Some suggestions, in no particular order, to help you if I can:

Gotta put to rest any notions that you may be secretly squishy down the road. You need to COMPLETELY disavow your stances on health care mandates, global warming and any vestiges of love for Big Gub’mint solutions. A Catholic term will come in handy here: Mea Culpa. Use it and extricate yourself from the Swamp of Supposed Squishiness.
• Abandon your attacks on the other GOP candidates, especially those that appear to disparage wealth, or highlight the gap between the wealth of one candidate versus others. That smacks of Class Warfare and – worse, in my book! – displays an alarming propensity for Envy, which if I am not mistaken, is one of the Seven Deadlies. You also need to get away from the notion that wealth is somehow a product of “not work.” Hereditary wealth, perhaps, but the kind you’ve been dissing these past few weeks is actually the product of quite vibrant Capitalism.
• Turn your considerable intellect toward the REAL Enemy, Obama. You’ve done very well in debates by highlighting the Liberal presumptions in the media’s questioning. Just ratchet that up a notch or two by highlighting the Welfare State’s presumptions, and attacking the Current Occupant of the White House’s complicity in these schemes.
• You need to distance yourself from your self-professed Progressivism. Glenn Beck, among others, is doing yeoman’s work in highlighting this dangerous creed, and your continued association and identification with its practitioners of yore – like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR – is not earning you any bonus points with a crowd that is increasingly aware of the danger from this sector. You may have a shallow historical affection for these figures, but surely, it can’t be on the depth of their convictions of Progressivism that you admire them so. If it is, Heaven help ya, because you’re as destructive as they wanted to be, albeit perhaps at a more measured and stately a pace. Makes no difference, in the end, you’ll get us there just as surely if Progressivism’s your Guiding Light.
• So help you, if you earn the nomination and there are other allegations of marital infidelty lurking out there, you will justly deserve the contempt and scorn of everyone. We do not want to be waiting for any other shoes to drop, and you cannot trust anyone in Gub’mint or the media – probably all sides of the media! – from delving into and disclosing that crap if it exists. Do a little soul-searching, and if there is ANYTHING out there, you either need to drop out for the good of the party and the country now, nothing less will be acceptable. People are hitching their wagons to YOUR star, and they don’t want to be in the vicinity if you go nova, in a very bad way. Ditto any allegations for lobbying or other Gub’mint activities.

Good luck!

Mitt, from a wanna-give-you-the-benefit-of-the-doubt possible supporter, some notes, in no particular order, to (hopefully) help your campaign:

If there are less-than-honest characterizations of your opponents in campaign literature or advertising, please clean them up and rise above that. Admonish any associated PACs to do the same.
• If there are “dirty tricks” practiced by your campaign staff, please clean them up and rise above that.
• If there are any inconsistencies or omissions or inaccuracies in any documents your campaign releases, clean them up and do a full confession.
• Humility and thankfulness for every vote and every supporter is in order. No more talk – especially among campaign staff! – of having this or that asset “in the bag” or “in your back pocket.” The illusion of a rich man buying the election is not a positive one for you. And no more declarations of “it’s over” when the handful of delegates awarded still does not yet give you the majority you need. It ain’t over ’til it’s over!
• Try to embrace Tea Party and Conservative principles: Limited government, fiscal conservatism and free markets.
• The first priority is to defeat Obama. Turn your considerable intellect and passion toward the true target, and rally support for that mission behind you. Abandon attacks against other GOP candidates, and the support (and delegates) will follow. You claim to be the most electable: Start proving it by beginning the fight againt the Enemy!
• Abandon your unqualified support of RomneyCare. Conservatives don’t like any state-mandated – and that means State AND Federal! – programs dictating to them how to lead their lives in every little detail. Without Conservatives solidly behind you, you don’t have a prayer in the general election.
• Use your business acumen to its fullest advantage. We have had politicians without an ounce of business sense at the helm for too long now, and we need someone who’s been in the Driving Chair, cutting the red tape, trimming the fat, greenlighting the cost savings, sparking innovation and leading from the front in an arena he knows! Added Bonus: Appoint Steve Forbes, another excellent businessman, to be your SecTreas!
• In debates, which you’re already very good at, start to turn to showcase Conservative principles in your answers, and target Obama more, and concentrate MUCH less on the other candidates.
• You also have to start distancing yourself from “Establishment” Republicans who’ve been in Washington for too long. There’s plenty of corruption to go around, and it doesn’t all have a Big “D” after its name! If you truly believe you’re an outsider on a mission to clean things up in D.C., start to show us and convince us. (This may involve ditching McCain.)

Yours to win or lose, but you can only truly win – and not just the primaries, but the general! – as a Conservative. What we’ve seen so far isn’t the most glowing example of Conservatism, but only you can prevent this forest fire from consuming you.

Good luck!

BLECH!

Watched a GREAT movie last night, “Judgement at Nuremburg,” in which Pragmatism was the central subject of the film. Four Nazi judges were on trial in 1948, for their roles in furthering the Nazi state through their jurisprudence. A secondary theme was the U.S. Military’s pressing need for the German people’s support as the Berlin Airlift was just beginning.

The Nazi judges’ defense was that they were doing what needed to be done to protect their nation, and all their actions could be characterized as “rescuing” Germany from the depths of Post World Wat I depression, and then later under the Nazis, of supposedly sacrificing a few to save the many.

The Military’s pressure on the American Tribunal was to be more lenient in sentencing the Nazi judges, because the German people would look more kindly on the occupying powers in the face of naked Soviet aggression, then just beginning.

In one of the final scenes from the movie, Nazi Judge Ernst Janning (played by Burt Lancaster) has a visit from the American Tribune Chair Dan Haywood (played by Spencer Tracy.) The following dialogue about the Holocaust (from my own, imperfect memory) follows:

Janning: “We never thought it would come to that.”

Haywood: “It came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death who was innocent.”

This, I believe, is a warning to our own Pragmatic Day and Age. Every step you take echoes in the ages, so every step must be made with integrity and thought given to the consequences.

It applies to just about everything, if you really think about it, but I believe it has special meaning as we head into the momentous elections this year. I have been watching two of the remaining four GOP candidates descend into bitter attacks, and I’m not sure either camp is fully cognizant of their own shortcomings nor the consequences of their strategies beyond the immediate political gains and losses. Both candidates have long histories of Pragmatic approaches to political maneuverings, one as a Republican governor of a very liberal state, and one as a Republican firebrand amid the swirl of political and personal tumult throughout his career.

Not only has a crass Pragmatism defined their political histories, but it informs their current strategies for winning the Presidential nomination, and makes certain assumptions about how they will be perceived and supported by those they purport to lead.

By examining their pragmatic histories to date, we can gain some insights into their characters,

By examining their current motives and execution of their strategies, we can also gain some insights into their characters.

And by examining their assumptions about us, those who will ostensibly be “led” by them, we can not only glean insights into their characters, but discern in our own some fodder for productive contemplation.

Personally, I can accept the pragmatism of their yesteryears, with a hope that they will have learned some lessons to enable them to more effectively lead in the future. It’s a guarded, stingy hope, perhaps tempered by my faith and experience with “mere men.”

Personally, I abhor the current tactics and execution of their campaigns. I had hoped that, in the one case, higher religious principles would’ve been invoked in the strategy and execution of his campaign, and in the other case, had hoped that higher Conservative principles would have been used in structuring his relationships with his opponents and in conducting his campaign. But apparently the Pragmatism is too strong in these, and that is a very bad thing.

In addition to these two candidates’ overweening Pragmatism, I have watched their various supporters go at each others’ throats with much the same abandon of either Religious or Conservative principles on their own parts. When an eventual nominee is chosen, will the rancor and bitterness on exhibit today give way to a shared sense of mission when the target becomes the Marxist in the White House? I am skeptical, until proven otherwise.

And the opposite side of that same coin needs to be examined from the candidates’ side: It seems to me that the two main protagonists in the GOP are making a very Pragmatic – and quite possibly very wrong! – assumption that the strife will be forgotten, acrimony will recede, and all will be forgiven in the end game of the campaign. I have seen numerous instances of what I thought were very principled and stalwart Conservatives declare they would definitely NOT support their chosen candidate’s opponent were he, the opponent, to be nominated. The assumption that the Conservatives will experience a Kumbaya Moment post nomination may be the most dangerous Pragmatic assumption of all.

So what’s the cure?

Can’t do anything about past history. What’s done is done, and we need to come to grips with that, both candidates and supporters.

In the present campaigns, an honest presentation of a candidates’ history, stances and platforms is needed, and among supporters, an honest evaluation of the pros and cons of each. But the bitterness and rancor exhibited by some needs to end. Don’t mind passion in advocating a particular stance, but cannot see how partisan sniping furthers the cause of Conservatism as a strategic concern.

And finally, a warning: Pragmatism will be rejected, most noticeably by the Tea Party, but as it redounds in society as a whole, by pretty much everyone. The cure for the Pragmatic Assumption is Principled Leadership. Only then will Conservatives – and quite possibly, Principled and Loyal Opposition – respond positively in the way it needs to be to enable us to work ourselves out of this mess we find ourselves in.

This is such a time.

I wish to draw some clear lines about Conservatism, in hopes that they will, first of all, solidify in my own mind the battle lines, and if possible, help others who may be struggling to find the sure handhold to grasp for the coming fight. For I firmly believe there will be a fight, and quite possibly not of just words, but fearsome blows. A good handhold seems like a decent idea, no?

In the long string of debates among the GOP hopefuls of late, there has been a noticeable lack of clear definition of Conservative principles as the fight has descended, too often, into inter-personal attacks concerning one person’s stance versus another’s. Too often, the underlying Conservative principle is unseen, or ignored, or forgotten. That can’t be good.

So, for the next few lines, I’d like to try to lay out some of the underlying Conservative principles as they pertain to the debate, and as they compare and contrast with the Opposition, and as they may pertain to the future fight. I probably won’t touch everything here, and will likely add others as the time goes on, or in future posts.

Conservatism, in my opinion, is the political manifestation of the philosophical stance of Existentialism: That is, Man’s coming to grips with his individual existence in the world. I make no apologies in drawing heavily from Soren Kierkegaard’s model, with the subjective (individual) examination of the Aesthetic, the Ethical and Religious aspects of life and living:

• The Aesthetic stage of life deals with a man’s coming to grips with himself and the physical world around him, and what makes him feel “good.” (VERY broadly speaking!)

• The Ethical stage deals with how man comes to grips with other men.

• The Religious stage attempts to come to grips with man’s relationship to a Supreme Being.

Kierkegaard generally saw man as progressing from one stage to another, with the Religious being the highest stage.

Conservatism, for me at least, consists of how I deal with life in each of these three “arenas:” How I deal with the art and culture and beauty of the world around me, how I deal with other people, and finally how I deal with my relationship to God. (In this case, it *IS* all about me!)

Now, government – or “Gub’mint” as I am wont to say! – is an institution of men among men to attempt to impose order in the affairs of men. As a Conservative, I recognize the need for government, but the BIG QUESTION for Conservatives is how much is enough? And what level of imposition is permissible in an individual’s life? In one sense, “Freedom” might be defined as the relative level of imposition of government on an individual or society. As a Conservative, I’m generally in favor of limiting Gub’mint’s imposition on individuals only as much as necessary to ensure general peace and freedom to conduct associations and business as the individual sees fit.

Conservatism generally rebels at the notion that Gub’mint should control individuals’ interactions and business, insofar as those associations and interactions don’t upset the orderly day-to-day progression of society or break any laws. You should be free to associate with whom you please, when you please, where you please, as long as you’re not breaking any laws or harming society. (It gets tricky, I’ll acknowledge that, but generally, I think this describes mainstream Conservative thought.)

To sum up in a few words so far: Conservatism is concerned with an Individual and his Freedom in relationship to Government.

Another important aspect of Conservatism is the principle of Private Property. This includes the concept of working to use one’s Private Property to benefit one’s self, and being allowed to reap the benefits of the gains realized from the use of that Private Property.

Conservatives generally agree that Gub’mint should exist to protect the Private Property rights of individuals. This can be done via laws which govern behavior, enforcement of contracts or agreements between individuals, and police protection and national defense.

All the people who make up and reside in the society, and who agree to live by its laws, and who contribute labor, taxes or goods and services to the society, can say they enjoy “sovereignty:” the right to participate in the society, to agree to the existing laws, and to try to peacefully and legally change those things they can when desired. This “sovereignty” is something Conservatives wish to uphold, because it represents one of the ultimate freedoms of any society: The right to determine its own course in the world, free from outside influences.

To sum up in a few words so far: Conservatism is concerned with maintaining the sovereignty of the Individual, his Freedom and his Private Property in relationship to Government, and maintaining the sovereignty of the Government as a whole in the world at large.

One last piece of the puzzle: The Constitution. Conservatives revere the Constitution as the overarching rule book with sets up the proper relationship of the Government to the Individual, in order to ensure the Individual’s sovereignty, his Freedom, the sovereignty of his Private Property, and the sovereignty of the whole structure in the world.

The root of the word “Conservative” is “Conserve,” meaning to guard the hard-won freedoms for the Individual, his Freedom, his Private Property, and the limits of Government. We’re highly suspicious – and jealous! – of any attempts to change the basic relationships I’ve described here.

Take taxes, for example. Is it fair to forcibly take a portion of one man’s labor – his Private Property – to give to another who has not participated in any way the earning of it? Do you see how Conservative bristle at the suggestion of “wealth redistribution?” Can you see why we get steaming mad at the liberals’ inability – or unwillingness! – to put a “hard value” on the term “fair share?” Can you see why we hate the fact that almost half of America pays NO INCOME TAX, while we have punishing levels – and threats of even more! – for those who are most productive? Can you see why that’s a big issue for us?

Take illegal immigration and voter fraud. Can you see why Conservatives – who live and work and play by the rules and expect all others to do the same – might be upset when illegals vote, or other people illegally vote in decisions where a person’s sovereignty – of his person, of his Freedom, of his Private Property, and of his Government as a whole – is usurped? The illegal actions of some threaten the integrity of the sovereignty of what we hold dear. Can you see why we view this as a problem?

Can you see why Conservatives have an issue with Gub’mint spending? Can you see how ever larger Gub’mint threatens to upset the balance between the Individual, his Freedom, his Private Property and the Gub’mint as a whole? When Gub’mint spends beyond its means, and chains unborn future generations to debt rung up for today’s luxuries, can you see why we might get a little upset?

I would venture to say that most issues of concern to Conservatives can be boiled down to this basic interference in the relationship of Man to his Freedom to his Property to his Government.

1. Education: Complete Elementary, Middle and High School – Diploma, then Go to College (Optional)

2. Work: Get a Job
3. Marriage: Get Married
4. Family: Have Kids
5. Live Within Your Means

The steps should be done in order, and if you get them out of order, you’re messin’ up!

If you truly try to live by the Social Contract, and make every effort, then, when and if a time comes that you stumble temporarily or fall occasionally, there are all kinds of help available, and gladly given with no shame or stigma attached. We have all the forbearance in the world for “can’t,” but have a very hard time tolerating “won’t.”

Everybody understands when someone can’t do something, because of physical or mental circumstances. Largely, society has no problem taking care of those who truly can’t. But “won’t” is an entirely different matter.

See, Conservatives have a hard time figuring out why it’s their responsibility to pay for the bad choices of people who buck the rules. You drop out of school and become a perpetual welfare case; how is that our fault, and why do we keep getting our paychecks raided when more and more people think this is OK? You have 7 kids by 5 different fathers none of whom is married to you, and why is this our problem? You can’t keep a job because you’re too insubordinate or drunk or stoned, and so you become a permanent fixture on the public dole. Why do our taxes keep going up for more spending to pay for correcting this cavalcade of poor decisions?

We need to attach some consequences to poor decisions and destructive behaviors. You drop out of school? No welfare benefits for you. You have kids out of wedlock? Loss of welfare benefits after the second child. You do drugs? Absolutely no Gub’mint benefits of any kind for you: No clean needles, no welfare checks, no food stamps. Make sure education at every level enforces the notion of the Social Contract, and clearly details the types of poor decision-making and behavior that will result in known consequences. There should be no excuses that one remains in ignorance after the 12th year of life. If kindergartners are expected to digest the nuances of sex ed, surely the subsequent years can be used to soak in some of the harsh lessons of life lived outside the rudimentary social contract.

If you’re a liberal, and your head hasn’t yet exploded, you’re probably screaming at your monitor about my insensitivity and cruelty and selfishness. How dare I limit anyone’s enjoyment of this life by my narrow rules!

But what you think are limits are like guardrails on a mountain road. We have rules to keep you – as much as we can – from negatively impacting society. Millenia of trial and error have shown that the disruptive or destructive behaviors – like dropping out of school, having kids out of wedlock, unwillingness to hold a steady job, doing drugs or alcohol to excess, or gambling excessively – have profound impacts on society as a whole. The ones who play by the rules and try to keep the social contract are getting sick of coming to the rescue of those who refuse, (not “can’t” but “won’t!”) Having to siphon off resources to keep rescuing your wayward asses from the ravines along the side of the mountain because you won’t even observe the limits of the guardrails drains our pockets and our reserves of good will. This detracts from our own abilities to keep to the social contract and trying to live the best lives we know how to.

It won’t take too many disastrous trips into the ravines before you might start to get the idea that that guardrail is a pretty good idea.

The guardrails along the mountain road are not limitations on your driving. In fact, they’re there so your continued driving is possible. What a concept!

• Obama’s Vision for a Spartan America

• The United States of Sparta

Unashamed Confession: I think, in many ways, the “Military Model” is the most efficient way to get things done that absolutely need to get done. You got yourself a natural disaster, a manufacturing deadline, a weekend work crew, and – need I say this? – some dirtbag country needing brought into line with civilized behavior, you go to the “Military Model” to get ‘er done! You (self-)select a leader and sub-leaders, divvy the work into chunks, assign teams, and monitor progress until completion. The commander and leaders make sure the tools are at hand to do the job, and train the troops to do it well and correctly, hopefully the first time. The Military Model maximizes efficiency, resources and time – usually!

Some types of people naturally thrive in the Military Model. Leaders quickly distinguish themselves. Middle commanders take directions and translate them into action. Workers – and this next part is key! – who recognize the expediency of the task at hand and the situation, and who willingly align themselves with the goal of executing the task, become the most vital cog in the execution of the plan. In the Military Model, people who don’t “measure up” to the standards of behavior are chewed up and spit out, either in the Darwinian experiences of the literal battlefield, or by joining the ranks of the unemployed, or the ranks of the “helpers in the rear areas.”

In our American society, we utilize the Military Model only on very narrowly defined occasions (see above), and this probably constitutes the genius of the Founding Fathers and the implementation of their vision in our 200+ years! Other than the very few, narrowly defined occasions (see above), we generally eschew the model in favor of the chaos of freedom, which in the end, is much more fulfilling to the individual and society’s ultimate goals.

Other societies throughout history have experimented with the Military Model as the BASIS of the society, and I think history would be a pretty harsh judge of the results when using the “Freedom Yardstick” we know and love through our own American culture. Sparta, as referenced by Jonah Goldberg in his essays above, was one such, and the most recent and, to me, most relevant example of a martially-oriented society is Soviet Russia. Neither is particularly laudable when viewed from the unique American perspective.

Briefly, Sparta was organized along a Military Model that killed deformed babies outright, required brutal, narrowly defined indoctrination and training as the ideal, and required unstinting obedience.

Soviet Russia, similarly, was organized along military lines for a life-long struggle against Capitalism. Cadres of children were organized, trained and indoctrinated into the structure of the all-powerful state. Workers were organized into “brigades” of “shock” workers who “fulfilled collective norms” according to “state planning commissions” whose dictates must be unquestioningly obeyed lest you are ejected from the society to suffer the equivalent of “Killed In Action.” This meant at the very least ostracism and expulsion, and all too often meant execution, suddenly with a bullet to the head, or drawn out in months or years of torture, labor camps, and exile.

We have before us, in a little less than 10 months, a momentous decision to make: Whether we as a free people will accept the vision of a man who wants us to fall into collective lock-step, knee jerk march to a glorious future that he and other elites believe is best for us, planned out to the most excruciating detail by him and other elites, and administered by a stern, all-seeing state lest anyone fall out of compliance. Or, we can choose to be free, and accept the chaos, and the responsibilities and consequences of that freedom.

My heritage is one of freedom. I grew up in freedom, and willingly, for a 10-year span of my life, subordinated myself to the Military Model. There, I not only studied the American Military Model, but that of Soviet Russia. I was taught by actual survivors of the GULAG, and though I willingly marched and saluted and obeyed, I never forgot the inheritance of freedom that I would someday return to. Today, I live and work according to the dictates of my own conscience. I choose each day to get up and work at a job I love, with the full knowledge that I can go anywhere, do anything I set my mind to. No one tells me I must work as a gang laborer in a “shock” brigade, no one has me chant slogans to a Dear Leader during my breaks. I get home and watch wwhat I want, and read what I want, and think what I want, and write what I want. THAT is the freedom I have worked for. I will not be a slave laboring under the direction of elites, for a morally questionable future, to an end merely as a disposable cog in some giant machine, a provider of goods that parasites demand of me, and robbed from me at what is ultimately the point of Gub’mint’s gun.

A little less than 10 months until the most momentous decision in American history will be made. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve…

A ringing Sarah Palin endorsement for Rick Perry would’ve done WONDERS for his campaign! All we heard, though, was silence until too late, then an aside endorsement of Newt, if only to prolong the “vetting.”

I love the fire Sarah Palin brought to the campaign in 2008, and I’ve watched her wend her way through the murky waters between campaigns, but in the past few weeks, when she could’ve had a very profound effect on the course of the GOP primaries and – by extension! – the course of the nation as a whole, she was silent. The immediate effect was Rick Perry dropping out of the race, and the ascendancy of Newt to the chagrin of Romney, with Santorum looking on. In the early days of a Romney or Newt presidency, or heaven forbid into Obama’s second term, this will, I think and hope, be seen as a wasted opportunity to show leadership and take command.

Sarah, if you’re not going to run, at least get behind someone who shares your core values! Would you honestly say Mitt or Newt share your values? Why were you silent when Rick Perry, who does, needed support?

The thought occurs that the same could be said of Jim DeMint. Just swap out Sarah’s name for Demint’s.

I think REAL Conservatives, in the end, will be disappointed with Mitt or Newt. That, too, may prove beneficial in 2016, but as one Twitter Wag put it, that might be like sending a surgeon in to try to revive a cadaver at that point. I hope and pray it doesn’t come to that.

The question was asked, in effect,”Will we have the guy on board who’ll be able to go in and perform the major surgeries and -ectomies that will be required to trim the bloat off Big Gub’mint?” We are going to need someone who will go in and excise – literally CUT OFF – every piece of bloated bureaucracy he can find, to restore the Republic to health. No “tweaking,” no “retooling,” no “streamlining.” CHOPPING! Anything less than that and we’re just headed for the same end, albeit more slowly.

I think the NEXT couple of primaries are going to highlight organizational strengths, versus debate strengths. Mitt Romney is already doing a lot of advanced footwork in Florida, with Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri following hard on the heels. Who will be the best at pivoting and moving from venue to venue, and seamlessly working to gather support? That, too, will be telling, and will speak as much about each candidate as any debate performances to date.

Having said that, there is something to be said, as Byron York writes here – Why Gingrich Won, Why Romney Lost – about the kind of campaigning that puts a real-life candidate in your face, to answer questions, outline positions, address your desires. Newt and Santorum have done that very admirably so far, versus Romney’s largely script-driven, media buy, canned speech whistle stops. I have longed to see a campaign where the candidate does the hard leg-work to go door-to-door, town-to-town, county-to-county to meet as many people as he or she can before the day of reckoning arrives. I read with glee that Sarah Palin had done just that in her quest to become ultimately Governor of Alaska, and a very large part of me cheered when she began he bus tour in the middle of last year, thinking she might be doing that precise thing in preparation for a run in 2012. Alas, it wasn’t (or hasn’t been to date) an option for her to run, but the template is there, and judging from Rick and Newt’s successes, is not far off the mark for something to emulate, methinks. It will be interesting to see if a modified version can be implemented with so many primaries coming so close together. The problem will be logistics, getting the candidate “out n’ about” to as many people as possible, but there is also an element of getting cheerful, articulate, passionate representatives “out n’ about” to help spread the word, too. In this, the Tea Party can be especially instrumental, but a big questions is, who will they largely rally around? I probably don’t need to remind anyone that the Tea Party isn’t really a centrally organized mass, and does very little coordination in its activities. Still, the term “stalking tiger” comes to mind. The candidate that can inspire some of the many “stalking tiger cubs” to action may be a force to be reckoned with, despite lacking a larger budget or more centralized campaign apparatus.

To date, each of the major candidates has won one state apiece. At the 3-mile mark, it’s still really anybody’s race, regardless of the swell of propaganda emanating from the various campaigns to the contrary. Will be interesting to see what unfolds in a week from now.

@DanHannanMEP: In defence of capitalism. Greed isn’t good but, properly harnessed, it can cause good. (Link to article here.)

In Liberal SimpleThink™, ambition, gumption, perseverence, overcoming adversity – these noble traits become “greed” because of Libs’ disdain for profit, the natural result or product of these traits.

In Liberal SimpleThink™, concepts that make the Liberal uncomfortable – such as frank discussions of morality, homosexuality, race relations, governing philosophy and the like – are best relegated to the all-encompassing moniker of “Hate.”

Liberal SimpleThink™ allows you to cubbyhole all the nuances and distinctions of culture built up over thousands of years into a few, simplistic words that allow you to avoid dealing with life and living. The GateKeepers of Liberal SimpleThink™ – Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. ad infinitum – will tell you what is acceptable SimpleThink™. Trust them.

Or not. In the words of Jimmy Buffett, “I don’t want to swim in a roped-off sea…”

And we really don’t want to rig the game ourselves. We’d just be happy to play on a “level” playing field. At the very least, we’d like to see – from the depths of our own internal justice scales honed from the playgrounds of our youth – the ones who cheat get busted, and they have to pay the price for cheating.

We’re searching for a leader who recognizes this, and will try his or her best to “un-rig” the game. The dissatisfaction we apparently feel toward the current crop of candidates is this: We have little or no confidence they will put much effort into trying to “un-rig” the games we’re either forced to watch or forced to play. I believe they’re betting that we’re betting on heir skills at playing the rigged games.

“Pick me because I know how to play the game.”

NO! We don’t want you representing us in a rigged game, because it’s always us who pays the price. We want you to CHANGE the game by throwing out the rigged rules and shady plays, and punishing the ones who’re trying to game the system. We don’t want you to hone your skills in the rigged game, we want you to re-write the rules so it’s not rigged any more. THEN we’ll be glad to play!

Some nameless, faceless bureaucrat thought it’d be a good idea to sell a bunch of high-performance guns to shady individuals, then try to track them as they wended their way to Mexico. The goal was to discredit gun sales, and thereby take away our rights. The plan backfires, and more than 200 individuals are killed with these guns, including U.S. Citizens, at least one of them a Border Patrol Agent. But the nameless, faceless bureaucrat escapes justice scot-free, and the leader of the scofflaws, He Who Is Entrusted to Uphold the Law Himself, Eric Holder, thumbs his nose at all of us kids demanding justice, and says, “Go pound sand, Racists.”

Cheaters rig the game, get caught, and laugh at us as we demand justice.

Shady organizations work overtime to produce long lists of iffy signatures and force governments to spend millions of dollars to defend recall elections, and demonstrably outrageously faked signatures – like 47 Mickey Mouses, and 13 Crocodile Dundees, and 23 Betty Boops – are allowed to stand as legitimate, and the original shady characters smirk and dare you to try to challenge them, because they are ready with charges of “racism” and squeals of manufactured injustice.

Cheaters rig the game, get caught, and laugh at us as we demand justice.

Dishonest “journalists” put in triple-overtime investigating every aspect of candidates’ lives, except He Who Is Most Liberal, whom they touch not at all. A candidate’s 30-year old love affair is fair game, but not The Hallowed One’s college records, transcripts, or the like. Childhood friends are fair game for dredging up dirt on conservatives, but we have no idea who The Emperor’s Work Colleagues even were.

Cheaters rig the game, get caught, and laugh at us as we demand justice.

I would be just as happy to seal off the Eastern Half of the U.S., exiling all liberals east of the Mississippi. I would sentence anyone breaking the laws, cheating, rigging the system or jimmying the game to do time in the East, among his or her “own kind.” You go ahead and build a Utopia based on gaming the system. Just try.

As for me, I want no part of it. I want first and foremost leaders who will un-rig the games and level the playing field. I want to feel that my participation in the system is just as relevant as the next man’s, and my ideas are given a fair shot at hearing and success. THAT, I can live with.

But I am DAMN tired of watching my honest efforts being counted for nought, nullified by cheaters, negated by crooks, thieves and swindlers.

THAT is the kind of change I’m looking for!

So where are we?

Three candidates – Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman – have dropped out. As one Twitter Wag said in last night’s GOP debate, “Seems like the introductions of the candidates took 5/8 as long as previous debates…”

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Ron Paul are still in it. Romney may or may not have won Iowa (official votes are now being counted, and some reports I saw had Santorum up by 80 votes in the official recount, so that primary (or “caucus” as you might say) is possibly still up in the air. Romney won New Hampshire. South Carolina is this coming Saturday. By all accounts, last night’s debate had Mitt Romney taking some hits, and Newt and Rick Perry doing exceptionally well. There are the better parts of four days’ worth of campaigning to go, and really anything can happen. There is still plenty of time for someone to stick his foot in his mouth.

I’ve seen some, to me, disturbing trends, which bear examination:

• Class Warfare – There have been some “class warfare” attacks by some candidates on others. I *HATE* class warfare, because it uses one of the basest of human emotions – envy – to attack. Envy’s cousin – covetousness – also rears its ugly visage, and THAT one has a specific Commandment addressing it! It is NOT becoming of any GOP candidate to attack another’s apparent wealth or success. The GOP’s goal should be to enable the opportunity for *ANYONE* to achieve similar success, not to tear down success.

  Closely related to Class Warfare is the cry for one candidate (Mitt Romney) to produce his tax records to prove or disprove his success or failure as the CEO of Bain Capital. Couple of points need to be made here:

  • Used to be what a person made was between him and his employer, and NO ONE ELSE. It was once considered crass to inquire of another what his salary was. “None of your business,” should be the standard reply. In a similar vein, a candidate’s tax returns should not be a matter of public debate, in a civil, mannered society. It is a black mark on our society that the class warfare attack of demanding tax returns is “acceptable.”
  • On Bain Capital specifically, is the CEO’s tax return the BEST yardstick of business success or performance? I would argue that there are much better yardsticks – such as financial statements, stock performance, balance sheets, etc. – that are more readily available and more morally available with which to judge a company’s performance. If Bain is a publicly traded company, either the financial statements or stock performance would be the better indicator of success. If privately held, then one may have to look at public records, historical facts, news accounts, etc. to judge.
  • A question I asked on Twitter last night: Would *YOU* be comfortable if *I* demanded to see *YOUR* tax returns? I asked specifically of those “civilians” (non-candidates themselves, like staffers, or even just enthusiasts or advocates for a candidate) who were demanding to see Mitt Romney’s tax returns. My guess is: They would not. That, to me, is pretty telling.
• Anti-Capitalism – Closely related to the Class Warfare attacks have been attacks based on the candidates supposed exploitation of the capitalist system. In this, as many people have said, the attacker allies himself with the Occupy Wall Street mob. Capitalism, far from being the boogeyman, should be instead the yardstick by which we go about our legal, moral, ethical business. Not only is capitalism the best engine of success and prosperity, but we should be highlighting the ideal way capitalism should be practised with the distorted, corrupt system of “crony capitalism” we seem to accept as “normal” in America today. Capitalism works best with as little Gub’mint interference as possible in the markets, with as little D.C. distortions introduced through laws and regulations and petty bureaucracies. And most assuredly, capitalism is best practised when Gub’mint is not allowed to “partner” and pick winners and losers.
• Petulant Partisanship – I have seen, at this early stage, several people on Twitter state categorically that if such and such was the GOP nominee, they would sit out the general election. I find that extremely troubling! At the early part of the campaign, most people agreed that any one of the candidates would be acceptable and a definite improvement over the Marxist Emperor we have infesting the Oval Office at present. That would seem to lead to the assumption that, once the nomination process had shaken itself out, that all would enthusiastically rally around whomever gained the top spot. That it might not happen – at least in a few minds, but who knows how far Twitter and other communications modes allow influence to spread! – is troubling. I ask: Would you honestly give four more years to the Meddling Marxist over any of the GOP candidates? Would you sentence America to the horrors of pure Socialism – or Marxism, or Communism, depending on how far Chairman Zero wants to push it – over the chance to turn it all around, to steer clear of the cliff we’re hurtling toward? Would you really do that just because your guy didn’t get in? I find even having to ask that question fills me with sadness, and a sort of rage. Those who say they will stay away on Election Day are, to me, the “fairest” of “Fair Weather Friends and Sunshine Patriots.” It is raining out, and if you guys won’t show up to fight, I’m questioning your commitment to the cause.

OK. That’s about it for now. In the race, I still see the five remaining candidates pretty much bunched up, and we’re only about 1.5 miles into it. Any one of them can make a break, and no one is out as of this point. There is a LOT of race to be run yet. Take heart!