CoC: The Republican Nomination

NOTE: This is the first post in a weekly series. I invite other bloggers and writers to discuss controversial topics with me. Check back every Thursday for the latest article. This article was supposed to run yesterday but the writer who was taking Ron Paul's viewpoint didn't turn his assignment in. Apologies. I've replaced that viewpoint with a fifth writer who intriguingly also picked Jon Huntsman. Many thanks to Josh who joined on short notice. Enjoy!

This is the first post in what I hope will become a long series that will be informative and attract many, many readers. This week's topic: The Republican Nomination

Why this topic?

With no clear-cut strong candidates and strong backlash against every candidate, this is the craziest Republican race in two decades. Since Ronald Reagan, the party has always been decently stable, anchored by the Bush family, and other holdovers from the Reagan era. But today, no candidate has been able to capture more than a quarter of the Republican vote at any one time.

Who are the guest bloggers?

This week, I invited four guest writers to share their perspectives on the race by each answering five questions.

Razi Lane: Razi is a high school junior from North Carolina. Razi Lane has written several book manuscripts and is a youth columnist for the Perquimans Weekly. He has worked as a professional actor for The Lost Colony Outdoor Drama in Manteo. Razi has competed in NCFCA for 4 years, qualifying last year to the National Championship in Extemporaneous Speech and NITOC in Team Policy Debate with his partner/bother Riaz. He aspires to attend Hillsdale College in Michigan to study Politics and Pre-Law.

Caleb Pena: Caleb is 15 years old and has spent the last two years immersed in Speech and Debate here in his home state of California. He loves studying theology, economics and international relations. Caleb is also involved in The Call, "the best evangelism ministry in the world!"

Josh Ridenour: Josh is a 19-yr old debate alumni, now studying Humanities and the Law at Anderson University.

John B: John lives in Nairobi, Kenya where his father works for the State Department. John considers himself a political junkie and spends his free time reading the news and analyzing polling data. He's a sophomore in high school, and is torn between studying economics or going into the US infantry.

1. If you could sum up your candidate's case to be president in a paragraph, what would you say?

Daniel Thomas: Mitt Romney for President. Romney is professional, respectable, and capable. He has endorsements from Tea Party heroes like Chris Christie. He is saying all the right things and his campaign platform does not engender controversy. He avoids gaffes and is solid during debates. He has the money and financial backing to take on Obama. He has proven himself to be a capable businessman with a decent understanding of economics. He also has the endorsement of quite a few high profile foreign policy figures. Ultimately, he offers Republicans the best shot of taking Obama down. To sum it up in a sentence? Everyone else is worse.

Razi Lane: Newt Gingrich's bid for the White House is justified in many ways. Newt represented State of Georgia in Congress for twenty years. This included the four years spent as Speaker of the House. During that time he was successful in pushing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act into law. The act achieved a couple of milestones, namely; Ending welfare as an entitlement program and requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits. Newt was also credited with creating the agenda for a capital gains tax cut that was enacted through the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 as well as being at the helm of the first ever balanced budget ratification. I believe that the most important implication justifying a Gingrich nomination would be his patriotic constitutional loyalty via his "21st Century Contract with America" plan. This legislation enacts the necessary means to get America working again through Obamacare Repeal, Lifting the Moratorium on Offshore Drilling, enforcing the 10th Amendment among many other stipulations (full details may be accessed via http://www.newt.org/contract/legislative-proposals). I would also encourage all readers to obtain and comprehend Gingrich's Bestselling Book, "Real Change". In this work, Newt outlines his philosophy on many key issues and details an agenda of real working solutions for real working Americans.

Caleb Pena: I can sum it up in 3 words: record of accomplishments. As governor of Utah, Huntsman passed fundamental tax reform, market-based health reform (without resorting to an individual mandate), and education reform. He also negotiated some of the strictest abortion regulations in the country including a trigger law to ban abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned. It’s not enough to simply hold the right positions. You have to be able to negotiate real reforms and convince a divided congress to go along with you. Only Huntsman has a record of doing that. 

Josh Ridenour: Huntsman demonstrates the clearest understanding of how US policy fits into the big picture of world affairs. Not only has he managed as an executive in his previous term as governor, but he has also viewed US policy from the Chinese perspective, a perspective that is going to become more and more important as China grows. Huntsman also has a clear agenda for economic well-being, and a strong respect for personal freedoms.
 
John B: Governor Rick Perry should be the Republican nominee for three reasons. Firstly, because he has good executive experience. He was a well respected governor of a large state, let's keep in mind what happened last time we opted for flowery rhetoric over proven competence and experience. Secondly, at a time of economic hardship, Perry's record as a job creator is sorely needed. Finally, is his flat tax plan. One low flat tax rate is the way to go, both from an economic and ethical perspective, and Perry has shown leadership by proposing one.

2. What's your complaint about opposing candidates?

Daniel Thomas:

• Huntsman is basically a more moderate version of Romney. He doesn't understand the tea party. He endorsed liberal environmental policies and would probably expand the EPA. He supported civil unions. He doesn't seem to value the constitution. He lacks financial backing and would not galvanize the base. If he doesn't win New Hampshire, he's done.
• Paul seems ideologically sound. The question is: is the ideology good? He lacks ability to compromise. His tenure in Congress has been marked by an inability to compromise and get anything passed. He takes radical positions that America isn't ready for. Social Security is unconstitutional? Maybe. But you can't destroy it now. That will make it a true Ponzi scheme and sink the Republican party for the next twenty years. In general, he needs to count the cost and figure out how to become tenable to the mainstream. Because right now, he has no chance of beating Obama.
• Perry seems to be intelligent and has many good ideas. However, he has no idea how to handle himself. He's simply become the butt of jokes. Like Biden, he may end up in a government post but not president - he's too much of a joke. He's just going to look foolish in a debate with Obama. We all know it. In some ways, he's the male Sarah Palin but without the charisma.  
• Bachmann isn't Sarah Palin lite. She's actually better. However, she is a gaffe machine. She doesn't seem comfortable on television, she's losing financial backing, the mainstream abhors her, and her policies are half-baked. Good ideas but horrific implementation.
• Gingrich is unprofessional. He makes bombastic statements, is extremely full of himself, and really is a demagogue. Granted, an intelligent demagogue, but one that always seems unstable. He has a bad record in Congress on multiple issues and more baggage than a Boeing 747. 

Razi Lane:

• Jon Huntsman: Huntsman has justified his liberal outlook on policies by endorsing cap and trade as a response to climate change as well as backing civil unions. Due to this vacillation of political principles (liberal vs conservative) he would not make a trustworthy Commander in Chief.  
• Ron Paul: What gives me qualms about Paul is his policy on alienating Israel (America's ally)and airing blatant attacks his opposing GOP contenders with Negative ads. In attempting to indict his competition, Paul loses time (and money) that would be better spent on promoting his own agenda.
• Rick Perry: Perry seems to be the smart candidate that can't communicate his philosophy to the people. He also endorses free education for illegal immigrants, which is anti-conservative. This is the main issue that I have qualms with concerning a Perry presidency.
• Michelle Bachmann: Bachmann resonates with the conservative base, but often comes up short on policy. After the Tea Part Chairman called on her to cease her campaign for the White House, Bachmann's polling numbers have dwindled.
• Rick Santorum: Though Santorum has been consistent, his polling among voters have never been exuberantly competitive. This makes me wonder if he could defeat the President in the General Election. Based on polling, the evident answer is a negative, therein hindering his ability to be nominated.
• Mitt Romney: Romney endorsed a statewide government healthcare program in MA known as "Romneycare" while flip-flopping on many issues from climate change to abortion. He is, however an electable candidate with good ideas. 

Caleb Pena: There is a sad lack of foreign policy experience in the GOP field. The next president will face some of the most challenging foreign policy dilemmas in history. We are at war in Afghanistan. We face a rising economic threat in China, and a rising security threat in Iran. The Russian “reset” is crumbling. Europe’s economy is in shambles. Huntsman is the only candidate with experience dealing with foreign nations. He has served as ambassador to China, ambassador to Singapore and US trade ambassador.

Josh Ridenour: 

• Romney: He's completely unspectacular. He's very traditionally-molded and doesn't offer a significant change to the face of the Republican party that I think it needs.
• Gingrich: His air of arrogance is only compounded when you look at his continual assertion that America can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Additionally, his opinion that (as President) he should be able to impeach judges and abolish courts that disagree with him is shocking.
• Paul: I really like Paul. My only reason I prefer Huntsman over Paul is that Huntsman seems a little more engaging in world affairs, and his experience with China is more solid.
• Bachmann: She strikes me as an airhead that just spits out the traditional conservative line. The only moment she did shine, in my opinion, is when she was explaining the intricacies of the US-Pakistan relationship, and even then she seemed too vague to fully answer her policy approach.
• In short, no one really seems to have the 'experience-abroad' that Huntsman possesses (essential for the President, the face of our foreign policy), nor a clear policy approach to a variety of issues.

John B:

•  Over the years, Mitt Romney has proven he has no core beliefs by changing his mind on virtually every major issue facing our country today. We need a consistent conservative in the White House, and Romney isn't him.
• Newt Gingrich is simply not a conservative. He sees the government as the answer to every problem, as George Will said, he is a benign totalitarian. True lovers of freedom will shy away from him like the plague.
• Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas, and to be frank, I'm glad he's a voice in our party. It's heartening to see that libertarian ideas on government are reaching so many people in our party. However, Ron Paul isn't the right spokesman for those beliefs. He's inarticulate. I concede that Governor Perry is inarticulate. The difference, is that Paul is agitating for a radical shift from the current structure and role of our government, which will require a brilliant politician to pull off, and Perry is advocating a more basic conservatism very much in the mainstream, hence articulateness is less important.
• Huntsman is not a serious contender for the nomination. While I appreciate his perspective on some issues, he seems to have made a game of projecting an image of the Republican for people who don't like Republicans all that much. I'm not willing to support someone who tries to project that kind of image.
• Bachmann seems to have a tenuous grasp of reality. From her assertion that the HPV vaccine causes autism, to her reference last August to the frightening rise of the Soviet Union. From her statement that the IAEA predicted Iran would have nuclear weapons in months when no such statement had been made, to her assertion that Ron Paul had bribed her Iowa campaign chair, Bachmann has demonstrated a tendency to play loose with the facts.

3. What are the perceived weaknesses of your candidate and what is your defense?

Daniel Thomas: Frankly, the main knock on Romney is a lack of charisma and character. It is true that Romney is never going to inspire the enthusiasm that Obama has. He has a corporate air, a slick CEO aura, that is distasteful. In 2008, I was a Huckabee supporter so I disliked Romney immensely. However, in a year filled with bad candidates, he's the best we can find. If the worst we can say is that he lacks charisma, then I think that's pretty good. We have a very charismatic president right now and look how that turned out. :)
The other knock on him is that he's flip-flopped on social issues. I think that to an extent, Romney has changed his stance. He did indeed throw up token opposition to abortion and gay marriage related initiatives but you must realize that he was governor of one of the most liberal states in the US. I think he decided to pick his battles. Ultimately, what he'll do as president will matter. We all know that with a Republican congress, he'll do what he does best and work with them. He may not have especially strong convictions, but I believe he'll appoint good Supreme Court judges, and make the right decisions. Anyway, most of the other candidates have avoided gay marriage as a states' rights issue.

Razi Lane: To say that Gingrich lobbied for Freddie Mac is simply not true. Gingrich was correct in saying what he did in the debates, there is no record for his lobbying for Freddie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsLEw-7Lqo4&feature=player_embedded#!). The whole story works out like this. Although Gingrich didn't lobby for the entity, he consulted the mortgage giant via "The Gingrich Group", with advice on reaching out to conservatives. As a consultant, Gingrich received the compensation that he earned. Nothing more. He also had no incentive to lobby for Freddie Mac for monetary compensation as he was well off financially and had better things to occupy his time (writing books/giving speeches ect.). Further reading may be attained here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/16/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-said-he-never-lobbied-freddie-mac-un/. Newt Gingrich was not in any way a lobbyist.

Asking his wife for divorce while she lay suffering from cancer is a blatant lie that has been amplified by political pundits and liberal media. It was in fact Newt's wife that proposed divorce to Newt, not vice versa. His daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a short column that would set the record straight. It is available here: http://townhall.com/columnists/jackiegingrichcushman/2011/05/08/setting_the_record_straight/page/full/. I fully encourage everyone to read it. 

Caleb Pena: The media has painted Huntsman as the moderate in the GOP race, but nothing could be further from the truth. Critics argue that he can’t be a conservative because the first draft of his health care reform proposal included a mandate. Never mind that the bill he actually passed has been repeatedly called the conservative “bookend” to Governor Romney’s health care bill. They point to his belief in global warming despite the fact that he has consistently argued that government restrictions on greenhouse gases are dangerous and would be devastating to the economy. 

Josh Ridenour: Well, due to Huntsman's trailing in the polls, very few people have been concerned with discovering Huntsman's faults. He has very little (if any) that needs 'recovering' from, similar to Romney.
 
John B:  Governor Perry is perceived as being inarticulate, and having a more moderate perspective on immigration than most voters. However, while Governor Perry did have some poor performances in the early debates, but he's improving, and hasn't made any major gaffes recently. As to the point of illegal immigration, this is a concern for me as well. But let's face it, no candidate is perfect, and compared to the rest of our field this year, Governor Perry is the best choice.

4. Who has the best shot of winning a general election?

Daniel Thomas: Mitt Romney, hands down. Obama will crush Perry, Bachmann, or Paul in debates and in media attention. The media will at least give Romney respect. Even in 2008, at the height of Obamamania, McCain was respected. Romney offers the same opportunity. Also, I think his balance may appeal to the moderates who don't take part in the primaries but vote in the general election. I can't see the fringe candidates getting mainstream America (and that is what you need to win).

Razi Lane: This is perhaps the most significant issue that arises when picking a candidate to advocate. I am a proud constitutional conservative and therefore am most concerned for the well-being of America. Clearly over the past 4 years, "Prosperity" via individual "Liberty" has not been justified. As the 2012 election is projected to be the most vital in our lifetimes, it is imperative that we select the best qualified candidate to run against President Obama. This candidate is Newt Gingrich; for a variety of reasons. Newt has the intellect to correct America and bring her to the right path via real change. When we understand more about Gingrich this becomes evident. Granted, Newt does carry some political baggage having 'gone against the grain' while in Congress. Upon closer analysis, it is clear that everything he's supported has been for the advancement of the United States' citizenry. I agree with Sabrina Schaeffer, managing partner for the "Evolving Strategies" firm (evolving-strategies.com) in an interview with USNews and World Report that voters would be willing to forgive Newt for his past should be be nominated. Gingrich has also accelerated on the debate stage, an area of talent that would spawn many voters' support in the General Election.

Caleb Pena: According to the New York Times, Jon Huntsman. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... f=magazine The governor has shown an extraordinary ability to reach across the aisle to win over independents and moderate democrats. When he ran for reelection in Utah, more democrats voted for him than for the democratic candidate. Sort of reminds me of Ronald Reagan. 

Josh Ridenour: Actually, it is Huntsman. Several polls demonstrated that even though Huntsman may not be doing so hot in the primaries, he scores way above Gingrich, Romney, and [i]everyone/i] else in the election against Obama. That's why he's Obama's biggest fear.

John B: Jon Huntsman has the best shot at winning the general election. He's positioned himself near the ideological center of the country, and has a strong economic record to run on in the general. However, Rick Perry has the next best shot. Perry has the ability to unite the party like no other candidate, and if we're to best Obama this November, we need to present a united front. Also, his record as a job creator will resonate with voters.

5. If your candidate doesn't win or drops out, who would be your next choice?

Daniel Thomas: Should Romney somehow implode, my second choice is Gingrich. He obviously has the tea party credentials, engineered a Republican victory during another Democratic president, has good ideas, and overall is appealing on the surface. I still distrust his bombastic statements, his hubris, and his flip-flopping, but he has a better chance of winning than anybody else out there (after Romney) in a general election.

Razi Lane: Should Newt not be able to continue, my second choice would have to be Mitt Romney. He's been polling consistently among voters nationwide and stands a strong chance against the incumbent President. I don't think he has the intuition that Gingrich possesses, but he is a smart and persuasive person that would make a candid and competent Commander in Chief.

Caleb Pena: Newt Gingrich. Balancing the budget four times is quite an accomplishment. 

Josh Ridenour: Paul. Ron Paul. Definitely.

John B: I'm undecided on my second choice at this point. Depending on the circumstances at that point, I'd be considering Romney, Paul. If Santorum or Huntsman pulls off an upset, then I'd consider them.

If you enjoyed reading, please subscribe, share this article with your friends, and follow by email. Leave a comment about what you think! Also, what do you think of my logo?