There are significant issues we can and should be discussing this election year.  The issues are there and there is no denying the issues will be raised but it also apparent that Obama, the democrats and their friends in the media will do all they can to distract us from those very issues and limit their discussion.

The overriding issue is the economy, of course.  After more than three years of failed programs, fear and apprehension, something must be done and only the voters will enable that to happen.  The rising National Debt is an albatross around the neck of every citizen, taxpaying or not.  Those who do not pay taxes won't miss the misery.  They will experience the impact of the disastrous Obama programs through higher costs for energy, food and the other necessities of life.  If we have a job we live in fear that the next job to be lost will be our own.  Employers refuse to hire because of the uncertainty of what it will cost to employ anyone, the overburdening regulations placed on industry, the time required for government approval of new ventures and the effort required to conform to rules generated as a result of an overriding antagonistic attitude toward business by governmental bureaus like the EPA.   

An issue dear to me and that should be important to all citizens is the continuing erosion of our liberty.  Government has continually overstepped its Constitutional boundaries.  If the Supreme Court does not overturn it; Obama will not repeal Obamacare on his own. The voters must put people in Washington who will do that for us.  Americans don't wish to be told where or whether they can obtain medical treatment, what that treatment will be or how much it will cost; not by our government.  Neither do we want to be told the kind of light bulb we can buy, whether we should buy electric or gas automobiles, the size of the automobile, how much salt we can use, what we can give our kids to eat, etc.

Despite  these overriding issues and the refusal of the media to have vetted the candidacy of Barack Obama the media continues to look back at things Romney did fifty years ago.  There are stories of the Romney dog riding in a carrier on top of the family car.  There are efforts to demonize the Romney's because they are rich.  An attempt was made to rewrite a statement Romney made during a Republican primary debate about the effort taken to kill Osama bin Laden.  He did not say he wouldn't have entered Pakistan to get OBL.  He said he wouldn't be so stupid as to threaten it or to talk about it.  There is a story about Romney bullying a boy in 1965 because he wore his hair long.  It doesn't matter that the boy's family has no knowledge that this ever happened.  There is no concern for accuracy.  There is only a concern for a sensational aspect to a story strong enough to distract the attention of those who are sold on candidates by thirty second sound bites and / or motivated to form an impression about a candidate with minimum effort.  Obama is after the vote of the person who doesn't pay attention and what better way to do this than by taking that person's attention off the ball and directing the person toward any individual other than Obama that he / she can be made to hate or blame for whatever their own situation might be.  It is despicable.  It is dishonest.  It is Alinsky.  It is Obama.         

2. Climate Change Alarmist Recants: ‘I Made a Mistake’

British environmental expert James Lovelock now admits he was an “alarmist” regarding global warming — and says Al Gore was too.

Lovelock previously worked for NASA and became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism. In 2007 Time magazine named Lovelock one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and he won the Geological Society of London’s Wollaston Medal in 2006 for his writings on the Gaia theory.

That year he wrote an article in a British newspaper asserting that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

But in an interview this week with MSNBC, Lovelock said a book he is now writing will reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,” he said. “We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time. [The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising. Carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.

“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit.”

MSNBC reported: “He pointed to Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and Tim Flannery’s ‘The Weather Makers’ as other examples of ‘alarmist’ forecasts of the future.”

Lovelock also declared in the interview that “as an independent and a loner,” he did not mind saying, “All right, I made a mistake,” adding that university or government scientists might fear that admission of such a mistake could jeopardize their funding.

In response to Lovelock’s interview, the Climate Depot website stated: “MSNBC, perhaps the most unlikely of news sources, reports on what may be seen as the official end of the manmade global warming fear movement.”

Is there a War on Women?  I say yes.  After all:

• Hilary Rosen took aim and fired a shot at all mothers who choose their kids over a career.  

But this was by no means the first shot:   

• She was later supported on Fox News Channel (on the Hannity show) by Amanda Holden, a female democrat operative who would only credit careers outside the home as work.  Rosen was supported until the leaders of the Obama team saw this method to divide was not working.  

• Barack Obama's policies have left more women than men unemployed.

• Democrats continually insult and assault women by treating them as a single voting bloc that cares only about issues like contraception and abortion despite the fact that women are also mature citizens who are affected by and are concerned about the economy, loss of liberty, security and foreign policy.

But it didn't start there:

• NOW for many years has discredited women who chose motherhood over careers.

• Bill Clinton accosted Kathleen Willy as she approached "her friend" for a job when she and her husband were in financial need.

• Bill Clinton used the power of his position to lure Paula Jones to his hotel room for purposes of an indecent proposal.  When Paula told her story she was called a liar and worse, "Trailer Trash" by James Carville on Clinton's behalf.

• Bill Clinton used the power of the presidency to take advantage of a 21 year old White House Intern, Monica Lewinsky, and used her as his White House toy.

• Hillary Clinton, choosing a legal career over "baking cookies" headed a group in charge of "Bimbo Eruptions" to attack the women her husband left in his wake.  Their job was to DESTROY any woman who might testify against her husband, Bill.  NOW looked the other way multiple times as women massed to report their experiences with Bill Clinton.

• Linda Tripp was attacked mercilessly by the press for her willingness to be a witness for Kathleen Willy.  Willy lived in fear because of threats from unknown men who warned her against testifying or publishing her experience with Bill.  Someone even killed her cat.  

• Bill Clinton conducted a long term affair with Gennifer Flowers ultimately to discard her like an old shoe.

• Juanita Broderick accused Bill Clinton of rape only to have her injuries and the charge ignored by NOW as well as the main stream media because his positions on "women's issues" and his overall agenda worked for them.

But this didn't start with Bill Clinton either:

• Ted Kennedy was responsible for the death of young Mary Jo Kopechne in a vehicular accident on Chappaquiddick Island.  He allowed her to suffocate or drown during the time he failed to report the accident fearing for his political career.  

• Kennedy and Chris Dodd were known for their lewd behavior with waitresses who were helpless against two powerful US Senators.  NOW once again chose to protect these men over the women they might molest.   

• It was Lyndon Johnson who expanded welfare. We all knew this as his War on Poverty.  To qualify a woman had to be a single mother. This chased the man from the home guaranteeing a life of poverty for most of these women and their children.  

• The aftermath of high illegitimacy rates was a direct result of Johnson's policies which hurts both the girls and the boys but especially the women as they learned to be used.

But this didn't start with Lyndon or Teddy either:

• John Kennedy humiliated his wife as he had encounter after encounter with women in and out of the White House.  In those days. The press looked the other way when presidents had mistresses.

• They didn't tell about Roosevelt's girlfriend either, but he only had one.

Affairs and mistresses are nothing new but the level of disrespect may be. The Democrat Party in particular, whether it is the manner they attack those who decide to kiss and tell or the insulting attitude they demonstrate with regard to how they decide those issues that will be important to women has been conducting a war on women for decades.  Their disrespect for women is demonstrated time after time by their repeated attempts to divide them from men, their attempts to make them the same as men in terms of ambition, careers, stature, power and prestige.  I am not opposed to women sharing these traits with men, but for gosh sakes, leave women to decide for themselves what is important to them and respect their decisions.   

Economics is a key issue in this year’s presidential campaign but it is not the only issue.  You would never know this if you watched This Week on Sunday morning February 26.  

With regard to the economic issue, Obama has been a miserable failure.  Gas costs are double what they were when he took his oath of office and he and his supporters try to pretend that his moratorium on drilling in the Gulf that eliminated 24% of American oil production or his veto of the Keystone Pipeline have nothing to do with this.

His abysmal record on employment has been felt throughout the country and his supporters would like to pretend that Obamacare, his fanatical environmental stances, and his desire to raise taxes on people earning more than $250,000 have nothing to do with this.  What employer will want to hire new employees when they do not know the cost of having that employee or whether there will continue to be a market for the product or the service that person might provide?

President Obama has delivered budgets with exorbitant deficits this nation cannot afford.  Inflation is coming folks and we are all hurt by inflation.  Those who are employed worry about the future and are thus reluctant to buy a new home.  No matter, President Obama with the help of Pelosi and Reid built a climate in the banking industry that makes it next to impossible to get a home loan anyway.

Yes, economics will be a big issue in the campaign but it is not the only issue for me.  It is not even the biggest issue.  For me the biggest issue is loss of liberty.  Of what value is economic stability if it comes at the loss of my freedom?  Obama has systematically attempted to substitute his decisions for mine and other consumers.  Obamacare dictates to us.  The First Lady’s programs for school nutrition dictates to parents what their kids should eat for lunch.  Obama has violated multiple tenets of Constitutional protections by dictating policy that invades the province of religious liberty.  He has violated contract law by his grab of General Motors and Chrysler.  His State Department has negotiated a treaty that would attack our Constitutional Protection guaranteed by the 2^nd Amendment.  He refuses to enforce those laws with which he does not personally agree.  Witness the effort he has undertaken to avoid enforcing the US border with Mexico.  Not only does he disrespect his oath of office but also he openly sides with foreign nations against the interests of individual US states by suing those states that attempt to enforce their laws and those federal laws he refuses to enforce. 

To be sure, these actions have their own economic impact but the largest threat Obama presents is to our liberty.  

Answer:  It is Liberty.

I am proud to be an American.  To me, being an American means that I am a part of a nation that was created under principles that include liberties that no other nation on earth had at our time of creation.   We are a part of the great  experiment. 

Our founders limited the powers of the government.  Our founders said that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed.  Our founders also recognized they were not infallible.  They understood that the Constitution as ratified contained provisions that were themselves the result of compromise.  As such, they provided a means to change our Constitution through a process that protected the rights of the minority by requiring a 2/3 majority of the Congress and 3/4 majority of the states.  This distinction is important.  We are not a democracy.  In a democracy all that is required is the consent of the majority.  In America, the majority may not tyrannize the minority. 

Among the strongest beliefs of our founders was that American citizens have the right to be secure in their property.  As an American they believed that I have the right to determine for myself how I might add to or dispose of my property and how I might use that property.  But what is happening?

In my lifetime the government imposed a minimum wage that places them between a prospective employer and a prospective employee.  The result was a sharp increase, particularly in teen unemployment.  

In my lifetime some cities enacted rent control that prevented landlords from raising rent as they needed to meet the market circumstances in their areas.  Immediately the ability to sell rental property disappeared.  Immediately the construction of low value rental property ended.  The only citizens who “won” when these laws were created were those who already lived in someone else’s home and who remained secure they could continue to live there because of someone else’s sacrifice.  

In my lifetime the federal government intervened in the education system.  They provided funding for local schools and because of this funding they continue to dictate curriculums and restrict the rights of local school boards to determine how their children will be educated.  

Smoking laws tell the proprietors of restaurants and bars what legal activities they may allow in their own establishments. 

National security laws dictate who may get on an airplane.  Just recently the TSA denied a woman from Rock Springs, WY the ability to board an airplane because no female agent was present to pat her down at the security gate.  

Insurance laws dictate terms to private companies who offer products to consumers.  Currently this administration is attempting to dictate to insurance companies that they provide free contraceptives to their insured with no co-pay. 

Anti-discrimination laws dictate what I may do with my property and more.  These laws also dictate what I am able to say and what I may hold in my heart as an approved attitude, as an approved thought, as an approved motivation in my dealings with others who may not look like or be like me.   

For a period of time entrance to American universities was controlled by admissions policies based not on qualifications but on quotas to ensure that the demographics of the university were consistent with the demographics of the population at large.  Qualified applicants were denied spots they had earned to favor other less qualified applicants who had the appearance that the government regarded as more “equal”.  When quotas were determined to be unconstitutional the quotas were abandoned in favor of requirements that registrars prove they did not discriminate in their admissions by reporting results consistent with these same demographics.  When someone can explain the distinction between these two methods I would love to have it explained to me. 

Certain crimes are now considered worse because of the motivation of the assailant.  Was it a crime that occurred because of an irrational hatred for individuals of a particular race or sexual orientation?  Why should it matter if someone has committed a crime that his or her motivation was hatred or something else?  Is the victim’s injury not the same?

Obamacare dictates that Americans must purchase insurance policies and imposes fines on those who do not.

Obamacare also requires that insurance companies must insure people for pre-existing conditions.  Thus we will measure the fines against the cost of insurance and if less, we will pay the fine until we get  sick and then buy the insurance.  Insurance companies will disappear and leave us even more dependent upon who?  Our federal government.   

The Obama administration stepped into General Motors, fired its chief executive, demanded that the bondholders subordinate their debt to unsecured creditors and then took control of that company giving a large percentage to their special interest group, the UAW.  Under what Constitutional Authority?

The Obama administration has hired czars who determine policy but who bypass the confirmation process that is in the Constitution.  Why has our Senate not acted to expel these interlopers?  

In New London, CT, the US Supreme Court allowed a local government to confiscate private property from local citizens and give that property to another private party to build a factory.  This was justified as an improvement to the city tax base.  Was this what our founders had in mind by the power of eminent domain?   What would John Jay say about those Supreme Court justices that applied eminent domain to this kind of thievery?  

The current administration is delaying the opening of a Boeing manufacturing facility in South Carolina because it has an interest in directing those jobs to union workers who would be employed by the facility if it were to be built in another state.  

The federal government was initially created to provide a collective security for our thirteen states, assist in commerce, provide postal services and protect private liberties and personal property rights.  Does anyone believe they could have anticipated that rogue jurists might interpret the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with its own words to allow such things as abortion or that the Congress might transfer money from our treasury to organizations who would promote the taking of innocent life?   

My question is not which of these laws may or may not be a good idea in your opinion, but what of this is within the authority of the President, the Congress or the Federal Courts to dictate to the American people?  Should the president be able to dictate to religious institutions, to commercial businesses or to private individuals?  Should our government be able to tell a child where he/she may pray or whether he/she may read his Bible in a school library?  Should the government be able to reach into the preceding moments of a high school football game or a graduation ceremony and dictate that a benediction would be an imposition of religion on those in attendance?  

Our government is runing amuck and we must do something about it if it is not already too late.  We cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama.  He would use those four years to further consolidate his power over our government and his control over individual Americans.   If this country is to survive we must do more than complain.  We must convince those around us who believe they might benefit from these actions and educate them as to the sacrifice they make in accepting those benefits.  The time to act is 2012 and it is 2012.   

I just finished watching the January 26, GOP Debate from Jacksonville, FL and it left me with one very large impression.  Rick Santorum is the real deal.   He stands tall in these debates and he looks people in the eye when he calls them out.  He called Mitt Romney out for Romneycare and he landed his punches.   He is absolutely right when he says that we don’t want to lose the Obamacare issue and that the GOP does risk doing that if Romney is the nominee.   I will support Mitt Romney if he is nominated but I will vote for either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich in the Colorado primary.  

Tea Party people need to insert themselves in their state conventions and get themselves elected as delegates to the National Convention because this could go all the way.   No candidate has demonstrated the ability thus far to win the nomination prior to that convention.   What is at stake is more than simply an election of Republican versus Democrat.  What is at stake is that we have a unique opportunity to place a true conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan back in the White House where a real reversal of fortune can once again take place.  

I continue to believe that Obama is unelectable.   Say what pundits will about the electability of Gingrich, Paul, Santorum or Romney, the campaign will be about Barack Obama.

Barack Obama ignored the wishes of the American people by pushing Obamacare down the throats of the American people.   Games were played that ignored traditional legislative process with the belief that bad legislation was better than no legislation at all and Obama was more than willing to sign any legislation that Pelosi and Reid could lay on his desk.

Barack Obama pushed through a stimulus plan that cost the American taxpayer $800 billion. 

Barack Obama increased the 2009 budgets of several federal agencies by as much as 25%.

Barack Obama fired the CEO of an American corporation without any such authority, assumed the reins of that organization and delivered ownership rights to the UAW over the rights of GM bondholders.

Barack Obama has demonstrated a callous disregard for our Constitution and continues to violate his oath of office.  He refuses to enforce immigration laws.  He and his attorney general refuse to enforce election laws.   He has hired multiple czars without Senate advice and consent to enact White House policy.  He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess.   The fact that Congress allows him to get away with this is a mystery we will discuss another day.    

The results of his failed leadership have been an almost constant 9.9 – 10.1% Unemployment Rate.   The housing market has not recovered because people are without jobs and they cannot afford to buy homes.   Those already in homes are losing them to foreclosure left and right.  

The value of the dollar can be seen against other world currencies.   Only a few years ago, just prior to Obama’s election, the Canadian dollar could be purchased with $.84 USD.  Today this purchase would require $1.00 USD.   This is a loss of almost 25% of the buying power of our currency when we trade with our closest neighbor. 

Obama has added more than $4 Trillion to the National Debt and he demonstrates an unwillingness to do anything to curb his appetite for spending.   He pits American against American by pointing to those who have been successful and pretending to believe they haven’t paid their fair share.  His attempts to make people dependent on government to enable him to buy their votes is blatant and despicable.   

This list isn’t exhaustive.  I saw one in an e-mail the other day that was exhaustive and it took more room than I want to devote in this article.  The point is that Barack Obama has ushered in four years of calamity.  The change people hoped for in 2008 has been a change like no one would have wished on their neighbors or themselves.  

Look at the electoral map.  What reason has Obama given any of the states that voted for John McCain to vote for him in 2012?   Those states have to be regarded as safely in the hands of the Republican nominee.   Thus the Republican nominee will begin with 173 votes and must get 97 more. 

Let us look at some of the larger states that Obama won in 2008.  Let’s look at Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey.   Are things going so well in these states that the margin of victory won by Obama in 2008 will place these states in his corner again?  I don’t believe so.   Look at these results from 2008:

Indiana  - 11 Electoral Votes – Obama 50, McCain 49 – Since this election Indiana has elected a Republican governor and traditionally this is a Republican state.

N Carolina – 15 Electoral Votes – Obama 50, McCain 50 – The N Carolina governor is unpopular and will likely be replaced in 2012 with a Republican.  N Carolina is traditionally a Republican state.

Michigan – 17 Electoral Votes – Obama 57, McCain 41 – Since this election Michigan has experienced an exodus of its citizens leaving to find jobs in other states  Michigan now has a Republican governor.

Virginia – 13 Electoral Votes – Obama 53, McCain 46 – Since this election Virginia has elected a Republican governor and legislature.  Expect Virginia to go GOP.

Pennsylvania – 21 Electoral Votes – Obama 55, McCain 44 – Since this election Pennsylvanians elected a Republican governor.  Expect Pennsylvania to go GOP

Ohio – 20 Electoral Votes – Obama 51, McCain 47 – Since this election Ohio has elected a Republican governor.  Expect Ohio to go GOP.  

Florida – 27 Electoral Votes – Obama 51, McCain 48 – Retired people and those associated with the Space Program have been hurt by Obama’s policies.  Expect Florida to go GOP

Wisconsin – 10 Electoral Votes – Obama 56, McCain 42 – Wisconsin has since elected a Republican governor who is supported by the electorate and is taking control of the Wisconsin budget with positive results.

New Jersey – 15 Electoral Votes – Obama 57, McCain 42 – Since this election, New Jersey elected a Republican governor who is popular with the taxpayers of New Jersey.   Expect New Jersey to go GOP.

These states will provide 149 Electoral Votes that I expect the GOP to take from Obama in 2012.  The GOP candidate may not get all of these but I expect that we will get far more than the 97 McCain needed and there could be more.  I have hopes for Colorado and Iowa.  I even have hopes for some of the New England states but call me an optimist. 

I expect a landslide election similar to 1980 which spelled the end of the Carter Administration.  For this to happen we must all continue to do our part and be sure we keep people aware of the consequences of re-electing Barack Obama.   Remember Keystone, the moratorium in the Gulf and the refusal to allow energy production that have driven the cost of gasoline to more than twice what it was four years ago.   Remind everyone why this has happened.  They will vote their pocketbooks.  

Here we are on January 4 and finally, the long awaited Iowa caucuses are over.  Michelle Bachmann has ended her campaign.  I am disappointed.  Rick Perry gives indications that he may pull out of the race.  This does not disappoint me.   

As we look forward to New Hampshire and South Carolina, who are the true contenders?

Iowa says Romney, Santorum, and Paul are the big guns right now.  New Hampshire will likely give Mitt Romney an additional lift.  South Carolina will likely say the opposite.  The strategy for some time has been for Mitt Romney to run against multiple conservatives who will logically split the vote among each other.  The elimination of Bachmann from the campaign helps the other conservatives.  If Perry will withdraw, it will help even further.  

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum seem to be the two who will work to earn the opportunity to challenge Romney for this eventual nomination.  Paul remains in the race but Paul is no more able to expand his base than is Romney.  I do not believe either man is able to grow beyond a small minority of the Republican population.  Magnify the differences between Romney and the remainder of the candidates and the telling argument is that Romney will likely draw no more Republican votes because of a crowd that does not regard Romney as sufficiently conservative.  As a member of the Tea Party count me among those who will not support Romney in the primaries but who would find him acceptable in a general election against Barack Obama.  To me, Obama is no better than Mussolini was.  I understand that Mussolini at least made the trains run on time.  

Paul is unlikely to gain much support beyond 20 or 25% of the Republican population because of his Libertarian policies, particularly his very dangerous foreign policy.  I regard Paul as being almost as dangerous as another four years of Obama.  The only difference is that I could support Paul's fiscal policies and Paul would restrict himself to remain within the confines of his Constitutional powers.  I have yet to support any policy of Obama.  Obama continues to ignore our Constitution in favor of expediency.  One might ask why Congress allows him to get away with this but then the problem is not only Barack Obama, it is Harry Reid as well. 

All indications are that Newt Gingrich may concentrate on the destruction of Mitt Romney.  Some regard this as a problem.  I do not.  As long as Rick Santorum remains unscathed by such attacks, I worry not that Newt Gingrich might take his case against Mitt Romney to the GOP electorate.  

So, who can still be nominated?  I see Santorum as sitting in the best seat with Gingrich as a strong possibility as well.  Something that makes this incredible is the manner in which Santorum was ignored by the media in countless debates.  He had minimal exposure yet he demonstrated an ability to work Iowa and get the support he needed for a first place tie.  I will look forward to future movements in other states.  I expect Romney to do well in New Hampshire.  This is to be expected, as New Hampshire is his back yard.  I also expect Santorum and Gingrich to do well in South Carolina.  We will have to assess what remains after that.  

As for Huntsman, he should have dropped out weeks ago.    

Yes, I have been missing from the battlefield for the last six weeks.  I must extend my apologies to those who have enjoyed reading my blog.  I will reluctantly admit that I will have future absences as well.  I have taken a foreign assignment that is in a remote location without reliable Internet reception.  I will return to that assignment next week.  In the meantime, I think it necessary to evaluate what has happened with the GOP candidates who were in the race at the time of my November departure. 

Herman Cain - I was tremendously disappointed to see Herman Cain remove himself from the race.  In my opinion, this demonstrates the worst traits of American politics.  It is not until someone becomes prominent that suddenly people come from the woodwork and claim the candidate committed human atrocities.  The news is all too eager to concentrate on the accusations regardless of available proof or even demonstrations of something greater than he said- she said statements.  It is the accusation of wrongdoing that is important, not whether there is proof that it actually occurred.  There were multiple accusations, not just one.  Similarly, there were multiple accusations trumpeted against William Jefferson Clinton.  The only difference was that in the case of Clinton, there was evidence, there was substantiating testimony from people like Arkansas troopers and Linda Tripp but somehow the press chose not to trumpet that evidence and it wasn't until the stained blue dress was submitted that any of the evidence of Clinton's dalliances with one Monica Lewinsky were accepted as fact.  Contrast this to a prominent GOP candidate who has had apparently multiple women come forward and talk about his advances and flirtations.  Suddenly Herman Cain was among the most evil men in the world.  He had flirted with a woman.  No, we cannot have that.  Suddenly Cain's message, 9 - 9 - 9 was lost forever to the remaining candidates in the GOP debates.

Newt Gingrich - From all indications, Republicans are savaging Newt Gingrich.  From the beginning, Newt entered the race with a philosophy of fighting fair.  It is his ideas that are resonating with the Republicans and Independents of America.  All evidence remains that he is a brilliant man, entirely capable of becoming President of the United States.  His personal life has included some infidelity and acts that Gingrich admits he is not proud of.  Whose life doesn't include circumstances we would rather no one ever remember?  I continue to regard Gingrich a viable candidate that I can easily support however I am not yet willing to endorse.  

Mitt Romney - Mitt has been solid, almost stoic in his rise to 25%.  Could I accept him as President of the United States?  Yes.  As a conservative, tea party activist, I could accept Mitt Romney.  I care not about Romneycare because he supported this in Massachusetts and he recognizes Obamacare as an unauthorized intrusion against the civil liberties of all Americans.  I care not about his Mormon faith.  I would certainly trust the LDS Church over the church of Jeremiah Wright that swings so far to the left that they have made Communism a faith.  Mitt's demonstrated leadership in the Salt Lake Olympics and his success in other business ventures indicate he would be friendly to the business world, remove onerous regulations, and return this economy to work and remove the disease that now plagues Washington D.C. 

Michele Bachmann - I was sad to see that Michele Bachmann has not done well since the Iowa Straw Poll.  I largely blame the entry of Rick Perry into the race for this failure to gain momentum.  I regard Michele as high among the candidates I am still considering.

Rick Perry - Perry disappointed me too many times before I went on assignment and it appears he has not regained any of the strength he had when he initially entered the race.  I did not like his early cheap shots against other candidates.   I will not vote for Perry in the primary.  Of course, I would vote for him if the choice were he or Obama.  

Ron Paul - He apparently can boast of recent gains in the polls in Iowa as others like me seek a more conservative alternative to the constantly hailed front-runner, Romney.  I do not regard him as a viable candidate.  No matter how much I love his domestic and fiscal policies, his foreign policy would deal a crippling blow to national security.  I would vote for him over Obama only because my choice would be Obama who is bad on foreign and domestic policy and worse on fiscal policy versus Paul who is bad on foreign policy but good on domestic policy and fiscal affairs.  

Rick Santorum - I am pleased to see Santorum is finally showing some strength in the polls.  I do not know yet that he has the horsepower to gain the nomination but I could easily support Rick Santorum.

John Huntsman - I cannot take Huntsman seriously.  Any person who would endorse Cap and Trade legislation or who regards Global Warming as a legitimate science simply has no credibility with me.  

As we look forward to the Iowa caucuses, I hope we can all keep our eye on the ball.  Although I continue to believe that more than one of these candidates, perhaps all except Ron Paul could defeat Obama in a national election as citizens we cannot let our guards down.  If you live in Iowa or one of the early primary states like New Hampshire or South Carolina, work to get just one more person to the poll who believes in conservatism.  Remember, Democrats win elections the old-fashioned way, by cheating.  Democrats oppose Voter Identification initiatives for one reason only; Voter ID Laws make it harder for them to cheat.  ACORN did not send hundreds of its minions out in the world to create voter registration cards that would never be used.  Registering the Dallas Cowboys and Donald Duck was a ruse in my opinion.  When people find these kinds of names, they eliminate them as they should eliminate them from the voter rolls.  However, what about Mary Smith or John Carpenter?  Henry Farmer or John Doe?  How many fake names that do not immediately draw the eye were hiding behind those obvious fakes that went unnoticed and then actually voted?  This is my concern, this and the ability that some states still provide their citizens to cross over and vote in a party primary that is not theirs?  Therefore, it is important.  If you are an Iowa citizen, do not simply sit in front of the TV, watch the caucus reports, and scream how they did not get it right.  If you want this to be done right, go to your caucus.  Give up one evening out of 365 and be involved in this election.  Involve yourself and involve a neighbor.  Ask your neighbor to ask a friend and get yourself and your neighbors to the caucuses and to the polls.  

For a time I was excited at the thought of Herman Cain becoming President.  I was not encouraged because he is black but because he spent his life building a business career from nothing to CEO.  I watched Greta Van Susteren interview his wife, Gloria, on November 15 and we were able to meet his family.  They demonstrate a level of class that has been absent for the last three years in the White House.  I have nothing against the President’s daughters but Michelle Obama on the other hand has for more than three years appeared to me as an angry and very bitter woman who disrespects the values of the majority of her fellow citizens.  She is extravagant with other people’s money while in the middle of a deep recession and she is a demonstration of narcissism at its worst.  Gloria Cain seems to be a wonderful, dignified woman who loves her husband and nurtures her family.  The entire Cain family appears to be the opposite of the Obamas.  

Despite this, upon watching the tapes of the interview of Herman Cain by the Milwaukee Journal I see no reason for Mr. Cain to continue his candidacy.  Mr. Cain made two serious errors as he sought my vote.  He then compounded these errors in what seemed a stressful interview as he grasped for a thought and tried to recall from memory what his position was on foreign policy subjects.  

Mr. Cain struggled with whether he agreed with President Obama and his strategy related to Libya.  President Obama provided support for an incursion to oust one of the world’s greatest terrorists.  No person who enjoys peace can regret the loss of Qaddafi.  This was not the problem.  The problem was the complete lack of concern regarding whom Obama was supporting.  A sound strategy would have included recognition of who the replacement for Qaddafi would be.  Were we supporting the muslim brotherhood?  Were we supporting al qaeda?  No one knew who controlled the rebels and no American dollars should have gone to overthrow Qaddafi without knowing whom it was we were supporting.  Will it be someone worse than Qaddafi?  No one truly knows.  That is insane.  Does Herman Cain not know this?

Mr. Cain also stumbled on the issue of collective bargaining by federal employees.  The answer is no.  In one of his first acts as President, John F. Kennedy issued an Executive Order that allowed federal employees to organize.  Even Franklin D. Roosevelt warned against federal employees organizing to bargain collectively.  He is the icon of the labor movement yet Kennedy ignored his warnings.  There is a conflict of interest between those unions and those who aspire for Congress.  Can you imagine the price of Kleenex if the union elected the executives of Kimberley Clark?  

I have defended Herman Cain from the claims of sexual harassment because I do not believe this kind of character attack is morally acceptable in the middle of a political campaign.  If a woman has a problem regarding an unwanted and persistent approach by any man, she must bring that charge right away.  If valid, Cain's detractors could have and should have charged Cain with harassment fourteen years ago, not today.  It is far more important that a Presidential candidate be aware of both domestic and foreign issues they logically may be required to deal with during their term in office.  Libya and labor unions will logically be issues that a President Cain would need to prepare for and I believe these were fair questions as posed by the Journal.