10 Reasons Why the Washington Redskins Should Keep Their Name

The national debate over whether or not the name and logo of the Washington Redskins needs to be abandoned has been going on for a few years. However, there really shouldn't be a debate on this issue and the team should not cave to pressure on this issue. 

Here are the following reasons why the team should keep their name and logo: 

1. Most people don't that it was an Indian that designed the Redskins logo and the Indian leaders that approved it in 1971. One of those Indian Leaders was Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, a former President of the National Congress of American Indians and Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation. Mr. Wetzell's son, Don, explained that, “It needs to be said that an Indian from the state of Montana created that (“Redskins”) logo, and did it the right way. It represents the Red Nation, and it’s something to be proud of.”

2.  Before they were the Washington Redskins, they were the Boston Redskins, and the Boston Braves before that. The team name "Redskins" has been around for a long time and no one really objected to it. Yet, the name didn't become "offensive" until recently within the last 5 or 10 years.

3. There's a poll that was taken back in 2004 that showed only 9% of Natives Americans were offended by the Redskins name. Furthermore, the same poll also found "13% of Indians with college degrees said the name is offensive, compared with 9% of those with some college and 6% of those with a high school education or less. Among self-identified liberals, 14% found the term disparaging, compared with 6% of conservatives."

4.  The US Patent and Trademark recently canceled the team's trademark. Yet, the same thing happened to the Redskins back in 1999. A panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team's trademarks in 1999 on the grounds that the name disparages American Indians in violation of federal trademark law. Yet, in 2004, a federal judge ruled the team can keep its name, finding insufficient evidence to conclude it is an insult to American Indians. I suspect that those who are making a second attempt to have the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancel the team name will fail even though they will try hard. They will shop around to find a judge who will be sympathetic to their cause. However, the 2004 decision is Res Judicata and will help the Washington Redskins alot.

5. The government is involving itself on an issue it has no authority or right insert itself into. For American's who are concerned over government overreach, this is just another example of abuse of government power. Clearly, our government is trying to pressure the team into dropping the name and mascot of the team.  It is as if the government is saying, "Say, that's a nice football team you have here, I'd hate to see something happen to it." The US government is clearly using its muscle to get the outcome it wants on a private issue. That is very disconcerting.

6. 71% of Americans think the name is not offensive and that the team should keep their name. Those who push to have the team abandon the name are clearly in the minority.

7. There are plenty of other sports teams with Indian names. There's the KC Chiefs (Football), Cleveland Indians (Baseball), Chicago Blackhawks (Hockey) and the Atlanta Hawks (NBA). There are colleges with team names such as the University of Utah Utes, The Florida State University Seminoles and the Golden State Warriors. There has been no outrage over these teams names. The outrage towards the Washington State Redskins is extremely selective in light of the fact that we have other teams with Indian names. 

8. This controversy reveals the stupidity behind liberal identity politics. There are plenty of other teams that could be offensive to other people and yet no outrage there. I think there are Irish Americans people who are offended Notre Dame's Fighting Irish with their mascot that looks like he's looking for a drunken brawl. When did Americans start having a thin skin and being offended over stupid petty issues such as this? For me, Political Correctness is the prime suspect for why Americans have developed a thin skin.

9. I find it funny that most of the people who are "offended" by the Redskins name or who are "empathetic" towards the Native Americans on this issue are people who are NOT Native Americans. We have people who are "offended" by the team name and they have no right to be offended because they are not Native Americans especially when a majority of Native Americans are NOT offended by the name. If we are going to be consistent applying liberal identity politics on this issue, then we should be concerned about non-Native Americans being upset over an an issue for which they are not a member of and how they are trying to stir up the American public and Native Americans to be upset over this team name. We have mostly non-Native Americans trying to tell Native Americans how they should feel. In the liberal/progressive mindset, that should be problematic. Yet it isn't.

10. Of all the issues that face America (and the world), we are obsessed over this stupid controversy. If we are truly going to be concerned for the welfare and feelings of Native Americans, we should not be worried about the name of a football team but we should protesting the fact that many Native Americans live, not of their own design, in poverty on reservations. I suspect that this is a feel good protest for liberals because its easier to address this issue than to address the real issue of what is happening in American's reservations.

In the end, I don't think the Redskins will lose their name or logo or mascot. At least they shouldn't. The name isn't offensive. It wasn't offensive back then and it is not offensive now. Most of the people who are "offended" by the Redskins name or who are "empathetic" towards the Native Americans on this issue are people who are NOT Native Americans. Thus, I caution people to beware of those who misuse the concept of "offensive" for their own agenda when it is clear that there is no offense to be taken here. I suspect that there is some thing larger happening here and that there's something more than just offensiveness over a team name. What that agenda is, I'll leave my readers to speculate on. Ask yourself, why are people making this an issue when a majority of Americans and Native Americans are in united in support of keeping Redskin name and logo?

Edit: A reader pointed that if the Redskins should change their name, so should the state of Oklahoma.  Another reader pointed out that that many of the names given to military helicopters are based on Native American tribes.

Mitt Romney Is Not Behind The Redistricting Of FL-22

A lot of conservative blogs are up in arms today about the current redistricting plans for Florida which must be done in order to conform to Florida's new redistricting laws. This new law, Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment, known as Amendment 6 on the on the ballot during the 2010 midterm election, was a constitutional amendment to Florida's state Constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment was approved by the majority of voters.

There are false rumors that Mitt Romney and/or his surrogates in Florida are trying to push Represenative Allen West out of action: 

Conservatives pointed out that a major player in the process, Florida Speaker Designate Will Weatherford, has been a surrogate for Mitt Romney in the past. Some used this fact to suggest that Romney was involved in a campaign against Allen West.

This claim is bullshit. 

I can prove it.

Let's look at the language of the Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment: 

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.

(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.

(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

Now, lets look at Representative Allen West's district:   

Lets take an ever closer look at FL-22: 

Looking at these maps, its pretty clear that FL-22 is a blatantly gerrymandered district with all those squiggly line reaching inland to very specific regions. Those stretched and distended shapes were done to make that district Republican and competitive in a region that is well known to be heavily populated by Democrats. 

Its obviously clear that under the new anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative, FL-22 cannot remain as it is and be legal. It has to change in order to comply or conform to the Florida Congressional District Boundaries Amendment which the voters of Florida overwhelmingly supported. As a result, the GOP leadership's hands are tied. They must follow the law. 

As a result, any legal redrawing of FL-22 is going to be naturally be filled with more Democrats since the district as it currently stands is artificially a Republican district due to the obvious carve outs on the map.

Its clear that the Florida GOP did the best they could do under the law to help Representative Allen West since that area covers Palm Beach County which is not known for being a strongly conservative area, Mr. West should be greatful that his district only became 4 points more Democratic than it used to be.  Things could have turned out worse for him but it didn't.

Lets not forget that Allen West isn't the only person to be affected by the proposed redistricting plans for Florida:

Case in point are Reps. Tom Rooney and Allen West. Both of their South Florida districts got about four points more Democratic, which should make life significantly tougher for each of them. Rooney now has a more compact swing seat (the 18th) north of West Palm Beach, while West’s already Democratic-leaning 22nd district just south of Rooney’s became even more Democratic and will be tough for him to hold.

West has been a very outspoken tea party freshman and has raised huge money, but line-drawers don’t appear to have done him many favors. His district, as constructed, would have gone about 43 percent for the last two Republican presidential nominees.

Both men appear to have options, though. Rooney could run in the new 17th, which includes much of his current territory in the Everglades, while there has been some talk of West running across the state in Mack’s district. (Though West has shown no interest in this.)

Other Republicans who see their districts getting slightly less friendly include Reps. Steve Southerland , Vern Buchanan and David Rivera. Buchanan actually gains registered Republicans and retains the vast majority of his current district — both positives for him — but the performance of his district moves about a point towards Democrats.

The evidence is clear. Mitt Romney or his political allies in Florida are a part of some evil, nefarious back room deal to push out Representative Allen West. Its clear that those who were on the committee to redraw the district did as much as they could to help him out. 

Allen West is a soldier and he can fight under tough circumstances. It will make things harder for him but he can do it. Other people may whine and cry about the new district changes, but Allen West won't. He'll just suck it up and fight harder. And he'll win.

How Badly Will Newt Lose To Obama And Why Republicans Should Not Vote For Newt In 2012

Ladies and Gentlemen, the time grows closer and closer to the beginning of the 2012 Republican primaries.

Before I talk about the 2012 Republicans, I want to remind people about the 2008 Republican primaries because I fear that we haven't learned from that last election.

During the 2008 election, John McCain's campaign was almost dead during months prior to the first Republican primaries. Mitt Romney was set to win the Republican nomination until Senator McCain won the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries. He made an agreement with Mike Huckabee, who was also running for President, to give his delegates to McCain's team in order to prevent Mitt Romney from winning that state.

With Super Tuesday coming closer, virtually almost all of the top conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher and other conservative talk show hosts were strongly telling people on their radio show to stop McCain in his tracks and vote for Mitt Romney because McCain was not a conservative and would most likely lose to Obama in the 2008 election. Sure enough, despite heeding the warnings of talk show conservatives, conservative authors like Ann Coulter and religious authorities, Republican voters chose to give the nomination to John McCain on Super Tuesday.

Just as so many conservatives predicted and warned, Barak Obama defeated John McCain by a wide margin. Obama got 365 of the electoral college votes while McCain only got a meager 173 votes. Moreover, Obama won the popular vote by 53% to McCain's 46%.

Once again, many conservatives, such as myself, are sounding the warning bell to conservative voters to NOT vote for Newt Gingrich. Even libertarians are urging people not to vote for Newt.

Like John McCain, Newt Gingrich will lose the 2012 election against Barak Obama. I'm predicting that Newt Gingrich will lose by a bigger margin than McCain did in 2008. I'm predicting that Gingrich will be comparable to Jimmy Carter's loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980, Walter Mondale's loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Michael Dukasis' loss to George H.W. Bush in 1988. It will be that bad.

Lets review what would happen in the 2012 general election and beyond if Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination. 

1.  Newt Gingrich will definitely lose the female vote. He will push female voters into voting for Obama and will cause women vote against the GOP for years to come in the future.

2. He will also most definitely lose the crucial independent voter. The more independents learn about him or are reminded of who this man is, the less they will like him. Independent voters will not like the choices of choosing between Obama and Newt but they will select Obama over Gingrich at the end of the day. 

 3. Newt Gingrich will reverse all our gains in the 2010 midterm elections. He will hurt the local, state and national Republican candidates who are seeking to ride a second wave the against the Democrats in public offices across this nation.

However, This wouldn't be the first time Newt would cause major losses in these elections. Lets not forget how the House Republicans kicked him out as Speaker after he single-handedly alienated both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, along with much of the American public, resulting in the biggest loss of Republicans seats in the House in 64 years. How bad was Newt Gingrich for the Republican party? Very bad: 

And yet, his approval numbers while he was in charge of the House were dreadful. Gallup found his net favorable rating in negative territory by the early spring of 1995 (33 percent approve to 47 percent disapprove, or a 14 point net negative), and at the end of 1995 his net negatives would exceed 25 points, where they would remain for the rest of his tenure.

By the time of the 1996 election, Gingrich had become a drag on the nationwide Republican brand. Consider the following chart, which tracks Gingrich’s favorable rating in the 1996 exit poll, by two metrics. First, it looks at his approval rating among all voters, and among only Bob Dole voters. Second, it looks at his approval rating nationwide and in Georgia.

These are very weak numbers indeed. Obviously, his 32 percent national favorable rating shows that only the core GOP base was behind him, but even then Gingrich was viewed favorably by just 61 percent of Dole voters nationwide. And in Georgia – his home state where people knew him best – he could not even pull in three quarters from Dole voters.

If Newt Gingrich is nominated in the 2012 primaries, he will cause conservative candidates running in these elections to lose. He will push the Republican wave back.

3.  Voting for Newt Gingrich will discredit and destroy social conservative which will harm them for many years to come. Social Conservatives will not be able to 

4. Newt Gingrich would perform poorly in debates against Obama. Why conservatives think a Teddy Roosevelt progressive intellectual like Newt would be a good match with the FDR progressive intellectual like Obama at the debates is beyond me. Having a debate between two intellectuals is a bad match for Conservatives. Newt might be able to handle Obama in a debate, but his personality and his past will offset whatever strengths Newt has in the debating room. 

5. Newt Gingrich doesn't have the organizational stamina or financial resources to go head to head with Obama. As a result, Newt Gingrich will gas out early in the campaign because he doesn't have the resources to last long against Obama.

Newt Gingrich is the most repulsive, toxic, controversial, and dangerous candidate for Republican party. I'm surprised that people have even given him a first or a second look in this election. Electing Newt would be the kiss of death for the Republican party. Yet, there are many who irrationally insist that conservatives vote for Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney in the 2012 primaries. They use convoluted logic to justify their reasons for why we should vote for him despite the fact that he has so much baggage and issues that he will be a major liability for Republicans in 2012. Moreover, Newt Gingrich will erase all the progress the Republicans have made and damage the Republican brand for a long time.

That is why its no surprise that talk radio show host Micheal Savage has offered $1 million dollars to Newt Gingrich to drop out of the race. If Newt wants to do something good for America, he would be wise to take that money.

If Gingrich wins the Republican nomination and loses to Barak Obama in 2012, I will repost this article on the day to remind conservatives and Republicans that many of us sounded the warning bell against Newt but you refused to listen to our warnings just as you did in 2008. Those of you who have supported and will vote for Newt Gingrich will have no one but to blame but yourselves.

However, it is not too late to stop Newt Gingrich. The best way to do that is that everyone should ignore whatever Newt says in debates and interviews.  Moreover, not a single penny should be donated to his campaign, not a single person in any state should show up at his any of his campaign stops, no one should ever buy his books and most importantly, do not vote for him in any of the Republican primaries. You, the Republican voter in New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Florida have the power to stop Newt in his tracks by voting for Mitt Romney. 

As I said before, the goal of 2012 is to defeat Obama in 2012. The best way to do that is to unite around Mitt Romney who can not only beat Obama, but lead the country after he's elected in 2012.

There May Be Something More To Romney's $10,000 Bet With Rick Perry

A lot of people are still making a fuss about Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet with Rick Perry during the Iowa Debates. It has been brought to my attention that Romney was intentionally making subtle reference to some recent high profile bets that have been taking place. 

It may have been a reference to a bet was made between Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling for $10,000 that President Obama could beat either Romney or Gingrich in the 2012 general election. 

Mitt Romney could have also been referring to a bet that was placed between US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Ted Balestreri, a co-owner of the Sardine Factory restaurant in Mr Panetta's home town of Monterey. They made a bet that if Leon Panetta tracked down Osama Bin Laden, Mr. Balestri would open his oldest wine bottle in his collection. The bottle, a bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild from 1870, is worth $10,000.

Romney might have also been referring to a bet that took place on Bill O'Reily's Fox News television show, The Factor. A few years ago, The Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen was on Bill O’Reilly’s show and demanded that CNN fire Lou Dobbs​ because he believed that he was giving in accurate reports on the issue of immigration. In response, O’Reilly was absolutely confident that CNN would not respond to Mr. Cohen's request to fire Lou Dobbs that he was willing to bet Cohen $10,000.

Mitt Romney may have had another high profile bet in mind that I have not mentioned. However, it doesn't matter what event Mitt Romney was alluding to when he made that bet with Rick Perry. 

What does matter is that $10,000 bet was not a spontaneous offer by Mitt Romney but appears to have been planned before hand. Romney could have offered Rick Perry a $10 or a $500,000 bet, yet he chose the $10,000 amount. 

Why did he choose that amount?  The Romney team probably expected the media and liberals to jump on Mitt Romney for making a huge bet in a time when our country's economy isn't doing well. With this in mind, they laid out a trap that would expose the media and liberal hypocrisy over the outrage that would surely come once he made that bet because they didn't express any outrage at any of the high profile, public and expensive bets that have been placed since the housing market collapsed in 2008.  

Please note that Bob Beckel is a well known liberal who makes a frequent appearance on Fox News and there was no outrage by liberals or the media when he made that bet. Likewise, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen is a liberal who attempted to collect on Bill O'Reilly's bet.

It appears that that this bet was designed to highlight two things: (1) Rick Perry was not being truthful about the changes made in Romney's hardback and paperback editions of his book, No Apology and (2) to highlight the hypocrisy behind the media's outrage towards the bet that would have surely come as soon as that bet was offered. 

Regardless if Mitt Romney was just making a bet with Rick Perry that he knew Rick Perry would lose or if he also did it to intentionally highlight the expected hypocrisy from liberal commentators and news reporters, the hypocrisy exist. And the media may deny that the hypocrisy exists but America will see it.

Conservative Samizdat Is Among The Top 15 Pro-Mitt Romney Sites On The Web!

On December 2nd, a blog called Mitt's Momentum published a list of the top 33 pro-mitt Romney websites and blogs on the Internet. The blogger looked at the the Alexa traffic rankings of the top websites overtly promoting Mitt Romney in the United States and that a global ranking used when U.S. ranking statistics were unavailable. I was surprised to find out that my own blog, Conservative Samizdat, is number 15 on that list! 

Here's the list below:

1. MittRomney.com 8,737

2. MittRomneyCentral.com 24,742

3. EvangelicalsforMitt.org 129,303

4. PlanetRomney.org 141,275

5. UltiMitt.org 150,847

6. Article6blog.com 392,270

7. CommittedtoRomney.com 413,226

8. AmericaNeedsMitt.com 426,811

9. WhyRomney.com 434,464

10. MittTheMan.com 548,558

11. GotMitt.com 576,292

12. TheCompetentConservative.com 3,060,067 (global ranking)

13. AboutMittRomney.com 3,078,930 (global ranking)

14. MittRomneyRadio.com 3,199,118 (global ranking)

15. ConservativeSamizdat.blogspot.com 5,428,981 (global ranking)

16. MittRomney2012-BestChoice.blogspot.com 6,458,143 (global ranking)

17. MittFitts.com 6,898,540 (global ranking)

18. MichiganforMitt.net 8,030,247 (global ranking)

19. MittRomneyAndHealthcare.blogspot.com 8,864,045 (global ranking)

20. CitizensforRomney.org 8,963,761 (global ranking)

21. Moms4Mitt.com 11,969,072 (global ranking)

22. TeensforMitt.org 12,033,970 (global ranking)

23. ConservativeforMitt.wordpress.com 13,875,869 (global ranking)

24. MittRomneyRoadtotheWhiteHouse.blogspot.com 14,832,162 (global ranking)

25. IowansforRomney.blogspot.com 22,566,368 (global ranking)

26. ChristiansforMitt.blogspot.com 22,699,427 (global ranking)

27. PresidentMittRomney.blogspot.com 23,425,275 (global ranking)

28. MittsMomentum.blogspot.com 24,265,771 (global ranking)

29. TexansforRomney2012.com (no ranking available)

30. MomsforMitt.blogspot.com (no ranking available)

31. NYforMitt.blogspot.com (no ranking available)

32. MittRomney2012akhil.webs.com (no ranking available)

33. AmericansforMitt.com (no ranking available)

Thank you to fans and readers for making my blog one of the top 15 pro-Mitt Romney websites on the web! 

Presdential Elections Are Not American Idol Contests

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.

Dick Morris' Lunch With Mitt Romney

Dick Morris releases a YouTube video about bumping into Mitt Romney and having lunch with him. You can see that he gets excited about actually getting to know Romney: Watch the video below: 

I wish Dick Morris would have gone into more detail about his meeting with Mitt Romney. Perhaps he will do that in a future video. 

Dick Morris, who used to not be a big fan of Mitt Romney, has grown to like him. I think the fact that he actually got to sit down with Mitt and have a 40 minute uninterrupted conversation with him in which he could really get to know Romney really excited him. Its clear that he likes and respects Mitt Romney.

Hopefully these men will do lunch together again.

Mitt Romney Will Make The World Safer

Last night, Mitt Romney was Reaganesque last night's debate on foreign policy. Just as Ronald Regan didn't hold back any words against communist Russia, Mitt Romney didn't hold back any words against Iran: 

He also didn't hold back any words for China either:


He also went after Obama on his poor handling of Afghanistan:

As a result, Mitt Romney's Special Adviser on Foreign Policy, former U.S. Ambassador, and former Reagan Administration official, Rich Williamson had this to say about Mitt Romney's bold words in last night's debate: 

“Mitt Romney left tonight's debate showing that he is the candidate best equipped to secure a more peaceful and prosperous world for the United States and our allies. Mitt Romney deeply understands that the only way to meet the challenges we face abroad is to rest our foreign policy on a strong military, a strong economy, and the strength of our values. For three years, President Obama’s feckless policies have weakened our country’s standing and influence across the globe. Mitt Romney is the candidate who will restore our standing and ensure that America leads the world.”

Why George F. Will Flip Flopped On Mitt Romney

George F. Will raised a lot of eyebrows a few weeks ago when he attacked Mitt Romney in a Washington Post article "Mitt Romney, The Pretzel Candidate" in which he rehashed the common accusation that Mitt Romney is a flip flopper. 

However, Ramesh Ponnuru, writing for the National Republican points out the hypocrisy of George Will's attack on Mitt Romney:

Another take on Romney:

The axiom is as old as human striving: The perfect is the enemy of the good. In politics this means that insisting on perfection in a candidate interferes with selecting a satisfactory one. . . .

Romney, however, is criticized by many conservatives for what they consider multiple conversions of convenience — on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, gun control. But if Romney is now locked into positions that these conservatives like, why do they care so much about whether political calculation or moral epiphany moved him there?

The headline was “Three Good Options for The Right,” the date was March 2007, and the byline was, of course, that of George F. Will. Romney’s biggest flip-flops all preceded that column. I can think of many reasons why Will might have, er, flip-flopped on Romney’s flip-flops, but it would be interesting to know what it was.

We now know why George Will flip-flopped on Romney's flip-flops.  It may have to do with the fact that his wife works for the Perry Campaign:

Columnist George Will's wife recently signed on as an adviser to Texas governor Rick Perry, a campaign spokesman confirmed today.

Will's wife, Mari Maseng -- a former communications director to both Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole -- started working for the campaign more than a week ago and helped Perry prepare for his most recent disastrous debate performance. Will, who has made no secret of his distaste for Perry rival Mitt Romney, plans to disclose the connection this Sunday on ABC and in future Washington Post columns, according to Post editor Fred Hiatt.

Journalist’s spouses are often a touchy issue. Last month, NPR host Michele Norris took temporary leave from her job because her husband Broderick Johnson accepted a senior advisor position with the Obama campaign.

“There was no relationship between his wife and any campaign the last time he wrote a column on the campaign, or any aspect of the campaign,” Hiatt said. “This developed after the last column that was two weeks ago. He has never written a column while there was a relationship between his wife and the campaign.”

Will has however had multiple columns within the last two weeks. His most recent column for the Post was published online November 9 and in print November 10. A column about the GOP debates was published online November 4 (in print November 6), and a column that disparaged Romney as “the pretzel candidate” was published online October 28 (in print October 30).

Another possible reasons for the attacks on Mitt Romney may have to do with retribution for the fact that the Romney Campaign didn't hire his wife when she applied to work for Mitt team:

Columnist George Will’s wife, Mari Maseng, has offered her services as an adviser to three candidates this election season.

In addition to her current work for the Perry campaign and her earlier work for the Bachmann campaign, a source knowledgeable of the situation tells us that Maseng sought out a role with the Romney campaign in June.

On June 28, Maseng went to Boston and met with multiple, “high-level officials” in the Romney campaign about joining on as an adviser. No formal offer was ever made, according to the source.

In his work as a columnist for the Washington Post and a regular contributor to ABC News, Will has not disclosed the fact that his wife was turned down by the Romney campaign, nor that she worked on Bachmann’s speechwriting team between February and May.

Every profession has ethical rules and guidelines that they must follow. I don't know what exactly what the rules are for journalists but it appears to me that George F. Will has difficulty maintaining following whatever these rules might be since this isn't the first time he's engaged in questionable journalist conduct:

Similar issues arose before for Will and Maseng before. During a presidential debate in 1980, Will helped Ronald Reagan prepare beforehand then criticized his opponent, Jimmy Carter, as a television commentator afterward. In 1996, Will called a Clinton speech "American political flapdoodle” then defended Dole’s response—which he helped write, according to a 1996 article in The Washingtonian—on ABC.

However, given the fact that he appears to be ethically challenged as a journalist, he should either be removed or suspended from reporting on political news and events. Perhaps he should be fired. I don't know. Yet, this I do know: disclosing his wife's relationship with the Perry campaign and her rejection from the Romney Campaign now rather than before shouldn't excuse his lapses in ethical journalism.

UPDATE: Here is George F. Will's response to this controversy: 

Will, also a regular analyst on ABC's "This Week," said Sunday on the show the issue was ginned up by “some of the more excitable and less mature members of the Romney campaign.”

“At the Michigan debate, after the debate, Mari waved her hand at Mitt Romney, and they came over and talked,” Will said. “They’ve been guests at our dinner table and Romney gave her a kiss on the cheek and they moved their separate ways. They’re both mature professionals.”

What A Difference 2008 and 2012 Makes For Conservatives

Rachel Alexander has written a great article for TownHall in which she points out that while many Republicans have been accusing Mitt Romney of being a flip flopper, they conveniently forget that they have flip flopped in their support for Mitt Romney: 

Three years ago, conservative Republicans were falling all over themselves to support Mitt Romney in the Republican primary over John McCain. McCain was considered too moderate, and by the time the Republican primary came around, many conservatives had soured on Mike Huckabee, having heard rumors he was staying in the race as a spoiler purposely to help McCain win.

Fast forward to 2011. What has changed since then? Romney left office as governor of Massachusetts in 2007, choosing not to seek reelection. Other than writing a book and assisting with a couple of political campaigns, he has not done much. Yet now that Romney is the GOP frontrunner, many conservatives are speaking up against him.

Popular conservative websites like Free Republic and Red State have taken a noticeable slant against Romney. National Tea Party leader Lloyd Marcus, chairman of the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama, has made it a campaign priority to stop Romney from getting the GOP nomination. In response to this onslaught of new attacks from the right, a website entitled WhyRomney.com was set up to debunk accusations that Romney is too liberal.

Romney is accused of flip-flopping on issues, and has come under especially heavy criticism for signing healthcare legislation as Massachusetts governor implementing an individual mandate. As Massachusetts governor, Romney was forced to work with a state legislature that was 84 percent Democrat. In order to getting anything passed in one of the most liberal states in the country, Romney was forced to make a few compromises. Romneycare was a bipartisan plan directed at insuring the uninsured, using the private sector to provide those services. The main goal was to cut down on the costs of emergency room services used by the uninsured. In contrast, Obamacare is a federal government takeover of everyone’s healthcare which also includes a public option. Leading conservative thinkers like Newt Gingrich support individual healthcare mandates, which Gingrich distinguishes from the draconian requirements of Obamacare mandates.

Romney worked with the conservative Heritage Foundation to craft the legislation. One Heritage writer thought it was one of the best healthcare solutions out there, “In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there.” Another Heritage author encouraged other states to adopt the Massachusetts model. Three years ago, the most conservative Senator in the U.S. Senate, Jim DeMint, praised the Massachusetts healthcare plan, which he later said was hijacked by the Democrat legislature. The Democrat-controlled legislature overrode eight of Romney’s vetoes on parts of the legislation, including a provision forcing small businesses participate.

Romney has become more conservative over the years, much like Ronald Reagan who used to be a Democrat. Romney became pro-life in 2005 when he became aware of the atrocity of embryonic stem cell research. Reagan also switched from pro-choice to pro-life. While Governor of California, Reagan signed a bill into law relaxing restrictions on abortions. Both former presidents Bush switched to a pro-life position on abortion, as has Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey. Many conservatives who are quick to criticize Romney for changing his position on abortion will in the same breath say they support pro-choice Condoleezza Rice for president.

Many of the actions Romney took while governor have been characterized as more liberal than they really were. Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage. He opposed civil unions except for once in an effort to get the Massachusetts Supreme Court to back off from legalizing gay marriage. When the court insisted on legalizing gay marriage anyway, Romney attempted to hold a Constitutional Convention to stop it. The one controversial area he has expressed support for in the past is domestic partner benefits. However, at the same time in 2004 and 2006 Romney expressed support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Romney has been accused of supporting gun control and expanding the Assault Weapons ban in Massachusetts. The reality is every year he was governor he worked with the NRA on legislation making small reforms to Massachusetts’ existing draconian gun control laws, considered a step forward for gunowners by the NRA. In 2005, he issued a proclamation declaring May 7 “Right to Bear Arms Day.” Gun Owners Action League, the Massachusetts gun organization, issued these statements about Romney’s record, “During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. Governor Romney did sign five pro-second amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.”

Rachel Alexander argues that Mitt Romney should not be viewed as a flip flopper but a convert to the conservative cause who is steadily moving to the right: 

The true test of whether Romney can be trusted as a real conservative will be whether he stays to the right. While he has moved to the right on most issues, his positions on environmental issues and the Wall Street bailouts are troubling. He still needs to convince conservatives that he has also moved to the right on those issues.

So far while running for president Romney has generally stuck to conservative positions and has not flopped back to the left. There has been some quibbling over some of the language he uses at times, but generally there is little indication that he intends to return to his prior liberal positions. This is unlike Rick Perry who still defends his liberal position on illegal immigration, labeling conservatives “heartless” in September who do not support his bill that granted in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants.

Mitt Romney is no John McCain. His record is that of an elected official who has become more conservative over the years, not one that has consistently waffled back and forth. Instead of labeling Romney a flip-flopper, why not see him as a convert?

It never ceases to amaze me that Mitt Romney was the true conservative over the moderate John McCain in the 2008 election. Yet, somehow Romney become the moderate and conservatives are scrambling to find a true conservative to defeat Mitt in this election.

The truth is that Mitt Romney hasn't changed. Conservatives have. 

Mitt Romney:I've Been Consistent On My Political Views

Mitt Romney sat down with an unnamed New Hampshire editorial board and was peppered with questions on a wide range of issues. One issue that Romney was asked about was the perception that he was inconsistent in his political views. Mitt Romney boldly responded to that question by explaining that he's always been consistent. Watch the short clip below: 

Here's the key quote from the clip above: 

“You can see in my record as governor what I believe and what I’d do,” he said. “I cannot state every single issue in exactly the same words every single time. And so there are some folks who obviously for various political and campaign purposes will try and find some change and draw great attention to something which looks like a change which in fact is entirely consistent.” 

There are good places to learn about Mitt Romney's positions and how consistent he has been throughout the years. I highly recommend either visiting WhyRomney.com or Mitt Romney Central or Myclob's Mitt Romney Encyclopedia.  

Cartoon: Mitt Romney Wishes Obama A Happy Halloween

A Romney-McDonnell Ticket?

A lot of people have been speculating on who Mitt Romney's running mate would be if secures the Republican nomination in 2012. At one point, I was thrilled about a Romney/Cain ticket or a Romney/Bachmann ticket. Yet, in hindsight, those would be bad choices for Mitt Romney. 

Some people are speculating that Mitt Romney may choose Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell to be his running mate:  

Mitt Romney's stop in northern Virginia Wednesday fueled speculation that  Governor Bob McDonnell could be tapped to join a Republican presidential ticket.

Romney, fighting for the GOP nomination, praised McDonnell while speaking at Fairfax County Republican headquarters.  He called the Virginia governor one of the "great leaders of the Republican party."

McDonnell has signaled for several months now that he would consider the vice president job if offered.  Romney said Wednesday that naming a running mate at this stage in the election would be presumptuous, but then he heaped praise on the Virginia governor.

"I say nice things about Governor McDonnell every time I have a chance," Romney said.  "He's a terrific governor doing a great job here in Virginia."

This is a ticket I could really get excited about. Mitt Romney supported Governor McDonnell in the 2010 midterm election. He also gave his endorsement and provided financial support to Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling and Attorney General hopeful Ken Cuccinelli during that election as well. These men are quite popular with the Virginia voters. 

Having Governor McDonnell would help flip Virginia back into the red column after Obama won that state in the 2008 election. Virgina has 13 electoral votes and if Mitt Romney wins that state, it would be a significant blow to Obama's chances to being reelected. Moreover, if Romney chooses Bob McDonnell, it would also have a significant effect on how people in the surrounding states such as North Carolina which carries 15 electoral votes and Pennsylvania which has 20 electoral votes.

Although its too early to be thinking about Mitt's running mate, its never too early to be thinking about Mitt Romney making Obama a one term President.

Republican & Democratic Insiders Agree: Mitt Romney Most Likely To Be GOP Nominee

In this week's National Journal Political Insiders Poll, Republican insiders overwhelmingly said that Mitt Romney would be the candidate who will most liley win the nomination in 2012. Democratic insiders agree:

 "Romney keeps holding steady while the rest of the field takes turns getting hot and flaming out," said one Democratic strategist. "Tortoise to all the other hares."

Another suggested Republicans would eventually come around. "While Romney certainly isn't a tea party favorite at the moment, by November they will have fallen in 'like' with him given that the alternative is Obama."

Some Democrats identified Romney's perceived moderation as an asset in the general election. "Everyone else gets our base out in droves," said one. "If Romney can get the Republican base out, he'll win. He'll appeal to independents and some disillusioned Democrats."

"Independent suburban voters are more likely to support Romney," agreed another.

Other Democrats echoed their Republican counterparts who see Romney winning by default. "He can talk and chew gum at the same time," said one, "which puts him way ahead of the other candidates."

And the Democratic insiders are correct. Mitt Romney is the only Republican candidate who can appeal to a broad base of people beyond conservatives. Not only does he get support from conservatives, but Independents, moderates, and some Democrats. 

This has been Romney's strategy from the beginning. He has begun this 2012 race by focusing on the long game of unseating Barack Obama while other 2012 candidates are merely focused on the immediate goal of winning the GOP nomination. He's let people know that going to play the well known of tacking right during the primaries and then moving back to the center for the general election. Mitt Romney has been committed to playing the center and as a result has an early start in building that broad base of support he needs to defeat Barak Obama. 

It appears that Mitt Romney's stategy is working since there have been several polls in various states that have Romney defeating Obama if the elections where held today. What's even more important is that many of these polls were taken in crucial states that Obama needs if he wishes to be reelected.

For voters, we also need to focus on the long game. We should not be concerned with who will be the GOP nominee. That is just being focused on the short game. We should be thinking about which candidate is the best person to make Obama a one term president. The answer is becoming increasingly clear: Mitt Romney is the only Republican among the 2012 candidates who can defeat Barak Obama in the elections.

Mitt Romney Wins Over House Republicans

Mitt Romney went to Washington D.C. to have a meeting with House Republicans today and got the House GOP very excited about his candidacy after a grueling question and answer session with the former governor of Massachusetts: 

Several dozen House Republicans grilled Mitt Romney on social issues during his visit to Capitol Hill Wednesday, including his position on abortion and gay marriage, according to attendees.

But the former Massachusetts governor generally earned rave reviews from a set of lawmakers who have yet to make an endorsement in the GOP presidential primary. Romney sought to make a distinction between his experience as an executive in the private sector and his rivals’ backgrounds.

“He hit it out of the ballpark,” said Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.), who had expressed concern Tuesday about Romney’s ability to counter attacks from President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. “He gave a stellar performance.”

While some House GOP members were thrilled with Romney's responses to their questions, others were impressed with Romney but still wanted to learn more about him:

Oklahoma Rep. John Sullivan, who said he is “leaning” toward endorsing Romney, said the abortion issue remains “something that gives me a little bit of pause.” He said he wants more information on that topic from the Romney campaign. “He’s got a ways to go on that with me.”

Sullivan said Romney described himself during the meeting as more of a libertarian during his days as Massachusetts governor and in a Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy.

“[T]he response was when he became governor he said he’d leave things the way they were [on abortion] and then a bill came to his desk wanting the creation of embryos to destroy them and he said, ‘Look, I can’t do this,’” said Illinois Rep. Bobby Schilling. “Actually, I thought he covered it quite well today.”

Not only did Mitt Romney impress alot of House GOP members, but he managed to an introduction and endorsement from a certain House Representative:

In a bit of a coup for Romney, he was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a conservative on immigration policy who hails from GOP contender Rick Perry’s home state. The Romney campaign announced Smith’s endorsement on Wednesday.

I think you will see many House Republicans give their endorsements of Mitt Romney in the coming days, months and weeks. Not all of them will endorse Mitt Romney but I suspect a large majority of House Republicans will.

Vindicated: Money Doesn't Buy You A Political Office

Its hard to remain humble when I'm right.

About a month ago, I wrote an article debunking the popular myth that rich political candidates can buy their way into office. David Brooks, writing an op-ed article for the New York Times explains how money in general has very little effect on political campaigns: 

Over the past few months, there’s been a torrent of commentary about political donations and campaign spending. This lavish coverage is based on the premise that campaign spending has an important influence on elections.

I can see why media consultants would believe money is vitally important: the more money there is the more they make. I can see why partisans would want to believe money is important: they tend to blame their party’s defeats on the nefarious spending of the other side. But I can’t see why the rest of us should believe this. The evidence to support it is so slight.

The evidence is clear. Money doesn't do much in politics. David Brooks points out that in this election cycle, Democrats have raised more money and spent more money than Republicans; yet, Republicans are expected to make the biggest political gains this November. According to the columnist, it doesn't matter if the money comes from campaign donations or from outside groups. 

One such outside group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is often vilified by the President and is mentioned in David Brook's column, despite the fact that there is no evidence that they have donated any money to this political campaign. Yet, even if the claim was true, they only contribute to 10% of the overall money used for political campaigns according to Mr. Brooks.  Moreover, the jury is still out among Political Scientists on whether or not the cash spent by independent groups are any more effective than money spent by a political campaign.

The New York Times columnist explains that the reason why there is so much money in political campaign is not for the candidate's benefit but for the benefit of political strategist's bank account and the donor's ego:

So why is there so much money in politics? Well, every consultant has an incentive to tell every client to raise more money. The donors give money because it makes them feel as if they are doing good and because they get to hang out at exclusive parties. The candidates are horribly insecure and grasp at any straw that gives them a sense of advantage.

In the end, however, money is a talisman. It makes people feel good because they think it has magical properties. It probably helps in local legislative races where name recognition is low. It probably helps challengers get established. But these days, federal races are oversaturated. Every federal candidate in a close race has plenty of money and the marginal utility of each new dollar is zero.

In this day and age, money is almost never the difference between victory and defeat. It’s just the primitive mythology of the political class.

The claim that there's too much money in politics might be true. But the claim that money actually has an influence in political campaigns to such extent that a rich politician can buy a political office, win elections or influence voters is simply not true. However, that myth will never die. Politicians will continue to use this myth for political purposes. 

However, that doesn't mean you, the voter, have to believe the myth.

Burning The Koran On 9/11: An Incredibly Stupid Idea

As you probably all know by now, a Florida pastor named Terry Jones had plans to burn copies of the Koran on September 11, 2010.

I don't like it when people defile a Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon, Bhagavad Gita or any other religious book. And that is why so many different religions like the LDS Church, Catholic, Evangelical, and Judaism are united in their opposition to Pastor Terry Jones' plan to burn Qu'rans on September 11, 2010. They don't like it either. 

And there is a good reason for why they have joined forces in condemning the idea of burning Korans on 9/11. The consequences will be devastating for those religious freedom flourish around the world, especially in the middle east. The harm will last long into the future. Geoff Tunnicliffe, a prominent voice in the World Evangelical Alliance, explains the long term consequences of Pastor Terry Jones’ act:

“Here’s the reality: That video will never go away,” Tunnicliffe said. “It will be so detrimental to our work with religious liberty around the world. Everywhere I go around the world I will have to address this for years to come.”

The Pastor's actions will have negative consequences for all other religions even if they oppose the Pastor's plan to burn the Korans. Thanks to Terry Jones, the Middle East will be less inclined to allow other faiths to have the ability to operate in that region of the world. However, the Middle East, which is has little tolerance for other faiths, wants Islam to be respected around the world but will not allow other religions to be practiced in their midsts. What the Middle East refuses to recognize is that everyone wants the right to have their faith practiced at home or abroad. At some point, the Middle East will have to embrace the same task of balancing freedom of religion and speech. It will have to learn that a person has a right to be respectful as well as offensive towards other religions.

Don't get me wrong. I totally understand the feelings that Muslims feel when they hear that someone wants to burn the Koran to make a political or religious statement. I know how they feel because seeing a Book of Mormon dragged on the ground does not evoke positive emotions in me. Maybe its part of the reason why other Mormons like Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck are opposed to this Pastor's stupid idea of remembering 9/11. 

There are some who think that what the Pastor is doing is contrary to the founding principles of the Republic. Those people are wrong. Freedom of religion and speech are both protected under the the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Neither Religion and speech are given more weight or protection than the other. One may consider that both of these freedoms have the honor of being listed first in the Constitution. In fact, they're listed together. Personally, I think they're inextricably linked together. You can't have freedom of religion with out speech and you can't have speech without freedom of religion.

Hence, there will always be tension between free speech and freedom of religion. However, that tension is what makes America so great. People have a right to speak their mind about any number of topics, especially religion. They have a right to be amazingly insensitive to a world religion that has approximately 1 billion followers.

Which is why the as much as the act of seeing a Book of Mormon thrown on the ground bothers me, the man has a right to do so. I think what the Pastor is doing is incredibly stupid. And, as stupid as the Pastor’s desire to burn the Korans maybe, it’s his right to do so.