Phrontistery: (n) an establishment for study and learning; a thinking place. Providing a place to understand, promote and think about conservatism since 2009.
Romney also made it clear to the overflow crowd of students, faculty
and business leaders gathered to hear his 45-minute speech that he was
done running for the White House after two unsuccessful tries.
"I've had two bites at the apple. Three strikes and you're out," he said. Romney, who received hearty applause after a
questioner thanked him for his 2008 and 2012 presidential races,
jokingly suggested his wife, Ann, or son Josh — who lives in Utah —
would be better candidates next time around.
Before the speech, Romney said he was "feeling bad
I'm not in the White House," calling it a "great thrill to run for
president" and an honor to have had the support of Utahns.
"The country faces real challenges, which
unfortunately are not being addressed in the way I'd hope they'd be. A
lot of people are hurting. A lot of people across the country can't find
work," he said, including new college graduates.
I knew that Mitt Romney would not be running again in 2016. Its not that I had any inside information but I knew that he just wasn't going to run. I don't think he wants to become like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul who have ran for President in multiple presidential elections. I also think he wants to move on and do other things whether it be in business or politics.
There are many people (I am not one of them) who want Mitt Romney to run in 2016. There's even a Facebook group called Mitt Romney for President 2016 that has already been set up to promote that idea. Even though I am deeply saddened that Mitt Romney lost and I believe he would have made a great president, he made the right choice not to run again.
As far as 2016 goes, I would like to see the following people throw their hats into the ring for that Presidential election: Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Robert McDonnell, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Jan Brewer, Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Oklahoma representative J.C. Watts, Former Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Former U.S. Representative Artur Davis, Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and Former U.S. Representative Allen West and former Mitt Romney running mate Paul Ryan.
I also don't want the following people to run in 2016: Senator Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Alan Keyes, John Huntsman Jr., and Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, and Mike Huckabee.
Do you think it was right for Mitt Romney to decide not to run in 2016? Who do you think should run in 2016?
Now that Mitt Romney has recently released the first campaign ad for the general 2012 election, lets look back at the best campaign ads of the primary 2012 election.
Mitt Romney made waves with Republicans with these two ads and really helped define his campaign both in the primary and general election:
Although Tim Pawlenty's campaign was short lived, he made a really great ad both in terms of style and substance by making a point about Obama's empty podium:
Herman Cain had a very interesting ads that was unusual which attempted to help him stand out of the crowd of Republican contenders vying for the Republican nomination:
Another unusual ad from Herman Cain was odd and amusing to everyone which spawned a lot of YouTube spoof videos. A lot of people speculated that Cain was going for the X-File voters.
Ron Paul also had a great ad attacking Newt Gingrich and for unexplained reason, Newt Gingrich got angry at Mitt Romney's attack ad. I think Ron Paul did a better job taking down Newt than Mitt did.
Mitt Romney produced some other great ads during the 2012 primary race. Here are my top three favorites below:
When Herman Cain dropped out of the 2012 race about a month ago, there were rumors that he would be endorsing Newt Gingrich. Now, Herman Cain has given his endorsement to Newt Gingrich which he has wanted to do for quite sometime now:
Just over a week ago, Cain addressed a gathering of Republicans in
South Carolina and said he had held off from endorsing a candidate
because he didn’t want an endorsement to “split my support.”
He said Saturday that the decision to back Gingrich had been in his heart for some time.
“There
are several reasons, many reasons as to why I have reached this public
decision,” he said. “I had it in my heart and mind a long time ago.”
“One
of the biggest reasons is the fact that I know that speaker Gingrich is
a patriot,” Cain said. “Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas.
And I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president, and
going through this sausage grinder -- I know what this sausage grinder
is all about -- I know that he’s going through this sausage grinder
because he cares about the future of the United States of America. We
all do.”
The
endorsement isn't surprising given that one lying adulterer is endorsing
another adulterer. I don't think his endorsement will help Newt
Gingrich at all.
When the 2012 campaign first started, there were a lot of Republicans that were thinking about throwing thier hat into the ring. As time went on, the field started to shape up as candidates were announcing that they were either in the race or not.
This is what the 2012 GOP race looks like right now:
Herman Cain went on Fox News the other day to explain that Mitt's $10,000 bet with Rick Perry was not a gaffe despite the media's attempt to make it into one. Watch the clip below:
People are still talking about Romney's bet. Some people think it was a simple bet made only to demonstrate how strongly Mitt Romney felt about Rick Perry's erroneous claims about the difference between his hardcover and paperback editions of his book. Some people, like me, may think that there more behind it than just a simple bet.
Are liberals and the media manufacturing a gaffe here when there really was no gaffe on Mitt Romney's part in the first place? Personally, I think Herman Cain hits the nail on the head and is 100% accurate that Mitt's bet was not a gaffe at all. I'd go one step further and argue that the media is hypocritical and quite selective about its outrage over Romney's bet when other expensive and high profile bets have taken place on television.
With the first Republican primary only weeks away, many people are complaining that candidates like Mitt Romney aren't just "exciting" enough:
Talk to any Republican leaders or strategists and they will
quickly point to the enthusiasm gap between their voters and President
Obama’s as one reason they believe they will prevail next November.
Listen to any Republican voters and a different enthusiasm gap appears.
They are not truly excited about any of their likeliest nominees, least
of all Mitt Romney.
The former Massachusetts governor is rapidly becoming a one-man
political experiment, testing the theory that empathy and the ability
to connect with voters are prerequisites for a winning campaign. He has
many attributes, but firing up a Republican crowd isn’t one of them.
When it comes to selecting a
person who will hold the most powerful office in the world, excitability
should be on the bottom of the list of list qualities we want in a
President. Yet, everyone, including conservatives, think that
"excitability" should be top quality a candidate should posses.
John Schroeder, in an article for Article IV blog, writes that the
conservative desire for an exciting candidate is a serious problem for the GOP
party and America:
There are a couple of troubling aspects to this trend. Firstly, it
seems to say that we are not impressed with ourselves. We are the party
of competence, not “sex appeal” – the grown-ups in the room. When we
go chasing stuff like this we seem to forget that fundamental aspect of
what it means to be a conservative Republican. There is no question
that image and media matter in electoral politics, but it is up to us to
shape them to our goals, not to be shaped by them.
Which brings
me to the second and more troubling issue. There simply is no greater
evidence of where chasing image gets you than the current
administration. Incompetent and petulant on levels previously
incomprehensible for the office of POTUS, we are witnessing a triumph of
charisma over substance. Charisma may help get you elected, but it is
not worth the electrons it is transmitted by when it comes to actually
governing.
There is a huge difference between
a candidate and a president. People seem to forget that being a
candidate is not a job or a position. Yet, the Presidency is.
A
candidate is just a temporary label we use for someone who is seeking
the office of President. Some candidates drop out of the race. Many
don't get the job. Only a few men have been successful in becoming
President of the United States.
Its
important to remember that there are skills and qualifications that may
make a person an exciting
candidate but they're not necessary for being a President. In fact, many
of those skills are not in the job description for being a President.
It
is a tough and very demanding job that
requires a extremely high level of experience and competency.
Presidents have to make tough decisions on a wide variety of subjects,
both domestic and foreign, such as the economy, national security,
immigration and education. The President is also the Commander In Chief
who oversees the armed forces.
Does
America really want an exciting yet incompetent President? That’s what
we got with Obama and look how that is going. Do we really want another
four years of Obama as President?
I
want a candidate with experience and ideas, not a rock star politician.
Yet, we're looking for the "American Idol" President. We’re a fickle
society with a very short attention span. Look at current crop of
conservative candidates. Bachmann, Perry and Cain were all flashes in
the pan. They were the Republican flavor of the month. Newt is the
current pick of these American idol conservatives.
Mitt
Romney may be boring but he's extremely qualified for the job of
President. He's not a rock star candidate. He's the serious and mature
candidate America needs.
I
don’t want the Republican party to nominate someone based on their
rock star appeal and not on substance, ideas or positions. Yet, that is
what the Republican party appears to have become. The only consistency
that the American idol conservatives, also known as the Anybody But Romney crowd, is how quickly they betray and
flip flop on the core issues and values they claim to cherish and hold
dear.
I don't want an exciting
President. If a president is boring, I'm ok with that just as long as he
is extremely qualified and competent to be the President of the United
States.
America needs to grow up and take the election seriously by focusing on the candidate's resume rather how exciting he is.
Presidential elections are NOT American Idol contest. Lets not turn it into one.
I'm not surprised since its one lying adulterer endorsing another adulterer. Do you know who this benefits? The non-lying and non-adulterer Romney.
UPDATE 12/4/11: Huffington Post has reported that Can advisors are denying these rumors of him endorsing Newt Gingrich:
Conflicting reports surfaced Sunday evening regarding a possible
endorsement by embattled GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, in
favor of current front-runner Newt Gingrich.
Fox 5 Atlanta tweeted Sunday evening that Cain was set to endorse Gingrich on Monday for the GOP nomination. Minutes later, National Journal's Lindsey Boerma had word from the Cain campaign that "there's nothing to report he'll endorse someone tomorrow."
If these rumors are true, it would destroy any credibility that Herman Cain had because in yesterday's speech when he announced that he was suspending his campaign, Cain blasted corrupt politicians
who've been in Washington too long and yet he might be endorsing one.
About a week ago, Pastor Robert Jefress recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post which he repeats the same old arguments he's been making on television in attempt to justify his message of religious bigotry. I will respond to each of the points that he makes in his op-ed and show why each of his arguments fail:
The first argument Pastor Jefress makes is that Article VI of the Constitution permits private citizens to vote against someone on the basis of their religious affiliation:
First, discussion of a candidate’s faith is permissible. Over the past several days, talk show hosts have lectured me about Article VI of the Constitution,
which prohibits religious tests for public office, as if considering a
candidate’s faith is somehow unconstitutional, un-American or even
illegal. How ludicrous. This is a not-so-subtle attempt to eliminate
through intimidation religion as a suitable criterion by which to choose
a candidate. The Constitution is referring to religious litmus tests
imposed by government, not by individuals.
The Pastor is correct that the Constitution prohibits the government from imposing religious litmus tests and that the individuals are free to impose such tests at the ballot box. However, just because the Constitution doesn't prohibit someone from discriminating against a candidate because of that candidate's faith doesn't mean that it is appropriate to do so.
For example, prior to the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865, the Constitution did not prohibit the practice of slavery. However, as we all know, just because the Constitution didn't outlaw slavery means that the practice of having slaves was acceptable.
Again, prior to the passage of the of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the Constitution was silent on passing laws that discriminated against people on the basis of their skin color. Additionally, the Constitution said nothing about denying black Americans the right to vote until 1870 when the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution. Just because the Constitution was silent on racially discriminatory laws meant that the practice of having such laws is ok.
As result, even though the Pastor is correct in his reading and understanding of Article VI, he's absolutely wrong when he claims that it acceptable for private citizens to vote for a candidate on the basis of their religious membership because religious litmus tests applies only to the federal government. It is un-American and unacceptable to use religion as a criterion to decide who to vote in a local, state or national election.
Any attempt to justify this practice is religious bigotry.
Thus, even though Article VI of the Constitution prohibits a religious test for holding
office, iff you claim to uphold the Constitution, you should eliminate
that kind of thinking from your personal beliefs.
To support his contention that Christians should vote for a Christian over a "non-Christian" like Mitt Romney, he uses a quote from Supreme Court justice to defend his teaching of religious bigotry at the ballot box in his op-ed:
Interestingly, John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers,
thought a candidate’s religious beliefs should be a primary
consideration in voting. Jay wrote, “It is the duty, as well as the
privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer
Christians for their rulers.” According to Jay, preferring a Christian
candidate is neither bigoted nor unconstitutional.
The first Chief Justice was an anti-Catholic bigot. For example, while he was Governor of New York, he advocated laws that discriminated against Catholics such as requiring them to take an oath of loyalty:
In New York, Jay argued unsuccessfully in the provincial convention for a prohibition against Catholics
holding office. However, in February 1788, the New York legislature
under Jay's guidance approved an act requiring officeholders to renounce
all foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as
civil," a law designed to discourage Catholics from holding public
office, while not banning them outright.
Its also interesting to note the reason why John Jay and many others were bigoted towards Catholics and passed religiously bigoted laws was because they believed that Catholics were not Christians.
Once you understand John Jay's bigotry towards Catholics, you'll see that he was advocating that Christians could vote for a Christian as long as they were not Catholic. As a result, John Jay's idea of "Christian nation" was limited only to Protestants and that only Protestants should be allowed to run for political office.
If Pastor Jeffress wants to faithfully follow John Jay's belief, then by all means, let’s define
Christianity as limited exclusively to the Episcopal Church and only allow Protestants to run for office.
Its worth noting that John Jay wasn't the only religiously bigoted Supreme Court Justice. Supreme Court Justice James C. McReynolds was well known for his hatred of Jews:
McReynolds was a racist and anti-Semite. There is no official photograph of the Supreme Court in 1924 because McReynolds refused to sit next to Justice Louis D. Brandeis, the first Jewish Justice, as required by the Court's seating protocol (which is based on seniority).
Given the views of Justices like Jay and McReynolds, it demonstrates that religious bigotry exist even in the Supreme Court. Thus, the fact that Pastor Robert Jeffress likes to quote John Jay doesn't help his argument at all. Especially, when he states that if "I'm a bigot, then John Jay is a bigot":
You can hear that quote starting at the 4:45 mark at the video above.
Quoting John Jay also doesn't erase people's suspicion that Robert Jefress is a religious bigot. Let us review the facts:
Pastor Robert Jeffress states in the 2008 film documentary, Article VI: Faith, Politics, America that not only could he not vote for a Mormon but he couldn't even be friends with one.
Moreover, Robert Jeffress has done an interview with American Family Association's Bryan Fischer who has stated that he believes that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Mormons. The fact that Pastor Robert Jeffress associates with someone who believe that the 1st Amendment
doesn't apply to Mormons because they are not Christians is disturbing. So far, Pastor Robert Jeffress hasn't
taken the initiative to distance himself from Bryan Fischer.
As a result, I'd like to know if Pastor Jeffress shares the idea that
non-Christians are not protected by the first Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. But since he hasn't repudiated these statements, it gives many people the impression he agrees with Bryan Fischer's bigoted views.
The second point that Pastor Robert Jeffress makes is that it is certainly permissible to discuss a candidate's faith because its relevant to deciding whether or not a person is qualified to be in office:
Second, discussion of a candidate’s faith is relevant. During a time of
rising unemployment, falling home prices and massive deficits, it is
easy to relegate religion as an irrelevant topic. Yet our religious
beliefs define the very essence of who we are. Any candidate who claims
his religion has no influence on his decisions is either a dishonest
politician or a shallow follower of his faith.
Pastor Robert Jeffress is correct but not for the reason he advocates.
A candidate's religion does matter but only
to the extent of how it affects a person's values. Two people who read
the same scriptures and attend the same church can have different
opinions and values. This example can be perfectly seen with Herman Cain who is strong conservative despite the fact that he goes to a liberal church:
The black church has long been a paradox. It is one of the most
politically liberal but theologically conservative institutions in the
black community. Cain’s house of worship embodies some of these
contradictions.
Antioch is a member of the National Baptist Convention USA Inc., a
denomination in which some churches do not ordain women. The
denomination’s leadership publicly broke with King over his civil rights
activism.
But like many black Baptist churches, Antioch has developed a strong
social justice component to its ministry over the years. It offers
ministries for people suffering from drug addition and those infected
with HIV/AIDS, and it has been a Sunday stopover for black politicians
running for office.
That is why I've been arguing that a candidate's values is more important than than their theology.
Every president who has ever occupied the White House has been a
Christian. Some of them have been Republicans. Some of them have been
Democrats. Yet, the impact these presidents have had our nation and the
world was not because of their political party or their religious
affiliation. It was their values.
Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson,
FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Clinton and Barak Obama were all Christian men.
Some of these men were Republicans and most of them were Democrats.
Yet, their progressive values has had a negative impact on our country
politically, financially and militarily.
Interestingly enough, Pastor Robert Jeffress doesn't mention in his Washington Post op-ed that during the 2008 Presidential election, he believed that voting for a Mormon will affect's one's salvation in getting into Heaven:
"I believe we should always support a Christian over a non-Christian.
The value of electing a Christian goes beyond public policies. ...
Christians are uniquely favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and
Muslims worship a false god. The eternal consequences outweigh political
ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith that would lead people to a
separation from God."
In conclusion, Pastor Robert Jeffress' arguments in his Washington Post op-ed fail because he undermines his attempts to rationalize and justify his religious bigotry. Each and every argument he makes actually promotes religious bigotry if you take a hard look at the information behind the sources he uses in his arguments, the people he associates with and the statement he has made in the past and present.
And by the way, Pastor Robert Jeffress, if you are reading this, I'll be glad to debate you anytime and anywhere on whether or not Mormons are cults or whether Christians can vote for a Mormon.
While the 2012 candidates disagree with each other on various political issues, they are allunited on one thing: Pastor Jeffress was wrong to call the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints a cult:
Former Sen. Rick Santorum, a presidential candidate who performed strongly at the Values Voter summit, said he does not believe Mormonism is a cult, and believes Romney is a Christian.
"I'm not an expert on Mormonism, but every Mormon I know is a good and decent person ... by and large, except for Harry Reid," Santorum said on "Fox News Sunday," jabbing at the Senate Democratic leader.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said someone's specific religion has no place in the conversation.
"I think that none of us should sit in judgment on somebody's else's religion and I thought it was very unwise and very inappropriate," he said, adding that he thinks Mormons are Christians.
Businessman Herman Cain, who appeared with Gingrich on CBS' "Face the Nation," was a little more circumspect.
"I believe that they believe they're Christians," Cain said of Mormons. He added that the candidates are running to be "theologian-in-chief."
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told CNN that the issue is about religious tolerance, not someone's faith.
"To make this a big issue is ridiculous right now, because every day I'm on the street talking to people. This is not what people are talking about," she said.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who won the Values Voter straw poll, told Fox News that he disagrees with Jeffress and the comment was "unnecessary."
“But I don't think that's the issue of the day," he said. "I think liberty is the issue of the day. Our Constitution is the issue of the day. And too much government -- that is the issue of the day. It's not the definition of a cult."
Another 2012 candidate, Rick Santorum has previously stated that Mitt Romney and John Huntsman's faith will not be an issue in this election. Jim DeMint
has also publicly echoed that same idea earlier this year. Furthermore, influential Christians like Pat Robertson and Joel Osteen have accepted the fact that Mitt Romney is a Christian.
Attacking Mitt Romney's faith is an old 2008 campaign trick that won't happen again. Voters have already gone through this issue before and they're not interested in going through it again. Additionally, Americans are becoming less tolerant of candidates who are willing to use an opponent's faith for political gain. American has always been a religiously diverse nation and it will continue to be in the future.
All of the 2012 candidates, except Rick Perry, recognize this fact and that is why they have blasted Pastor Robert Jeffress for his comments.
Matt Lewis writing for the Daily Caller has an intriguing idea that Mitt Romney and Herman Cain should run on the same ticket together in the general election:
One possible match that is beginning to grow on me is the notion of a Romney-Cain ticket. (Stick with me here). Both are successful businessmen, so, in a way, this would be sort of like what Clinton-Gore did in 1992 when — instead of seeking to “balance” the ticket with an older Democrat from the North — Democrats doubled-down on the young, Southern thing. Cain would balance the ticket geographically and philosophically. But the primary message would be obvious: Romney-Cain are proven business leaders who can fix the economy. Period.
… I’m not suggesting the two team up now. But if Romney goes on to win the nomination (not an absurd possibility), there is something about it I like. Conservatives who are skeptical of Romney (or even hostile towards him) might be wooed to the ticket by the exciting Herman Cain. Romney would bring the establishment money and highly-professional operative team to the table, while Cain would bring excitement, energy, and authenticity.
There would, of course, also be the historical angle of electing the first black Republican vice president. And unlike McCain’s selection of Palin (which did inject the ticket with much-needed energy and enthusiasm) — Cain will have the advantage of having been through the ringer via running for president, himself. Palin was air-dropped in the middle of a presidential race, with little time to ramp-up. Conversely, Cain is making his mistakes now — when the stakes aren’t as high — and growing as a campaigner.
It could happen. Romney-Cain in 2012!
I am a fan of this idea.
Even though it is too early to be thinking about who should be the vice president for 2012, I like the idea of a Romney-Cain ticket. I also like the idea of a Romney-Perry ticket too.
But lets talk about why a Romney-Cain ticket could be a smart and powerful team for 2012. Mitt Romney is a strong candidate has run before in 2008. He knows how to organize a presidential campaign and is very skilled at raising cash for himself. He is also the most credible candidate on a wide range of issues such as the economy, health care, national security and social issues. He also has excellent leadership skills in both the public and private sector.
Herman Cain would be an excellent choice as Mitt Romney's vice president. Herman Cain supported Mitt Romney in the 2008 elections. Both men have extensive private sector experience. Moreover, Mitt Romney has a lot of support form independent and tea party voters. While these people are excited about Mitt Romney, they are even more excited about Herman Cain because his strength is the ability to get a grassroot network support going:
“I cannot compete with a Romney when it comes to money. He has at his disposal his own personal fortune,” Cain said in an interview with POLITICO. “I don’t come anywhere near that, quite frankly. He has a fundraising network because he has run before. I have the advantage of a grassroots network.”
Thinking about vice presidential picks is no doubt a lot of fun. However, Right now, unemployment as the number one concern with the economy as the number two concern for Americans. As a result, we have a lot of Republican candidates who are seeking to capitalize on America's need for real economic leadership and are offering themselves as a leader who can fix America's economic and financial troubles.
As a result, we have candidates like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Governor Rick Perry who are all contemplating jumping in for 2012 and plan to advertise themselves as people who can fix the economy. Sarah Palin and Rick Perry will talk about how they created jobs as governors of their states. Michelle Bachmann will talk about how she was an early leader in the TEA party movement as way to appear credible on the issue of jobs and the economy.
However, Mitt Romney is the only 2012 candidate who has both private and public sector experience in creating jobs. No other candidate can make that claim. With that kind of impressive record, Americans are starting to warm up to Mitt Romney as someone they what to have in the White House. They are starting to rally around him because they are seeing that he is the best candidate who can defeat Barak Obama in 2012.
In the end, its fun to think about and speculate who might Mitt Romney's V.P. pick will be. But that a choice that Mitt Romney has to make if he becomes the Republican nominee. The choice that Americans will have to make is choosing the right candidate to take on Barak Obama.
The best choice that Americans can make is in voting for Mitt Romney.
The 2012 election is slowly heating up as candidates make the transition from exploratory committees to officially becoming candidates for the 2012 Presidential elections. Yesterday, Tim Pawlenty formally announced that he will officially be a candidate for the upcoming presidential election.
Today, Herman Cain has formally announced that he will also be a candidate for the 2012 election. He's already released a YouTube video that coincides with his announcement which you can watch below:
He also published an op-ed that summarizes his common sense approach to leadership and how he will solve the problems that our country faces. His column,"Solving For X," is about how there are simple formulas that have been established to resolve the problems that our country faces:
Over the course of the last year and a half, I have crisscrossed the country and shared my vision for America. More importantly, I have listened to the concerns of folks all across this land -- from the farmer in Iowa to the retiree in Florida to the student in South Carolina. Throughout my needs assessment tour, I have learned that America faces significant challenges and we are right to demand a return on our investment. We see ourselves as putting so much in, and getting so little out—in the form of widespread joblessness, runaway debt, skyrocketed energy prices and an unclear foreign policy agenda.
But, we remain undaunted. Americans know that “solving for x” simply means using the right formula. What’s that formula, you might ask? Working on the right problems. Asking the right questions. Removing barriers to success. Surrounding yourself with the right people.
This is my “common sense” approach to real leadership. This approach is coupled with a steadfast belief that politics should never compromise principles. And my principles are rooted in the Constitutional guarantees of limited government and individual freedom.
I believe in a strong military and clear foreign policy that ensures the safety of our country. I believe in lower taxes, less regulation and private sector job creation that ensures the economic stability of our country. And I believe in the moral foundation upon which this nation was based and continues to make Her strong, independent and free.
With his common sense approach to politics and leadership, he's not a candidate that you can easily write off. He might be a troublesome candidate for other 2012 contenders like who are looking to win the support of the TEA party movement. Although Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann have not decided whether or not they will run in 2012, you can be assured that Herman Cain is a candidate they must be worried about if they decide to run. He is certainly popular with the conservative online community. Moreover, a recent Gallup poll showed that although Herman Cain is not a well known canidate among while likely GOP primary voters, he was the best-liked among those who knew him.
Not all conservatives are excited about Herman Cain. Charles Krauthammer thinks that Herman Cain doesn't have a chance to win at all and is merely a candidate who will excite people but that's about it. Watch Krauthammer explain his view below:
As time goes on, we'll see if Charles Krauthammer is right or not about Cain winning the election. However, Cain will definitely will make the 2012 election exciting and interesting.
With Tim Pawlenty's and Herman Cain's announcements, I think you can expect other 2012 candidates to start making the transition from exploratory committees to officially becoming candidates. Look for a wave of announcements to come in the next month or so.
