Monthly Archives: February 2012

“Ladies and gentleman, you have summoned me on behalf of millions of your fellow Americans to lead a great crusade for freedom in America and freedom in the world… I know something of the solemn responsibility of leading a crusade. I have led one.” – Dwight Eisenhower, 1952 Republican Convention in Chicago

In May 1860, the greatest man to ever occupy the White House was nominated by the Republican Party for President of the United States.  Abraham Lincoln, the small town lawyer from Illinois, was the most unlikely of candidates chosen from a pool of political talent that outweighed him in experience, political connections, and wealth.  The heavy favorite was Henry Seward, the former Governor of New York and frontrunner for the nomination from the outset.  Seward’s position was flanked by party stalwarts such as Edward Bates and Salmon Chase, a Missouri judge and the governor of Ohio, respectively.  These men were three pillars in the power structure of the Republican Party, yet the relative lightweight Lincoln emerged victorious in the end.  How did this happen?  And, more importantly for the sake of this space, how does it apply today?

To be fair, the nomination process was much different in 1860.  The voters of the country did not have the chance to cast a vote for a specific candidate as we do today in the individual primaries.   It was actual ‘delegates’ who were sent to the nomination site and at this location votes would be cast to select the nominee to represent the party in the election for President.  Party bosses in states and local districts controlled these votes, and often these men from their respective states voted in blocks.  There was no court of public opinion here, save for the citizens filling the seats of convention.

Seward, much like Romney, had the political machine already constructed to facilitate his ascent to the pinnacle of the party by the start of the process.  He was a polished northeastern Republican who was a former governor of the largest state of the Union in terms of populace.  He had a strong record in step with the rhythm of the party and had spent his life in politics, both local and national.  His good friend and confidante Thurlow Weed was a party boss intent on not only shaping Seward for the nomination, but leading his delegation to a sweeping victory.  But some Republicans had other plans.

Seward’s notoriety was as much a curse as it was a blessing in the end.  The nature of his candidacy as the inevitable nominee plagued him at the convention.  Delegates did not trust how his extreme rhetoric concerning slavery would play in the border states, and saw him as liability in the national campaign not only in the fight for the presidency, but in their own statewide elections.  Like Romney today, Seward’s rivals’ chief strategy was to conjure up enough anti-Seward sentiment to force delegates to look elsewhere for a nominee.

Bates and Chase both had their skeletons to deal within the party when their names came up as the alternative to Seward.  It was Lincoln who made it through unscathed; protected by his role as the relative newcomer that had nothing but a small record in Congress to criticize as a national politician.  After two undecided ballots and intense political maneuvering, the third ballot and the nomination went to Lincoln.  He and his staff in the end ultimately trumped Seward, Bates and Chase’s political cunning in the delegate scramble.  Lincoln’s fortune was bolstered by the notoriety he gained in his Cooper Union Speech, along with his appeal in states whose main concern was the extension of slavery to the territories, and not the termination of the establishment itself.  He was ultimately rewarded with the Presidency, and soon after the greatest undertaking any American has ever had to burden.

Save for the melancholy ending, this story of convention success should be an uplifting one for all those who seek a better candidate for the Republican Party today.  Despite Governor Romney’s superior debate performance on Wednesday, his candidacy is still plagued by Romneycare and his inability to connect with voters.  The latter is most seriously exemplified by his insistence on using hollow patriotic platitudes as evidence to the testament of his character and dedication to the country.  Rick Santorum had a rough debate, backed into a corner a few times by Romney and Ron Paul on his extensive voting record in the Senate.  He is still plagued most heavily by his sour disposition and extreme social conservatism; he often acts more like a disgruntled parent at a PTA meeting rather than a presidential nominee.  Mr. Paul still serves his purpose as the Libertarian standard bearer, which I respect as there is a need in the party to rethink one of its biggest weaknesses: the Wilsonian styled military doctrine of democratizing the entire world.  He seems to team up with Mr. Romney more than a serious candidate should, but the congressman is playing to ensure that the Libertarians will have a future in the party, rather than hoping to gain the actual nomination.  Speaker Gingrich is always the wild card.  He gives conservatives a fleeting sense of comfort in his role as the erudite professor in the debates, and then turns heel on the campaign trail as the vicious attack dog too many Americans perceive him to be.

The reality of a contested convention is what we saw Wednesday: four men, all with different strengths and weaknesses, so bunched together in the mind of the public that it is almost impossible to predict who will win.  Again, the reality here is the nominee needs 1,144 delegates in the Republican Convention to take the nomination.  Someone will have to get hot in the primaries and actually sustain that level of success to ride into the convention as the nominee.  In the course of these primaries, no one has yet to maintain the status of frontrunner and it is very possible no one achieves that status before August.  Romney is no longer the Seward of the four, but it is the actual volatility of the race that has become the most dominant feature of the primaries.  This then serves as a serious benefactor to President Obama.

But is there a Lincoln?  We may never see the likes of Abraham Lincoln again, nor would we ever want to considering his legend is built on his leadership through the nightmare of the Civil War.  But the conditions that enabled him to win the nomination- a splintered party, a failing government, and a general moroseness amongst a public yearning for a leader they could connect with- are the same variables that exist today.  The chances that this hero candidate is a politician plotting his strategy in the wilderness become weaker every day that passes.  Right now we must hope that the true leader of the ideology of smaller government, responsible fiscal policy and family values was on the stage Wednesday.  If he was, then this champion must find the message that will trump the volatility of this race to heal the party, and in turn the nation.

– John P. Burns

“The nation is threatened by evils greater than those of any war.”- Theodore Roosevelt, on the 1896 Presidential election

Last week, I spoke of the possibility of the reinvigoration of the Tea Party through President Obama’s contraception mandate.  The President has already recognized the political peril of this position and has chosen to walk it back, placing the onus of contraception coverage on the insurance companies.  While the legality of the government ordering private insurance companies to cover birth control costs is another article for a more learned writer (perfect timing Dr. Krauthammer) this issue should still serve as a serious building block in the reinvigoration of the Tea Party.

In the fifty years he lived after writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson often referred to the “Spirit of ‘76” in his personal correspondence.  This adage was a reference to the values American citizens fought and died for in the Revolutionary War.  It was used in Mr. Jefferson’s correspondence with friends and fellow statesmen to express his concerns over an increasingly centralized and powerful federal government.  Today, many republicans in the wake of the primary season have had the same feeling.  But instead of ’76, they long for the spirit of ’10.

In the 2010 election cycle, the President’s statist agenda was repudiated by what he called a serious “shellacking.”  Republicans won 63 seats in the House of Representatives, marking the single greatest gain in an election in over half a century.  Of course, when the President acknowledged his party’s defeat he blamed the poor economy, not his policies, over the huge election loss.  But the roar of dissent would have never been heard if not for the bullhorn that was the Tea Party, a faction of citizens that would not have been formed if not for ‘Obamacare.’

After the passage of more TARP, bank bailouts, and then finally Obamacare, the Tea Party was formed to take to the streets and protest the intrusive policies of the government.  Obamacare was the icing on the government’s layered cake of poor choices: it mandated citizens buy health care insurance no matter the situation, and essentially facilitated a government takeover of 1/6 of the economy.  The President had overreached with his agenda, and long after passing a $700B stimulus bill to “save” the economy, Obamacare pushed the Tea Partiers to the brink.

They were loud and they were organized.  And they were legally demonstrative, unlike their ‘OWS’ counterparts.  They forced not only Democrats, but more importantly Republicans, to rethink their positions concerning government spending and its role in the lives of the citizenry.  The Tea Party’s influence on primary elections forced RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) out of contests to make way for true conservatives to effect change in our reckless federal government.  While there were some big misses (see: Angle, Sharron and O’Donnell, Christine), there were even bigger hits, like Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.  The former, who now serves as conservatism’s standard bearer in the Senate, would not have made it there without the help of Tea Party’s grassroots support in his bid to replace Republican and former Florida governor, Charlie Crist.  Mr. Rubio’s emphasis on limited government and a grounded approach to cutting the deficit was fueled by the Tea Party’s discontent.  Crist represented the ‘business as usual approach’ in Washington that this faction of patriots had come to despise.  The Tea Party scored big in 2010, and its help is needed again.

As reported this week, President Obama is now at the 50% mark in public approval ratings.  This has always been considered the threshold in polling for a President to have a chance at reelection.  The lack of caliber in the Republican candidate roster has left the public, Republican and otherwise, longing for leadership.  Both Romney and Santorum trail the President in the polls in head to head matchups by considerable, albeit fluctuating, margins.  The Tea Party has not showed up in these primaries because there is no one worth showing up for.  This fact is undeniable, but not all is lost.  The key here is that once the candidate is chosen to represent the Republican Party, the Tea Party must raise up against the President despite whatever feelings they may have toward the challenger.

Regardless of his increase in approval ratings, the President is the same man he was in 2010.  Obamacare is still here, and has already made its first real mark on the public with the contraception fiasco last week.  The President has presented a new budget to Congress that will have a deficit over $1 trillion, breaking his campaign promise to cut the debt in half his first four years (he will have actually increased the debt held by the United States by a total of 5 trillion dollars in four years).  The President may try to distract the electorate by blaming their woes on the wealthy; he may try to make us believe his actions will not accelerate our descent into fiscal insolvency; he may even try to make us believe he hasn’t been President the last three years, and will continue his campaign against a “do-nothing congress.”  But the evidence is there, and the Tea Party must use that as fuel to ignite its protests, as it did in 2010.  We are currently seeing a fire burning, but it is in the streets of Athens as Greece’s finances and standing in the world seems to disintegrate before our eyes.  The Tea Party not only possesses evidence of the President’s agenda in his legislative actions, but it also has a real and disturbing precedent across the Atlantic as to the effect it will have on the country.

The quote in the title above was written by Theodore Roosevelt before he was a major player in national politics; he conveyed this thought to his sister in a letter after the country had been rocked by a serious depression and was facing a new presidential election.  Today, the crisis we face is an all-encompassing debt that will drain our markets, bankrupt our children, and finally stab a dagger into the heart of democracy.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, and the bill the President has racked up for our generation is a hefty one.  The United States would finally be exposed as a society of charlatans; a people who chose to abuse their freedom to vote by enabling politicians to grant them endless entitlement benefits at the expense of the future of this nation.  The Tea Party helped delay that course with its work in 2010.  If it does in fact return for this election, one day we may all fondly reminisce over the Spirit of ‘12.

– John P. Burns

“Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.”- President Harry S. Truman

In an already tumultuous election season the surprising events of the past week have created a sense of uncertainty not only amongst the citizenry but those intimately involved in the political arena.  Instead of being closer to a nominee we are now that much farther away from a solidified choice Republicans can unite behind.  Apparently in a reaction to missing all the fun, the President seems intent to jump in and help stir the pot of discontent.

Concerning the President, our hats should first go off to him.  While predictably there would be infighting during the Republican primaries, the nasty and feckless tone the campaigns have taken in the last month (particularly the Romney and Gingrich camps) have helped Mr. Obama regain some of his swagger.  His ability to portray himself as a man above the fray of petty party politics has enabled the President’s rise in the very polls he has struggled in throughout the year.  Couple this with the new unemployment numbers released Friday coming in at 8.3% and his re-election chances only grew stronger.

Then the President finally gave the Republicans an opening.  Considering the President’s record of governance the fact that I just accurately used the phrase ‘gave the Republicans an opening’ is appalling.  But such was the unattractive state of the Republican Presidential candidates, whose collective ineptitude has made the President in these last few months look like FDR circa 1936.

President Obama’s recent decision to move forward in forcing Catholic institutions to provide coverage for contraception in employee health benefits is an egregious violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  Despite one’s own beliefs on the matter of contraception and pre-marital sex, it is the religious belief of the Catholic Church that contraception should not be used.  To force Catholic institutions to provide healthcare benefits for employees’ birth control methods is to force these religious entities to go against their beliefs, violating the law of the land.  The President is wrong, but more than he knows.

Since this story broke the vociferous tide of opposition against the President has risen, finally putting focus back in the organization of the Republican nominees.  As stated earlier the Republican Party was beginning to lose momentum as a result of dirty primary campaigning and an inability to stay on message.  Now after having this political defibrillator applied to their collective chest the candidates, as well as Mr. Obama, have decisions to make.

Rick Santorum:  With his three state sweep of the Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota caucuses on Tuesday Sen. Santorum has given serious life to his campaign, and serious pause to the inevitability of Governor Romney’s nomination.  His impressive debate showing last month in Florida allowed Mr. Santorum to position himself as the Republican with the most coherent criticism of Governor Romney’s Massachusetts Healthcare plan.  In doing so he not only discredits the Governor in the eyes of the already wary Republican Party, but he demonstrates fluidity in the conservative language Mr. Romney tries so hard to command and the Tea Party so deeply values.  Mr. Santorum has also had the good fortune of the current Church issue to have fallen in his lap as the leading Social Conservative amongst the candidates.  Though I consider this issue as a decision of constitutionality and not moral preference, Mr. Santorum as a devoutly religious Catholic can use the subject to promote the importance of family and personally responsibility that will energize the religious right, as well as promote the conservative idealism of strict adherence to the Constitution and the limitation of government intrusion.  This issue will also provide more firepower for the Senator against Governor Romney, whose ‘Romneycare’ plan will now only be more scrutinized as we further examine Obamacare’s regulations.  Serving as the cherry on top of the great week Senator Mr. Santorum is having is the poll from Rasmussen Reports that he now boasts a one point lead against the President.  This could be a short-lived trend, or a narrative that the Senator can ride all the way to the convention.  At this point I can not delude myself into making a prediction about who gets the nomination, but it seems Mr. Santorum has taken a giant step closer to the status of the main Romney challenger.

The President:  Mr. Obama has put himself in a very interesting and unexpected position with his choice this week to essentially take on the Catholic Church.  While I do believe Mr. Obama feels some sort of moral outrage against the Church and their stance on contraception, I find it hard to believe he would take it to this extreme with the election looming.  Some aides have already begun to walk the position back, concentrating on the fact the provision would not be enforced until 2013, as it is the case with many other of the President’s most controversial positions, all that will be addressed after the election to minimize political damage.  Still Mr. Obama’s choice to intrude on the sovereignty of the Church is either blindness to the pulse of the center-right country, or political hubris; at this point in is Presidency and an election year, I would choose the latter.  This is a glaring example of the Leviathan government that conservatives and moderates alike fear so much when discussing the initiatives of this President.  It also brings Obamacare back into the spotlight of the national conversation, an issue which was the driving force behind a Republican landslide in 2010.  And then there’s the unemployment numbers.  After it as released that theunemployment numbers dropped to 8.3% the always balanced CNN newsroom began to create a narrative comparing President Obama’s first term to President Reagan’s.  As with any of these inane comparisons made by the media there are always stark contrasts in the details, most importantly in this case that the economy grew last year at 1.6% while through Reagan’s third year it grew at 8% (as quoted in the Wall Street Journal).  A significant difference in terms of the health of the country under the stewardship of the two presidents, but a difference that would never be examined by the media and the voting  public as this election year grows.  Mr. Obama can use this to his advantage by setting aside his political hubris in his challenge against the Church, and concentrate on the unemployment numbers which continue to trend down.  If they hold, it will be the easiest aspect of his presidency however misleading the numbers are that he can defend.  It will also be one of the only two instances in his campaign, the other being the ‘revival’ of GM, the President will promote with a positive message.

Mitt Romney:  Governor Romney may be in the most peculiar position of all, but not the most unfamiliar.  This is not the first time the former Governor has suffered a setback in a primary contest, nor is it the first time he has lost to Sen. Santorum.  We have been waiting for the conservative candidate strong enough to defeat the presumed nominee, and if he has arrived in Santorum we can not yet tell.  But there is a larger issue than recognizing which candidate Mr. Romney needs to fend off to finally attain the nomination.  From the beginning Mr. Romney has framed his candidacy around the idea of his position as the Economic Healer: he has the longest and most successful career in the private sector of all candidates, and that experience is what will enable him to bring our economy back from the dregs of the Great Recession.  To be sure this logic has legs.  President Obama does have limited if any experience in the private sector, and as a result his policies such as “Obamacare” cast a serious shadow of doubt over the confidence of the numerous business owners across the country who are reluctant to hire new workers.  Considering the unpredictability of the President’s policies the effect on their business practices concerning expansion is palpable.  But if Mr. Romney’s selling point is as simple as ‘fixing the economy’, then President Obama’s rebuttal can be just as simple as citing the decrease in unemployment numbers as reported over the last few months.  And that’s the rub.  Staking one’s campaign on one idea is not just bad politics but poor leadership.  Mr. Romney needs to do more than ensure us of his ability to right our economic ship, particularly if the unemployment numbers continue to decrease.  The President has provided a talking point that is an easy segue into the main challenge of this generation in halting the ever overreaching Federal government.  The Governor needs to remember that the next time he speaks of our economic problems.

Tumultuous times indeed.  So much so I am limited by the fundamental laws of time and space to explore the state of Speaker Gingrich’s candidacy.  To be sure he will have a say when this is all said and done, but he if he continues to churn our press conferences like he did after Florida Sen. Santorum can rocket passed him to finally square up with Romney in a Battle Royale for the nomination.  On the other hand Newt will rise like the Phoenix once again, which can also provide life to the dream of a brokered convention that the Mitch Daniels/Jeb Bush/Bobby Jindal wing of the party cling to like a lifeboat.

There are votes still yet to be cast and important issues to be addressed.   The President’s fighting Chicago instincts and liberal base have forced his hand in an issue some of his top aides advised him to dial back on.  Nevertheless he has rejoined his adversaries in the political mud of campaign politics.  Whoever the eventual nominee is this may be the moment remembered as the turning point in the campaign.  Mr. Obama’s challenge to the religious sovereignty of Catholic institutions is a gross breach of the Constitution and a perfect illustration of the President’s statist ideology.  This, along with many other policies are initiatives the remaining nominees must pounce on, stemming the growing tide of big government authoritarianism that will engulf the freedom, wealth and prosperity of this nation.

– John P. Burns

“I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse.  Was this ambition?”-William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

William Kristol of The Weekly Standard has re-ignited the movement to push Governor Mitch Daniels (R-Indiana) into the race for President, and considering Mr. Kristol’s prominence among conservative thinkers he already has the ball rolling (www.runmitchrun.com).  Many observers consider this is a pipe dream as Mr. Daniels would have to quickly assemble a superior campaign team while simultaneously qualifying for the remaining primaries and raising millions of dollars to compete with the well-established war chests of the remaining field.  A daunting task indeed but with the contagious feeling of despair spreading amongst republicans, a slew of conservative heavyweights eager to back a viable contender, and forty-six states yet to cast a primary vote, Mr. Daniels can still win the nomination and in my estimation the White House.  Here is how:

The Reluctant Hero:

Dating back to the nation’s founding the trait of ambition has worn like a scarlet letter on overzealous politicians.  American citizens inherently distrust centralized power in government, and any man who openly seeks the White House is best served doing so with the scent of humility and not the stink of hubris.  As much as the citizenry yearns for politicians to tackle the problems plaguing the nation once they take office we are turned off by a man who seems willing to do anything to reach the summit of American government.  With deference to his family’s request Governor Daniels chose not to run for president despite the urging of many Republicans throughout the nation.  Though it was not calculated, this decision helped paint the picture of a very humble and responsible public servant who believes in family values and limited government; why would a firm believer in limited government seek the most powerful position in the United States, especially against the wishes of his family?  But now with the national election looming and candidates unenthusiastically received giving republicans serious pause, Mr. Daniels will have to answer the call for the good of his country.  By doing so and making a splash across the news wires, it delegitimizes the current candidates as if they were children too immature to be left home alone, establishing Mr. Daniels as the noble savoir of the party.

Timing:

Although it is very late to enter the race considering the organizational and financial disadvantages there is still a viable path to the nomination.  There are six primaries between now and February 7^th.  After that the next primary is not until February 28^th with Super Tuesday on March 6^th.  That gives the governor from this point a month to reach out to prominent conservative allies and utilize his well-established and vast network of donors to create a strategy for the remaining states.  The bet here would be that in the time between now and February 28^th none of the current four nominees can amass enough delegates to take a commanding, or even encouraging lead into Super Tuesday.  There is still time to gain momentum that can carry him to victory at a brokered convention.

Credentials:

Among the four candidates Governor Daniels has the most accomplished executive record, which serves in direct contrast to President Obama’s.  He is a budget cutting conservative who in his time as governor turned a $700M deficit into a billion dollar surplus.  As governor he (much like his more celebrated but less accomplished counterpart in New Jersey) has challenged teachers’ unions with a merit based pay system and established a statewide school voucher program.  He abolished the requirement that forced state employees pay union dues, which resulted in a 90% decrease of membership for such unions, limiting that establishment’s coffers and their financial influence on elections.  As a result these unions are partially limited in backing damaging ‘progressive’ candidates that enact policies gaged at pleasing these powerful unions as political favors and not the good of the state of Indiana.  The list goes on with instances where the governor took the road less traveled and chose to hammer out the tedious work of budgetary improvements that helped vault Indiana passed its fellow states in the country in productivity despite the far ranging downturn caused by the recession.  His State of the Union response used the initiatives taken by his administration as an admonishment of the spending policies that brought the country to our current financial woes, but it also served as an acknowledgement of hope that there are still realistic and practical ways to repair our broken government systems.

Entering the race now would be an extraordinary task considering how far along it is already.  But these are extraordinary times.  Going into this election season it was understood that the principal goal is to remove President Obama from office and undo much of the damage caused by his policies in the last three years.  From there the goals are to attack the problems caused by the republican legislature of the previous decade, as well as an economy damaged by two wars and two recessions.  Apparently along the way it has been forgotten that a requisite for these goals is to provide the people of this country a viable choice to replace President Obama.  Right now the candidates offered are barely suitable for office.  These men waste time by squabbling over their mass amounts of wealth as our entitlement spending plans continue to recklessly grow without budget control and the largest percent of our citizenry in decades remain out of work.  We need someone who understands these problems, and can create a plan to actually do something about them.   It’s your move Governor.

– John P. Burns

“It becomes necessary to every subject then, to be in some degree a statesman: and to examine and judge for himself of the tendencies of political principles and measures.”- John Adams, author A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States

As much credit as Governor Sarah Palin deserves for giving voice to the GOP conservative base in the last four years, her position as the Tea Party Standard Bearer on Fox News took a disturbing turn Tuesday night.

Governor Palin made an appearance on Bret Baier’s post Florida Primary coverage show, choosing to reiterate the position she has held over the last two primaries that though she is not backing any particular candidate she would encourage voters to vote for Newt Gingrich to extend the primary process.  In essence Ms. Palin considers it wise to advise voters not to cast their ballot for the man they feel should be the next President of the United States, a very powerful ballot when you are living in an early primary state, but to simply vote for any man who is not in the lead.  This would then extend the process in the ‘spirit of competition’, an American ideal she uses in her explanation of this position seemingly to hide her real agenda.

At this point it is clear Ms. Palin does not support Governor Romney, as it is her right, yet her current tact is not only disingenuous but insulting to republican voters and the foundation of a Democratic-Republic.  If she wishes to endorse Speaker Gingrich then she should do so, which would obviously be a helping hand to his campaign, his cause, and ‘the spirit of competition’ she longs for in this primary.  But through this false desire for competition Ms. Palin has created a strawman to re-enforce her direction to the voters, a damaging political strategy to the party that has not received the deserved scrutiny that would be heaped upon any member of the “GOP Establishment” for making a similar claim.

Since last year there have been nine entries into the race for Republican nominee for President.  There have been summer straw polls, numerous fundraising events, five different ‘frontrunners’, sex scandals, 3,832 debates, four primaries, and now four candidates remaining; how much more competitive can it get?  Does the nomination process really need to be artificially extended as Ms. Palin currently advocates?  If a voter feels one of these men has a vision for America that he agrees with, no matter who the candidate may be, then he should vote for that candidate and let the chips fall as they may.  For Ms. Palin to make up this phony premise in which one’s vote should be used to extend the election process rather than decide the outcome is irrational at best and maniacal at worst.  Unfortunately in the shade of politics Governor Palin’s position wreaks of duplicity, used as strategy to give Speaker Gingrich time to make another charge at the nomination.  If this is true then Ms. Palin has become the caricature of the typical politician she so elegantly once lambasted, using misdirection under the guise of patriotism to advance a hidden agenda.

Reading this it may appear that I am a Romney supporter or at the very least a Gingrich hater.  I am neither.  I still support Governor Mitch Daniels for President and will do so until we reach the New York primary and I am faced with the harsh reality when his name is not on the ballot.  But more importantly I am a supporter of the democratic tradition.  Votes should not be cast by the citizenry as a means to place the power of the decision in the hands of other voters.  These people have a responsibility to their children, their country and to themselves to vote for whomever they feel is best suited to serve the country as its president.  If one truly believes in Speaker Gingrich then that is why a vote should be cast.

The race to the nomination does not conclude until one candidate has amassed 1144 delegates.  Right now the leader after four states is Governor Romney with 69, holding an awe inspiring six percent of the delegates needed.  This process will be long enough without the help of Ms. Palin’s own version of Operation Chaos, an action she has implemented at the detriment to her own party.  If Governor Palin chooses not to support Speaker Gingrich outright because she does not want to play the role of Kingmaker then that is her choice, and a noble one.  But if she does choose to play a significant role supporting the former Speaker then it should be done in the light of day and not through a soft power strategy hidden behind the cheap curtain of support for American ‘competition’.

– John P. Burns

“My country in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”- John Adams, first Vice President of the United States

Throughout last week in his many interviews during the Florida Primary Senator Marco Rubio stated emphatically that he would neither seek nor accept the nomination to the Republican Party’s presidential ticket for Vice President.  Though this obviously caught little attention in the shadow of Governor Romney’s victory it may actually have more important ramifications to the party and the nation’s long term health.  As the prohibitive favorite for the party’s VP nod Rubio has not only gone against the grain of his Republican brethren, but will be doing a service to the country and his own aspirations if he stays true to his convictions on the matter.

Long before the Republican presidential race kicked off this year Senator Marco Rubio has dominated the conversation of political pundits, right and left, as the clear choice for Vice-President.  His 2010 senatorial win over former Florida governor Charlie Crist immediately shot him into the stratosphere of rising GOP stars.  The grass roots, tea party fueled election win in which Rubio entered the race polling 30 points behind the Republican governor was one of the “feel good” stories of the 2010 elections; if there ever was one in politics.  His campaign style of straight talk on the issues put his conservative bona fides on display so much so that once the lead was taken over Crist the young upstart never had to look back.  His back story of Cuban exile parents working long hard hours to give their son a better life so great that it has led him to the United States Senate cries out that the American dream is still alive and well.  He has the youth, good looks, conservative principles, and articulate speaking style that would benefit the presidential ticket.  His position on said hypothetical ticket would also be the first of any Hispanic in our nation’s history.  This would come as a huge electoral boon to the Republican Party who has lost much ground in this voter demographic since President Bush’s election in 2004.  But, as stated in an interview this week Senator Rubio does not want to be the Vice-Presidential nominee, and will say no if asked to serve.  While many may say this is detrimental to the party, I think it Rubio’s best chance to have any lasting impact on the direction the United States is going.

Politicians often feign such modest denials when asked if they are running for office.  Since the founding of the Republic, and even further back to Julius Caesar, the trait of ambition has been a scarlet letter for those seeking high office.  In most cases such posturing is purely strategic for this very reason, but it does not seem so in Rubio’s case.  He took office less than a year ago and has actual plans to try to govern.  Immediately abandoning his duties of the office his fellow Floridians elected him to for the national spotlight would not only be deceitful but on a larger scale counterproductive to the conservative movement.

Much of the idea that Rubio would be the best choice for Vice President is based on what he brings to the ticket from a strategic point of view, not one concerned with actual governance.   While Rubio does have some electoral weight behind him, specifically because of his heritage and status in the state of Florida, Rubio serves no purpose as a Vice-President in functionality.  He has no experience in Washington that lends to the idea he knows how to maneuver inside the beltway and could advise an outsider like Romney or Cain.  He has no foreign policy credibility like Dick Cheney, which could help the President navigate the rough waters of world affairs.  Without these credentials he’d have no position of power inside the administration.  We’d be putting one of the true, new conservative leaders of the early 21^st century on the back bench, posing for photo ops for four years, holding the water for a President who most likely would never seek his advice.  Why banish him to the darkness of the OEMB when he can be a major player in the bright lights of the Senate?   This country has urgent maters that need the attention of the federal government in all three branches.  A President Romney or Santorum could have a valuable ally in the Senate, a conservative who could rally the party in the often despised legislative branch, while simultaneously making a name for himself if that Presidential ambition does kick in in the distant future.

And what of the off chance that President Obama is re-elected?  Rubio could prove to be an even more powerful force in the Senate, a rival to the President who is Hell-bent on moving this country toward the social democratic styling of Europe.  If Rubio was the second name on the ticket that lost in the bid to unseat President Obama it’d be an albatross around his neck for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.  Any time he’d make an attack on the president’s policies from the Senate floor it’d be a painful reminder that he could not get the job done in 2012.  This instance would be akin to the exchange between President Obama and Senator McCain at the 2010 Healthcare Summit.  “The election’s over Marco” is all the American people would have to hear.  If he stayed off the ticket he could challenge the President from a position of power over his flawed policies, and work with him on the few they may agree on.  Whether as an ally to a Republican president or a rival to President Obama Senator Rubio would be a much more valuable to the Party and more importantly the Republic as a Senator with a voice, as opposed to a Vice President with a smile.

In 1900, New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt was approached with the offer of being President William McKinley’s running mate.  He was the hero of the Spanish American war, a national icon who had already held numerous positions in federal and state governments, and was governor of one of the biggest and most prosperous states in the Union.  He would serve as a positive jolt to an aging McKinley, who if he won would be entering his second and final term as President.  The stage was set for Roosevelt’s coronation in four years, and the party knew it.  But Roosevelt resisted.  He still had work to be done in New York, battling the state legislature and intent on governing his state as effectively as he could, as the people elected him to do so.  This is Rubio’s stance right now.  Though his eventual nomination worked out for Roosevelt, he was ready to reject the Vice-Presidency even with the closest guarantee you’ll ever see in politics to being elected President in the following election.  The only guarantee for Marco Rubio if he is elected Vice-President is barring a massive tragedy he would not be President for at least 8 years, and in those 8 years would do little to shape the fate of the country.

Like Roosevelt at the turn of the century, Marco Rubio is recognized by his party as a valuable asset to their agenda, and in turn the prosperity of the country.  Less than a year into his role as Senator he has been a strong proponent in the Senate for the conservative principles that can help bring the United States up from the shackles of statism.  Those who feel he should be Vice-President unfortunately do not see the big picture.  Though he got his start in the government in 2000, Marco Rubio’s national career began in fall of 2010.  He represented the high point of the crest of talent in the tidal wave that was about to hit Washington, ready to wash away the disastrous policies that helped cause this mess in the first place.  Why cut short what could be a great career after only two years into his federal tenure by relegating him to a position which traditionally holds little power in the governance of the country?   Such a move would be an enormous waste of leadership, a quality in elected officials the people of the United States desperately crave.

– John P. Burns