An Open Letter to Our Republican Candidates for President

To Our Alleged Republicans -

I simply can’t take this anymore.

To where, exactly, has the concept of principled leadership in America disappeared?  If we’re going to point to Barack Obama and his fascist sychophants, we may as well fold up our tents and go home, because quite frankly, it’s over.

After all, 235 ½ years is a pretty doggone good run.  Nothing lasts forever, right?  Just ask the Romans.

Or, perhaps, we should simply pull up the spikes holding our tents in the ground and move over with the Occupiers, because that way we at least wouldn’t have to stay in them overnight when times get tough and the political winds become just a bit too chilly.

Wait…I have an idea….why don’t we just make it a “big tent”, right?  Sure, that way everyone could come inside, and we’d all be on the same team, right?  Let’s just convince everyone that we stand for every consideration on all issues, even the ones that common sense is telling us are flatly self-contradictory.

That’ll work.

And our principled leader will be….um…Mitt Romney?  Well, if the “big tent” idea that I’ve just espoused is the “new principled”, then Mitt Romney is our man.  He’s poked his head in and out of so many big tents that he has now seemingly been fitted for the red coat, white pants, and top hat and has ceremoniously had the whip and the chair placed in his capable hands.  He’s gonna bring the lion under control.  Yessir.

There’s only one other thing to consider there – the lions ate the Christians.

So, Rick Santorum’s performance in Iowa notwithstanding (a guy who at least strikes me as a fairly principled conservative), Mitt Romney’s “victory” in Iowa, coupled with his expected march through New Hampshire, seems to have most people around the country prepared to anoint Harvey Dent as the Republican nominee to challenge Barack Obama in November’s general election.  With South Carolina on the schedule after that – territory in which Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul will most likely divide their own votes – it seems that Mr. Romney is in pretty good position.

So, what we common-sense Americans are essentially being told by your party (the RNC) and the media is that during a time when Donald Duck could take 49 out of 50 states against the sitting President of the United States, Mitt Romney is the absolute best that we can do.

Really?

One of the drums that I’ve been beating for a long, long time now – especially as it had become clear that Mr. Romney had a solid foothold on the nomination from the get-go – is that a moderate Republican never wins.  Only strong, principled, conservative Republicans win general elections.  Each time a new Republican “flavor of the month” has risen in the polls, the media elite and seemingly all everyday liberals claim that he or she “isn’t electable”.  Why is that?  I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d like others to answer a question: am I the only one in this country who has had the “not electable” response thrown back as soon as a Republican candidate’s name is even raised?

Except, of course, when it comes to Mitt Romney, which I find very interesting, indeed.

Given Leftists’ penchant of making claims that are the exact opposite of their true intentions (ala Alinsky), this inexplicable “fear” of Mitt Romney certainly makes me curious.  In expressing my thoughts on this to some of my like-minded friends over the past several months, they think I’m wrong; I’m not so sure.  Something that I’ve learned in life is that whenever I face a questionable issue or difficult moment upon which I’ve spent a great deal of time dwelling, I have come to trust my instincts.  More often than not, I’m usually in the ballpark.

Following Saturday’s debate, I’m now closer than ever to thinking that I’m correct, because during post-debate analysis, Democratic strategist Donna Brazille flatly claimed that the Obama camp is thrilled that Romney came across in such a strong fashion, because he’s “clearly the weakest candidate in the field”.  Tellingly, George Stephanopoulos’s reaction to the comment was darn near a verbal beat-down for possessing the unmitigated stupidity to let the cat out of the bag.

Truth be told, I’m not  happy with the current field of candidates with which we’ve been presented.  Ironically, the true all-stars – men like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, and Mitch Daniels – candidates who could’ve walked into the White House unopposed, stayed on the sidelines for some strange reason.  But, I think I covered that in one of my last pieces here at AR.

Here’s my question for all the men currently claiming to be conservative who are running for President of the United States – what is it, exactly, that you don’t get?  What’s hard to understand about things like paying one’s bills, recognizing the vital importance of the family as the foundational building block in any free society, and protecting the citizens of your own country from foreign threats?  How about something truly original like utilizing our own natural resources and limited taxation of the people? Right now, in all honesty, our “tax code” is nothing more than a blueprint for organized crime.

From where I stand, the voice of the average, everyday American who works to support a family or his business is calling for someone – anyone – who will draw a line in the sand and govern according to the Constitution.  In short, one of you has to show some serious testicular fortitude, and show it soon.

However all this evolves, let me say this – the Republican Party needs to get its freaking act together and unite behind one man.  If it’s Mitt Romney, so be it; I’d certainly prefer someone else, and I know that I’m far from alone in that assessment.  One thing is certain, though - If the supporters of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich,  Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum continue to snipe at one another in displays that can only be termed petulant, you’re only going to contribute to the further subdivisions in our society and culture while simultaneously doing the Democrats’ work for them.  This is pathetic, and by extension, pretty scary.  For all intents and purposes, November’s general election is going to be America’s Last Stand.

Allow me to also say this to Mitt Romney – if you’re the nominee, you’ll have my support.  You certainly haven’t earned it yet, and you may only get it by default.  Remember this, however – you’re on record as saying that if elected President, the first thing that you’ll do, on Day One in office, is to issue Obamacare waivers by Executive Order to all 50 states, effectively putting the issue immediately to rest.

I’m holding you to that, and I’d be willing to bet that millions more are going to as well.  See, it’s kinda like the scene from Eight Men Out, the true story about the 1919 Chicago White Sox – the gangster financing the entire operation knew the fix was in once the Sox’s starting pitcher, Eddie Cichotte, hit the first Reds’ batter with a pitch.  That was the signal.

I’m going to wait for the signal.

If the signal never comes, well, then, I guess it’ll be another four years of political activism in order to try to make you as unelectable as possible yourself.  I know, I’m just one small man in a nation of 305,000,000 people, but, hey, someone’ll have to do it.  Before I sign off here, though, I thought I might present to you a common-sense, conservative platform, just in case you need cheat notes or something along those lines. I’m just trying to help.  I do a lot of tutoring in my spare time, so this comes pretty naturally to me.  You don’t have to contact me about any of this; feel free simply to consider them “rhetorical” points.  I am, however, always available – after all, I have an Ipad.

Sincerely,

John J. Feeny

Conservative Platform

1. balanced budget amendment to the Constitution

2. formal development of a strict program for paying down the national debt      (see Paul Ryan)

3. transition from a federal tax scheme based on the personal income of the Americanpeople to a Fair Tax (consumption-based) or, at the very least, a Flat Tax on income

4. Health Care – repeal the bill (if possible) & replace it  with one based on TORT reform and the removal of interstate regulations – OR – de-fund the bill that has been signed into law and starve it

5. complete review of the Democrats’ “financial overhaul” - the American People  demand to know exactly what is in that bill; repeal the bill if necessary

6. eliminate any laws or proposals for Cap & Trade, and legally prevent the EPA from establishing draconian energy guidelines

7. eliminate or de-fund the Department of Education, returning the responsibility for educating our youth to where it rightfully belongs – their parents, families, and local communities

8. shut down the Southern border to illegal immigration; deployment of the state National Guards as necessary to prevent further illegal incursions; then, immigration reform in each state’s being given the right to determine its own immigration laws.

9. strong national defense and security; as to the wars(s) in the Middle East, either fight to end them decisively or bring our troops home.

10. federal requirement of photo identification for all elections; possibly require photo kiosks placed in all polling locations so as to more easily facilitate state identification for all American citizens

Constitutional Issues

Call for Constitutional Convention

> stronger wording or re-vision for the 1st, 2nd, & 10th Amendments

> term limits for every political position at the federal and state level

> legislative bills that are no more than 25 pages in length

> amendment for adopting English as our official language

> enforcement of the “natural-born”clause

Ancillary, but extremely important issues

> legal re-working as the degree of formal influence that public unions can        wield in a free market economy

> pro-life and pro-growth in all areas of American life and culture

 

 

 

 

Share

Comments

  1. whats_up says:

    @ John,

    Love the “enforcement of the ‘natural born’ clause. Are you a closet birther?

  2. John Feeny says:

    What’s Up -
    That’s the best you can do? C’mon…I actually had a sliver of respect for you. Don’t take it away from me. It matters.

    I missed any insightful commentary you might have had with regard to my prior two pieces. I’m always looking to improve on both my knowledge of the world and my writing skills. Don’t take the mantle of “role model” too lightly, there, big guy…despite what others might tell you, you ARE important.

    Cheers.

  3. whats_up says:

    @ John,

    As always its fun sparring with you. Well lets take a look at your article and what I agree with and dont agree with. I find it interesting that Conservatives claim that “principled” conservatives win, when clearly they dont. They cant even seem to get enough votes to win the primary. As to Santorum being a “principled conservative”, maybe on social issues he is but certainly not on fisical issues. His record is one of a big government spender. As to your platform:

    1. I could agree with depending on the wording.
    2. Agree with
    3. I am in favor of revamping the tax code, but I cant support either a flat or fair tax.
    4. I support the health care bill. However I am sure that their are areas that need to be fixed or adjusted. Tort reform is not as big an issue as Conservatives like to claim, payouts for lawsuits is less than 10% of total health care costs in this country, besides big corporations such as those involved in the health care industry only respond to money it seems.
    5. Dont have a problem with reviewing the bill.
    6. Your concept of “dracionian” guidelines might be different than mine. However I am sure that their are some regulations that can be done away with.
    7. Dont agree, I think this is a govt function to make sure that its citizens are educated.
    8. Agree with part of this, have no problem using National Guard troops on the border. However each state shouldnt be allowed to decide immigration practices, that is the perview of the federal govt and should stay there.
    9. Agree
    10. Have no issue with this as long as the id’s are free and made available to all citizens.

    To the convention. I dont think calling for a convention is such a good idea. However to your points:

    I think that the 1st, 2nd and 10th amendments are worded just fine. No need to redefine or rewrite them.

    States can allready decide on term limits. We have them at the federal level as well they are called elections.

    Eh, page limits on bills I can take or leave. However I would only allow amendments that are germane to the bill being discussed.

    dont need English as the official language, the majority of Americans allready speak English

    I wasnt aware that the “natural born” clause wasnt being enforced. Do you have an example of it not being enforced?

    Thanks

  4. John Feeny says:

    Seems that we agree on more than we’d otherwise think, which is what I very often say about both sides. If the Tea Partiers and Occupiers could just see that they have a common enemy – the relationship that exists between Wall Street and our vaunted politicians – much of the basic disagreements could probably be worked out. It wouldn’t be perfect; nothing in life is – which is, ironically, reflective of our system – nothing in life is perfect.

    Do I have a specific example of the “natural born” clause being violated? Well, no, I don’t; however, the scrutiny that the issue has received over the course of the past four years, in my mind, certainly warrants specific enforcement from here on out, since the American people are now aware of it. If we don’t want it to be a problem, all that has to be done is verification of the presumed facts. It’s not rocket science.

  5. John Feeny says:
  6. graypanther says:

    Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, later the CEO of American Motors, was born in 1907 in a Mormon enclave in Chihuahua, Mexico. Contemporary American law insisted that he was thus a Mexican citizen. Mexican law of the time, biased against American immigrant landholders, barred him from being exactly that. Was he thus without citizenship? If so, and if Mitt Romney is the son of a father stateless at birth, is Mitt Romney a natural-born citizen? And if not…

    The RNC had better think carefully about the potential difficulties of nominating Romney if this becomes an issue.

  7. Dee says:

    John, great article. I hope you copied it to all of the candidates. I agree with most of your points. I would also add, in addition to term limits, that the politicians do not receive lifelong salaries (pensions), that they participate in social security, and they also participate in the same healthcare that the private sector does. I have written to all of the candidates and told them that many people did not need to hear them calling each other names, etc, because the media will be more than happy to do that. I also encouraged all of them to stand behind the person who is elected. Once again, I see the media choosing our candidate by saying the Mitt is the front runner. I watched the last debate and was surprised to hear Donna Brazille’s comment. If Mitt is the candidate, BO will tear him apart on the Romney healthcare plan. However, when I watch the debates, I’m not so sure that BO would be as quick thinking on his feet, without a telepromter. All of the candidates have good and bad points. I know that we will never get a “perfect” candidate but I do think we need to stick together. Thank you once again for a thought provoking article.

  8. whats_up says:

    @ graypanther,

    Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, Michigan end of story. He is a natural born citizen of the United States. Seriously, why would you think otherwise?

  9. graypanther says:

    I would think otherwise, whats_up, because the so-called NBC argument against the eligibility of Barack Obama is that at the time of his birth, his father was a citizen of the British Commonwealth. This presupposes that the implicit Constitutional definition of “natural-born citizen” is “a person born in the United States to two parents, both of whom were citizens of the United States at the time of that birth.”

    By this definition, Barack Obama is not eligible; he was born in the United States to two parents, one a United States citizen and one not. Mitt Romney was born in the United States to two parents, one a United States citizen and one possibly not, or one stateless. I’m saying only that if Romney is nominated, the issue is certain to be raised.

  10. whats_up says:

    @ greypanther

    “This presupposes that the implicit Constitutional definition of “natural-born citizen” is “a person born in the United States to two parents, both of whom were citizens of the United States at the time of that birth.” ”

    Good thing that is not the definition of natural born citizen then isnt it. NBC isnt defined in the Constitution. It is defined by US Code.

  11. Jeff Schreiber says:

    What’s up is right. And, frankly, that’s quite enough of the Leo Donofrio birther talk.

  12. Bob Upton says:

    I don’t expect you to print this Jeff, and I wouldn’t blame you, as the “NBC” debate can get heated and you have a blog to moderate. So just between you and me, I disagree with whats_up and with you.

    The US code does not define “natural born citizenship” at all. It only defines who is a “national” and a “citizen”. Since the Constitution and other early documents refer to both “citizens” and “natural born citizens”, and since the Constitution (which trumps US Code anyway)requires natural born citizenship for the offices of Vice-president and President ONLY, than it seems prudent to get a ruling on what differentiates the two classes of citizenship.

    Bob

  13. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Bob,

    I just find the debate all-consuming, and a complete and total distraction from substantive matters and political issues. Further, while I believe that you and some of the others who come here are fairly good at supporting your arguments–however wrong :) –the same cannot be said for the bulk of those involved in this debate. It has been, and continues to be, an enormous credibility suck. That’s the reason I don’t want it here. No offense intended to you at all — I enjoy your insight on political issues, and hope that you continue to weigh in.

    Jeff

  14. Bob Upton says:

    Point taken Jeff (no matter how wrong you may be).

    I consider it a worthy member of John’s list of Constitutional issues to be addressed.

    You would have to try much harder than that to offend me! :)

    “I’ll be back.” T-800 series Model 101, 1984

  15. graypanther says:

    Do excuse me. I am not a birther. Nor am I taking a position in the NBC debate. I am only saying that, if Romney is the nominee — which is looking fairly likely this minute — those who argue for the ineligibility of Barack Obama, at least on these grounds, might then argue for the comparable ineligibility of Mitt Romney. And that could become a problem unless a conclusive response is ready.

  16. John Feeny says:

    What have I done?

  17. Bob Upton says:

    John,

    You’ve done nothing wrong my friend!
    When you put not just one, but (by my count) seventeen elephants in the room one of them is going to be noticed. Unfortunately many of them will not.

    I fear we have digressed as a society. At our founding, good ideas, ideals and solid principles were “refined” in the collective fires of conviction until only the best remained. Today ideas, ideals and principles are “re-defined” in the microwave of self-promoting compromise until all that’s left is “dross”. We then attach a fine sounding name, or a catchy slogan, to the dross and pretend it is pure gold.

    Keep turning up the heat!

Speak Your Mind

*