Focus on the Constitution

As the Republican debate renews about how to solve our image problem and improve future election results, I'll once again encourage a return to the basic constitutional principles for Federal races. Push the debate of social issues back to states where they belong, and take solid conservative positions on the economy and government spending, national defense and foreign policy, and immigration. This includes those issues that rightfully affect all states such as entitlement spending, border security and illegal immigration, foreign and domestic commerce, military readiness, and fair tax policies. This would not end the debate about the proper role of government, but it would highlight discussion about constitutional authority given to the federal government and to the states.

There is no reason for us to continue losing important Federal seats because we alienate voters about gay marriage, abortion, substance consumption, education, and even availability of health insurance. These are all issues that can, and should, be dealt with at state levels. The answers will vary from region to region, but that’s why we are a federation and not a pure democracy.

The news this week about the resignation of David Petraeus was certainly unexpected, but not necessarily a bad thing for the country. My understanding is that General Petraeus has said that he will not end his public service because of this incident, but it will end his role leading the CIA. While I don’t know his political leanings, we should have the opportunity to hear more about his positions now that he is not obligated to support a President plagued with a failing performance record and responsibility for nurturing a highly polarized country. If he elects to run for an elected office, he will actually be better served by not being part of the Obama cabinet going forward.

Back to the Constitution

While I've never been a Ron Paul supporter, the Romney campaign has finally opened my eyes about federal level elections. The Constitution is very clear about the limited responsibilities of the federal branches of the government. For some reason, though, Republicans have decided to join the Democrats in including many other issues into the debate at the federal level. The result is that Republicans are left to defend or promote positions on social issues that have no place at the federal level in the first place.

So, as Ron Paul has been saying for years, let's get back to the basics and re-define the Republicans, again, to the principals of the original party. Limit the debate to smaller federal government. Focus on those issues alone; Spending, Commerce, Naturalization, Inferior Courts, and War Powers. All other issues should be pushed to the state level and debated and resolved by each state. Why should we be cornered into a debate about abortion, about gay marriage, about substance consumption, about education, about healthcare, and so on? None of these things are authorized by the Constitution, and we're allowing ourselves to loose elections, and the chance to properly manage the government, because of state level issues.

I'd be much happier trying to debate those social issues on a much smaller scale, at the state level, than trying to gain nationwide consensus on these matters. If your community doesn't want to allow recreational pot like Colorado, pass a local law against it. People can decide to live in states and cities that offer the lifestyle suitable to them.

In the end, small government Republicans may be the best approach, and leave the personal welfare and social issues to the states and churches.

2012 Elections

Like so many others, I'm amazed by the outcome of this week's presidential election. While I understand that the left is getting quite successful at creating a base of dependency voters and those people want "free stuff", but I still had faith that even they wouldn't re-elect a president with a record as dismal as BO. The economy is in shambles, our foreign policy has left us at high risk in every global region, our laws are not being upheld, and this president abuses his authority on a regular basis. When Jimmy Carter put us in this position, the country was smart enough to recognize reality and make a switch before further damage was done.

Not in 2012, however. Mitt Romney is a highly successful business executive, a loyal husband and father, a generous and faithful person, and a person with a track record of success in governing at the state level. His resume is miles ahead of the one brought to us by BO in 2008. So, would the voters do the obvious thing and allow him to help us solve our financial crisis? No, and I'm sorry to say that I think it is nothing more than pure selfishness that drew this result.

The Democratic ideology is that only the government can provide a safe and prosperous life for the citizens. That unless the government controls all aspects of the economy and welfare, then private business will victimize the population and create a serfdom society. While I disagree with that, at least I understand someone trying to defend that position. Most voters however didn't vote for BO because of that. They voted for single self serving issues like gay marriage, free phones, more unemployment, food stamps, free medical, social security, etc., etc., etc. These voters don't care about the welfare of the country. They just want their stuff.

I see Democrats as voters who've decided that they can't, or would rather not, survive unless they can get things that don't belong to them for free. Republicans on the other hand, don't want anything from government except border security, a healthy economic environment, and a national transportation network to support domestic and international commerce. So how can those who are willing to work for their own welfare compete with the number of people who want free stuff? As long as we have a government willing to bribe citizens to get their votes, I'm not sure I have an answer to that question.

In the end, I'll remain disappointed that the country missed the chance to have Mitt Romney lead our country to a safer, healthier place. He's not just a politician. He's a person of morality and principles, and he would have been a great model for the population. We've missed a real opportunity because our country is now full of selfish, small thinking people. I'm not proud of our voters.