Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Sunday, October 6, 2013

My Heart is with the Tea Party; My Head is with the GOP

As Sen. Ted Cruz was preparing to 'filibuster' for 21 hours on the Senate floor, I thought it was a fool's mission. What good could come of it? Did he really think the Democrat-controlled Senate would listen to him and work with him to defund or reform the signature legislation ("Obamacare") of their Democratic leader? Is the fight worth it if you know you can't win? I was not optimistic and I thought it would have negative on the GOP.

A few hours into the "filibuster" I decided to tune in to see what Sen. Cruz was talking about. I missed the famous "Green Eggs and Ham" reading, but discovered something incredibly important that the media missed or - more likely - blatantly ignored. I realized that Ted Cruz is insightful, analytical, focused, amiable, persuasive and willing to debate issues with his Democratic colleagues. Here is a sample:


I admire Sen. Cruz's passion, his knowledge and his willingness to fight for his convictions. As I watched him speak, I was caught up in the 'heart' of what he was saying. In other words, my heart - my fighting spirit - admired what he was doing and how he was doing it. There was no snark or pettiness is what he was saying. When Democratic colleagues questioned him, he was respectful and polite. He may have been engaging in a bit of self-aggrandizement, but he wasn't going for cheap political points and snarky MSNBC-esque soundbites. This was contrasted dramatically when Sen. Harry Reid showed up to take the floor back with all the class and dignity of a Las Vegas casino boss. Sen. Cruz had spoken for 21 hours without making cheap personal attacks and Sen. Reid couldn't go 21 seconds.

I was quite blown away; especially by how much - in my heart - I applauded who Cruz was and what he did. Then, reality set in and I realized that, though he had rallied the Conservative right, he hadn't done much, if anything, to move the needle. He was still arguing from an lose-lose position, no matter how much I actually agreed with that position. Indeed, after skillfully picking apart ObamaCare for 21 hours, the only thing I heard the news report was his reading of "Green Eggs and Ham" and they even managed to find multiple faults with that.

How do I rectify this conundrum? My heart is with Ted Cruz, but my head knows his Republican colleagues in the Senate are correct, at least from a strategic political standpoint in this case. If I let my head - analytical, logical capacities - govern everything I say and do, I run the risk of becoming stale and overly calculating and never challenging the status quo. If I let my heart govern my actions, I wind up fighting everything and becoming overwhelmingly disheartened when I suffer losses that I should have seen coming. Isn't there a middle ground?

Not on Twitter, apparently. According to most tweeters, you were either a Tea Party nut job or a RINO. Even if you liked Ted Cruz, but didn't agree with his strategy, you were deemed a RINO, a sell-out, or part of the "Surrender Caucus." If you were a Conservative then the RINOs called you crazy or "wacko birds" (Isn't John McCain a gem?) if you supported the Cruz strategy. You would expect this type of name-calling between Democrats and Republicans, but it is happening all too often between 'Conservatives' and 'Moderates' both of whom claim Ronald Reagan as their idle. Yes, Ronald Reagan, who popularized the famous 11th commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." My how we've strayed.

This doesn't mean that we have to like everything our colleagues and congressmen/women do, but we have to be united. The purity tests and at-all-costs primary threats are losers for us. Shutting down conservative candidates because they don't do the bidding of the "establishment" is a loser for us. If you are Conservative, vote for the most Conservative candidate you want in the primaries. If you are more Moderate, vote for a Moderate candidate. When your candidate loses, don't whine and stay home like a petulant child. Get out and support the GOP candidate, whomever it is. If your candidate wins, open your arms to accept the supports of the losing candidates and vow to work with them. It isn't that hard.

Conservatives and Moderate Republicans (and everyone in between) need to commit that they will vote in EVERY election no matter who the candidates are. There's always a better and worse candidate. In 2012, some Republicans/Conservatives framed the race as "Obama vs. Obama-lite". I disagree with that characterization, but even if it's true, wouldn't you rather have Obama-lite right now? There is a lot of distance between Obama and Mitt Romney; important distance that makes a HUGE difference to our personal freedoms and individual rights. To act like there is little difference is patently false and it's a losing attitude. To pretend that a Conservative cannot win a general election is equally false.

We need to fight (fair) during the primaries, but then unite after all of the voices have been heard! If we don't, the Dems will continue to win. And I hate watching the Dems win. There is a way to put our hearts and minds in support of the GOP, but it takes patience, humility and wisdom. We've got to find those virtues, because our current inner conflict is a loser - both in strategy and in policy.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Is Biden Too Crazy To Be Defeated in Debate?

"You can't beat crazy!"
I think we can all agree; Joe Biden is a bit crazy! Some people think he's crazy in the sense that he says things that politicians don't normally say. Some people think he's crazy in the way your crazy uncle is crazy - it's a bit alarming but it's also kind of endearing. Some people think Joe Biden is legitimately crazy - not-fit-to-be-President crazy or not-fit-to-be-employed crazy.

Regardless of the type of crazy or the degree of crazy, crazy people are hard to pin down. They don't play by the rules! When most of society (the number appears to be dwindling) has agreed to use logic and reason in discussions and debates, it puts most of us at least on similar wave lengths. We can still have big disagreements and differences of opinions, but we are still generally able to understand where others are coming from. But, when someone comes from an entirely different wave length, it is so foreign and odd that it is hard to discuss ordinary ideas. You may have logic, reason, facts and style on your side, but a crazy person can put on such a bizarre show that it frustrates you and distracts you from your objectives that the crazy person can actually start to make you think you're crazy.

As a litigator, I have had the unfortunate experience of facing several pro se (people who represent themselves) parties. In many ways it is a great advantage to face someone who doesn't have a lawyer, but it can also be confusing, time-consuming and maddening. Pro se parties do crazy things like filing non-existent, insane motions. You are left to wonder: do I even have to respond to this considering it is insane or do I still have to answer just to be safe? Usually you answer the crazy motion to protect yourself and your client, which is time-consuming and expensive for the client. Then, when you draft the response you have to combat the craziness and sometimes the only way to combat it is with craziness. I admit that sometimes it is fun, but usually it is annoying.

Paul Ryan is slick, smart and focused. He seems to dislike nonsense and frivolous debate. Well, he's going to get it tonight! Biden is going to be all over the place. He's going to attack Romney/Ryan, he'll make some outrageous allegations, he'll appeal to the working class effectively and he'll try to paint Ryan as a young punk who doesn't know what he's talking about. He will make some good points, but he will also say some crazy things. If Ryan can't bring the debate back to reason, he will open the possibility that Crazy Uncle Joe might appear to have bested him, even if Ryan wins on substance, reason and sanity. In addition, crazy people often gain sympathy because of their plight. Many Americans will have a soft spot for Joe, so if Ryan goes at him too hard, he might come off as a mean bully.

I actually find Joe Biden somewhat endearing, especially when he is making good points for the GOP, but I wouldn't want to have to debate him. Expectations for Biden (and most crazy people) are so low that if he is still clothed at the end of the debate, it will be a victory. Who would you enlist for debate prep as a stand-in for Biden? Leave suggestions in the comments. Here is my pick.

The sh**er will be full when Biden leaves the stage Thursday night

Thursday, April 5, 2012

An Open Letter To Senator Harry Reid Re: Attacks On Mormonism

Senator Harry Reid
Office of Senator Harry Reid
522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
An Open Letter to Senator Harry Reid Re: Attacks on Mormonism
Dear Senator Reid,
I, like you, am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, I was a member of a Gospel Doctrine class you taught as a lay Sunday School teacher in Washington, DC in the summer of 2001. I didn’t agree with your politics then, and I still don’t, but I appreciated your devotion to teaching.
As members of the LDS church, we are not obligated to support any particular candidate or political position. But, as you know, one of the articles of our faith is that “[w]e claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may” (11th Article of Faith). This obviously does not mean that everyone will afford us the same privilege and respect, but we certainly should seek to protect others’ rights to practice their religion and come to their defense when they are attacked, no matter what their religious affiliation. Is it not our duty to defend this right?
I remind you that the LDS church and its members have suffered severe persecution in their brief history. Early church members were driven from state to state by mobs, militias and hostile communities; deprived of property; slandered; tortured, raped and murdered...all because of their beliefs. Seeking protection of the rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Joseph Smith traveled to Washington, DC to supplicate President Martin Van Buren for assistance. As you may recall, President Van Buren punted, saying, “...your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you. If I take up for you, I shall lose the vote in Missouri” (Documentary History of the Church, 4:80).
Senator Reid, as the 2012 General Election approaches, it appears that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for President. It goes without saying that there are legitimate attacks against Mr. Romney and not every attack will be based on religion, but actual attacks on Mormonism related to Mr. Romney have already begun. Lawrence O’Donnell, of MSNBC, recently launched a baseless smear against Mormonism and in all likelihood President Obama and his political allies (of which you are clearly one) will launch vicious attacks on Mormonism for political gain.  Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy of their remaining silent on your Mormonism while attacking Mr. Romney’s, isn’t it despicable and beyond even the realm of political smears to launch such attacks?
Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution states that: “...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” I don’t expect you to support and defend Mr. Romney’s political positions, associations, decisions, actions or background, but will you not defend his religion; your religion? Will you honor your oath of office by supporting and defending the Constitution? I would hope that you would do so for a Catholic, Evangelical, Methodist or any other denomination or religion, but your silence would be all the more glaring if maintained in the face of attacks on your own faith. Will you stand silently as your political friends trample the Constitution and smear your religion? Are political points that important?
The First Amendment to our divinely-inspired Constitution (D&C 101:80) protects the rights of the free exercise of religion. It also protects freedom of speech. I acknowledge that those who baselessly attack religions - Mormonism in this case - are free to do so and you and I are free to stay silent or speak. My question is: How will you exercise your freedom of speech? Will you follow in President Van Buren’s footsteps or will you be courageous, even if it means losing the vote? Is the cause just? Can you do something? Will you do something...anything?
                                                                Your brother in the gospel,
                                               
                                                                        Garrett R. Hall

Saturday, March 24, 2012

More Hypocrisy From Rick Santorum!

Rick Santorum called into the Neil Cavuto show to address (whine about) criticism over his recent comparison of Romney and Obama. As usual, Rick was highly agitated in the interview and failed to actually answer the questions put to him. His go-to defense was simple incredulity. You can watch the entire interview below and then read my five observations.



1. Santorum: "Might as well stay with [Obama]..."

Santorum said this in San Antonio: "If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch-a-Sketch candidate of the future."

Rick called the criticism of his statement "laughable"; "absurd"; "a hatchet job"; "not even worth printing"; and "a joke." He then attempted to explain the statement while questioning those who could possibly misunderstand what he was saying.

He then explained this to Neil Cavuto: "I meant that if we don't have a choice then the american public may decide to keep Barack Obama...We meaning we the people might; not me. A 'we' meaning a general 'we.'" So, when he says 'we' he means 'the people'.

So, let's plug his definition of "we" into his original statement: "If you're going to be a little different, [the people] might as well stay with what [the people] have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch-a-Sketch candidate of the future."  He didn't say "the people might stay with..." He said "the people might as well stay with..." I guess it depends what the definition of "we" is. Thanks for the clarification, Rick!

2. Santorum's "True Conservative" endorsement 

Regarding his 2008 endorsement of Romney, Santorum said: "I took him for his word; I shouldn't have."




"It's not the campaign, this is Rick Santorum. I think everyone knows, no one puts words into my mouth. The words out of my mouth were that if you want a Conservative as the nominee of this party, you must vote for Mitt Romney." - Rick Santorum, 2008.

When Santorum was confronted by George Stephanopoulos about a "controversial" portion of his book about women, Santorum responded..."Well, that section of the book was co-written, if you want to be honest about it, by my wife, who is a nurse and a lawyer."

"No one puts words in my mouth." "That section of the book was co-written...by my wife."
I don't see "Karen Santorum" on that cover so it seems like he let her put words in his mouth. In addition, not only did he not give her credit for "co-writing" the book; but he also threw her under the bus when confronted about a portion of it.

3. "I don't play those games!"

"I don't play those games. I'm more focused on what the voters care about and what they care about is what you're going to do as President, not whether your campaign can spin a story."


"I don't play those games"

4. "Romney has failed to convince people..."

"[Romney] has failed to be able to convince the people of this country and Republicans and Conservatives that he is actually worthy of their support."


Romney has failed to convince the people...that he is actually worthy of their support."
Romney has 1,318,930 more votes than Santorum as of March 24, 2012

5. "ObamaCare is the most important issue of the day..."

Santorum repeatedly says that repealing Obamacare is "the most important issue of the day."  And yet, every exit poll suggests that the economy is the most important issue. 


Illinois Exit Poll: Most Important Issue


Alabama Exit Poll: Most Important Issue


Mississippi Exit Poll: Most Important Issue


Ohio Exit Poll: Most Important Issue

Hmm...even in the ultra-conservative states, the economy is the most important issue.  Yet, Rick says its ObamaCare.  Could Rick be spinning this because he knows Romney is far superior to him on the economy? Nah, Rick doesn't play those games.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Santorum - The REAL Etch-a-Sketch Artist...

Back in 2008, Santorum said Romney was a Conservative

At a rally in Texas yesterday, Rick Santorum said (comparing Romney and Obama) “[i]f they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”  Translation = Obama is preferable to Romney.

Well, Santorum has officially lost his mind! He has become so wrapped up in his own divinely inspired Presidential campaign, that he has lost sight of what is important; beating Obama. He seems to be staying in this race against all hope, logic, math, finance, dignity and probability just to stick it to Romney. The problem is, the MSM is too busy pointing out how crazy he is on social issues and many right-wing talkers are too busy propping him up and protecting him, that almost no one is actually challenging him on his hypocrisy.  Well, I did here and here

And so he goes on making illogical statement after illogical statement.  How is it not a bigger issue that Santorum endorsed Romney as a true conservative in 2008 even though RomneyCare was enacted in 2006? Did Rick just shake the Etch-a-Sketch on that one? Right to work? Shake! College education for everyone? Shake! Unite behind eventual GOP nominee? Shake! First amendment freedom, but use Gov't to crack down on pornography? Shake! Get Gov't out of our lives but use it to regulate contraception (allegedly)? Shake! Increase the debt ceiling? Shake! Earmarks? Shake! Individual mandate? Shake! Shake again! When it comes to Santorum, there's a whole lotta' shakin' goin' on!


SHAKE! SHAKE! SHAKE!