Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Time Of Choosing: This is Who I Endorse

Over the past several months we have watched candidates come and go. The vetting process has weeded out several possibilities including a few some of us would have liked to see continue.

In the Presidential GOP Primary, right out of the gate, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels declined to run. I know several people who still mourn his decision, though the residents of the state of Indiana should not be among them, as they have retained a great leader. I prefer Governor Jan Brewer from Arizona. However I am a little biased.

In local, state, and US Congressional races we have also seen information revealed on carious candidates. Again, some we liked found their ways to the sidelines while others remain.

I will admit that I have not kept the best vigilance on races outside of Arizona. The very few I have followed have been some of the best new members of the house. For example, in Michigan's 3rd CD there is a whiz-kid named Justin Amash. Representative Amash has stood strong on the tenets of fiscal conservatism, responsible spending, national defense, and limited government. Yes, he is one of the "Tea Party Freshmen". In his 13 months in office, he has done well. I endorse him for a second term.

In Florida there is a great leader. His name is LTC Allen West. Again you find a strong supporter of our Military Service Members. Rep. West also stands for fiscal conservatism as well as Legislative Conservatism. "Legislative Conservatism" is a term I use to describe a legislator who prefers limited government intervention in individual lives and liberty. Some may call that "Social Conservatism". However, voting against increased regulations on "farm dust" is not a social issue. It is not, directly, an economic or fiscal issue. It is a bureaucracy versus liberty issue. Rep. West is another among those hailed by the "Tea Party".

I also endorse any GOP or Libertarian candidate that can send Debbie Wasserman-Shultz of Florida back into the private sector to be victim of the very "social reforms" she championed, at least until the damage can be undone. And her name is Karen Harrington. I endorse her. So does Mark Levin, so she's in good company.

That same sentiment goes for Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Waxman (whose face was the base model for the Orcs in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy), Sheila Jackson-Lee (the bane of Houston, TX), and Maxine Waters. I will damn near kiss the feet of any conservative who sends the above packing.

Not only is this going to be a key election year for the US House, and a stiff battle to retain control for the GOP, but the US Senate races are what will make or break this country. Since 2010, the bare Democrat majority in the Senate has managed to block every attempt for this government to act fiscally responsible in a way that will allow the economy to recover. Those acts passed by the Senate, particularly those between 2009 and 2011, actually stagnated any growth.

There are 8 seats held by Republicans that need to be retained. Among them is Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts. Given the state he represents, he has done a fabulous job. I encourage his state to retain him in office for another term.

While Barbara Boxer may arguably be the more reported US Senator from California, Diane Feinstein is the senior of the two. Not only has she entrenched in the US Senate through multiple terms, her voting record demonstrates a primarily statist partisan leaning. She and Boxer have both assisted in damaging the Citrus Orchards in California by rationing irrigation water to the detriment of farmers and their employees. California has one of the most abysmal economies in the country. Businesses are migrating out of the state to Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. While that is good news for the unemployed in Arizona, it is bad news for the state of California. Elisabeth Emken is the GOP candidate opposing Feinstein's bid for re-election. Ms. Emken has long advocated patients' rights. She understands the medical and social concerns of parents of autistic children. She supports less government involvement, a balanced budget, repealing PPACA (Obamacare). She also supports reducing regulations and taxes on California business owners which will bring commerce back to California. That will enhance the economy of the entire Southwest Region of the United States.

In Arizona we have a key Senate Race for Sen. Kyl's seat as he retires. I like a lot of what Jeff Flake has done in his political career. However, I have a small issue with voting for a man named "Flake" from a town named "Snowflake". In all seriousness, he'd make a good senator. However,  My endorsement goes to his GOP opponent, Wil Cardon. Wil has two major drawbacks. His first is "inexperience". However, his time as a business owner and his links to the people of Arizona mitigate that lack of legislative experience with a fresh outlook where it is greatly needed. His second drawback goes with the fresh outlook. Mr. Cardon looks like he is fresh out of high school. However, you shouldn't let that "Opie Cunningham" (yes, I realize I just blended two different characters played by Ron Howard) "apple pie face" keep you from focusing on the issues. Cardon stands for strong border security, legal immigration, halting illegal immigration, and doing what is needed to allow businesses to run themselves. He has watched the federal government interfere and restrict productivity and free trade.

While I am on the topic of Arizona, I mentioned two US House of Representatives candidates I endorsed. The first is SFC (ret) Frank Antenori. Frank served in the AZ House, then in the AZ Senate. Among his accolades include several veterans programs, SB 1070, Arizona Concealed Carry Laws (pro-2nd Amendment), a balanced budget, Fiscal Conservatism, and strong views on border security & illegal immigration. I could go on for days about Frank, a retired US Army Special Forces NCO. Some people already have heard me do so.

In Arizona's 4th CD, there is a man who has brought a lot of controversy recently. I have been approached and asked if my mind has changed. No it has not. I plan to write a whole article on the reasons. I still strongly endorse and support MAJ Paul Babeu, the former US Army Office, OIF Vet, and current Pinal County Sheriff. Paul has stood strong with Sheriff Joe Arpaio for more freedom in border states' rights to assist in controlling the border. Babeu also stands for strong measures against illegal aliens and the drug & sex smugglers among them. Sheriff Paul knows that Islamic Extremists of many ethnic backgrounds invade among those border jumpers. As somebody who has fought against them first hand in Iraq, he understands the threat they pose. Paul Babeu is also pro-2nd Amendment. He will say that armed, law-abiding citizens defending their own lives, properties, and families represent a key line in defending this nation and maintaining our liberty. Law abiding citizens legally carrying concealed firearms also present a great deterrent to crime.

Paul Babeu has "come out" as gay. So what? His views are still conservative. He is still a patriot and a war hero. He was gay when he served honorably. He was gay when he did his great work as Sheriff of Pinal County. Nothing has changed. He is still the same man. I endorse him fully.


Now we get to the heart of the matter. I am sure everybody is waiting with bated breath on who I support for President of the United States.

If you have read this far, I congratulate you on your patience.

On February 22, 2012 the Arizona GOP hosted the 20th GOP Primary debate. This may be the last debate of the season, though there are rumors two of the remaining debates may not be canceled.

I scored the debate with 5 possible points per question with any rebuttals and redirects granted + or - points for each. That gave 70 possible points for the questions. I also awarded bonus points based upon standing in the polls & number of delegates already acquired. I then awarded points based upon "face time". I ranked audience response for some additional points. Finally, I gave points for staying on topic and sticking to key points of their platforms. So, the overall total points possible was 100.

Here is how they did:

Rick Santorum:  82 points.

Mitt Romney:  73 points.

Ron Paul:  69 points. The subjects of Iran and Syria sunk him.

Newt Gingrich:  87 points.

I have heard numerous arguments on why so-in-so is "not electable". The banter came to a point that I looked up the word "electable" in order to see what everybody meant. To quote a line from The Princess Bride, "I do not think this word means what you think it means". "Electable" simply means that the person is capable of holding the office, legally, and performing the duties of that office if elected. Guess what? All four remaining GOP candidates ARE electable. All four of them would do a far better job than Barack Obama.

With the backing of the GOP, all four of them (even Ron Paul) stand a great chance against Obama. United, any of the four could win. The fight will be for conservatives to get out on the streets and get independents to the polls to vote. That is the fight. The majority of eligible voters in this country are sick of Obama. This election will come down to an electoral fight, not a popular one.

I have heard people say they would stay home if one of these guys or another got the nomination. I am among them. I will admit that Ron Paul's foreign policy, myopic view of international relations, and lack of interest in the Intelligence Community scare me. But his fiscal views are great. I also like his take on individual rights. Despite my reservations, if he got the nomination, I would vote for him as the lesser of two evils. But he will NOT get my endorsement.

Rick Santorum has some good views. I think his tax policy still retains too high a rate. I also worry about some of his religious views which do not match with mine. I am more for religious freedom than being preached to by a politician. But I will say, among these four, he is my second choice. His major drawback is that I do not hear, from him, enough about individual and state liberties. I see Mr. Santorum of more like Nixon than like Reagan. I also think he lacks sufficient knowledge about supply-side economics.

I have heard much rhetoric about Willard "Mitt" Romney being the champion who can bring the "independent" vote. However, he is the one candidate who seems to have the least views on anything. Most of the campaign, he has spent time knocking down every other candidate's views, then adopting the pieces of them that the people seem to like. He changes his mind on these issues like most people should change their underwear. To be honest, I hear Bill Clinton more than I hear Ronald Reagan when Willard speaks. I am not a huge fan of the Clinton years. The only good things to come out of Clinton's dynasty were those shoved down his throat by congress with Newt Gingrich at the helm of the House. However, I will take Clinton over Obama any day. Willard is more conservative than Clinton was on his best day. He is not a bad choice. However, after nearly 5 years of his campaigning, I still do not know what he stands for. In that, he is a poor communicator and a poor executive. He'd get my vote if he got the nomination. But he is, by far, not the best choice of the four.

Sorry Ann Coulter, but I think your crush on him is more about hormones than about the issues. Again, that draws a parallel to Clinton who I heard women say they voted for because "He's such a charming and handsome man".

After 20 debates, numerous speeches, reading several books, doing much research I am endorsing the candidate who I think will be best for America. I endorse Newt Gingrich.

Chuck Norris endorsed Newt after a lot of deliberation. If you read his articles up to and including his endorsement, you will see why Chuck did so. My reasons fall in line with many of Chuck's.

Art Laffer endorsed Newt Gingrich. Art Laffer is the brain behind the "Laffer Curve" and the leading mind in supply-side economics. Supply-Side economics largely involve getting the government out of private business and allowing the market to prosper. Those policies lead to greater federal revenue and a more prosperous nation.

Last night's debate cinched it for me. Newt mentioned the 10th Amendment several times. He got back to the basics of his message and platform. For more details, you need to read his books. His plans are simple. The analysis of how they would work is detailed and historically validated.

Newt is the only one I have heard invoke the Federalist Papers, John Locke, Montesquieu, and Toqueville in the debates.

Herman Cain was my first choice, because of his fiscal policies and his plan to segue towards The Fair Tax. Newt's program is similar and a more responsible segue.

Newt is the only one with a common sense approach to immigration reform to include securing the borders, drastically reducing illegal immigration, and promoting legal immigration. Governor Jan Brewer stated that Newt had the best plan of the four, though she has not yet endorsed any of the candidates. Governor Rick Perry, another border-state governor, has endorsed Newt. I live on the border. Border issues go hand in hand with crime and economy here.

Newt has a large Tea Party backing. I am a huge fan of the three tenets of the Tea Party.

I am all for education reform and putting the responsibility and power into the hands of the parents. I am for local and state governments having larger roles than the federal government. I have watched union member comprachicos indoctrinate kids for too long. I have had to teach High School graduates who don't even know the preamble to the US Constitution or the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. Newt's education policies go in line with the 10th Amendment, reduce the influence Marxist-Socialists have on our children, and allow parents to have more of a say in the raising of their children. It does NOT take a village or a tribe. It take a mother and a father!

Newt's energy policy makes sense and puts Americans back to work producing for themselves. We should make OPEC compete for our dollars in exchange for their oil, not the other way around.

Newt has been involved in the defense department and military affairs on several levels. He is a student of history. Any Intelligence Analyst or Tactician will tell you that studying history and patterns goes a long way in preparing to fight a future battle, if necessary. Newt is a military brat. He knows the life military families lead. He is also a huge supporter of the VA and veterans' issues.

There you have it. I endorse Newt Gingrich for the Republican Party Nomination.