those responses covered the hottest topics of the debate: illegal immigration, gun laws, government spending, high taxes, and private behavior of public officials.

The more one listens to Giuliani's responses, the more satisfying those answers become. He is a political matador who recognizes "bull" in questions or accusations and deftly avoids it by waving his red cape of mayoral experience. This was evident on a number of issues, but perhaps most clearly expressed when asked about whether the public should examine closely a candidate's private life. Giuliani, who of course is on his third marriage, offered an honest, human response by pointing out that some of the most difficult moments in his personal life occurred while he was mayor, yet those struggles did not detract from his ability to lead New York out of fiscal, crime, and image crises. It was an interesting adaptation of the concept of leadership under personal duress. He modestly mentioned that he was not running as "the perfect candidate" for president, but as an imperfect human who is also the best qualified for the job.

Although the Fox News panel attempted to portray Giuliani as weak on foreign policy through its previously mentioned question to McCain, Giuliani actually provided the best answer to the foreign policy scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. Giuliani asserted that the risk is not that Iran will attack Israel or other nations with nuclear weapons; the risk is that Iran will supply nuclear weapons to terrorists they are currently supplying with conventional weapons. He added that America must be clear in its policy against Iran nuclear capability. He drew tremendous applause for reminding viewers that Ronald Reagan pointed thousands of nuclear weapons at Soviet cities during the Cold War while negotiating arms reduction.

The Fox News post-debate interviews were critical of Giuliani and New Hampshire voters voiced their disappointment in his performance, but in comparison with his rivals on stage, Giuliani did nothing to lessen his status as the GOP front-runner.

John McCain B+
After his poor showings in prior debates and given his plummeting poll numbers, I did not expect McCain to turn in a strong performance Wednesday. It was not a matter of his specific answers or changing his message, but McCain somehow managed to come across as decisive, forceful, and better prepared than in previous debates. On nearly every issue, from illegal immigration to torture of enemy combatants, McCain's responses were indistinguishable from those he offered in other debates, but his delivery was more polished and confident and he appeared comfortable defending his record in the Senate on controversial issues. The difference in grade between Wednesday's debate and previous debates can be attributed to McCain's conscious effort to add an element of style to the substance of his responses, and as a result he was far less robotic and far more engaged. I credit McCain for delivering the best statement of the debate. When asked to address Rudy Giuliani's lack of foreign policy experience, McCain praised Giuliani for providing solid management to New York City before and after 9/11, but then described his own leadership credentials in foreign policy, national security, and military issues. McCain commented, "I was once put in charge of the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy. I didn't manage it, I led it."

In this debate, McCain seized the optimist mantle from Mitt Romney and with nearly every statement expressed confidence in America's eventual victory in Iraq and in the War on Terror. When Romney stated that General Petraeus' surge strategy "is apparently working," McCain countered, "It is not apparently working. It IS working." These small but significant changes in style and delivery transformed McCain's standard answers on various issues into more forceful and confident statements than he had made throughout his campaign to that point. Of the candidates, McCain was one of only three who actually answered the hypothetical scenario question regarding taking military action to prevent Iran from constructing nuclear weapons. McCain made it clear that we cannot rely on the UN Security Council, with China and Russia sitting like so much dead weight on this issue, to resolve it safely. His statement that ultimately it will be the U.S. that must take action to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands will likely prove prophetic.

It was his strongest performance to date, and although I disagree with his positions on illegal immigration and "torture" of enemy combatants in certain dire national survival situations, he outperformed all but one of his rivals on this occasion.


Mitt Romney B
As Fox News' Carl Cameron confirmed at the conclusion of the debate, Romney was targeted with the toughest questions of the debate as well as the highest overall number of questions asked directly to the former Massachusetts governor, allegedly because he was the New Hampshire front-runner. In these questions, Romney was accused of the following: turning a blind eye to illegal alien "sanctuary cities" in Massachusetts while hypocritically charging Giuliani with doing the same in New York; previously supporting abortion rights in Massachusetts; defending to a father of a son returning soon from two tours in Iraq his already apologized for comparison of his sons' campaign service to military service by other American sons; wanting to wiretap mosques and churches without warrants; claiming to reduce taxes while sneakily raising fees and fines in Massachusetts to make up for lost tax revenue; more eagerly advocating a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq than Hillary Clinton.

No other candidate was forced on the defensive by the moderators than Romney, and as a result he did not manage to portray the image of poise and optimism he had exuded in the previous debates. He offered plausible explanations for each of the above-listed accusations: Governors are not responsible for mayors who do not enforce immigration laws in their own cities; candidates make hundreds of appearances and sometimes say things in ways they don't intend and apologize profusely, acknowledging that those who place their lives on the line for America are "in a league of their own"; wiretapping mosques and churches would be done only with warrants and although such surveillance is distasteful, the most fundamental right Americans have is the right to be kept alive by government diligence; denied increasing fees in Massachusetts and reiterating the numerous tax cuts he implemented in that state; advocated no timetable for troop withdrawal and asserted that such decisions should be made between the president and the generals fighting the war.

Unlike previous debates, Romney was not addressed with any questions about family values, defense of marriage, and other issues perceived as strengths of the picture-perfect family man. He graciously brushed aside post-debate comments from Fox News' Alan Colmes that implied he had been treated harshly by the panel, stating that he felt it had been fun. His body language, facial expressions, and voice inflections throughout the debate itself, however, indicated he found the orchestrated ambush unfair and unexpected. Considering the level of questions aimed at him and his efforts to address them, Romney did well enough to earn a respectable grade in this debate. He has worked long and hard in New Hampshire and likely did not lose his lead in that state's GOP polls based on his debate performance.


Sam Brownback B-
Like Mike Huckabee, Brownback was fed a steady diet of easily digestible questions geared toward his declared strengths: family values, gay marriage,and tax cuts. The only controversial question directed to Brownback was whether he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Brownback has addressed this issue in previous debates, including the prior debate hosted by Fox News, thus it was strange that it would be repeated once again to the same candidate. Brownback's response was soothing to conservative ears: Yes there should be an amendment because America needs more children born into wedlock with a mom and a dad "bonded together for life." While Democratic opponents would challenge that view, there was naturally nary a note of discord from his GOP debate rivals.

I also was pleased by Brownback's comment that an important result of lower taxes would be that more families could afford to live off of a single income, allowing one of the parents to be home and available to care for children. Yet, in comparison with the thorny questions tackled by Romney, Brownback was too treated to lightly with kid gloves by the moderators to merit a higher grade. It was Brownback's best performance to date, but I stand by my previous assessment that he is the GOP version of Al Gore in his delivery and voice intonations.

Mike Huckabee C+
Huckabee was the grateful beneficiary of Fox News' ambush of Romney, in that there appeared to be no difficult questions left to throw at him. The most pointed question directed specifically to Huckabee merely required him to explain his view on the "fair tax." Other softball questions lobbed to Huckabee included issues the ordained minister surely appreciated, such as abortion. To his credit, Huckabee responded well to the abortion question, citing the Arkansas Human Life Amendment as a potential model for eventual federal legislation, as the Arkansas amendment established that life begins at conception and should be protected until its natural conclusion.

Huckabee engaged in an exchange with Ron Paul over what to do about Iraq, with Paul arguing that we should withdraw because we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place and Huckabee responding that regardless of how we got there, we are there and need to leave with honor and victory. Huckabee's "we bought it because we broke it" view on Iraq was anything but complimentary to the Bush administration's conduct of the war. Any exchange with Paul is guaranteed to liven a debate, and this was no exception.

Huckabee was at his worst in responding to the Iranian nuclear weapons scenario. Quite simply, he did not even attempt to answer the question about whether to use force. He sputtered for a minute about how decisions must be guided by the constitution and a leader's conscience and character. He emphasized that such scenarios illustrate why it is critical for a president to surround himself with wise people. He made no effort to explain what he would do in such a situation, leaving viewers with the impression that he does not know whether he would use force against Iran to keep nuclear weapons out of its hands. Americans are not looking for indecision from its next president and that is why Huckabee remains quagmired in GOP polls.


Duncan Hunter D
After every Duncan Hunter debate performance, I hopefully expect to see a text on my screen stating, in Monty Python fashion, that "the advisers who prepared Hunter for the debate wish it to be known that they have just been sacked." Unfortunately for Hunter, no sackings have occurred. In every debate thus far, Hunter has made the same lame reference to "not that scraggly fence you see on CNN" when discussing border security and his beloved fence that he claims to have personally built near San Diego. Hunter is the epitome of a political figure who can do much good in Congress but is not destined to hold high executive office. His value appears to be in defending his party and looking out for the interests of the military. Hunter was the only candidate, including self-proclaimed military expert McCain, who could reel off from memory statistics regarding reductions of civilian casualties in the various Iraqi provinces. Hunter would make a fine Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and should limit his aspirations to that noble duty.

Hunter did issue the most effective barb to Democrats, pointing out that the while the GOP acts to remove figures like Larry Craig when they are found to be ethically challenged, Democrats make such figures chairmen of committees. Hunter was also the only candidate other than Giuliani who viewed Iran's capacity to share nuclear material with terrorist groups as the most pressing reason to take action against Iran before it produces sufficient enriched uranium to make such a scenario reality.

Ron Paul D-
Other than entertainment value as the designated foil, it is difficult to find justifiable reasons for the inclusion of Ron Paul in these debates. Still, he earned a higher grade than Tancredo because Paul is nothing if not entertaining, in a lecturing college professor of political philosophy way.

Paul's expressed Libertarian views were no different in substance or style from previous debates: 9/11 happened because the government was too involved with the airlines and should have left airline security for private companies to handle; we should not assume GOV will take care of us; People who say there will be a bloodbath in Iraq if we leave are the same people who said it would be a cakewalk and it would all be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues; Threatening Iran is the worst possible strategy and it will make us less safe; we are only staying in Iraq now to save face; when we sacrifice liberty for security, we lose both; the Department of Homeland Security only worsened the existing intelligence bureaucracy that led to the failures of 9/11 and it should be disbanded; Israel can take care of itself and we should back off from our rhetoric toward Iran and talk to its leaders rather than attack without provocation.


Tom Tancredo F
Tancredo was his normal angry, bitter, pedantic self in this debate, lecturing on his two pet issues, illegal immigration and the war with Radical Islam. Americans have little patience for people who display an attitude of "I told you so," yet Tancredo long ago adopted that attitude regarding illegal immigration as the basis of his entire campaign. In consecutive debates, Tancredo has commented on his "surprise" that it took his rivals so long to realize the pressing nature of the illegal immigration problem that he has been talking about for years. "I told you so" will not win many votes, as Tancredo has discovered in his fruitless campaign.

For all his tough talk on the war against Radical Islam, Tancredo declined to answer the hypothetical scenario question regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. He made vague comments about restrictive rules of engagement for our military, and that political correctness will get us all killed, but would not address the question, which was whether he would use force against Iran under the cited circumstances.

Fox News B
More than any other network, Fox allowed the candidates at times to directly engage each other, as in the Paul-Huckabee exchange described above. Likewise, unlike other networks, Fox formulated some very pointed and controversial questions and a thorny hypothetical scenario for the candidates to address. Fox could have earned a higher grade by more equally distributing the tough questions among the candidates.

Wednesday's debate offered a timely illustration of why Fred Thompson, and potentially Al Gore, have been wise to make their cases directly to voters through electronic media rather than rely on traditional media outlets to objectively report their messages. Voter impressions of candidates are too easily manipulated by media outlets through camera angles, lighting, photo captions, article headlines, and choice of debate questions. In a ninety minute period, Fox News successfully altered voter perceptions of Mitt Romney's poise and optimistic spirit from what they were before the debate. In the high stakes game of presidential campaigning, controlling the content and presentation of a candidate's message becomes a priceless commodity. Thompson is working hard to maintain that control, while his rivals are placing their political heads in the media lion's mouth in hopes of earning applause rather than being devoured.

Technorati Tags: GOP Debate Fox News Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney John McCain Mike Huckabee Sam Brownback Ron Paul Report Cards Fred Thompson

Blowing Down Gore's House of Straw Polls

Only in America can only thirty-five people gather in a living room to talk politics, cast a vote for their favorite candidates, and find the results of their tiny get-together linked to as a major story on the Drudge Report, a news site that attracts around 14.5 million hits per day. Matt Drudge is a master of titillating or misleading headlines, and Wednesday's story link "Gore Wins Democratic Straw Poll in Arizona" was a good example of Drudge's subtlety. Everything in the headline was technically true. Al Gore did in fact win a straw poll in Arizona. The Drudge headline, however, was apparently selected to create the impression among potential readers that Al Gore won a substantive political victory in a statewide Democratic straw poll in Arizona, when in reality his straw poll victory was neither statewide nor substantive. Forty Democrats from the Scottsdale area gathering in a living room to vote in a straw poll is hardly a sweeping political movement worthy of international media attention, nor can any credible political observer extrapolate from it the eventual outcome of the Arizona Democratic primaries. But don't tell that to Matt Drudge, whose headline gave Gore credibility where none was merited.

The epic tale of Gore's Lilliputian victory in a Scottsdale living room straw poll as championed by Drudge appeared in the Arizona Republic, and the Republic clearly made every effort to report the straw poll results as a genuine story with deep political ramifications not only for Arizona Democrats, but for the national race for the party's nomination as well. However, a careful reading of the article revealed that only thirty-five of the forty Democrats who showed up for the straw poll actually paid the $20 fee to obtain a ballot and vote. Votes for "first choice" and "popularity" were later tallied accurately (no hanging chads in the Southwest), and unannounced but quietly salivating at the prospect candidate Al Gore won the "first choice" vote with 51 percent followed in a distant second place by John Edwards with 17 percent of votes cast. These numbers may seem meaningless, but as they say in TV infomercials, "but wait, there's more!"

We rarely associate the words "Democratic votes" and "calculator" with the words "fun" or "interesting," yet the application of a calculator to the Scottsdale straw poll results generates more entertainment than one would initially think. For example, it was fascinating that Democrats, who have whined for 7 years that the popular vote should count more than electoral votes or percentages reported the Scottsdale straw poll results in, of course, percentages only. No raw vote count totals were provided in the Republic news report. Why? Perhaps because the media can take insignificant poll results and make them sound as if the participants in the poll represented a much larger segment of the overall population than they really did. A handy calculator helps illustrate how this is achieved.

The Arizona Republic reported the vote count as follows:

When tallying the votes, the local party leaders considered both the "first choice" of voters and the "popularity" of candidates.

The popularity vote was important because it showed who voters would chose if Gore does not run.

Gore won the first choice by 51 percent, followed by Edwards with 17 percent, national front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton with 14 percent, Sen. Barack Obama by 9 percent, Sen. Joe Biden by 6 percent and Rep. Dennis Kucinich by 3 percent.

Edwards won the popularity vote by 29 percent, followed by Gore with 26 percent, Obama with 19 percent, Clinton with 14 percent, Kucinich with 6 percent, Biden with 4 percent and Richardson with 2 percent.

All those double-digit percentages certainly helped readers forget that only 35 people actually participated in this vote. Thus, Al Gore's 51 percent, which when converted to actual votes signified that he was the first choice of a whopping 17.85 actual voters in an Arizona living room, seems much less impressive than merely reporting that he garnered 50 percent of an Arizona straw poll. Perhaps if they find that hanging chad or a pregnant chad gives birth they will find the other 0.15 of a vote.

Likewise, Edwards' second place finish with 17 percent converts to only 5.95 actual votes. However, the big mystery was Bill Richardson, who as Governor of New Mexico and a fellow southwest Democrat, only polled 2 percent, which when converted is only 0.7 of a vote. By reporting Richardson's straw poll showing in percentages rather than vote count, the Arizona Republic performed a small act of sympathetic kindness. When your party holds a straw poll in a neighboring state and you receive only seven-tenths of a vote, it may be finally time to "redeploy" and wait for other career options than the presidency.

Despite a valiant reporting effort by the Arizona Republic and international recognition courtesy of a Drudge Report link, a community straw poll involving thirty-five votes simply could not be taken seriously, especially when compared to the well-organized statewide Republican straw poll held in Iowa and won by Mitt Romney. Romney's opponents and snide media pundits were quick to minimize the perceived importance of Romney's decisive victory in the Iowa straw poll, but perhaps the irrelevance of the Scottsdale Democratic straw poll will serve as a contrast that will bring Romney's success in a larger poll more sharply into focus.

The time fast approaches when Al Gore's performance in straw polls and primaries will signify something substantial and ominous in the realm of electoral politics. The Scottsdale straw poll was not the long-awaited sign of the Al Gore apocalypse upon us. The so-called "Democratic straw poll in Arizona" merely gave one homeowner and thirty-four members of her community a few moments to bask in the global warming of a media spotlight.

Technorati Tags: Al Gore Straw Poll Arizona Democrats Arizona Republic Drudge Report Matt Drudge Presidential Candidates Scottsdale Bill Richardson John Edwards Poll Results

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

"Tamper-Proof" ID is Fantasy

The buzzword in the illegal immigration debate is “tamper-proof,” as in tamper proof ID cards for aliens. I just watched Tony Snow’s interview this morning with Steve Doocy on Fox and Friends, and Snow was out there front and center defending the proposed amnesty bill by touting the “tough” enforcement measures it allegedly contains. Perhaps some of the measures would be “tough” if the government had any track record whatsoever of enforcing past laws. However, the most outrageous falsehood that Snow, President Bush, and even the field of 2008 presidential candidates continue to perpetuate, aside from claiming the bill is not amnesty, is the notion of a “tamper-proof” government issued ID card.

Show me a “tamper-proof” ID card, and I can take you to a street corner in Los Angeles near MacArthur Park where the card can be taken, analyzed, dissected, and reproduced to near perfection in a matter of minutes. Governments have a poor history of making “tamper-proof” official documents, as evidenced by the phenomenally lucrative criminal market for counterfeit or forged Social Security Cards, passports (including the new ridiculously vulnerable RF chip encoded version), driver’s licenses, and even law enforcement credentials and badges. The simple truth is that there is no such thing as “tamper-proof,” whether one is referring to ID documents, ID cards, computer networks, or product packaging. Computer hackers, some of them mere teens testing their skills on a dare, have penetrated “secure” networks operated by the Defense Department and many other local, state, and federal agencies. Private corporations guarding priceless trade secrets have also learned by sad experience that their secure systems are anything but tamper proof. Credit card companies have spent millions of dollars attempting to make their cards as tamper-proof as possible, but with only mixed results.

Tony Snow told Steve Doocy moments ago that the proposed “tamper-proof” ID card for illegal aliens would allow the government to know who is currently here, because, according to Snow, anyone found without one would be “kicked out” of America. Let me see if I have this straight: The government that has never made any serious effort to deport illegal aliens it stumbles upon or are handed to it without proper documentation or ID will miraculously transform itself and “kick out” any illegal aliens found without the magic “tamper-proof” ID card after they are issued to amnesty recipients? It doesn’t take a math whiz to calculate that something in that equation is significantly flawed.

Americans should be suspicious of anyone who insists that something is tamper-proof, and even more skeptical of the pie-in-the-sky promise that any new form of ID card will eliminate the underground market for counterfeit official documents. Unfortunately, many 2008 presidential candidates have adopted the lingo of “tamper-proof” ID cards in their policy positions on illegal immigration, including Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. To their credit, they advocate a “tamper-proof” ID card AFTER the borders have been secured and after illegal aliens currently here are given Z visa applications and sent back to their native country to await the granting of legal permission to enter the U.S. That is not the case when the White House champions “tamper-proof” ID cards. President Bush’s vision for immigration reform does not require anyone currently in America to leave, allowing all to remain in place, apply for the Z visa, and continue working and living in America.

As Romney pointed out strongly in the third GOP candidates’ debate, allowing any Z visa applicants to remain in the U.S. to await adjudication of their status gives them tremendous advantages over applicants from other countries who are waiting in their homeland, where they should be. Let’s face facts: immigration adjudication officers will be under enormous pressure to grant Z visas first to applicants already in America, and they will receive preferential treatment despite the illegality of their presence here. A law abiding foreign national who wants to become a U.S. citizen will be kept waiting for years, while foreign nationals who broke our laws by entering the U.S. without documentation will be rewarded with all the benefits of life in the U.S. throughout the entire application time line.

Consider the following whopper from Tony Snow, courtesy of World Net Daily. I preface the inclusion of Snow’s comment and my subsequent analysis with the disclaimer that I think Snow is a fantastic White House Press Secretary, tragically tasked with defending a terrible piece of legislation. Having made that point, note in Snow’s comment all of the violations for which illegal aliens would allegedly be deported under the proposed McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill:

Snow launched his response by denying that the plan is amnesty. "Right now a lot of times 'amnesty' is used as shorthand for saying, we don't like the bill," he said. "If you look up the dictionary definition of amnesty, it means total forgiveness of a crime.

"What you have here is a crime [entering the U.S. illegally] for which there was no punishment originally. Now what we're saying is everybody who came across the border, No. 1, you pay a thousand dollar fine. No. 2, you are on permanent probation. If you break the law, you're deported. If you do not maintain a job, you are deported. If you do not learn the English language, you're deported. If you do not subject yourself to a criminal background check, you're deported. If you do not have an ID that allows us to trace who you are, where you are, for whom you work, you are deported," he said.

This statement by Snow is astonishing in its scope and in its audacity. When someone has to pull out the dictionary to explain why a proposed bill is not amnesty, you can rest assured that he is in fact trying to conceal amnesty. The semantic hairsplitting involved in defining amnesty is disgustingly reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s legal obfuscations over the legal definition of “sex” in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Trying to sound tough on illegal immigration after doing virtually nothing about it for 6 years is also less than impressive. Snow stated, “If you break the law, you’re deported.” That’s a good place to start, Tony. We have laws on the books that include deportation. Enforce them. The government has not enforced them in the past and claims that deporting illegal aliens already here is logistically impossible. If the government has not been deporting illegal aliens who have already broken our laws, why should anyone accept the claim that the government will suddenly grow sufficient spine to start deporting violators of the proposed bill?

There are certainly a lot of violations listed in Snow’s comment for which deportation is promised. Snow should be reminded that deportation has always been the prescribed punishment for illegal immigration but the government never writes the prescription and the medicine is never administered, hence the 12-20 million who have come here with impunity knowing that the government lacked the spine and/or stomach to deport anyone unless public outcry over a specific case made it unavoidable.

Even in those cases, most criminal deportees are back in the U.S. in a matter of weeks, free to commit further crimes or kill law enforcement officers (remember the slayer of L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputy David March). They return so easily because the borders are not secure. Note that I wrote “borders” rather than “border,” because there are enormous security problems associated with both our northern and southern borders. Instead of offering “tamper-proof” ID cards as a spoonful of sugar to help the amnesty medicine go down more smoothly, the government should strive for a “tamper-proof” border and “tamper-proof” deportation proceedings.

Technorati Tags:
Illegal Immigration, Amnesty, Tamper Proof Identification, Tony Snow, Deportation, Immigration Reform, Border Enforcement, Border Security

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