How can we expect Congress to break the 20 percent approval rating when we demand strategies and results which only come when the GOP has the Presidency, House and Senate – while we only control the House?

Unlike most media narratives we all know the GOP is willing to compromise. Whether it was Sen. Snowe’s vote to allow Obamacare out of committee or the House voting to extend unemployment benefits, there is always the ability to deal.

Yet Democrats refuse to budget. As mad as we may get, given the current circumstances, why should they?

There are a number of reasons of GOP in-fighting. Here are a few anecdotal examples:

• We expend two to three times as much energy fighting each other and trying to redefine ourselves at critical moments in our nation’s history.
• While Pelosi reigns absolute for Democrats, Boehner is questioned by grass roots and a significant state of weakness – after retaining a 30 seat margin of victory.
• Any sort of strategy deemed as not sexy enough to energize the base into a frenzy is blasted as weak.

The last example is perfect, I think, of something we should contemplate.

During the original budget show-down happened I opined that we should be happy to be playing “small-ball” with the federal budget and take the cuts in the budget we could get. While the methodology was unsexy, real cuts were being made. No tax increases were necessary.

The thought was to keep an even keel until we won in 2012 – then “swing for the fences” and tackle real budget reform.

Instead we, the grass roots, fought on and played right into Democrat hands – pressuring our leadership into pushing for some sort of “grand bargain.”

I explicitly stated during that debate, Obama is willing to let things crash so he can sort things out on his terms.

Those words were drowned out and the GOP leadership pressed ahead – thinking that its deal would be sufficient enough to sate us while punting to a select committee who did nothing more than mimic the earlier fight with equally bad result.

This should surprise no one.

It is true that many Republican talking heads from other places than here in fly-over country believe that people like my self should be run out of the party in lieu of other voter demographics. Their belief, shocklingly, is that our opinions of what used to be main-stream conservatism are some how “extreme” and hold no place in the arena of ideas.

Not to be out done, a number of conservatives see no place for people who share most of what we believe in – but not all.

This was most striking during a 2012 GOP Presidential primary in which a “moderate” Republican asked (I think) Rep Bachmann what she could do to re-assure him there was a place for his voice within the party. Instead of directly answering him and re-assuring him there were things which they could share and work together on, she launched into why the TEA party started.

These two points of view are a microcosm of what is happening on the national scene.

In the absences of real leadership which is willing to bring us together as Americans, there is a concerted effort to wipe the other side off the map.

This brings us back full circle to Democrats refusing to budge and offer any real concessions on the current “fiscal cliff.”

It should shock no one Obama and Democrat’s strategy is one of heads I win, tails you lose.

Obama said during his campaign one of his goals was to break the back of the Republican party. We (Republicans at large) are letting him, the media and Democrats execute their plans by design without so much as a whimper.

Until Republicans decide to unite and band together, as we did in the 80s and even in the 2000s, Democrats will get all the leverage they need to win the opening battles for 2014 and 2016.

We must play smarter. We must, as Matt Lewis stated, modernize not moderate.

We must not compromise principles.

Most of all there must be an understanding and patience within the grass roots, and a healing outreach from those who despise us.

Then you will see Democrats budge.

After all, if they (Democrats) demand a tax increase because of popularity, shouldnt we push for a repeal of Obamacare because of similar poll numbers?

This should not freak everyone out given the context of repeal and replace.

There is about 80% that is god-awful and deserves to be sentenced to die a slow death.

However, there are elements which can work and are actually pro-competition in nature. They are just twisted.

Take HCAHPS.

HCAHPS is a tool which moves hospitals toward standardization of processes and helps reduce waste. Under the old system doctors and hospitals received money no matter what the out come.

Plans call for each hospital to receive patient satisfaction ratings. This score which will help determine how much funding hospitals received.

This is a results based way to ensure hospitals are performing and not simply sucking up dollars.

Other items, such replacing the way procedures are coded and billed through ICD10, on the other hand are destructive. Forcing the adoption of such a radically different systems within a year (now delayed to 2014)  would crush hospital systems across this nation. Period.

Yet it is this philosophy which force smaller hospitals to be eaten up by larger ones and degrades our healthcare system. It is another reason why Obamacare must be completely repealed.

At that same time we must not be afraid to argue policy and advocate which systems we know perform better and replace the current process.

I am not certain of Romney’s intentions give his past. However, I would note that he is right about being selective in picking which policy works and retooling it into a market-based system.

Akin, with a solid lead in the race against Claire McCaskill made a tremendous unforced error.

Representative Akin made a comment during an interview broadcast this morning that “Women who are victims of “legitimate rape” cannot get pregnant because their bodies won’t allow it.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Yes. It is THAT bad and is five face-palm worthy. It may also provide the change in the race Senator McCaskill so badly needed.

The good news is that Rep Akin was quick to respond and noted that he mis-spoke on the issue and sought to refocus the campaign on what it should be – restoring our country and replacing McCaskill in November.

The bad news is that it happened. In an election such as this we cannot afford to make silly errors like this. We simply cannot.

Now we wait for the consequences in what should have been a lock for a switch from D to R.

Let me remind those out there that unless there is some sort of  Torricelli rule, Akin is our (GOP) candidate. We cannot afford to give McCaskill an inch. Period.

This is not academic for us. It is a matter of reality.

The media is against us and will not hesitate to place the gaffe around Akin’s neck like an albatross to ensure McCaskill is re-elected. One need to look no further than how Jim Talent was treated and recent editorials by the Post-Dispatch as evidence.

Similarly this year, McCaskill gets a pass by the media on nearly every subject which she votes on. Many of those policies are in complete opposition to our will. This includes issues ranging from the stimulus packages to Obamacare. Meanwhile McCaskill’s GOP counterparts were in a word, smeared.

To that end, what is missing from this discussion is governance and serving the will of the people. You know, the same thing our Founding Fathers envisioned. Some how that all gets glossed over.

That is why we are left with this question: Which is worse? Electing a senator who is a real rubber stamp for Obama and who voted in direct opposition to our will, or someone who makes Biden size gaffes?

You decide.

This pick, beyond bringing instant gravitas and credibility on the subject of debt reduction, does three very important things.

First, it unites the base like no other candidate could. What corner of the GOP tent you lay your blanket on, Ryan has your back.

It is because his bold initiatives go beyond deficit reduction. Ryan is a front line fighter with loads of substance ranging from Obamacare to yes, medicaid reform. Whats more, his arguments are not fluff. They are made of substance and not easily dismissed. They stand the tests of time.

The fact that Ryan can unite all facets of the Republican party is a huge element the Romney campaign needed. Romney, being the CEO type, simply could not find the passion. Ryan does this.

Secondly, Ryan can communicate the fact the GOP is a party of solutions, not do nothing.

Much of what the House of Representatives is doing is being drowned out tactically by Democratics. Ryan now posses a megaphone to call this out and explain the dozens of policies passed and stonewalled by the Obama Administration and Democrats in the U.S. Senate.

Ryan, given the national stage, will be able to articulate with passion what the GOP is doing in the House of Representatives to combat problems such as unemployment, deficit and federal over regulation.

Do not underestimate this. People are thirsty for limited government solutions. Many ideas were passed in Congress but held up for partisan reasons – while the President blamed Republicans for partisanship.

Finally, Ryan brings an element of experience on the national stage unparalleled given the topic of this year’s election.

Not Rubio (my favorite), Jindal, Portman or anyone else faced President Obama and various media outlets one on one  on these various topics we are facing today as Ryan did. In each of those cases Ryan proved not just skillful, but classy. This is a talent missing with many president day politicians and it proves to be perhaps the most important element.

As much as I loved Palin in 2008, it was apparent her experience in discussing energy policy on CNBC with Larry Kudlow and Maria Bartiromo did much in preparing for the peppering of questions she received.

Ryan, on the other hand, understands how to bring home the point and brings instant credibility to the debate.

In the end, while Paul Ryan is not perfect, he certainly is the man of the hour which Romney needs.

As someone posted on twitter today, Ryan is perfect fit for Mitt Romney who is the CEO, as a CFO.

The past four years are an exact fruition of self-loathing combined with perfectionism and the belief man is at the center of all solutions.

While Rome burned and good people decided to sit out an election and “give Republicans what they deserved” we arrive at this moment. A moment where our Republic is changed forever and individuals lose the ability to say no.

Obamacare was never about healthcare. Ever.

Obamacare is precisely about the government’s ability to control and regulate behavior. One need to look as far as the regulations telling physicians how and what type of treatment they can prescribe.

Skeptical? The bill is designed to force millions off of private insurance and on to government sponsored care, while dictating what procedures will and wont be covered.

In either case the substance is academic. The point is to control people and limit freedoms and we have no one to blame but our selves.

That isn’t to say the Republican party needed to self-correct or the TEA party needed to rise and take root. Both events needed to happen. At what cost?

In the end people are imperfect beings. Human nature is sinful, save any good which comes from God.

That is why the final word on Obamacare is this: Besides the fact the legislation is the modern day equivalent of the Tower of Babble, we should remember the only perfect man is Jesus Christ.

Similarly, Dont treat the Constitution as God’s word and hold men accountable as one would with the Ten Commandments. The two are distinctly different. Dont even go there.

God help us if we fail to remember those lessons and take them to heart.

Last year was bad enough when many of us went for broke on the budget, as a pose to taking a more controlled approach, even though Democrats controlled two thirds of the government apparatus - and the media.

This year is far worse as our candidates for president choose to actively spend millions of dollars trashing each other and inflicting damage on the party and conservative cause in the primary.

If we (conservatives and Republicans) are serious about reversing the past three years and re-introducing individual freedoms as a core principle – we must not continually disarm and demoralize our selves.

I am not asking for intellectual dishonesty or to over look policy. We did much of that from 2000 to 2008 and it hurt.

I am asking for a dose of common sense and serious thought about the long term legitimacy of our movement.

Instead of energizing Americans with a passionate vision of pro-economic growth with an emphasis of individual freedoms, there is a steady drum of absolute negativity. Voters become demoralized and write off the whole process as lost and become disengaged for another cycle.

What some seemingly do not understand is that Democrats were smart in the four or so election cycles in that they did not demand free healthcare for all in 2006 or even 2008. It was only after securing the super majority in 2009.

When Democrats did over reach during the 2009-10 years they pretty much did what ever they wanted to.

Similarly, we must be smart. Instead of demanding a balanced budget amendment now, we must boil the frog and take the small wins until the pieces are in place to hit the home-run ball.

That means we on the grass roots level must be patient and work to securing the legislative pieces to promote freedom and prosperity. This means being patient.

In the mean time, our candidates must think through what they are doing to energize Americans to vote for their vision.

Be passionate. Be willing to take risks for liberty’s sake.

Regardless of what people might believe, ANY of the four candidates left in the presidential race believe in liberty and freedom far more than President Obama.

I look forward to when we can unite around a single candidate and move forward. I pray there might be enough voters who are not discouraged and understand the importance of this year’s election to take action to ensure victory this fall.

Members of the media are trying to do to Rick Santorum what they were successful in doing to Mike Huckabee: mark the man as some sort of a religious lunatic.

I am sure the other campaigns (including Obama) are all too happy to revel in the narrative and exploit the missteps of the Santorum campaign.

What is not mentioned or discussed is if we take President Obama at his word, and implement his policies as he wished, we would be living in a theocracy of sorts.

After all it is President Obama who brought up during the National Prayer Breakfast how Jesus would “approve” of his tax the rich proposal.

There is the openly brazen attack on the First Amendment by forcing Catholic hospitals and healthcare plans to pay for birth control of various nature even though it is directly against their beliefs. To be clear this is a policy being deployed without exception.

Not to be outdone were remarks in 2008 in which President Obama writes off people with opposing (traditional) views as “bitter clingers.”

Compare these actual policy initiatives with Rick Santorum’s 2008 remarks in which he characterizes America in a positive light being “attacked” by Satan through vises. Listen to the clip your self.

What is odd, I would argue, is not what Santorum said – but the fact that he went there. Presidential candidates usually do not do that sort of thing.

This leads me to ask the question why, is Santorum getting labeled as some sort of theocrat when it is President Obama an Democrats who are forcing their views on the rest of us?

Santorum’s campaign did themselves no favor and made several rookie mistakes by casting a number of policy questions, such as the tax question, as that of religious nature.

Is that worse than the recent Health and Human Services decision made by the Obama administration?

I am not a Santorum apologist or even dedicated backer.

What I am, though, is a Christian with a concern of seeing main stream Christian ideology and discussion is labeled as radical when there is actual policy in place removing basic freedoms.

After all, that is the fear of a theocracy, is it not?

If that is the case, then who exactly is running a theocracy?

Romney’s campaign, which was leading up until about a week ago, failed on an epic proportion.

Instead of continuing to explain and sell he went into prevent defense mode. Like many sports teams who use that strategy instead of playing to win, lost.

Any candidate who cannot answer simple questions like “are you willing to release your tax returns” and “what if the economy improves” deserves to get no more than single digits. Romney fared better than that and should be thankful.

To equate Newt’s sudden rise, with all his baggage and whopping sixty percent unfavorability, as the second coming of Reagan is both insulting and wrong.

Similarly, to discredit any rise in Santorum’s polling and try to narrow the race as Newt and conservatives vs Romney is equally wrong headed.

There are ten days until Florida.

Romney can either start answering questions and do some of that firing he was talking about or suffer another loss. The choice is his.

As for me, I am still undecided – and feeling pretty insulted right now at how tonight is being turned into a GOP on GOP act of aggression. Count me out.

One reason I am completely demoralized and sickened over the past few months is best represented by what I am seeing over the past few hours.

At this point I believe neither side wants whats best for America and is only interested in what is best for their power – however limited or grand it is.

The result will be a vastly weakened front against Democrats and President Obama – which can only mean they regain control of the House of Representatives and grow what ever numbers there are in the senate. Hows that for history?

“Establishment:” Let me spell this out to you: for all the wisdom and understanding “how things work” –  you completely miss the why and in the process hurt the very people and nation you are supposed to be protecting. Trying to belittle constructive criticize and having the backs of your constituents is key.

“Self appointed Grass Roots Representatives:” Let me be equally clear. Not all of us want a fight with ourselves. Not all of us are looking for perfection in candidates and get that some times you have to hold your nose and vote for the most electable person. Case in point was O’Donnell and whats her nose in Nevada. Yet if we do not act like good sheep and shake our fists on command then we are labeled as RINOs.

Both are wrong and both are picking the wrong time to fight it out.

To label Newt’s win in South Carolina as a middle finger against the establishment is a lie. Period. Quit trying to make it into something it is not.

Simply put, Romney failed on an epic proportion.

So where do we go from here? I don’t know.

I do know both sides have valid points – and yet neither side is adult enough to provide the leadership to try and bridge the gap.

What I do know is the fires I am seeing stoked tonight is precisely what Democrats and President Obama dreamed about two years ago. It is precisely why Minority Leader Pelosi is still in leadership of some form instead of  enjoying retirement.

I urge both sides to stop giving our opponents hope and start acting like real leaders. Give us a way forward.

Thanks.

Much could be said by simply watching the eyes of his wife – and the kiss between the two – and the tone of Governor Perry’s voice.

Governor Perry is correct that  no one man own conservatism, and that we must all work forward to ensure its advancement, it is clear to mean that he embodies it passionately with clarity and genuineness that no one else left in the race does.

With that in mind I watched the debate last night with my wife and kids. While  side-stepping explaining what an “open marriage” is our children we listened, hoped and prayed for some hint of direction of who to support. We didnt find that direction, unfortunately.

What we did find was a sense of who they are deep down.

My wife, who sees through people far better than I do, was able to put the evening into terms which I thought I might share.  Campaigns reading this blog note: Your work is cut out for you and should take note.

Gingrich: Bully. Words were very sharp and confrontational. Not just with the moderator – but with fellow candidates.

Romney: Out for himself. Didnt answer questions directly. Not sincere.

Paul: Sorta like grandpa. Need someone younger than him to run against Obama.

Santorum: The most genuine man on the stage – but not ready for prime time. Face gets red and too easy to bother. Flustered easily.

I pressed her if she had to vote for someone tonight who would it be.

“Oh, I dont know. If I had to vote for someone it would probably be Santorum,” She waivered.

After thinking about it for a while I can see where she is coming from. I think she is right about a lot of her off the cuff analysis.

Our candidates need a bit more to work on.

I will be watching and listening. Waiting.

I am mad as the devil at how each one of you treated Gov Perry  (and each other for that matter) during the race.

Being honest: Perry’s character and faith far outshines every single person left in this race. Dont challenge me on that notion. It is the honest to God’s truth.

I understand my candidate endorsed Newt Gingrich. That means little to me.

Nothing about you inspires me as being genuine from the soul conservatives which I wold trust the future of my kids with at this point. Period.

Want my vote? You are going to need to work for it.

Childish back and forths disgust me. I want substance. I want answers.

Lets have a long L-D style “debate” to see what you really believe and how you are able to articulate it.

When I ask a direct question – I want an answer.

Finger waving is a minus.

When the media tries to slip in an Obama talking point as a question – I want it called out for being exactly what it is: a trap – while crushing it (the question) with substance.

Most of all I dont want to be pandered to. I want to be respected and not felt as being bypassed on the way to something you – the candidate- feels entitled to.

The recent debate of what constitutes good business pratices and the obligations of an employer is a best a misunderstood thing.

Governor Perry and Newt Gingrich both referenced Governor Romney’s experience at Bain Capital. The language used was not perhaps the best, and if we are honest, it may help Democrats in the general election.

Keep in mind, as I type this, I am a hard core Perry supporter.

The problem is that there is no context to what happens in corperate America – regardless of what type of free enterprise we are discussing. I know, Ive been there personally.

Companies are free to hire and fire who they like. 

Companies are for the most part free to do business where ever they like without fear of unjust government hindering.

There are reasonable but important exceptions to these points including preventing child labor, firing people due to descrimination or running a business which dumps toxins into the environment – doing harm to people and the surrounding community.

Productive workers, who put in long hours to support their family, lose their jobs due to cuts made to give the share holders of the company an extra one or two percent of profit.

Leaders doing this may pat themselves in the back and high five each other by beating the quarterly estimate, but lets not mince words, such actions are morally wrong.

This is where the disconnect happens with many people within both the Republican and conservative heirarchy and grass roots level.

To be clear, the government has no right to intercede in such affairs. No law should be made to interject society into a private industry’s internal employment concerns.

Organizational leaders would do best to abide by the motto just because you can do something doesnt mean you should.

To be fair we must note there are cases where hiring decisions bloated organizations and in order to survive cuts must be made. In those instances it is a matter of life and death of the company.

This is what Governor Romney is referencing his experience in Bain Capital.

Some times a company is taken over, trimmed down and then can move forward and grow again. Job cutting is painful but necessary.

Private industry, unlike government, cannot just make up money out of thin air to pay for its services.

Of course that brings us to what matters in the hear and now. We are currently facing is a nanny state in which the government not only tells the business, even small ones, who they can fire and fire and where they can do business.  This is what we should be focusing on during this election cycle. To do other wise is fool hardy and plays into the narrative Democrats want to run on.

This is what we should be motivating us.

All through the summer and fall I waited to write this observation. Waited for the right time to see how things were setting and more importantly, for us to get to know the candidates a little better.

I am certainly glad I did, as my mind was changed about a great number of things.

Still. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

We must focus our energy on defeating President Obama and Democrats this fall. To believe other wise is fool hardy and ignores the peril of the past three years.

Whom ever is the candidate, I will vote for.

That doesnt mean they will get my financial support or enthusiam or sign off on volunteering in four years *if* they were to win election.

In the end we must remain true to our conservative principles and focus on breaking the shackles of excessive government forged by this current administration and return America to her greatness.

With that in mind I present to you the following candidate analysis in alphabetal order.

Michelle Bachmann

Pros: Arguably our best in-the-trenches fighter. She is tenacious and will not stop. Ever. No question about whether or not she is conservative.

Cons: Shrill. Part of being President of the United States means you must work with the other side while winning. Michelle would try to steam roll them. Not that steam rolling Democrats is a bad idea in the short term – but if you do not have the votes to do so, then what?

The debt ceiling fight is a perfect example. People voted for massive change last November to act as a check against President Obama. However, many did not vote to shut the government down. Some did (including many on this blog). People like my self did not and see it as a failure of leadership on the part of both parties to rise above talking points and do their job for the benefit of the nation.

Conclusion: Would prefer to see her still fighting hard in the House of Representatives and shake up the leadership team a bit. That is her strength. Governing in the executive capacity is not.

Newt Gingrich

Pros: Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Gingrich enacted all the reforms we dream about today – with a Democrat sitting as President of the United States. Balanced budget? Limited government? Newt delivered.

Cons: Since floundering in 1998 and resigning from Congress his solutions sound a bit wonky. I can look past the on-the-couch-with-Pelosi bit. It is the solutions, including backing individual mandates and Heritage did at one point that troubles me greatly.

Infidelity does matter. Just ask Gary Hart.

However, if he honestly got on his knees before God almighty and asked for repentence and made changes – I cannot cast the first stone.

I also have serious reservations regarding what seems to be a haste to use military power in Iran. Do not misunderstand me. We must do what we must do – but to boast about wanting an engagement? Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Then there is the whole judge thing. Yes, judges are out of control. No, you should not usurp Constitutional authority to beat them into submission. Sorry Newt, your wrong on this.

Conclusion: Mixed bag. The man  knows how to get it done in the past. I would love to see Newt shread President Obama in an Lincoln-Douglas style debate where we actually get to see what they mean and know. That will not happen.

Jon Huntsman

Pro: Solid, conservative record in Utah. I know, *gasp.* That is the reality of the matter. His plan to fix the economy was given the thumbs up by the Wall Street journal. He fits the bill of credibility in many places, once one examines his record, which we would all hope a conservative would.

Con: Does this guy really want to be a conservative? Working for the Obama administration is a huge strike. Trying to find your nitch during the GOP primary as a “moderate” is bad, bad strategy. The only people who are really jazzed about this guy is, drum roll please, the Washington media.

Conclusion: Huntsman deserved a closer look that what he got. Based on his record and understanding of policy I would vote for him before Romney and Paul. Still, my oldest child was able to point out he was totally avoiding questions during an interview we watched with Bob Schieffer. What does that say?

Ron Paul

Pro: I love parts of his libertarian streaks. He is right about being suspecious about the government.

At moments when other candidates feel free to jump on legislation which is poorly thought out or may violate the Constitution Paul speaks up.

I also feel that we should have an official declaration of war during engagements such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I also believe that there are many red flags with the government intruding on basic individual rights. This is what I believe is driving his supporters in Iowa.

Con: His foriegn policy is beyond laughable. I do not have the time or patience to discuss what I would call extremist (near anti-jewish?) views on the middle east and other odds and ends.

Conclusion: If Paul gets the nomination I would vote for him. Yes. Would work like the dickens to make sure Congress would keep him in check and from abandoning our allies and interests across the globe.

Rick Perry

Pro: Burried somewhere in all the smears pushed out the door by rival campaigns and scared media types is a proven record of a governor who is generating the most jobs of any other state. Perry gets it on _all_ the issues ranging from Healthcare to medicaid to social security and of course the role of the 10th amendment.

If there ever was someone who was qualified to be President of the United States of America, and who embodied full spectrum conservatism, its Perry.

Con: He’s not The Great Communicator. Lets get that out of the way now.

Perry also had problems during a session with Mike Huckabee when three state attorney generals quested him about how he would tackle healthcare. Instead of specifically citing how the law allows for vouchers, he came across as stating he would create an executive order to repeal any legislation he didnt like. Ugh.

Conclusion: Perry is still my first choice through thick and thin. Ive seen what he did in Texas, and how he understands what this nation needs. He is absolutely correct.

Mitt Romney

Pro: Battle tested. Willing to do what ever it takes. Conservative principles are at least sketched out. Understands power base and is willing to work with it.

Con: No soul. Changes positions based on what is needed to win.

Conclusion: I will vote for him without any problem if he is the candidate.  However I really dunwanna.

His back and forth position on abortion irritates me. How he feels like he doesnt need to be vetted – especially after tearing Huckabee apart for being overly religious – makes my skin crawl.

It also tells the tale of a man who is willing and knows how to do the little things to win a nasty campaign. Never underestimate these people or discard them.

Like Paul (and Newt to a lesser extent), we would need to lean on Congress to keep in check.

Rick Santorum

Pro: Santorum is a straight shooter. I can think of no one else more consistent with ideas. I like the battles he’s fought and why he fought them.

Cons: Whines too much. Instead of thinking of how to create a message, like Cain’s 999 plan, Santorum whines a lot after debates about time he got to speak.

If you get the big chair, you need to act like it and press ahead. Be creative. Tell us what sets you apart and show us your leadership.

Instead the Republican and conservative moment(s) decided to go to war with each other, and to be frank, prove they both deserve the mantle “party of stupid” based on tactical movements designed to maximize power grabs.

It started with mocking of Governor Perry and carried over to the recent knifing in the back and mocking of Speaker Boehner.

The result: President Obama’s approval rating shot up to 47% with an air that every single GOP candidate is incompetent.

Nice job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

In a year which we cannot afford to make mistakes and must find a way forward and to unite, some how the consensus is we are more further apart than in decades.

So I again implore everyone to think beyond whats best for tomorrow and start to move forward.

The “surprise” revelations ultimately are not geared toward the Republican primary voter, but to discrediting these conservative icons into the abyss of unelectability.

One need to look no further than the Washington Post’s ploy of litterally looking under a rock to understand the depths at which the media, and ultimately Democrats, fear losing this election.

Herman Cain’s situation is similar. While Politico obviously researched elements of the story, they were unwilling to reveal the details of accusation or note payments were closer to severins pay than a “settlement.”  This was done either as a way to either legally force a breach of confidentiality or simply watch Cain’s campaign squirm.

Then there is smear campaign which the Washington Post is running against Rubio. Whether it is to prevent Rubio from serving as a vice presidential candidate or destroy him as a national conservative figure who can help bridge the hispanic voter gap for Republicans is unknown.

What is apparent is like Bob McDonnell or George Allen, the Washington Post is on an all out mission to destroy and discredit Rubio at nearly any cost. Period.

You might say Romney is notably missing. The reason is simple. Team Obama and the media do not feel threatened by Governor Romney on an idealist or campaign strategy level.

That cannot be said about Cain, Perry or Rubio.

Dont look for the same treatment to be given to Democrats either. President Obama is still the media’s stand up guy who they will go to the mat for. Dont doubt that for a moment.

The four people I would like to see discussions break down to are Perry, Romney, Cain and Gingrinch.

These four people promote the best substance in the debate.  In fact you could argue that Cain and Gingrinch might be the most entertaining and substanative.

As for Paul, Bachmman (Romney’s new running mate) and Santorum simply do not add any real substance or relevence to the debate.

While I believe all three do bring a unique and interesting qualities, none of them add much to the process beyond taking time other candidates could use to expand on substance. The exception Bachmann a couple of weeks ago when she set a media personality straight about Obamacare. 

So I say, bring on more debates, but lets start whittling the time down so we can get into more substance.

How can I say such a thing?

Easy. There is more energy being put into knifing each other in the back and building up stalking horses than focusing on policy.

One need to look no further than Mitt Romney proping up Michelle Bachmann during the last debate, and her role in attacking other candidates except for Mitt, as an example.

To be fair, though, I would also offer Herman Cain’s statement about accepting a vice presidential candidate except for Rick Perry.

Add to the fact that in the past few debates the candidates decided to attack each other more than President Obama and did not mentioin Solyndra or Fast and Furious.

Then there is the rush of who wants to be first during the primary season. Everyone wants to be first. Never mind the fact that we need a process with pauses to fully vet a candidate and their process out.

There are valid reasons for each of these occurrances within their own setting.

It is more than depressing, however, to see happen. It forces me into the belief there is a greater concern over an internal power struggle and demand for perfection instead of honestly focusing on what is best for our country.

One wonders if Republicans and conservatives can play things any better for President Obama next year.

Oh wait, did I mention Sarah Palin switching her Face Book status to “conservative” and Rush discussing “breaking up the old team?”

One advantage Democrats were able to get partial traction from beating up on Bush during many of their debates during 2007. At each turn Republicans and conservatives took a beating.

Fast forward to this election cycle and Republicans get the same chance. Will they take that window opporunity? The TEA Party debate hosted by CNN suggests no.

For all the headlines and questions being thrown out regarding matters Republicans and conservatives care about, our guys spent more time hammering each other, or focus-firing Rick Perry, instead of presenting positive solutions or hammering President Obama.

Instead of hearing about NLRB’s abuse and threatening people who oppose the corruption of union bosses, we heard about HPV.

Instead of discussing how the Obama administration’s issues with operation “Fast and Furious” or subversion of Congress through the creation of Czars, we decided to figure out how it was best “contrast” Social Security reform.

If you’ve got my subtle hint that the last debate had wonderful clash but was short on substance, your right.

This does not mean we should not vet our candidates. We must. That means throw all the questions you can and see how they respond.

This means our nominee must come through with sustantive answers - regardless of what is tossed at them.

What we need tonight is a debate filled with substance which uplifts conservative ideals and hammers home problems we are facing.

This is what we must expect from our candidates. Nothing less will get us to the White House in 2012.

To understand how Lichtman makes his predictions, you must understand there are “13  keys” to winning an election. Of those, he says, the winner must take at least six. According to the professor Obama wins nine. Yes, you read that correctly, nine.

Before anyone decides to pack it in lets review those 13 keys and see if there is any real truth in the end analysis.

“Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Obama loses this key.”

Captain obvious. Republicans, if they continue to listen to the American public and do what they were elected to do and be smart in the pocess, may very well gain seats.

“Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination  Obama wins this key.”

Although we’ve heard rumblings about up to twenty five percent of Democrats not wanting to vote for President Obama, I will concede thise point because there is no official challenge. Even Bush 41 had an early challenger.

“Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.”

Okay, yes. Once again pretty straight forward. I could argue, however, that incumbency may not be a benefit. It certainly was not for many Democrats and Republicans in 2010. People felt that government was out of control and trying to take over their lives.  Many still feel that way, which will be discussed later down the line, which may mean that incumbency could be a bad thing. To the point, President Obama is trying to run as a sort of outsider if you can believe it.

“Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.”

Agreed here. In fact, if you look at polls I would say Republicans could still lose by five to seven percent breaking off and voting Libertarian. Say what you want, but you can only talk down someone for so long without the dirt sticking. Early polls with Romney and Perry neck and neck with Obama show third party doing decent enough to hurt and given President Obama the win.

“Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign…” ”Undecided.”

This is where it gets fishy. One percent growth with over nine percent unemployment isnt bursting at the seems. Infact it is dismal on the border of a recession. Most people feel as if we never left the recession. Back in 1992 the recession ended before November, but because people felt we were doing badly, they voted the economy.  So President Obama loses this key.

“Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.”

This is Lichtman puts on his cheerleader outfit. Yes, President Obama got his policy change. However it precipitated the historic creation of the TEA party movement. Whats more, the vast majority of people still want Obamacare repealed and the budget balanced. These are two things President Obama refuses to do. So yes, there was a change in national policy – but it was a net negagive. Obama loses.

“Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.” “Obama wins a fifth key here.”

Is this guy blind? Did Lichtman miss the townhall debates over the past two years and the absolute shellacking recieved by Democrats in November of 2011 in addition to the creation of the TEA party movement? There is no way Obama wins this key. He loses it by a mile.

“Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.” “Another Obama win.”

At this point Lichtman is shaking his pom-poms fast and furiously. Pun intended. There have been several “scandals” the Obama administration is going through including Operation Fast and Furious and the Black Pather voter intimidation cases. That says nothing about the czar appointments or throttling of Chrysler share holders during the auto bail outs.  Operation Fast and Furious is the more damning of all the scandals. While Lichtman isnt aware of the scandal, most people I talk to are. Obama loses.

“Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.” “Obama wins again.”

So I am guessing people see Libya as successful? You know the military action which President Obama failed to get Congressional approval before taking. While a new poll suggests 54 percent of Americans support the action, up from 35 percent last month,  President Obama failed to recieve any sort of bounce. No, we havent had a C-130 crash in the dessert trying to rescue Americans held hostage – but you cannot say Obama is seen as strong and decisive.

One should remember the problem created by the Obama administration by back-stabbing our current allies such as the United Kingdom or Isreal while giving tyrant states like Iran and Syria pretty much a free hand.

The jury is still out on this key.

“Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.” “Obama wins his eighth key.”

Lichtman tries to cite Osama Bin-Laden’s death as the sole reason for foriegn success. What the professor does not do, however, is view the entire policy. When President Obama said he wanted to lead from behind, he apparently meant it. While Americans are burned out from nation building, we certainly do not feel like letting other countries dictate to us what our best interest are. Obama failes on this key miserably.

Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. ” “Obama loses this key”

I agree with this. President Obama is not seen as a type of hero to the average American. He does not inspire optimism in our future or propose bold plans which include Americans doing what we do best. Instead we are being fed a steady stream of washington-knows-it-all bran. Bleh.

“Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t” bama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.”

I left the quote in full to make a point about how this man is cooking his own books for what ever reason. Obviously this man has not seen Herman Cain or Governor Rick Perry. (Full Disclosure, I support and have donated to Rick Perry – you should too)

Both men are inspiring and offer incredible records. Both are national heros of sorts, especially when it comes to the economy and knowing how to put Americans back to work without policy which leaches off tax payer dollars.

After reviewing Lichtman keys we can see President Obama wins three keys with one more up in the air.

I saw few who fit that description. At least none which I sat at ease with.

Along came Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2009, who caught my attention while preaching against an orgy regulatory of chains and government intervention forged by the Obama Administration and Democrats.

It was not just the main stream conservative rhetoric Governor Perry was preaching, but the economic results on display in Texas which contrasted to the rest of the nation’s malaise. While the rest of the country’s employment and economic numbers were hanging on for dear life, Texas was thriving.

It wasnt just a coincidence either.

Governor Perry and the Texas legislature advocated strong profreedom, probusiness policies which attracted business to Texas.

It was as a direct result of those policies that Texas added nearly one million jobs. This contrasts to the failing national economy policy which depends on massive defict spending, which we can no longer afford, to stay afloat.

It isnt just about the economy, though. There were many other facets to Perry which drove me to investigate the man further.

Governor Perry’s committment to state’s rights and the tenth amendment means he understands the importance of the power of states to make change and that all power and knowledge does not centralize from Washington, DC.

Then there is the not so small fact that Perry dots all the “i”s and crosses all “t”s when it comes to social issues like abortion.

Perhaps most importly, though, Governor Perry brings an articulate pro-American optimism which this nation needs desperately. His belief in American exceptionalism and that our best days are still ahead of us are core to what this nation needs.

If you’ve followed Governor Perry since 2009 in hopes that he would run in 2012, you know that the optimism he espouses isnt just campaign rhetoric, but part of his fiber.

Whats more, however, his record proves his ability to lead from the front, not behind or leaving it others to debate.

Governor Perry is a full spectrum conservative leader whose belief in the American people and the promise of our nation is genuine and uniting.

I would ask fellow Redstaters to embrace each other and support Governor Perry as he takes the first step in running for the President of the United States of America and restoring our nation as our founding fathers envisioned it.

We are still the shining city of the hill and hope for freedom which Ronald Reagan spoke of. We just need a reminder. Governor Rick Perry is that reminder.