(Above: Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, who has served as the state's junior senator since 2011. Courtesy of Wikipedia.)
(Above: Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, who served from 1995-2007. Courtesy of Wikipedia)
Rick Santorum is running for the Republican nomination as president again in 2016 after finishing runner-up to Mitt Romney during the 2012 primaries; Romney would go on to lose to an incumbent President Obama in the 2012 presidential general election. While some political analysts claim that Sen. Rand Paul has an "uphill climb" toward winning his party's nomination, he certainly burst onto the national stage in March of 2013 when he engaged in a filibuster for 13 hours protesting the use of drones domestically by the Obama administration to be potentially used to kill American civilians. As an example of his new found notoriety, which Paul, the son of former libertarian Republican congressman Ron Paul of Texas, is a useful tool to preach the necessity to get the federal government back to the basics he won a first-place finished in the Conservative Political Action Conference over Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Said Brian Jones, a senior adviser to past three Republican presidential campaigns in reference to Paul's a fore mentioned newly-found notoriety: "...he's suddenly viewed as a serious player who will impact 2016... He has uncanny political instincts." And party strategist Scott Reed claimed Paul was "doing outreach unlike any other Republican, sticking it to the president and the Democrats, and on the front line of new ideas."
On the other hand, Santorum, who is a failed politician based on the premise of his severe defeat at the hands of Democratic opponent Bob Casey, Jr., seven years ago, had these disparaging remarks for the junior senator from Kentucky:
"Rand Paul's brand doesn't line up with all of what our party stands for—on national security, social values, the economy and the role of government in society... His message won't ultimately lead us to be a more successful party." (Courtesy of The Wall Street Journal)
My question to Mr. Santorum is, "What exactly does the Republican Party stand for on the role of government in society?" Interestingly enough, I do not believe he knows anymore than the majority of registered conservative voters do anymore. Whatever it is, the role of the GOP in government is apparently too big if one is to judge by the implications of this quote.
Meanwhile, Sen. McCain called Paul "a wacko bird." Perhaps the senator from Arizona is jealous of Paul, who is now far more popular than he has been, or will ever be.
(Above: Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1983-1987 and in the U.S. Senate from 1987 to the present. Courtesy of Wikipedia)
Meanwhile, Sen. McCain called Paul "a wacko bird." Perhaps the senator from Arizona is jealous of Paul, who is now far more popular than he has been, or will ever be.
As I also have said before, the pattern of the Republican National Committee (RNC) over the past two presidential elections has been one of obtuse retraction away from the party's traditional core beliefs. First, the two candidates in 2008 and 2012 -- Sen. McCain and Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts -- were extremely moderate, to the point where one could almost speculate that they were along the same lines ideologically as former Democratic presidents Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson. Though various observations by political analysts over the past five years since McCain ran for president claim that he has adopted "more orthodox conservative" principles in how he votes on and crafts legislation, he is still not considered a true conservative by such patriarchs to the conservative movement as William F. Buckley, Jr., whose terminology he used to describe the Arizona senator ranged from "conservative" to "not conservative," meaning that while McCain usually tends towards supporting conservative positions, he is not "anchored by the philosophical tenets of modern American conservatism."
Gov. Romney, on the other hand, is a former registered Independent, though in 1992 he voted in the Democratic Party presidential primaries for former Massachusetts senator Paul Tsongas. By the next year, though, he began showing interest in entering politics, in part because of the urging of his wife, Ann, and his desire to follow in his father's foot steps. He decided to challenge incumbent Democratic U.S. senator Ted Kennedy, who was seeking reelection for the sixth time. In the November 1994 midterm congressional elections, he lost to Kennedy by a percentage of 58% to 41% -- the smallest total by which Sen. Kennedy had ever won in all of the years he ran for reelection. In 2002, Romney ran for the Republican nomination for governor of Massachusetts and won over the politically-embattled incumbent Jane Swift, with one poll from The Boston Globe showing that he had a 50% edge over her. Romney again ran as a political outsider. He played down his party affiliation, saying he was "not a partisan Republican" but rather a "moderate" with "progressive" views. He stated that he would observe a moratorium on changes to the state's laws on abortion, but reiterated that he would "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose" and that his position was "unequivocal." He touted his private sector experience as qualifying him for addressing the state's fiscal problems and stressed his ability to obtain federal funds for the state, offering his Olympics record as evidence. He proposed to reorganize the state government while eliminating waste, fraud, and mismanagement. The campaign innovatively utilized microtargeting techniques, identifying like-minded groups of voters and reaching them with narrowly tailored messaging. On November 5, 2002, he won the governorship, earning 50 percent of the vote to Democratic challenger Shannon O'Brien's 45 percent. Determined that a new Massachusetts health insurance measure not raise taxes or resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillary Care" proposal at the federal level, Romney formed a team of consultants from diverse political backgrounds to apply those principles. Beginning in late 2004, they devised a set of proposals that were more ambitious than an incremental one from the Massachusetts Senate and more acceptable to him than one from the Massachusetts House of Representatives that incorporated a new payroll tax. In particular, Romney pushed for incorporating an individual mandate at the state level. Past rival Ted Kennedy, who had made universal health coverage his life's work and who, over time, had developed a warm relationship with Romney, gave the plan a positive reception, which encouraged Democratic legislators to cooperate. The effort eventually gained the support of all major stakeholders within the state, and Romney helped break a logjam between rival Democratic leaders in the legislature. On April 12, 2006, the governor signed the resulting Massachusetts health reform law, commonly called "Romney Care", which requires nearly all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance coverage or face escalating tax penalties, such as the loss of their personal income tax exemption. The bill also established means-tested state subsidies for people who lacked adequate employer insurance and whose income was below a threshold, using funds that had covered the health costs of the uninsured. He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including a controversial $295-per-employee assessment on businesses that do not offer health insurance and provisions guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. The legislature overrode all eight vetoes, but the governor's office said the differences were not essential. The law was the first of its kind in the nation and became the signature achievement of Romney's term in office. With such self-descriptions by Romney as being a "moderate" with "progressive" views, which he also claimed he was such in one of the 2012 presidential debates when he attempted to distance his political philosophy from that of the more-conservative presidential predecessor to Barack Obama, George W. Bush, he, by no means, fits the description of a modern-day Reagan conservative. The fact, too, that Gov. Romney implement a statewide health care mandate-service should serve to those in the conservative political community that he borders on socialist tendencies. He is, after all, a product of the state in which he served as governor; let there be no doubt whatsoever that Massachusetts is one of most liberal states in the nation. It is also no wonder he failed to capture the presidency, for the similarities between his policies in Massachusetts and those of Obama's too closely favored one another.
(Above: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who served from 2003-2007. Courtesy of Wikipedia)
Gov. Romney, on the other hand, is a former registered Independent, though in 1992 he voted in the Democratic Party presidential primaries for former Massachusetts senator Paul Tsongas. By the next year, though, he began showing interest in entering politics, in part because of the urging of his wife, Ann, and his desire to follow in his father's foot steps. He decided to challenge incumbent Democratic U.S. senator Ted Kennedy, who was seeking reelection for the sixth time. In the November 1994 midterm congressional elections, he lost to Kennedy by a percentage of 58% to 41% -- the smallest total by which Sen. Kennedy had ever won in all of the years he ran for reelection. In 2002, Romney ran for the Republican nomination for governor of Massachusetts and won over the politically-embattled incumbent Jane Swift, with one poll from The Boston Globe showing that he had a 50% edge over her. Romney again ran as a political outsider. He played down his party affiliation, saying he was "not a partisan Republican" but rather a "moderate" with "progressive" views. He stated that he would observe a moratorium on changes to the state's laws on abortion, but reiterated that he would "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose" and that his position was "unequivocal." He touted his private sector experience as qualifying him for addressing the state's fiscal problems and stressed his ability to obtain federal funds for the state, offering his Olympics record as evidence. He proposed to reorganize the state government while eliminating waste, fraud, and mismanagement. The campaign innovatively utilized microtargeting techniques, identifying like-minded groups of voters and reaching them with narrowly tailored messaging. On November 5, 2002, he won the governorship, earning 50 percent of the vote to Democratic challenger Shannon O'Brien's 45 percent. Determined that a new Massachusetts health insurance measure not raise taxes or resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillary Care" proposal at the federal level, Romney formed a team of consultants from diverse political backgrounds to apply those principles. Beginning in late 2004, they devised a set of proposals that were more ambitious than an incremental one from the Massachusetts Senate and more acceptable to him than one from the Massachusetts House of Representatives that incorporated a new payroll tax. In particular, Romney pushed for incorporating an individual mandate at the state level. Past rival Ted Kennedy, who had made universal health coverage his life's work and who, over time, had developed a warm relationship with Romney, gave the plan a positive reception, which encouraged Democratic legislators to cooperate. The effort eventually gained the support of all major stakeholders within the state, and Romney helped break a logjam between rival Democratic leaders in the legislature. On April 12, 2006, the governor signed the resulting Massachusetts health reform law, commonly called "Romney Care", which requires nearly all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance coverage or face escalating tax penalties, such as the loss of their personal income tax exemption. The bill also established means-tested state subsidies for people who lacked adequate employer insurance and whose income was below a threshold, using funds that had covered the health costs of the uninsured. He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including a controversial $295-per-employee assessment on businesses that do not offer health insurance and provisions guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. The legislature overrode all eight vetoes, but the governor's office said the differences were not essential. The law was the first of its kind in the nation and became the signature achievement of Romney's term in office. With such self-descriptions by Romney as being a "moderate" with "progressive" views, which he also claimed he was such in one of the 2012 presidential debates when he attempted to distance his political philosophy from that of the more-conservative presidential predecessor to Barack Obama, George W. Bush, he, by no means, fits the description of a modern-day Reagan conservative. The fact, too, that Gov. Romney implement a statewide health care mandate-service should serve to those in the conservative political community that he borders on socialist tendencies. He is, after all, a product of the state in which he served as governor; let there be no doubt whatsoever that Massachusetts is one of most liberal states in the nation. It is also no wonder he failed to capture the presidency, for the similarities between his policies in Massachusetts and those of Obama's too closely favored one another.
So we see the failings of the previous two GOP presidential nominees. Most of us know about John McCain, as he has been on the national political scene now since he won election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. He is, as I stated, a moderate, a classification even the noted Buckley claimed him to be, and a "war hawk" desirous of war and in favor of President George W. Bush's policy during the Iraq War. Furthermore, Romney borders on being a socialist, as his signing into law Romney Care in the State of Massachusetts during his gubernatorial administration suggests. Meanwhile, as an arch-conservative, Rick Santorum might or might not have been a victim of President George W. Bush's broadly-perceived failure(s) in Iraq, particularly on the point of there being thousands of deaths among U.S. troops as well as not being able to find and retrieve any weapons of mass destruction within the nation, a widespread belief dating back to the Clinton administration; however, the former senator from Pennsylvania could not fend off a challenge from a centrist Democratic candidate for his seat in the Upper House of Congress, and he thus lost badly. For all of the failures of the last two GOP presidential candidates (McCain in 2008, Romney in 2012) as well as the complete and utter political implosion of Sen. Santorum, how would Sen. Paul not be the ideal candidate for president come 2016?
With regard to Santorum, his rather-extreme form of conservatism is, as many people are now beginning to realize, harmful to the rest of the party and to this nation's progress toward greater civil liberties. While he rightfully agrees with the majority of the GOP in his staunch opposition to abortion, he is also against same-sex marriage. Such a belief is part-in-parcel why Michele Bachmann lost all of her political capital over the course of time she served in the House, along with the recent allegations of campaign finance improprieties by her presidential campaign team, among other things, as well as her slim margin of victory over Democratic challenger Jim Graves, who, in the wake of her announcement not to run for reelection, has since decided himself not to run for the Minnesota 6th district's seat due to the likelihood he would not be able to defeat his Republican challenger in an area largely inhabited by registered Republican voters unless she had chosen to run again. When Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980, he was the first true modern-day conservative to fill the post, carrying with the legacy of the philosophy of Sen. Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign in which he lost in a landslide to incumbent president Lyndon B. Johnson. "The Reagan Revolution" fundamentally changed the American political landscape forever; it forced, for at least a 30 year period of time, the Democratic Party to move more toward the center, as was evidenced by the policies and politics of former president Bill Clinton, who is often described as a "New Democrat." However, since 2008, the Democratic Party has not only moved back further to the left than it was during the 1980 presidential election, it is as far to the left as the Truman and Johnson administrations in terms of the sheer number of socialist programs that have been passed and signed into law by the Democratic-controlled Congress between 2009 and 2011 as well as Obama. His championing the cause of same-sex marriage has resulted in this policy become widely-popular among the American people, including many conservatives; it should be noted that many Republican lawmakers are now championing the move toward legalizing same-sex marriage. Also, various states are legalizing marijuana for recreational use. These are just a couple of the social movements toward liberalization this nation is experiencing. Immoral or not, we have to be ready to change with the times on social issues, lest we be left behind.
Sen. Paul is a self-professed libertarian and a "constitutional conservative." He believes in low taxes and less government involvement as do the majority of conservatives within the GOP. He is vehemently against abortions, and believes that a law or constitutional amendment should be passed defining the beginning of life for a fetus to be post-conception. As conservative as that may be, he also backs same-sex marriage, a platform congruent with the Libertarian Party's. Another libertarian platform is his desire for the U.S. to be a non-interventionist nation in terms of foreign policy. He was against the Iraq War and fears the imperialism being displayed by the U.S. as has been a strong characteristic of its foreign policy since 1941 when Franklin D. Roosevelt began sending aid and munitions via the Lend-Lease Program to allied nations Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Free France, and the Republic of China. By doing this, the federal government would be able to, according to Paul, cut military spending drastically overseas and keep our troops from being entangled in foreign wars and alliances. And I agree with these views, each and every one of them.
There are other solid potential GOP candidates for president who would be very enthusiastic and energetic presidents. I believe that Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio would do well due to their youth and exuberance. Chris Christie is very highly thought of as well. The fact that so many Hispanic politicians have been elected as Republicans is very encouraging, for I feel that the party will be able to gain registered voters who abide by its platform in that very valuable population demographic. However, there are serious flaws to each of these candidates. Sens. Cruz is a newcomer to the U.S. Senate, having been elected to their posts during the 2012 elections may be viewed as too green to be seriously considered for the office of president of the United States; in the case of Rubio, who began his term in 2011, he is perceived as weak among members of the GOP on his position in the immigration. Chris Christie is considered too moderate-and-left-leaning, and he has certainly not endeared himself to the vast conservative base of voters by his aligning himself publicly on two different occasions with President Obama, with one instance coming back just before the election in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy and again just in the past week; let us not forget, too, that in the world of politics, physical appearances make the politician, and Gov. Christie probably runs north of 400 lbs. He would undoubtedly become the most grossly obese president since William Howard Taft.
Whether guilty by inexperience or stark differences in policy, by political failure at a lesser office, or by association with the enemy, it is clear that there is only one man who will stand a chance of winning a majority of the votes necessary to wrest the presidency away from the Democrats, and that man is Rand Paul. As much of a supporter as I was of his father's, even I realized his politics were too abstract for the majority of Americans to be able to fathom unless, of course, it happened to be college-age students. Ron Paul, sadly, was never taken seriously while serving as congressman, and he was even less regarded in his runs for the Republican nomination for president. Still, he stood by his principles, and I cannot help but to admire him for that. However, I do believe his son Rand has a legitimate chance at being not only nominated, but elected as well. Said former conservative South Carolina senator Jim DeMint about Sen. Paul, "Rand showed early on that he didn't need to be loved by the establishment or official Washington." He proved it when he told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce recently that he favored a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were working, angering many members of the Tea Party which supported his campaign for the U.S. Senate. Let it be said, however, that Paul spent much of the rest of the day stating his opposition to unconditional amnesty.
With regard to Santorum, his rather-extreme form of conservatism is, as many people are now beginning to realize, harmful to the rest of the party and to this nation's progress toward greater civil liberties. While he rightfully agrees with the majority of the GOP in his staunch opposition to abortion, he is also against same-sex marriage. Such a belief is part-in-parcel why Michele Bachmann lost all of her political capital over the course of time she served in the House, along with the recent allegations of campaign finance improprieties by her presidential campaign team, among other things, as well as her slim margin of victory over Democratic challenger Jim Graves, who, in the wake of her announcement not to run for reelection, has since decided himself not to run for the Minnesota 6th district's seat due to the likelihood he would not be able to defeat his Republican challenger in an area largely inhabited by registered Republican voters unless she had chosen to run again. When Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980, he was the first true modern-day conservative to fill the post, carrying with the legacy of the philosophy of Sen. Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign in which he lost in a landslide to incumbent president Lyndon B. Johnson. "The Reagan Revolution" fundamentally changed the American political landscape forever; it forced, for at least a 30 year period of time, the Democratic Party to move more toward the center, as was evidenced by the policies and politics of former president Bill Clinton, who is often described as a "New Democrat." However, since 2008, the Democratic Party has not only moved back further to the left than it was during the 1980 presidential election, it is as far to the left as the Truman and Johnson administrations in terms of the sheer number of socialist programs that have been passed and signed into law by the Democratic-controlled Congress between 2009 and 2011 as well as Obama. His championing the cause of same-sex marriage has resulted in this policy become widely-popular among the American people, including many conservatives; it should be noted that many Republican lawmakers are now championing the move toward legalizing same-sex marriage. Also, various states are legalizing marijuana for recreational use. These are just a couple of the social movements toward liberalization this nation is experiencing. Immoral or not, we have to be ready to change with the times on social issues, lest we be left behind.
Sen. Paul is a self-professed libertarian and a "constitutional conservative." He believes in low taxes and less government involvement as do the majority of conservatives within the GOP. He is vehemently against abortions, and believes that a law or constitutional amendment should be passed defining the beginning of life for a fetus to be post-conception. As conservative as that may be, he also backs same-sex marriage, a platform congruent with the Libertarian Party's. Another libertarian platform is his desire for the U.S. to be a non-interventionist nation in terms of foreign policy. He was against the Iraq War and fears the imperialism being displayed by the U.S. as has been a strong characteristic of its foreign policy since 1941 when Franklin D. Roosevelt began sending aid and munitions via the Lend-Lease Program to allied nations Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Free France, and the Republic of China. By doing this, the federal government would be able to, according to Paul, cut military spending drastically overseas and keep our troops from being entangled in foreign wars and alliances. And I agree with these views, each and every one of them.
There are other solid potential GOP candidates for president who would be very enthusiastic and energetic presidents. I believe that Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio would do well due to their youth and exuberance. Chris Christie is very highly thought of as well. The fact that so many Hispanic politicians have been elected as Republicans is very encouraging, for I feel that the party will be able to gain registered voters who abide by its platform in that very valuable population demographic. However, there are serious flaws to each of these candidates. Sens. Cruz is a newcomer to the U.S. Senate, having been elected to their posts during the 2012 elections may be viewed as too green to be seriously considered for the office of president of the United States; in the case of Rubio, who began his term in 2011, he is perceived as weak among members of the GOP on his position in the immigration. Chris Christie is considered too moderate-and-left-leaning, and he has certainly not endeared himself to the vast conservative base of voters by his aligning himself publicly on two different occasions with President Obama, with one instance coming back just before the election in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy and again just in the past week; let us not forget, too, that in the world of politics, physical appearances make the politician, and Gov. Christie probably runs north of 400 lbs. He would undoubtedly become the most grossly obese president since William Howard Taft.
(Above to the Left: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX; and to the Right: Sen. Marco Rubio, serving since 2011; on the Bottom: Gov. Chris Christie, R-NJ. Courtesy of Wikipedia)
Whether guilty by inexperience or stark differences in policy, by political failure at a lesser office, or by association with the enemy, it is clear that there is only one man who will stand a chance of winning a majority of the votes necessary to wrest the presidency away from the Democrats, and that man is Rand Paul. As much of a supporter as I was of his father's, even I realized his politics were too abstract for the majority of Americans to be able to fathom unless, of course, it happened to be college-age students. Ron Paul, sadly, was never taken seriously while serving as congressman, and he was even less regarded in his runs for the Republican nomination for president. Still, he stood by his principles, and I cannot help but to admire him for that. However, I do believe his son Rand has a legitimate chance at being not only nominated, but elected as well. Said former conservative South Carolina senator Jim DeMint about Sen. Paul, "Rand showed early on that he didn't need to be loved by the establishment or official Washington." He proved it when he told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce recently that he favored a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were working, angering many members of the Tea Party which supported his campaign for the U.S. Senate. Let it be said, however, that Paul spent much of the rest of the day stating his opposition to unconditional amnesty.
I have thrown my support behind Sen. Paul in the hopes that he will run for president in 2016. He is, as I said, the party's best hope for recovering the principles our Founding Fathers imbued within the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights that have been taken away from the American people gradually over the course of the past 100 years. Under his plan, we would refrain from embroiling ourselves in foreign wars and entangled alliances that have resulted in numerous terrorist attacks from the Middle East and Russia over the past 20 years, while embracing a more liberated laissez-faire capitalist model of economic policy whereby he would seek to free this nation from its multitude of federal trade and commerce regulations. He would make sure taxes were low, even going so far as to work toward abolishing the Sixteenth Amendment (the legalization of the gradual federal income tax) and dissolving the corrupt Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Through those acts, he would seek to cut federal spending and pay down the deficit through his idea of passing a balanced budget amendment that is already in effect in many states. He would work to grant the American people greater civil liberties. And finally, for the first time through Paul, we would be a nation with a leader who is the most like Thomas Jefferson of any politician in over 200 years. We need Rand Paul to de-Obamanize this corrupt, colossus of a government, and we need him as soon as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment