Monthly Archives: April 2012

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”- First Amendment, The United States Constitution

As we enter the sixth month period of non-stop general election coverage, there are few issues that will go unexamined by the Romney Campaign.  As the challenger to the incumbent, Mr. Romney will need to illustrate his own vision of leadership on every issue concerning the American people.  Aside from his campaign against President Obama, Governor Romney will need to lead the Republican charge for legislative contenders as House and Senate elections loom.  Just as it happens, our liberal friends in the House chamber have served up a softball for the governor to take a big swing at. 

On Wednesday April 18^th, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) proposed a joint resolution in the House, poorly named The People’s Rights Amendment.  The amendment, a very short one if you care to click the link, is aimed at limiting the right of free speech, and therefore assembly, to what is defined in the Constitution as the singular “people, person, or citizen.”  The amendment then claims that such a right does not extend to “corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities.”  As any person who has taken Social Studies at the age of ten would know, there are few truths in the United States as sacred and undeniable as the right to free speech and assembly.  With this bill, Rep. McGovern and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi seek to limit those rights.

At this point in an election year, one would assume Ms. Pelosi’s experience from her leadership in the formation of the ever unpopular Obamacare would give her pause before allowing a bill to be proposed that would demolish the First Amendment.  The People’s Rights Amendment is not only an affront to federalism, but to the senses of all American citizens.  Yes, that word is used correctly, citizens.  Citizens often assemble and voice their opinions.  Whether it be Occupy Wall Street demonstrating the effects of a lack of good hygiene at Zucotti Park, or the Wall Street Journal editorial board(part of a corporation) endorsing Mitt Romney for president, the government has no right to infringe on any group’s right to express its opinion in open air or through the printed word. 

In a transparent attempt to take a stand, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. McGovern have developed this resolution to combat the Supreme Court decision over Citizens United, which allows the free flow of money to campaign super PACs from any entity, including that of corporations.  This amendment would prevent these corporations from using their money, and freedom of expression, to support whichever candidates they feel are best suited to hold elected office.  Though that debate still rages after the Court’s decision two years ago, this amendment does far worse than infringe on the free speech of corporations and their employees.  Much like Obamacare, it again changes the relationship between the government and the citizen as we know it.    

The first part of the resolution contains the claim that “people, person or citizen as used in the constitution does not include corporations…”  Unfortunately for those who drafted this resolution, using these singular terms in our Standard English would not protect the right of free speech for any group of people, as no group of people is technically one citizen.  Therefore, the right to assembly, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, is effectively thrown out the window.  This new amendment would give the Federal government, and whichever party is in power, the ability to limit the right to assembly of any group, not just the specifically named, and always vilified corporations. 

Thankfully to amend the Constitution, two-thirds of the House would have to vote this into law, and barring the largest and most shocking electoral upset in recorded history, there will not be nearly enough turnover in 2012 for such a bill to pass.  Naturally one would be disturbed that representatives in the United States Congress would propose such a bill, but there is a silver lining as well: more campaign ammunition for Gov. Romney.

Whether or not President Obama would support this- and seemingly he would be too intelligent to damage his re-election hopes in doing so- this is an issue that could be used to define the Democrats over the next six months.  The fact that it is supported by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gives this attack added weight as she is a significant leader in her party’s power structure.  President Romney and Republican Party leaders can use it to their advantage in the general election against the president, along with advancing their goal to widen the Republican lead in the House and gain a majority in the Senate.  According to the Real Clear Politics Poll Average, Republicans have a slim 1.4% lead over Democrats on the generic congressional ballot.  This bill, compounded with Obamacare, provides additional evidence of the Democrats’ insistence in treading on the Constitution, the rights of the people (ironically so given the amendment’s name) and their own transformation into a party favoring totalitarianism; hell bent on holding power over the hearts and minds of its citizens. 

The Democrats’ determination in portraying corporations as some evil board of directors is part of the problem that has defined the Obama administration the past three years.  This approach has led to divisive rhetoric aimed at our most vulnerable citizens, a failure to propose tax policies that would promote growth and reform, and pie in the sky jobs plans that never came to fruition.  Our stifled growth in the eighteen months after the 08-09 Recession ranks at historic lows- a divergence from past periods after a recession in which the United States has roared back in its economic progress and gross GDP.

All of this can be tied to the government-centered ideology advanced by the Obama administration, its congressional allies and now what is currently embodied in one poorly written resolution to amend the Constitution.  It is time for The People’s Rights Amendment to get the negative attention it deserves.  Governor Romney and Republicans can use it to ensure that a bill with such overreach and disregard for the principles this county was founded on will only serve as a final act of hubris displayed by this generation’s Democrats, shortly before the collective hammer of rejection is levied in election booths this coming November.

 

– John P. Burns

“It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program- on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off- than on any positive task.”- F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

The first act of The Fight for the Presidency is all but over.  With Sen. Rick Santorum’s gracious exit from the Republican presidential field, Governor Mitt Romney has all but officially sealed the deal.  Although no less than twenty minutes after Santorum’s announcement Newt Gingrich announced he would be the “conservative candidate” to take the fight down to Florida, Mr. Romney will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.  It has been a tough slog for Mr. Romney since the summer.  He was the frontrunner from the beginning and had to fend off a wide array of challengers to reach this point in the campaign.  And the frontrunner doesn’t always win- one can ask Secretary of State Hilary Clinton about that statement.   Instead of sharing in Rush Limbaugh’s lament over the “establishment” victory, let all conservatives tip our hats to Mr. Romney for a hard fought victory; the first of what will be a three act play in the race for President.

Stave I: In a year where conservatives came out of the woodwork to the right of Mr. Romney, who we all forget was considered the most conservative candidate in 2008, the governor was able to temper his own conservatism with practical policy arguments.  He executed a country-wide strategy allowing him to seriously contend for delegates in every state primary.  This, coupled with his challengers self-destructive campaigns, allowed him to prove to an extensive majority of voters so far in the process he was the man for the job.  Despite the far right’s claims that the primary battle was far from over after Wisconsin, the comparisons to halftime of a football game failed to acknowledge that entering the locker room Messrs. Santorum and Gingrich were down by five touchdowns.  Now with Mr. Santorum suspending his campaign, the path is clear for the former Massachusetts Governor to reach the 1144 delegates needed before Tampa.

Stave II:  This is the period of the campaign between now and the conventions.  We know Mr. Romney will be the nominee and the remaining votes cast may just be a formality, but these trials will serve as an important exercise in Presidential politics for the former governor.  Here, Mr. Romney will need to continue to campaign in these states, but instead of spending money on TV ads to battle his challengers, he needs to deliver a clear message of his own vision in contrast to that of President Obama’s, while simultaneously disparaging the President’s record of governance.  In order to win the Presidency Mr. Romney must gain ground with independents in the high valued swing states.  Votes are still to be cast in primaries in Indiana, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.  Mr. Romney will spend a significant amount of time in these states to lay the tracks for his national campaign in the fall.  His team, as well as congressional Republicans like Paul Ryan, will begin the campaign push by outlining a plan to combat the President’s seeming insistence that the United States function as a “government-centered society”, a label Mr. Romney skillfully employed in Wisconsin in what will serve as a campaign charge all the way to November.

In turn, the President began his campaign in the fall with the Obama bus tour across the Midwest, kicking off his crusade to achieve “fairness” in the United States.  In hopes of hammering this theme home, the formerly hopeful Obama and his administration will devote their time to campaigning in the negative.  In his recent speeches attacking the Paul Ryan budget and Supreme Court, we have seen Mr. Obama err on the side of viciousness.  This anger will be directed at Mr. Romney, and the “rich folks” who President Obama views as an excellent scapegoat for the woes of the country.  The strategy has been formulated as a three step attack by the Obama camp: demonize the rich, paint Romney as one of them, divide and conquer.    

Stave III:  The final act will include Mr. Romney’s VP selection (Christie, Haley, Jindal, Portman, Rice, Rubio, West ect.), both conventions, debates and then the final stretch on the stump through November 6^th.  All citizens should brace themselves, for this will be an ugly ugly campaign.  The “Chicago-way” the President has employed in office will come off like a Disney World theme ride in comparison to his team’s strategy for the months before the election.  He will continue to seek victory by trying to divide the country into the classes of have and have nots, as opposed to Governor Mitch Daniels’ positively crafted outlook for our citizens as the “haves and soon to haves.”  Hope and change will not play on the liberal side of the debate.  It will use terms like rich and poor or Wall St and Main St, doing everything in their power to construct an argument pitting our own citizens against each other.  Mr. Romney will have two choices to fight that strategy: dive down into the depth of depravity the Obama campaign team will be operating at, sending attack add after attack add against a sitting president.  Or he can elevate the argument, as Mr. Obama seemingly did in 2008, and work to restore the American experiment that places the emphasis of importance on the individual, and letting society coalesce behind its own future.

We now know how Act I will end in The Race for the Presidency.  The second and third acts are predictable in how our major players will perform.  For the final scene it is too early, and close, to call.

– John P. Burns

“You gotta know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.  Know when to walk away, and know when to run.”- Kenny Rogers, “The Gambler”

Considering Senator Rick Santorum’s populist approach to this primary, you’d be surprised to hear his education credentials.  He is one of two candidates to hold both an MBA and J.D., the other being Mitt Romney, and would carry that MBA into the White House as only the second President to ever hold this distinction, the other being President George W. Bush.  Naturally, Mr. Santorum would not want to be linked with either man considering the lives of privilege they have led, as he continuously positions himself as the working man’s candidate for President.  But one cannot run from his past, or his education for that matter.  And someone as well educated as Mr. Santorum should understand that his current tact as a candidate is not only foolish and deconstructive for his campaign, but the conservative cause in general. 

Right now Mr. Santorum is seeing the beginning of the end to his miracle run.  And as I imagine for any man gunning for the highest office on the entire planet, feeling it begin to slip away is no easy thing to deal with.  His campaign so far has been a surprising administration of political execution.  His Iowa win came seemingly out of nowhere, employing the Scott Brown approach to a state wide campaign fueled by a Chrysler pickup and intimate moments with voters.  His plain spoken appeal and central campaign themes hark back to the days of Andrew Jackson- positioning himself as the man between the two Harvard Law guys (Messrs. Obama and Romney) as the one candidate for President who can relate to and understand the current plight of our declining “middle class.”  Once this was established in his campaign, and Mr. Santorum emerged as a major player out of Iowa, the task was set to hammering the frontrunner.

And there is nothing wrong with that.  There is no doubt M. Romney’s central fault, specifically for this campaign, is the issue of healthcare.  Considering the President we are trying to defeat is a big government liberal whose central legislative achievement is what may be deemed an unconstitutional healthcare upheaval, it is a real problem that the frontrunner from the outset is incredibly weak on the issue.  Sen. Santorum has used this as his central attack on Governor Romney the whole campaign, as well he should have.  But now as the delegates continue to amass for Mr. Romney as we move towardTampa, “true conservatives” are beginning to coalesce around him. 

Initially, from what we heard from conservative radio heavyweights like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, the people supporting Romney in the party were the “establishment types.”  Men like Governor Chris Christie who didn’t understand true conservatism: Washington and political elitists far removed from the base and central struggles of the American dream.  Granted, this may be a hard sell coming from multi-millionaire radio hosts, but the reason they have that money is because they sell their opinions so well.  Somehow overnight, Chris Christie, a conservative governor in a failing liberal state, became part of “the Establishment” after holding elected office for a grand total of eighteen months.  Santorum saw his point of attack and ran with this narrative.  But as the endorsements begin to roll in for Romney from “true conservatives” like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio, it is a clear message to Mr. Santorum to close up shop.  But he’s not hearing it. 

It is a reasonable message to now send to the Senator.  Obviously no man can tell him how to live his life, but it does not take a J.D. or MBA to understand how destructive this primary has become.  President Obama, whose approval rating still sits below 50% as it has for months, now leads Governor Romney in major swing states across the board, and possesses an even larger lead over the Senator.  The image of the primary in which party heads lob grenades at each other constantly, providing the President shade from the spotlight of criticism, does not bode well for any Republican.  And now as the math clearly dictates that Mr. Santorum cannot win the nomination without a floor fight at the convention, he seems determined to take it there, arguing it will “energize the party.”  When such an obvious falsehood as this is stated by a politician, it is a result of one of two things: an abject display of ignorance or a rationalization so extreme it serves no one but himself.  In this case, it is the latter.

This is the point in a presidential campaign where the walls begin to close in on the underdog who overachieved, and the dedication to country and party that drove Mr. Santorum into the Lion’s den of presidential politics is hijacked by hubris and ego.  Even speaker Gingrich, who has made similar claims in the past about a floor fight inTampa, seems to be backing off now with the acknowledgement of how damaging it would be to the Party.  Mr. Santorum has had a great run, and certainly advanced the conservative cause in his arguments throughout the campaign.  But he has also made drastic mistakes to contribute to his own undoing:

• Arguing with college students about homosexuality in New Hampshire only two days after his victory in Iowa- establishing the deconstructive narrative that Mr. Santorum is not only the social issue candidate, but the extreme social conservative.
• Coming out as the sternest and therefore most ideologically driven during the contraception debate, playing into the liberal narrative that the GOP is waging a “war on women.” 
• And just recently, reprimanding New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny for misquoting him over remarks made about Mitt Romney, who in fact was accurately quoting Mr. Santorum, and then cursing at him in a heated fashion.

As in all political campaigns candidates stumble, display lapses of clarity and misspeak.  But these three instances listed, as well as the last debate, stand out as Santorum’s worst moments – moments that came in times when he was presented the chance to actually move past Romney as the nominal front runner, and never took advatnage.  The last, his attack on Jeff Zeleny, shows a man at the breaking point, who feels his candidacy slipping away and is lashing out at anyone who reminds him so.  As seen by the new wave of conservatives coming out to support him, the writing is on the wall for a Romney victory in the primaries, but a general election defeat if this nomination process goes to the floor in Tampa.  The only person who can’t read it is the good Senator from Pennsylvania, a man who now more than ever can affect the future of the Republican Party and the country.  He may not reach his original goal of attaining the Presidency, but he can help contribute to the collective goal of removing President Obama from office.  How he conducts himself over the next two and a half months will determine that outcome.

 

– John P. Burns

“Once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right“- The Grateful Dead, “Scarlet Begonias”

Of the many things I hoped to write about when creating this space, it had never crossed my mind I’d be writing about a suggestion made by Van Jones, the former and resigned Obama advisor for “Green Jobs” and alleged 9/11 truther.  Yet here I am, perhaps falling for some Democratic trap set for the national election, about to agree with Jones and make the case for his argument.  On Sunday’s This Week, hosted by George Stephanopoulos, the subject of Republican Vice Presidential nominee arose.  Though Republicans do not yet have an actual Presidential nominee, it can be argued Romney has all but sealed the deal.  If so, then the next logical step – after planning a campaign strategy more inspiring to the people than hallow platitudes about American exceptionalism – is to create the “shortlist” for the Vice-Presidential nominee.  At that point the usual names will fly across the wires: Governor Chris Christie, Senator Marco Rubio, etc.  One name that has not gotten such attention yet as a slam dunk pick is the name suggested by Mr. Jones on Sunday: Condoleezza Rice.

Initially, this proposal may give Republicans pause considering the fact that Ms. Rice was a prominent member of the Bush administration.  Though she was never as vilified as the triumvirate of President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Sec. Rumsfeld, she served in the role of National Security Advisor and Secretary of State to an unpopular President who will be remembered for his Foreign Policy initiatives above all else.  President Obama and his campaign team can immediately revert back to the “Bush’s fault” argument that they have intermittently (and cowardly) used to cover up his own problems in this first term.  Now, there will be arguments created to link Mr. Romney to President Bush, no doubt with allusions to “the continuation of failed policies.”  Having identified the only apparent drawback to Ms. Rice’s position on a national ticket, let us examine what she brings to the table.

Credentials:  When running for President, especially against an incumbent, one of the biggest hurdles to overcome for a first time candidate is the issue of Foreign Policy.  You can be as learned, self-made and successful as Mr. Romney and still have little to no Foreign Policy experience in your background entering a presidential election unless you’re Dwight Eisenhower.  Despite whatever faults he may have, Mr. Obama is at an advantage in this area simply by holding the title of President of the United States.  Placing Ms. Rice on the ticket helps offset that advantage immediately.  Condoleezza Rice is a credited Doctor of political science, who served as the first female National Security Advisor and the second female and African-American Secretary of State in our nation’s history.  In the eight years of President Bush’s administration Ms. Rice became the most compassionate figure of his major advisors- an elegant face to an administration endlessly criticized by Democrats and the media for its crass approach to politics and governance.  She could conceivably discard the traditional VP role as a master of ceremonies, and resume the expanded role Dick Cheney originally brought to the 2000 campaign ticket as a seasoned veteran of foreign affairs.  Her self-reservation and erudition regarding foreign policy would be an asset on the campaign trail to Mr. Romney and his team.

Electoral Map:  If Ms. Rice were to be nominated for Vice-President, it would be the first time in the nation’s history a political party had a woman on the national ticket in consecutive elections.  Regardless of her faults as a candidate, Governor Sarah Palin provided a huge boost to a failing McCain campaign right out of the gate of the Republican convention in 2008.  McCain’s approval rating skyrocketed, particularly amongst women, and arguably he could have pulled off the win in November save for the economic collapse under the sitting Republican president.  Ms. Rice would provide such a boost serving as both a female and African-American.  Her role as a woman on the ticket would help combat the false Democratic narrative that the GOP is waging a “War on Women” in the phony contraception debate.  Her placement would also mark the first time in our nation’s history two African-Americans were on both party presidential tickets as well, helping dispute the (again) false Democratic narrative that Republicans disregard minorities in their policies.  The race factor may also limit the Obama campaign team’s attacks on Ms. Rice’s role with the Bush administration, with David Axelrod and Plouffe hesitant to bring out the propaganda howitzers against an African-American woman as respected and accomplished as Ms. Rice.  Granted, we have yet to see such restraint in the Obama Propaganda machine since January 2009, but there’s always the chance they actually emulate the civility they so often call for in the political arena.

Competition:  As stated in this space before, the Republican bench is probably stronger and more popular than the four current candidates we have for President.  Of the names kicked around by pundits the two most prominent figures have been Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ).  While both have become heavyweights in the party, neither has the credentials of Ms. Rice to bring to the ticket.  Rubio may be the best suited for helping in electoral victory as a Hispanic and Tea Party darling, but if the Tea Party and conservatives don’t rally around Romney before he picks his running mate, then Mr. Romney has much bigger problems than his running mate choice.  Also, these two men serve in prominent and powerful positions as Republicans: Rubio, a strong and articulate leader in the Senate and Christie, the no-nonsense governor fighting destructive liberal policies in a failing liberal state.  Both are examples of the successes of conservatism and will have their time for the national spotlight down the road; having both entered their respective offices in 2010, let them build up an impressive resume before either makes his move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  Rice has extensive experience in the White House and would serve as a senior advisor in her role as Vice-President, while both Rubio and Christie would simply serve as window dressing to a currently uninspiring Romney campaign.

In selecting Vice-Presidents, presidential nominees often have two choices: the electoral choice, where the second name on the ticket will help round out the respective candidates’ electoral map, or the experience choice, where the VP will serve as a balance to the ticket of a younger and/or outsider candidate.  In Condoleezza Rice Romney gets both.  Dr. Rice should receive substantial consideration from his campaign, and conservative commentators should do more to get her name out over the wires for the strategic reason of unpredictability.  The Obama campaign team is crafting their attack plan as we speak; Rice’s selection would not only throw a curveball at them, but in the words of Van Jones drive them “crazy.”  Perhaps it’s time in this election season a Republican presidential hopeful started doing that.

– John P. Burns