City Journal Spring 2014

Current Issue:

Spring 2014
Table of Contents
Subscribe
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Luigi Zingales
The GOP’s Strongest Candidate « Back to Story

View Comments (92)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.


 
Showing 92 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
the ONLY candidate who IS different from the rest of the Repubs is,,,,,, GARY JOHNSON.
Check him out @ http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
LIVE FREE!!!
MORRIS SLYDELL II, PA-MBA June 24, 2011 at 10:03 PM
LET"S FACE IT AMERICA , THE CURRENT PRESIDENT WILL BE RE-ELECTED , IT DOSEN"T MATTER WHO THE REPUBLICANS ENDORSE , SO LETS RESIGN OURSELVES TO FOUR (4) MORE YEARS OF OBAMA: ITS IN THE STARS , PROVE ME WRONG AMERICA.
My favorites are Tim Pawlenty and Michelle Bachmann. (Please forgive any misspelling.) (It's kind of a shame that Mike Pence is not in the running.)

But the fact is there are a lot of candidates and potentials who are really good, and all would be far superior to Mr Obama, including Mitch Romney. Let's enjoy the show and support the eventual Republican candidate.

Look at the Republicans who have lost...Gerald Ford,George HW Bush,Bob Dole,John McCain.What do the losers have in common? All considered moderates.The Republicans win when a conservative is running.2010 elections proved it again.The House was won by fresh new fiscal conservatives.Don't let the media pick the Republican candidate again.We will not win with a Huntsman or a Pawlenty or maybe not even a Romney.
myemail@email.com June 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM
Two words: Herman Cain.
I agree. We need a candidate who is not part of the "good ole boys' establishment." Jim Ryan is the type of candidate I could vote for.
Last time we put up a presidential candidate (McCain) who was a war hero but who was not electable. The votes he got were for the lesser of two evils. The GOP has a history of rewarding favorites in the party with candidacy, knowing full well that it would be a loss at the polls.
That would be Herman Cain.
A Tea partyer with a business background, but no desire for phony cronyism.
The reason we keep coming up with candidates such as John McCain, George W. Bush, et.al. is due to this old saying, "at least any old Republican is better than any old democrat." It does matter that we select and elect real leaders who will do what is right for this country and for we, the people. Of course Romney is what is wrong with the Republican Party. And, the political pundits at Fox News and elsewhere are trying to push us to select this pretty boy liberal to be our next Republican Candidate, who, even if elected would not turn this country around. It would be business as usual in DC. The Repubs and Dems are equally responsible for this nation's demise. I do not apologize for the Republicans who are just as worthless as the democrats. The Republicans and Democrarts are Interchangeable and in fact, their Rhetoric is interchangeable depenidng on which of these parties is in power. All the Made For TV Scripts are nothing but political theater as the Dems and Repubs put on a dog and pony show every couple of years to make us idiot citizens truly believe that our votes and voices matter. That is the biggest joke of all in the current Dog and Pony Show system of national poliitics in the USA. In the end, as long as we select the Stooges that Fox Supports, we will wind up with what we have been getting: Deeper and Deeper in Debt as a Nation and Individually along with the loss of our national sovereignty and of our individual rights and freedoms. And, we are all headed toward the Poor House and are getting there at a rapid pace, and the Repubs and Dems have engineered our demise. And, with Romney as POTUS, nothing would change except the rhetoric.
People who say "These data are.." don't know what data is.
"Big Business" is a disparaging term used constantly by the media in an attempt to paint all companies with the misdeeds of a few large companies. Is it any wonder that when the term "Big Business" is used in a survey, that people have a negative reaction?
It is a mistake for Republicans to worry about having a candidate who 'energizes the base.' There is no need for that. Obama energizes the conservative base.
who ever runs, need to band together with all republicans do not attack each other but attack Obama ,get Obama out of office is the goal and go for it.
I read this article through to the end, hoping to find the name of the candidate most likely to defeat Obama next November. However, other than mentioning Paul Ryan, a man who has emphatically declared that he is NOT a candidate, there was nothing. It is a shame that we have to select ONE person, when an amalgamation of several would be ideal. Ultimately, I will support whomever the GOP nominates, but currently I am disparing at the absence of the ideal one.
If Mitt Romney wins the Republican candidacy, the country has lost as surely as if Obama gains a second term. Either are extremely bad for America.
Romney's the one.......the total package and a DC Outsider.

No other candidate has the proven cross-function experience as Romney, no one even comes close....

The American people see it and so does the Tea Party themselves like Romney Fiscal Conservatives.

That's why Romney tied Bachmann with Tea Party support in the recent Rasmussen poll.
There is a candidate within the Republican party who is a strong believer in free markets and is not beholden to the bailout-addicted big-business establishment, Ron Paul.
Anthony Maranzano June 19, 2011 at 4:18 AM
I am profoundly suspicious when a member of the extreme left wing academic elite 'endorses' a candidate for the Republican nomination. Ryan is not a candidate now and may be a perfect selection as a VP candidate on a ticket led by Romney although it is my belief Romney will select a Hispanic running mate like Marco Rubio or Brian Sandoval. Romney can and will beat Obama if the economy remains stagnant. He has a track record as a successful CEO and governor, knows how businesses operate, and how to create jobs...despite the attacks from the left wing smear machine on his record. So for me and many conservatives, our real HOPE for the future is to CHANGE presidents in 2012.
What is your problem with the ONLY candidate that fits your definition, has proven it for 30 plus years ? It is none of the above mentioned, but here's a clue: He just won the straw poll in the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans .

The press and mainstream media are obviously, historically bought through and through; only the RINOS get any attention.
Ron Paul has no equal. His 22 year voting record speaks for itself.
As Mr. Regan said, "You ain't seen nothin yet!"
Ron Paul for 2012 Republican Nomination and President
One of these days the media may catch on. The Tea Party Movement is as opposed to the Republican as they are to Democrat because both have combined to bring us unbridled corruption and to the brink of fiscal ruin. The TPM is pro-Constitution.

For those who are pro-Constitution, neither Obama nor Romney could get elected if they were running unopposed because they are both political elitists who believe the People should serve government.
Big doesn't distort anything unless you have government intervention. Big in a free market is earned by successfully serving customers.
The second question is weak. Believing that big business will distort markets, given the chance, does not equate to an anti-business outlook. That's why the spread in support is much smaller for the second question.
It looks like the author is trying to show a problem where none exists.
MICKEY MOUSE could beat Obama. The country is sick of him.
Herman Cain or Ron Paul would be that person with Herman Cain probably being the most winnable against Obama.
That honestly sounds like Ron Paul and no one else in the GOP field - and I say that despite not being a Paul supporter. Even though I've spent most of my adult life thus far as an independent and I've never been a Republican, I can respect Ron Paul in a way that I can't respect any of the corporate tools running (Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Perry if he runs). To mostly relatively young voters like me (under 40), the entire Republican field aside from Paul is a non-starter, in great part due to the reasons articulated in this piece.
The only candidate that will beat Obozo is Sarah Palin!
There is such a candidate, but the Republican and media Establishments will have none of him. Gary Johnson, 2-term governor of New Mexico, was kept out of the CNN New Hampshire debate, and was marginalized at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference by having him speak early on Thursday, the first day when none of the other announced candidates were speaking and on a day during which the straw poll was not being conducted. The other announced candidates spoke on Friday, when CSPAN was broadcasting and the straw poll was being conducted. Not at all a level playing field.
Michael Kennedy June 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM
Exactly !
Ron Paul 2012
Agree on Gary Johnson, btw. A shame he's getting the usual libertarian blackout.
Agree completely. I like Ryan in the House but it's a fiscal hawk like him that can win the White House.

I wanted Daniels but I'll take Huntsman. Fortuno for VP.
It was Mitch Daniels - now the Repulicans are in trouble.
The GOP's strongest candidate is Obama. The more we see, the better ANYONE looks to us.
How about Gov. John Kascish (R) the current governor of Ohio?

It takes a Governor to unseat a sitting President going for his second term. This has been true for over 100 years. John Kascish fits that requirement as Governor.

Kascish has spent time as a Congressman in the U. S. House in the 1990's when he served as head of the Budget Committee. That is the same committee as Ryan heads now. Gov. Kascish has private sector experience.

John knows where the problems are in the Federal Budget. A President Kascish and Rep. Ryan could work well together on the budget.

The Republicans must win Ohio in 2012 and John Kascish as a favorite son would mean Ohio was a lock for the GOP.
If Republicans "articulate a platform that defends free markets but remains autonomous from big business" they will be lying about their true intentions (like they always do). The day the Republican Party puts the country ahead of big business and its cozy relationship with big government is the day the lion will lie down with the lamb. Instead of queer baiting, this time they attempt to put the "Reagan coalition" back together. There is only one problem. They don't have a Reagan. LOL
I think Luigi may be on to something. The problem is of course, horrid communication and education of the masses of Americans who know nada about the Constitution, the free enterprise system, why large and small businesses are the ones who really create jobs, tax cuts and spending cuts and their values. Ryan is a great analyst as is Newt on these things. Neither will be nominated. So, please give us another choice Luigi with the people now available.
Spot on!!
***
Sarah who?
***
Rocketman
***
"The Republican Party does not belong to the corporations...It is the party of Lincoln... of plain people, who desire justice for all.." TR's words were never more resonant. Since his time, the GOP has been afflicted w/political schizophrenia w/an effete establishment of little principle, addicted to big government, bailouts and crony capitalism versus a right/center rank and file w/strong libertarian instincts. The colossal ineptitude of the Bush fiasco is mute testament to that reality. The GOP is at a crossroads and it either excises its mandarins or it dies like the Whigs. Romney is just another in a long line of political hustlers and opportunists who stand for nothing but self-interest.
Professor Zingales omits the key factor in the equation: the media.

We are all sick unto death with impassioned cris de coeur about media disengagement whenever a Democrat politician does anything wrong. The list is endless, the behavior never-ending.

Imagine, if you will, the media reaction had George W. Bush told Congress to bite it when Congress started making throat-clearing noises about the War Powers Act.

During the Bush years when the unemployment was 5% senators Schumer and Durbin were loudly proclaiming the economy "the worst since the Great Depression." Should any Rupublican mention the economy today, even ever-so-gently, either the remoarks aren't covered or are proclaimed "old hat."

Since President Smarty-Pants took office we have lost one ally - Mubarak - with Obama's connivance and another - the Czech Republic, similarly dissed by the world's smartest man - has declared it wants nothing further to do with us.

And imagine, if you will, the cartoons had Bush continue to babble through the playing of God Save the Queen during a formal toast at a formal state dinner.

Yes, we have the "new media." And, yes, the news consumer is no longer shackled to the three networks, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. But that's where most people still get their "news." And, as for the one player that isn't on the team, Fox News Channel, millions of people who have never watched it KNOW that it is a fringe right-wing hate outlet because they hear that twenty times a day.

It won't help to tune the message if the messenger can't deliver it.
You are absolutely correct. Tin Pawlenty would be a close second.
To separate the Tea Party and independent voters is a mistake. Many of the Tea Party camp are also independents, who realize that the size of government is now beyond sustainability and is taking too many of our liberties.
Nailing Malarkey June 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM
The problem for many voters is looking past the campaigns to the governance.

They bought the Hope and Change campaign and got the Chicago community organizer.

We don't need an ideologue as much as we need someone with bottom line business creds.

If America decides their financial stability is more important than Mitt's religion he will win.

I'm just concerned that religious bigotry is stronger than the self preservation instinct.

But, at this stage "anybody but Obama" is a good second choice.
That was a good explanation of Michelle Bachman... Mitt Romney is a dinasaur..
Another left winger suggesting Republicans nominate a RINO that neither the left, right nor center will vote for in a general election. On primary day and election day I will vote for a conservative, not another Obama.
For all of you third party hopefuls, you have to realize it isn't going to happen! It may take 25 yrs before we elect a third party candidate.... the electorial college elects, NOT THE POPULAR VOTE... so get working on getting the best CONSERVATIVE person elected to the GOP... and save America
Back to basics ! Stop teaching about Che Guevera, and teach about our founding fathers. Mao Tse Tung killed 30 million people, yet socialists admire him ????
Political Correctness eminated from China.
We must find our own natural resources !
The GOPs best qualified candidate is Gary Johnson. His public sector experience is the best in the field and he has a strong private sector resume as well.

Gary Johnson

-Two term Republican Governor in liberal Democratic State
-Vetoed 750 State Democratic bills
-Balanced budgets AND cut taxes(14 times)
-Re-elected for second term 55% vs 45% in 2:1 Democratic State
-Term limited out of office and left State with budget surplus
-Started a construction company with himself as the only employee
-Grew his company to over 1,000 employees
-Just for fun; has climbed the highest mountain on four continents including Everest.
Google: Gary Johnson 2012

He considers himself to be on the libertarian side of the Republican party but you can't have the electoral and legislative success he's had being an extremist. Gary Johnson is the most qualified person to be President.
Obama has failed all of us. Ryan would be a great candidate. America will be great again
Ummm...Ron Paul?
Ryan would be a huge improvement over Romney. However, he is still tied to the establishment. Any politician that has not demonstrated independence from their own party insiders will ultimately be co-opted. We need someone who has taken on their own party; Sarah Palin is the only person with those credentials. What she did in Alaska with the CBC was inspiring. That is the type of leader we need to end the corruption in Washington.
What scares me is that there are 16% of Americans that think there s a better way to create wealth than the free market. where would that be? Or us this what the unions arevteaching our kids in school?
What scares me is that there are 16% of Americans that think there s a better way to create wealth than the free market. where would that be? Or us this what the unions arevteaching our kids in school?
Reply to Luigi Zingales: (Your quote): "The good news is that this isn’t an impossible task. The Tea Party coalesced around economic issues, not the social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, that tend to alienate independents".

I'm not so sure that that is correct. First, apart from anything else said, all the pollsters say that America as a whole is much pro-life today than say in 1974. There is a shift.

My daughter insists that that is so in her high school. There is no large majority of girls rejoicing in their abortion rights there.

Around March 20th of this year David Barton addressed conservatives at the West Des Moines Sheritan in Iowa and presented a strong case that there is a direct correlation between conservative social positions and fiscal conservatism.

Representatives who run on "I'm pro choice and but fiscally conservative wind up pro choice, but fiscally liberal, betraying people who elected them.

That will lose them the pro life vote in the next election primary, especially when there is competition.

Representatives who are Pro-Life, vote 99.8% for fiscal conservatism.

So I argue the opposite from you. America wants people on the right side of both issues. Pro-life, Pro Family, quit trying to change the constitution outside of the provided means of the founders, i.e. (voted on amendments) and fiscal responsibility.
The real irony here is that the Obama administration is crony capitalist to the core and has enjoyed the support of "big business" and wall street from the inception of its administration. The tea party knows this as do most conservative because they favor small business over corporate pariahs like GE. From the survey reported above it is clear that rank and file democrats don't understand this. This is purposeful misdirection by Obama who demonizes big business in public but willingly takes their financial contributions and hob knobs with thier luminaries in private
Zoltan Newberry June 18, 2011 at 9:22 AM
I agree. Paul Ryan is not only the perfect antidote to 0bama because of his disciplined plan, he stands out because of his personality and character. While 0bama is on the golf course every chance he gets and delegates the raising of his daughters to others, Ryan spends as much time as he can back in Wisconsin with his family. While the 0bamas live large with lavish parties and travel with an entourage, Ryan sleeps on a cot in his Washington office to save money. The most important difference is 0bama's arrogance which would be in stark contrast to Ryan's gentle and modest personality. 0bama reminds people of Mussolini, Ryan of Washington or Lincoln.
This underscores what I often explain to people about true free-market conservatives and about the tea party in particular -- that there is a distinction between being "pro-business" and "pro-free-market".

Distortions in the free market are most evidenced in recent history by the financial collapse that resulted from crony capitalism practiced by Fannie Mae and then by the big banks. It is in this area that there is wide agreement among tea partiers, independents, and even many on the left. And it is in this area, with the auto bailouts, with the health care bill and with proposed energy policy, where the current administration has lost independents due to engaging in further crony capitalism.

The candidate that can articulate that true conservatism is about free markets and about the government acting as a referee, rather than picking winners and losers, will have a good shot and uniting these groups.
Look up Thad McCotter, rep from the 11th district in Michigan. He had Tea Party support in 2010 and will get it again. He's one of the few that you can find that voted against Wall St bailout but for the autos. Big supporter of the Ryan budget and outspoken critic of Romney. Widely regarded as one of the most intelligent men in DC these days and would be particularly entertaining in the primary debates. Thad hasn't made a decision yet on running but he hasn't ruled it out.
faaiz muhamnmad June 18, 2011 at 6:55 AM
obama is gone for sure.

live pakistan news
I absolutely agree that Paul Ryan should run. He has legislative experience as well as the knowledge to effectively institute a budget that can save this country from ruin. I have been saying since 2009 that the next ticket should be Paul Ryan/Eric Cantor. Maybe we can encourage them to run.
I liked Jack Kemp, but he was no libertarian. Go John Bolton!
Gary Johnson is that guy. Too bad republicans are too stupid to see it.
Professor Friendly June 17, 2011 at 5:09 PM
Clearly the Democrats are "the party of big business." Their burdensome regulations are easy for large corporations to parry but poison for any small-business competitors. They bail out GM and AIG while shedding crocodile tears over mom and pop. Show me a candidate who can articulate this clearly and I'll show you the next President.
NotPropagandized June 17, 2011 at 4:45 PM
This and the August 2009 article are ingenious reads on what ails us and how to get well again. Excellent and thank you...
We have several good candidates, and all are better than Obama. Let's all go with the flow, debate charitably, and accept the nominee when the process is done. Third-party fever will prove fatal. Remember Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, thereby giving us the utopian-ideologue Wilson. Remember George Wallace, who very nearly gave us Hubert Horatio Humphrey (though Nixon wasn't any better, in the end). Remember John Anderson, in 1980, who tried to funnel "moderates" away from Reagan, and but for a couple of key states, would have given us another four years of Carter. Remember H. Ross Perot, whose hare-brained campaign likely gave us Bill & Hillary Clinton (though, again, the Republican arguably wasn't much better, GHWBush for a second term would have been better than the Clintons).
What we need is four or five more wealthy, moderate Mormons to run and then personally destroy the reputation of all the other candidates so the prophecy can come true as Joseph Smith said.
The observation that "The Tea Party coalesced around economic issues, not the social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, that tend to alienate independents" is a nice talking point.

Meanwhile, in reality, Tea Party activists have already shown their true colors by coalescing around just those two social issues. Abortion and gay marriage. One such event occurred this year in Iowa...

"About 35 people gathered for a Tea Party rally in Council Bluffs calling for a ban on gay marriage and stricter abortion laws in Iowa.

Republican legislator Kim Pearson, of Pleasant Hill, was among the speakers at Saturday afternoon’s gathering at the Mid-America Center. The Daily Nonpareil reports that Pearson said a ban would be quicker to pass than a constitutional amendment."
Here's a clue...
President Huntsman

:-)
I think Palin or Bachmann fit your profile nicely.
Tim Pawlenty, 2-term gov. of a blue state, knows how to apply both free-market principles AND conservative social values while not turning off turning off independents. Plus he has espoused the kind of American world-leadership that appeals to neoconservative party leadership. He's behind in the polls, but I'm just saying.
An excellent analysis. The next American majority consists of these pro-capitalist, Big Business skeptics--modern Jeffersonian (small "d") democrats.
The question is : which candidat really cares about our Country, our constitution? I mean *really* cares? I guess Michele Bachmann might come into that category. But does she have a chance of getting elected?
The GOP already has a candidate whose commitment to and understanding of free market principles and individual liberty is second to none: Ron Paul.
Typically conventional analysis. A large proportion of independents are Tea Party-ers. Reagan conservatism works every time it's tried.
Sarah Palin.
Agreed. But who in this country is really ready for an adult conversation? Who would go in and do away with the Kennedy Executive order allowing public employees to collectively bargain? Which one will espouse that all members of the government get the same pension and health care plans of we the people? And on and on.
I'm puzzled that people appear to be ignoring Michele Bachmann. She has Tea Party support and, according to the latest polling data, appeals to independents more than Romney does. She is bright, articulate and at least as visually presentable as Romney. Perhaps her most important quality is that she is principled and honest, qualities where Romney is clearly lacking. As Americans get more exposure to her, they will discover her positive qualities and how she stands out - and above - from the rest of the candidates.
Some time before, I did need to buy a good car for my corporation but I did not earn enough cash and couldn't buy anything. Thank heaven my fellow adviced to try to get the credit loans from reliable creditors. Therefore, I acted that and used to be satisfied with my student loan.
Absolutely agree with this article. 'the government should get out of the way' Romney will never make it. We need a Chris Christie or a Rand Paul
I am a strong supporter of Senator Jim DeMint from SC. He is exactly the kind of candidate you described above. In his book, "Saving Freedom" you can find more on his philosophy and his conservative values as outlined in our Constitution. He is a strong Constitutional legislator and has help many strong conservative Republicans get elected in 2010! He has been known as the "king maker" but I think it is time we made him "king" in the GOP!
Getting back to economics - what does BIG BUSINESS have to do with FREE MARKETS...it was the progressive-era estate tax that energized the impersonal, immortal corporate domination of the last century, and the progressive income tax structure that made it hard for entrepreneurs to retain growing earnings enough to grow businesses organically.

It is no accident that Warren Buffett favors higher taxes at the top - it impedes the emergence of garage-based game changers; ditto for his bridge partner Bill Gates and his paranoia of kids like the GOOG and YHOO founders.

The entire 2012 election is like picking which French pacifist in 1939 would best preserve the Republic against Hitler.

The main read I see from the election is how hopelessly inadequate a self-absorbed, entitlement-obsessed, permissive society is for organizing and attacking challenges.

Short of a protracted implosion from excessive debt, and constitutional collapse into a second republic, probably an economic version of ancient Sparta, it's unclear what other endgame exists. Remember - our great military is sworn "...to protect and defend the Constitution..." and I'm confident they will AS LONG AS THERE IS A CONSTITUTION and this current republic behind it.

After which...? Stout leadership traits to prevent this catastrophic scenario are what I am looking to see in any candidate. Iowa caususes, New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, the Electoral College results are mere artifacts in this looming kulturkampf.

I would like to Allen West/Palin, Rick Perry/Bachmann or Thaddeus McCotter/Palin or Bachmann
Gilbert, I'm as rabidly right-wing as anybody who you'll find.

But Ron Paul is a raving lunatic. Is he even a Doctor? I know his son is, but Rand isn't running for president, is he?

There is no way I or most of the Republican base will vote for that nutcase for dog catcher, let alone president of the United States. However, we probably won't be voting Romney either.

I do believe Romney might find more sympathy if he teams up with Michelle Bachmann. If those two became a mutual admiration society, with Romney's more moderate face and experienced competence combined with Bachmann's increasingly savvy persona and tea party cachet, you'd have a ticket to ride.

I wouldn't mind at all seeing Michelle Bachmann as the heir apparent to the GOP nomination in 2020. We'll have more stars coming of age then, especially youngsters like Marco Rubio.

The country will need them. I think, with the money finally running out and the crunch hitting, the Dems have one more massive, hollow entitlement "victory" coming as they vote to jack up taxes to try to save Medicare and SocSec, and it will be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

And that will be the end of them for a generation, as the rest of us suffer the pain of what they give us. We'll need conservatives who can teach the people the truth, the people having been miseducated for generations in the public schools by liberals interested more in money and power for themselves than the future of their country.

As the Obamabots bring this country to its knees in the next few years, there will be fewer and fewer "moderates" like yourself.

The focus is on economic issues, period. This economy is falling apart, and by November of 2012 it will be much more apparent to many more people just what a disaster the Obama presidency has been, economically.

It may even start to be more obvious how the strength of our economy is directly tied to the moral character of our citizenry. We've tried to say, for so long, "Elect the guy that will concentrate on the economy, and forget about his character." That's how we got Bill Clinton and Barack Obama--although people didn't get that Barack's version of concentrating on the economy was finding ways to kill it.

Unhappily for us, the "social issues" are inextricably bound up with the economic issues. When trust evaporates because of general moral decline, self government is impossible and you are left with nothing but raw, punishing power that plays favorites with a vengeance.

We must insist on the highest character in those who hold the public trust--but we won't because we don't insist on high character anymore. We make excuses for low character.

So we get the government we deserve in the short run. In the long run we will get the dissolution of our currency and our votes, as rampant corruption of all kinds eats our republic away. In the end, if we don't turn as a people from the worst of our evil and demand better of ourselves, we won't demand it of our public servants, our kids, our neighbors.

And our free society will suffer its final coup de grace when the Che Guevara type the Community Organizers are looking for figures we are weak enough to take through brute force.

Are you demanding the highest character from yourself? Are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow men? Do you demand the same standard be aspired to by all your public officials?

No people has ever been perfect. But the aspiration to perfection, the demand of a standard of near-perfection from those who hold the public trust, is necessary for a free society to survive long term.

The bad apples have gone a long way toward spoiling the whole barrel. I honestly don't see a way out by going "back" to the Constitution we had before.

I think we have to simply put forward the revolutionary notion of worthiness of the public trust as a prerequisite for high elective office, and push for it. Every time the 'hypocrisy' charge rings out from the other side, smile and embrace it because to be free of the charge the Left must openly embrace corruption, graft, slime and dishonesty.

Let the people judge.

I think there's life in the ol' Republic yet, but I don't think enough of her citizens have hit rock bottom to cause a critical mass to examine their understanding of freedom and make a choice.

Unhappily for all of us, focusing on economic issues is simply paying attention to the most acute symptom of what ails us.

But for 2012, that's probably where the voters are. It will take many years of pain and suffering for them to finally throw off the Left once and for all, and claim their birthright of freedom.
Gilbert W. Chapman June 16, 2011 at 9:46 PM
Cicero ~

It's not that the Paul is being ignored by the GOP.

But, do you really believe that the moderate, Pro-choice women whom the GOP needs the votes of are going to vote for a Newt, Bachman, Santorum or Ron Paul?

Just reflect upon what Lyndon Johnson did to Barry Goldwater.
As usual,the writer ignores Dr Paul, and the GOP wishes he would go away, since they are so compromised that they cannot be differentiated from the Socialist/Democrats anymore. None of the candidates offered on the high altar of the GOP can match the elephant in the room,with the trunk raised high(good omen)Dr Paul, instead, the GOP hides from the donkey, as if it were the mouse that roared. Shame on all you spineless wimps!
Rick Perry. Problem solved.
Indeed, I'm pretty socially conservative - strongly pro-life, pro-domestic partnerships, anti-gay marriage - but that doesn't mean I want Republicans interfering in my private life anymore than I want Democrats.

And I think focusing on social issues is exactly what the liberals and the media want. They know it's a dealbreaker for a lot of independents, and it's something the GOP doesn't even need to touch in order to win. We can win by focusing entirely on fiscal issues. That's what this election needs to be about, and a GOP candidate who can keep the focus there will beat Obama.
Second, it is simply a matter of principle that influential businesses are held to the same standard as everyone else. Although I doubt Obama is much better in that regard.
As an independent, I strongly agree that the GOP needs to address "corporate welfare." I do understand how lowering taxes does, according to certain theories, lead to greater wealth. However, everyone needs to pay their fair share. How is it JUST that your average working class family pays taxes, yet the mighty GE corporation actually had "negative taxes?"

I don't buy the argument that taxation would lead GE to relocate elsewhere. First, on a practical level, I doubt GE could find a similar talent pool in any other country willing to SUBSIDIZE it. Only Europe and Eastern Asia compare to the US in terms of education of workers. In Europe, the tax rate would be very high, and in Asia, it would be high as well (in Japan or S. Korea) or would be encumbered by government corruption (in China).
Gilbert W. Chapman June 16, 2011 at 8:42 PM
Let us not forget that Romney was one of the first to speak out against bail-outs for GM and Chrysler.
Or like Sarah Palin:)