Dr. James Dobson Endorses Santorum January 19, 2012

Posted by Adam Graham in : 2012 , comments closed

Mt. Pleasant, SC – The Rick Santorum for President campaign is proud to announced that Rick Santorum has received the endorsement of Dr. James Dobson.

Dr. James Dobson said: “The institution of the family is the key issue facing this great nation.  It is the foundation, the bedrock, upon which every dimension of Western Civilization rests.  If it is undermined or weakened by cultural and governmental forces, the entire superstructure will collapse in short order.  And indeed, today it is in serious jeopardy.  The very definition of marriage is threatened, which has implications for the next generation and the stability of society itself.

Of all the Republican candidates who are vying for the presidency, former Sen. Santorum is the one who has spoken passionately in every debate about this concern.  He has pleaded with the nation and its leaders to come to the aid of marriages, parents, and their children.  What a refreshing message.  The Congress voted in 1969 to impose a marriage penalty tax on husbands and wives who were struggling to raise their children.  That unfair tax continued for 32 years, until George W. Bush rolled it back. Now, if Democrats and some Republicans have their way, the marriage penalty tax will be re-imposed in 2013.  We desperately need a president who will intercede on behalf of those who are caring for the next generation and working to build this nation.

“While there are other GOP candidates who are worthy of our support, Sen. Santorum is the man of the hour. His knowledge of international politics, especially Israel and the turmoil in the Middle East, is highly relevant to the dangerous world in which we live.  This is why I am endorsing former Senator Rick Santorum for president of the United States, and urge my countrymen to join us in this campaign.”

The Issue of Character

Posted by Adam Graham in : 2012 , comments closed

“Can we just leave character out of it?”

The pony tail guy asked the question of World War II hero George H.W. Bush at a debate in his campaign against draft dodger Bill Clinton.

The answer of modern conservatives seems to be. “Heck, yeah.”

Says Ed Morrissey:

Unless there are some revelations of political malfeasance, this should be a nothingburger, but it’s hard to know how people will react to this.

And Morrissey saves his outrage for the obvious villain of the piece:

It is, however, supremely unfair of Marianne to dump this on the race now — not to Newt, but to voters who sincerely backed Gingrich.  If Newt so lacked the “moral character” for the Presidency, why did it take Marianne eight months to tell us?

If I were to speculate, I’d say that Mrs. Gingrich would rather hope that Mr. Newt would defeat himself without her aid as this is a somewhat painful process to go through, but that as she believes Mr. Gingrich lacks the moral fiber to be President, and would be a disaster to the country, she’s left with little choice.

As a former Cain supporter, I’m particularly frosted by this as Hot Air breathlessly reported every allegation, along with the rest of the press despite the lack of credibility of the accusers. Apparently, what was devastating to Cain was that people were alleging that he was a sleazy person, but with Newt, it was already built in knowledge that he was. Can we move on to the next brilliant debate answer?

Ultimately, the reason I didn’t believe Cain’s accusers is because the allegations didn’t jive with what I knew of Cain’s personal character. It contradicted everything those who knew him best said of him.

With Speaker Gingrich, it’s another case.  His actions in private and public are both equally selfish, egotistical, and vain.  The same ego that made him even ask his wife of nearly two decades for an open marriage when he was a chubby 56-year old is the same ego that made him cry foul when Bill Clinton had him sit in the back of a plane. It’s the same ego that transformed him from the guy who said,  “Hey, let’s only attack Obama.” to the Incredible Hulk releasing his fury on Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital.  It’s the same vanity that leads him to think out loud and toss out every stray idea that comes into his head as a public policy proposal. It was his selfish desire to maintain power that led him to fail address the entitlement crisis that’s facing us now during his second speaker.

Gingrich supporters would have us believe that Newt has two suits of character. He steps out of his house and he acts in an entirely different manner that he does in his personal life. He goes home and he’s back to Newt #1. Sorry, but there’s only one person, only one character.

It’s Newt’s character that has created his high negative ratings and it’s these high negatives that will undermine his ability to win in a general election.  I’m a believer in the thirteen keys theory and think it doesn’t matter a whole lot as to the question of winning or losing as to who we put up in the fall. If things are bad enough, the GOP will win. If not, we will lose. However, I think the type of candidate we put up will impact the margin of a loss. If Newt is our nominee, we will face a loss of Nixon-McGovern proportions. And if he wins, he’s shown he’s willing to do whatever it takes to hold on to power. Gingrich offers conservatives a true lose-lose proposition.

Fundamentally, I’m willing to lose this elections and lose it by those type of margins, standing firm for conservative principle.  What I’m not willing to do and what I think no conservative in their right mind should be willing to do is lose the election because you nominate someone of an undisciplined and egotistical character.

The type of bumps and poll numbers that Newt is enjoying suggest that in our quest to not nominate Mitt Romney that some conservatives have taken leave of their senses. Contrary to what Gingrich supporters  argue, we are not electing a National Debate champion and while the three presidential debates are important, Newt’s smackdowns of Obama will not change the course of the election. It may be emotionally satisfying to Republicans, but emotional satisfaction and 39% of the vote nets you 39% of the vote.

TV Ad: Rebellion January 18, 2012

Posted by Adam Graham in : 2012 , comments closed

Great closing video for Rick Santourm!

2012 Isn’t 2008 January 15, 2012

Posted by Adam Graham in : 2012 , comments closed

In the wake of Mitt Romney’s victories in Iowaand New Hampshire, some commentators suggest that Romney may be close to clinching the Republican nomination.  Allahpundit summed up the attitude of many saying, “Despite the fact that only a small part of the party seems passionate about him, he’s 11 days and one win away from wrapping this race up.”

The assumption is not made without reason. Since 1980, the winner of the South Carolina Primary has won the GOP nomination. And also since 1980, the winner ofSouth Carolinawon eitherIowaorNew Hampshirefirst. Therefore, by the logic of the historical record, as Romney wonIowaandNew Hampshire, he’ll winSouth Carolina, and then the GOP nomination.

This problem is that this sort of analysis is too shallow.South Carolina has been critical to the GOP nomination for so long that many have forgotten why it became so important in the first place.

In 1980, South Carolina held its primary three days before Alabama, Florida, and Georgia voted. Reagan won South Carolina, knocking out southern competitor John Connally and picked up valuable momentum that allowed him to sweep the three southern states. In 1988, the power of South Carolina was further magnified with the introduction of Super Tuesday, with seventeen states (mostly in the South) voting three days after South Carolina. And in 2008,South Carolina occurred ten days before the Florida Primary and 17 days before the biggest Super Tuesday ever: twenty-one contests including many winner-take-all affairs in large states such as California,New York, and New Jersey.

South Carolina’s influence has depended on its proximity to a huge number of primaries, particularly those that are winner-take-all to provide crucial momentum to candidates. This situation prevailed for 28 years, but not any more.

 The RNC has given the Republican nominating process a makeover. First, it required that with the exceptions ofIowa,New Hampshire,South Carolina, andNevada that states hold their contests no earlier than March or face the loss of half of their delegates. Secondly, the RNC required that contests held before April allocate their delegates proportionally. The net result is that many of the big states that made it impossible for candidates to come back from aSouth Carolina loss in 2008 are slated to vote much later in the process this time around. This makes it virtually impossible for any candidate to mathematically clinch the nomination by winning the required 1,144 delegates until well into the spring when winner take-all-states begin to vote.

In addition, because of Florida moving its primary forward, South Carolina is now voting forty-five days before Super Tuesday, which will only feature eleven contests this year. This doesn’t mean that should Romney win in South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada that he will not have a ton of momentum. It does mean that conservatives opposed to Romney’s nomination will have time to rally and try to beat back the Romney juggernaut, particularly if Romney’s support from party regulars remains as cool as it has been. As of this writing, the Real Clear Politics national polling average shows Romney at 29% among Republican Primary voters, hardly overwhelming support.

Right now the anti-Romney conservative vote is split between Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich. None of these candidates are leaving the race after New Hampshire, but it’s a safe bet that the field will be winnowed after Florida, giving the remaining candidate a chance to consolidate opposition to Romney. While, a difficult task, history tells us it’s not impossible. Ronald Reagan nearly defeated President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976 after losing the first six primaries in a row.

The only way the presidential race will be over afterSouth Carolinais if Romney opponents buy into out of date media analysis or surrender to the idea of Romney’s inevitably due to not liking the other alternatives. While after the first two contests, Romney is the clear frontrunner, the ultimate fate of his campaign is still in the hands of Republican voters. Smart political analysts would do well to remember that.

Perry and Gingrich 2012=Fred Thompson 2008 January 5, 2012

Posted by Adam Graham in : 2012 , comments closed

Gingrich and Perry’s die hard supporters remain unfazed by what should have been a humbling result in Iowa.

Let me be clear, Rick Perry is done, finished, kaputsky. If I were a gambling man, I’d bet 10:1 against Perry being the Republican nominee. Rick Perry gave a classy speech today to give way to a classless alibing of his poor performance in Iowa.  Said Perry:

“This is quirky place and a quirky process to say the least,” Perry said of Iowa and its caucuses. “We’re going to go into places where they have actual primaries and there are going to be real Republicans voting.”

Really? It’s a quirky place and a quirky process? Maybe you could have figured that out beforeyou spent $6 million. I’m going to give Perry the benefit of the doubt of understanding after 4 months of the race that Iowa was a tricky process. To quote the famous political analyst Super Chicken, “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.” You came, you saw, you fell flat. $6 millions in TV ads and weeks of retail politicking and ultimately and Perry finished tied for third among White Evangelical Voters behind Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.  Among Evangelicals, theEntrance Poll indicates that Perry finished behind the guy who wants to repeal federal laws against cocaine. And in South Carolina, the latest Real Clear Politics polling average puts Perry ata whopping 5 percent and there’s no reason to think that in the two weeks since the last poll with Perry campaigning in that Quirky state that he stands much better.

Newt Gingrich’s case is not quite as severe, but it’s pretty desperate. Not only did Newt do a little better than Perry, he also has superior poll position in New Hampshire.  The latest Suffolk tracking poll shows Newt in striking distance of Ron Paul for second and after Paul’s rather disappointing third place finish in Iowa, he may see a loss of momentum. However, the same poll showed Santorum within three of Gingrich and one back of Huntsman, so the next week could be crucial.

That said, Newt’s still a longshot. I wrote at the end of the year,  Newt’s rise to prominence was because of his decision to take the high road, campaign against President Obama, and compliment his opponents. It made people think he could unite the Republican Party.  Gingrich, in response to Romney has transformed to an aggressive attacker in a way reminiscent of the Incredible Hulk (Newt Smash!). The way Gingrich is running his campaign, he can help Rick Santorum, he can help Jon Huntsman, if his attacks backfire too bad, he can help Mitt Romney, but the one person he won’t be able to help is Newt Gingrich.

This isn’t to say that Perry and Gingrich don’t have a role to play in the race. They have the same role as Fred Thompson did in 2008.

In 2008, I was supporting Fred Thompson. Thompson finished a distant third in Iowa (which gave him a greater claim to legitimacy than either Perry or Gingrich) and he went to South Carolina while other candidates were working New Hampshire and Michigan.  He went and he attacked and undercut Mike Huckabee to build up his campaign (as Rick Perry will have to do to stop Rick Santorum among conservatives) and he won 16%, while Huckabee lost the state by 2.3%. Thus Fred Thompson helped John McCain secure the crucial South Carolina Primary and set the stage for John McCain’s nomination. Perry and Gingrich have the exact same chance to go and secure the nomination for Mitt Romney.

Of course, to be fair, it wouldn’t have been possible for Thompson to succeed had it not been for Thompson supporters. I was one of them in 2008. I gave Thompson donations and even when people in the field told me that Thompson’s campaign was not getting the response they needed, I basically refused to believe the obvious evidence that it was over.

Had I and other supporters of Fred Thompson faced reality and realized that campaign was going nowhere and realized what the real choices lay, it’s possible that John McCain wouldn’t have been nominated.

If conservative voters opposed to Romney cleave to sure to lose campaigns, than Romney will be the nominee. These conservatives may find that Romney is not the nominee they want. They may believe he is not the nominee the country needs. But he’ll be the nominee conservatives deserve.

A List of Candidates Who Have Finished Fifth in Iowa and Won the Republican Nomination

Posted by Adam Graham in : 2012 , comments closed

For Perry supporters who are sure that their candidate can win this thing. For perspective, below is a list of candidate who finished fifth in Iowa and went on to win the Republican nomination:

 

 

 

And that’s the whole list. No names are missing.

And for Gingrich supporters, the only candidate to finish fourth and win was John McCain who: 1) Almost finished third, not nearly ten points behind  like Gingrich and 2)Won New Hampshire and had focused his entire campaign there ala Jon Huntsman.

Rick Santorum for President January 4, 2012

Posted by Adam Graham in : 2012 , comments closed

Rick Santorum finished eight votes behind Mitt Romney in Iowa, a virtual tie. If this were a general election or even a primary where votes were binding, there would be a recount, but as the vote is not binding, there will not be a hand recount of the 122,000 + ballots.

The phenomenom of one candidate leading the GOP pack and then leading another has been described as “flavor of the month.” This is ultimately disrespectful to both the process and the candidates that have run the race. Each Conservative Candidate for President brings a lifetime of unique and exceptional experiences that has carried them through years and politics and business. You don’t get elected three times as Governor of Texas, rally thousands to the Capitol against Obamacare, win two terms in the Senate in a blue state, or lead the Republican Revolution because you are a flavor of the month.

Perhaps, the most apt comparison is to a marathon. While this might be slightly cliched, it is far more apt. Each candidate has had their chance to surge to the front, but ultimately was unable to go the distance.  It is Rick Santorum that ultimately crossed the finish line in the Iowa Marathon, because he ran the best rac.e

I have respect for many candidates. While they have their flaws, I admired many of the candidates who ran this race and would have been happy had they been our nominee. I decided to avoid committing myself until I saw the race play out. I supported Herman Cain, but when he left the race for November, I returned to neutral position. I waited to see who would emerge as the Conservative champion in the Iowa marathon. I hoped that it would be someone I could be proud to support.

My hopes were realized with Rick Santorum’s shocking showing in Iowa. Rick Santorum has been a strong conservative throughout his career.  I remember his leadership on the pro-life issue, where he lead the fight against the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. But I also knew Santorum as a blue collar fighter, a Mr. Smith in Washington, fighting battle after battle for our conservative values. He has lived up to them personally.

I do not say that Rick Santorum is a perfect candidate, he’s not, but he’s a good man and he is the best candidate we have. Realistically, this race will come down to a choice between Santorum, Romney, and perhaps Newt Gingrich, I choose Santorum. I believe Santorum will bring fresh ideas and revitalize our nation’s economy. I trust him to address the nation’s most pressing issues.

I’ve always thought Rick Santorum would be a good President if he could actually win.  However, I concluded that he lacked money, organization, and resources. I thought several times, he should quit to focus on the candidates who could win. I wondered whether his campaign was more like one of Alan Keyes’ prophetic crusades or Orrin Hatch’s legislative summation campaign in 2000.

Tuesday night, Rick Santorum proved he was for real. He proved the critics wrong. He proved me wrong. In a campaign dominated by Super PACs spewing negative attacks, and multi-million dollar personal hit jobs, Rick Santorum ran his campaign in Iowa with shoe leather.  He won the hearts of Iowans by connecting with them. He offers America a consistent and passionate and consistent conservative who we can have confidence to take on the big issues.

I’m declaring my support for Rick Santorum and I hope others who dismissed his campaign will take another look and get behind this great conservative warrior. For my part, I’ve never been happier to be wrong about a candidate.

Thoughts on the KJV 400th Anniversary December 30, 2011

Posted by Adam Graham in : Christianity , comments closed

I didn’t want to let the 400th Anniversary of the King James Version without comment.

Much has been said about the King James Version, which spent the best part of its 400 year history as the Bible of choice for Americans of all stripes. The King James brought the Bible to the common person and a common cultural language to English-speaking peoples. The beauty of the translation was unparalleled.

I was fortunate to grow up with the King James Bible, which is somewhat rare for someone my age. The KJV has fallen into disuse in the U.S.A. over the years as more modren translations are introduced constantly. Most would agree that the KJV could use some updating in some of its use of archaic words. However, no one quite agrees on how to update and no new translations stop with that. We now have dozens of translations on the market. I guess this is to be expected. Who can expect a country with more than 700 Christian denominations to have just one Bible?

I’m past the point of fighting about bible versions. Too many churches, friendships, and families have broken up into strife over the great Bible version debate. I’ve come to a point of acceptance. When I need to communicate something to the general culture, I accept that we live in a modern Bible version country where if you read a “peradventure,” or a “whosoever” people will stare at you fish-eyed. As such, if I want to communicate with that perspective, I wouldn’t use the King James any more than I would use the King James Version to communicate to Spanish-speaking people. For these purposes, I use the ESV, which is perhaps the best of the modern versions. I still use the KJV for my daily devotions.

The big thing I think that we are missing today in modern Bible versions is that sense of having a book that is, The Bible and provides a common frame of reference for Christians and the culture as a whole to communicate. While on the most important things, the Bible versions are solidly in agreement, the exact phrasing is often vastly different. The beauty of the King James was that the way it said things was easy to memorize and communicate ideas with.

One example of how this worked came in World War II. British soldiers were trapped at Dunkirk with the Germany Army advancing. The forces sent a simple message, “But if not.”  The three word phrase came from the book of Daniel where Daniel’s three friends refused to bow to the idol of King Nebuchanezzar:

If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

The phrase, “but if not” sent a message to not only the British army, but to the British people, and the world. The soldiers defending Dunkirk would be faithful to death.

“But if not” means nothing in many modern Bible versions.  With everyone reading different translations, we find ourselves without that common language, which Protestants of nearly every denomination used to share. It’s a tragic loss of our modern times.

Merry Christmas December 24, 2011

Posted by Adam Graham in : Christmas , comments closed

Going through the woods, the softness of my tread upon the mossy ground and among the brown leaves enhanced the Christmas sacredness by which I felt surrounded.  As the whitened stems environed me, I thought how the Founder of the time had never raised his benignant hand, save to bless and heal, except in the case of one unconscious tree.  By Cobham Hall, I came to the village, and the churchyard where the dead had been quietly buried, “in the sure and certain hope” which Christmas time inspired.  What children could I see at play, and not be loving of, recalling who had loved them!  No garden that I passed was out of unison with the day, for I remembered that the tomb was in a garden, and that “she, supposing him to be the gardener,” had said, “Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.”  In time, the distant river with the ships came full in view, and with it pictures of the poor fishermen, mending their nets, who arose and followed him,—of the teaching of the people from a ship pushed off a little way from shore, by reason of the multitude,—of a majestic figure walking on the water, in the loneliness of night.  My very shadow on the ground was eloquent of Christmas; for did not the people lay their sick where the more shadows of the men who had heard and seen him might fall as they passed along?

Charles Dickens-The Seven Poor Travellers

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.-Luke 2:10, 11

Mike Simpson: Let Me Get Back to You on that Whole Internet-Destroying Bill December 23, 2011

Posted by Adam Graham in : Mike Simpson , comments closed

A coalition of the willing across the political spectrum is sounding the alarm about the proposed anti-piracy bills in the House. Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame writes:

Right now Congress is considering two bills—the Protect IP Act, and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)—that would be laughable if they weren’t in fact real. Honestly, if a friend wrote these into a piece of fiction about government oversight gone amok, I’d have to tell them that they were too one-dimensional, too obviously anticonstitutional.

Make no mistake: These bills aren’t simply unconstitutional, they are anticonstitutional. They would allow for the wholesale elimination of entire websites, domain names, and chunks of the DNS (the underlying structure of the whole Internet), based on nothing more than the “good faith” assertion by a single party that the website is infringing on a copyright of the complainant. The accused doesn’t even have to be aware that the complaint has been made.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz has stated that Congress hasn’t done its due diligence is sending up red flags. Despite the entertainment industry’s lobbying campaign, even Ashton Kutcher realizes this is bad medicine. Is your Congressman smarter than Ashton Kutcher? Mine isn’t.

In a response to a constituent, “Simpson” writes :

Dear Phil:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced H.R. 3261 on October 26, 2011. This legislation aims to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property. Currently H.R. 3261 is under consideration by the House Committee on the Judiciary.

While I do not sit on the committee with jurisdiction over this piece of legislation, I will continue to monitor its progress as it makes its way through the committee process. You can be confident that I will keep your thoughts in mind should it come before me on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Phil was annoyed because, “This is supposedly a “personal response.”  This of course is an obvious form letter with constituent name, bill name, sponsor, and other information merely inserted.

In addition, this is not some minor issue. This is an issue that is about our fundamental liberty and freedom of speech. Perhaps, Mike Simpson has been too busy trying to raise taxes to pay attention when a bunch of Hollywood lobbyists are trying to undermine our liberty in order to bolster their profits.

Isn’t it time that we had a Congressman who, I don’t know, provided a level of service and respect to his constituents that is at least on par with what fast food restaurants near BSU? Isn’t it time we had a Congressman whose business was defending our liberties rather than trying to find more ways to squeeze money out of us?

Hopefully, an election in the new year will at last bring us a new Congressman.