Tag Archives: presidential candidate

What Does It Mean To Love Old Glory?

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

Back in 2005 there was serious discussion in Congress about passing a constitutional amendment that would ban the desecration of the American flag. The language of the amendment read,

“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

At first blush I thought this was great. With this amendment we’d be able to arrest those horrible communists who don’t respect the sacrifices of our armed servicemen, and heaven knows, I’d love that. Unfortunately, there is a little more to it than that. After a little more thought, I realized that this amendment curtails free speech, and in a large way, changes the symbol that the American flag embodies.

Speaking against the amendment, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York, 8th) stated, “If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.”

You see, desecrating an American flag is putrid and wrong because it represents a total disrespect for freedom and all the good we do across the globe, but as soon as it becomes illegal the flag can no longer represent freedom. How could a flag that is illegal to damage (such a monumentous restriction of free speech that an amendment is needed to overcome it) truly represent freedom? The amendment was not passed and subsequently sent to the states, as it failed by a mere one vote in the Senate.

I only mention that to illuminate the fact that the flag is a symbol for values, values that we love. It is not literally the flag that we love, that’s a third grader’s understanding (although if it’s a Massachusetts third grader, you would have learned from the final debate that they’re the best in the country in math and English). It’s the freedom and opportunity represented by the flag make it what it is…a beacon of hope.

President Reagan said, “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

I believe that. I believe we are not just another country, but one whose influence should spread and as our it does, so does freedom. Our flag represents that.

When asked about American exceptionalism, President Obama said the following,

“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

If everyone is exceptional, then no one is. I don’t think it is a stretch to hypothesize that our current president does not believe that America is and should be that “shining city upon a hill” (and that doesn’t make him a horrible man. I’ve heard similar sentiment from other good Americans).

Furthermore, in 2008 Michelle Obama said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country”

She explained that the reason for that wasn’t just because Barack was doing well, but more so because the country was “hungry for change.” With almost the exact opposite sentiment, Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, has vowed to reapply our founding principles, which makes one wonder how far we have strayed from those principles.

I believe America is a beacon of hope to the world. If you love America and believe it is exceptional for the values it stands for, and not just because it’s your country (i.e., in the same vein that the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism), then you’d be obliged to agree that the disappearance of the very principles that the flag represents would alter the its meaning and leave you unable to love and view it with the same pride that you did when it meant something completely different.

Do you love the flag or what it represents?

To be clear, if we stray from our founding principles there is a path back. However, it is important to note our very special role in the world, and remember that we are not exceptional simply because we are America, but rather because of what we stand for, what we’ve done, and what we continue to do.

Clemson’s annual Military Appreciation Day was this past Saturday against Virginia Tech and I’d like to share some “exceptional,” patriotic pictures of a very, very special day.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading!

Rick Santorum Concedes to Mitt Romney, Allows Party to Unite

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

Rick Santorum, largely for family reasons, has suspended his campaign. It comes just at the moment when it became clear that continuing on would be fruitless. Romney has the money, organization, and delegates to make a Santorum comeback unrealistic.

Kudos to Santorum for fighting so valiantly for so long despite being outgunned by candidates with more money and better organizations. More than just that, Santorum also deserves a thumbs up for leaving the race at an appropriate time while another candidate who I will not mention by name still fights on for nothing but his own ego.

Had Santorum’s daughter not fallen more ill, maybe he would have continued to campaign, but I choose to believe he was ready to put his own personal goals aside and do what was best for his party and nation–which at this juncture is to allow Romney to focus on campaigning against President Obama.

Get ready for a nasty presidential campaign! We’ve already seen Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC concoct some absurdly offensive assertions against Mormonism. We’re going to see the wealthy vilified like we’ve never seen before. This won’t be pretty, and to overcome such obstacles, Romney will have to earn the support of those who were firmly behind Rick Santorum. There’s no doubt that this GOP nomination process has been a trying one and the party has grown somewhat divided. Some Santorum supporters have grown so attached to their candidate and so upset with Romney about his campaign’s attacks on the other GOP candidates that they refuse to support him. Some, like @CatholicLisa, have insisted they will not vote for Romney in any circumstance, saying he’s the same as Obama, but that doesn’t seem to be the overall sentiment.

Will they fail to support Romney when his name opposes “Obama”? If so, the party is in bigger trouble than anyone thinks. It’s more likely though that Obama will be enough to energize not only his own base, but the Republican base too and those who have been weary of Romney will get on board.

What could give Romney a huge edge is the timing of gas prices. Obama’s biggest weakness may be his failure to find and support economically feasible energy in America. His need to placate the environmentalist movement in his party has kept him away from nuclear power, clean coal, and new oil pipelines. If gas prices surpass and sit above $4.00 in November, it will be extremely challenging him to convince Americans that he isn’t at least partially at fault.

Regardless of what lies ahead, it is good to move forward from the primary season. We will now have a little slow spot when the inevitable will happen–Mitt Romney will collect the rest of the delegates he needs and the real campaign between two very different paths for our country will begin.

For an interesting take on the decision America now faces, check out this video that contrasts the fundamental philosophies of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Movement. It’s worth your time. Please leave your thoughts in the comments below. Thank you for reading.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading! 

Santorum Stance Against Pornography Noble, But Indicative of ‘Big Government Conservatism’

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

The antithesis of libertarian conservatism, Rick Santorum has been often been accused of “big government conservatism.” The basis of these arguments typically revolves around his votes to raise the debt ceiling and his social views which make libertarians and liberals hot under the collar.

I’ve always founds these claims to be unfounded. His votes to raise the debt ceiling were unfortunate, but necessary to avert government shutdown. He has said that although he believes in traditional marriage, he thinks Texas’s sodomy laws are an overstep of government power. He has been consistent in his opposition to the individual mandate for health insurance, and voiced his opposition to both the Wall Street and Auto bailouts, explaining that “the government should not be involved in bailouts, period.”

His defense has some quagmires though. Mitt Romney points out on his website that Santorum actually voted for a steel industry bailout. Of course, this is the worst type of politics–the type that is willing to trade principles for popularity (the steel industry was especially important to his Pennsylvania constituents). In fact, it is what Santorum (rightly) rebuked Mitt Romney for when the former Governor said he supported Puerto Rico statehood despite earlier saying in a Florida debate that English should be the only official language for the United States (Puerto Rico has two official languages–Spanish and English).

The newest story in the campaign is Santorum’s proclamation that he will end America’s “pandemic of pornography.” While there’s little doubt that there’s too much pornography in America, fighting it sure feels a lot like a throwback to prohibition. More importantly though, it is another reach of government into the personal lives of its citizens. After all, we still have a “First Amendment right to free speech and to peaceably assemble,” and just as we recoil at the notion of hate groups, we tolerate their right to have marches down Main Street. In the same respect, we are obliged to tolerate the rights of those who produce and distribute pornography.

This is a classic big government misstep, and it leaves me wondering why Rick Santorum keeps walking back into debates over social policy rather than focusing on his robust plan to rebuild manufacturing. Does he want to win the nomination or just make a point?

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading! 

Santorum Sweeps Three States, Reframes Race

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

Last night (Tuesday, Feb 7th) was another game changer in a wild race for the GOP nomination. Newt Gingrich had his big night back in South Carolina, then lost momentum as Romney won Florida and Nevada back-to-back. Santorum though, never really had his time. His win in Iowa wasn’t known until after the votes were certified. By then, the opportunity for momentum and publicity was largely diminished.

Now, Rick Santorum will get his belated moment in the spotlight. Three wins in one night have given his campaign second life. Santorum exclaimed “Conservatism is alive and well…We doubled him up here, and in Minnesota.” He even managed to win Colorado, where Romney won handily in 2008.

Newt Gingrich has been attempting to cast the election as a two-man race between a moderate, Mitt Romney, and a true conservative–himself. Negative ads coupled with heaps of baggage and an “angry” approach to the campaign have led many to look away from Gingrich, making this anything but a two-man race. Those looking for a true conservative are finding that Rick Santorum holds genuine convictions where other candidates (save Ron Paul) seem more like wind socks.

Santorum showed principle and discipline when he avoided attacking Mitt Romney for his work at Bain Capital, this while Gingrich and Rick Perry were pounding away and it was the in vogue thing to do. I find it very hard to believe that Newt Gingrich really has a problem with a venture capital firm buying ownership of a company, streamlining the business, saving the company, and selling it for massive profits. Few, if any, real economic conservatives have a problem with this, but Newt has relentlessly bashed Romney for this while also claiming to be the true conservative in the election.

Rick Santorum is largely known for his social stances, especially his defense of the unborn. He contrasts boldly with Barack Obama (who is currently in a battle with the Catholic Church) when he talks about the Declaration of Independence and God-given rights. Santorum referenced this bold contrast as a key to beating President Obama in the general election.

I’m not sure how I feel about that. There’s no doubt in my mind that Rick Santorum is the most honest, consistent, and genuine conservative in the race, but will his “bold contrast” with President Obama help or hurt him in the general election?

If Santorum is the nominee President Obama will likely try to focus on social issues, which is not what the Republicans want. Obama is much better off if the election is about Santorum’s social views instead of his own record handling the economy. Any way the President can minimize talk of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a Canadian oil pipeline that would have crossed America’s breadbasket and provided much-needed jobs and energy, is a win for him. His decision to block construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline could be a political nightmare for him as gas prices inch up and the general election inches near. He’d also probably like to avoid talk of Solyndra, a solar energy company his administration sought to boost though government funding that ended up filing for bankruptcy. Will Santorum’s bold stances allow Obama to move the focus of the election to more favorable issues?

The problem with nominating a moderate is the lack of passion you get from your base. You need passion to get people to knock on doors, donate money, and otherwise contribute to your campaign. Gingrich warned that all the areas that Romney won in Florida had especially low turnout relative to the areas he lost. The positive to having a moderate as your party’s nominee is that they are more likely to do well with independent voters. That’s not to say that Rick Santorum can’t attract moderate voters though. His economic plans, which I believe he needs to extenuate more, and his personality seem to attract blue-collar “Reagan Democrats.”

Santorum has proposed cutting corporate taxes on manufacturing to 0%… again to 0%. This would bring a ridiculous amount of manufacturing jobs back to America and help a good many Americans. This coupled with Rick Santorum’s vote against right-to-work laws while in Senate and Obama’s blocking of the Keystone which was expected to create 20,000 new jobs, many of which would have been union jobs could make Rick Santorum a very strong candidate in the rust belt. Is it unrealistic to think he can win states like Ohio and Indiana? I’d venture to say no.

Do you think Rick Santorum could give Obama a solid battle in a general election, or do you (like current national polls) think he’d lose badly? You can watch his full victory speech on Youtube by clicking here.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading! 

Pros and Cons of Mitt Romney Becoming the GOP Nominee

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

Today’s New Hampshire primary is historic. Mitt Romney’s win makes him the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire since Iowa became the kick-off state in the election cycle. (Update: Recount has shown that Rick Santorum actually edged Mitt Romney in Iowa) While that doesn’t mean he’s the nominee–Rick “Sweater Vest” Santorum, Ron Paul and to some extent Newt Gingrich still have a viable shot–but at this point you have to bet on Mitt Romney over the field.

With that being said, I’m not a Romney-hater searching for the best “anti-Romney,” nor am I a supporter of his. That gives me an open mind to evaluate the pros and cons of him as the GOP nominee. I may go back and add more later, but here’s what comes to mind. Please add pros and cons that you can think of in the comments. For every con try to add a pro and vice versa.

PRO

CON

PRO

  • Mitt Romney has committed to cutting spending to 20% of GDP.
CON
  • Government revenues are typically 18% of GDP meaning even if Mitt accomplishes this goal we’ll still be running a deficit. His ideas are not bold enough, and he’s rather moderate.

PRO

  • Mitt Romney‘s experience in the private sector is stellar. Some, including fellow Republicans Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, have attacked his tenure at Bane Capital and called him a corporate raider. Romney has proven that he created a net job growth while there, thoroughly debunking that argument. Rick Santorum called the criticism unfounded last night on Fox News. Mitt did great work for Staples while working with Bane Capital and then worked with the Olympics. He really understands business at a level that President Obama simply does not and is much more qualified to handle the economy.

CON

  • While his private sector experience is fantastic and his tenure as Massachusetts governor seems to have been quite successful, he lacks foreign policy experience. We haven’t heard him say much about foreign policy in speeches or debates either.

PRO

  • He has unequivocally stated conservative social values, yet hasn’t been viciously attacked and demonized by the media like someone with similar views such as Rick Santorum.

CON

  • As much as he wants to say about his social views, it’s hard to believe they are strongly held convictions when they differ so wildly from what he said about his social views when running in the very liberal state of Massachusetts.
PRO
  • Mitt knows how to make political allies and get things done. His historic run through the first two primaries was aided by endorsements from conservative politicians in key states. He was able to work with liberal Democrats while serving as Governor in Massachusetts and is a better hope to end the partisan strife in Washington than any very liberal Democrat or very conservative Republican.
CON
PRO
  • Romney has the strongest organization among the GOP nominees. He has the biggest war chest, the best advisers, and the strongest get-out-the-vote effort. These will be critical if the GOP nominee is to give President Obama a worthy challenge.
CON
  • His aforementioned advantages over GOP rivals won’t stack up as advantages against Barack Obama and his powerful political machine. If Romney is winning the GOP nomination simply by outspending his rivals, having a stronger ground game, and crushing them with negative ads, what will he do when President Obama outspends him, has a stronger ground game, and runs more negative ads? Rely on $4.00 gas?

Feel free to share more in the comments and I may add them to the list. Thanks for reading.

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. You can share your opinions in the comment section below or by tweeting to @Ryan_Kantor. Thanks for reading! 

Shall I Vote For The Best Candidate or The Candidate With The Best Shot To Win?

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

It’s the age old question; should you vote for the candidate whose positions are most in line with your own or the one that has the best shot to beat the opposing party?

In our two party system, voting for third party candidate in a general election throws a wrench in the process, making it less representative. We’ve seen this problem occur throughout history. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt who had already served two terms as President (the first being a partial term, taking over after President McKinley died in office), did not get the Republican nomination to run for a third term. William Taft would represent the Republican party, while Roosevelt would create the Progressive (AKA “Bull Moose”) party and oppose him. Woodrow Wilson would represent the Democratic Party and with the Republican vote split (23.2% for Taft, 27.4% for Roosevelt), Wilson would win the Presidency with just 41.8% of the popular vote.

More recently, in 1992 Ross Perot ran as an independent and sapped over 19 million votes from the two prime candidates, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. In an election where 56.4% of the votes went to conservative candidates (Bush and Perot), the liberal candidate won.

The 1912 and 1992 elections exemplify how a strong third party candidate in a general election actually makes the system less representative. Speaking about the Presidential Preference Primary though, does the same concept hold true? Should one vote for a candidate who they think can beat the opposition in the subsequent general election (in this cycle’s election that would mean the candidate that has the best chance to defeat Obama) or the candidate whose views actually align with one’s own most closely?

In the current Republican Presidential Primary, many voters want to be sure that their party picks a candidate that can beat Obama and his powerful political machine come November. As a means to that end, many are willing to vote for the candidate that they deem to be the most “electable,” instead of the one that would make the best president. While the logic is sound–a moderate Republican that appeals to Independents may have a better chance to win a general election–the long term consequences may not be worth it.

The party primaries are a time to pave the path for your party. They’re a time to assert the values of your party. Sacrificing those values to chose an “electable” candidate requires a denouncement of the importance of those core values. Additionally, choosing a candidate that doesn’t fit with the core values of the party for the sake of electability acknowledges that the values of your party are somewhat extreme–too extreme for the mainstream population. After an “electable” candidate wins, how can you go back to an “extreme” candidate? On CNN today, they called the entire Republican field extreme, but in reality most Republican voters find some candidates to be relatively moderate and think they have a better chance of beating Obama by attracting Independents and conservative Democrats.

The Independent voter block is a fickle mistress. I’ve always wondered how one can be well informed and still unsure of which party is more representative of their views. The differences are stark, which is why you see such a lack of cooperation on Capital Hill. Focusing on this voting block is a perilous proposition, and in doing so, you risk creating apathy in the base or even sparking a third party candidate to run closer to the true principles of your base.

Mitt Romney polls the best against President Obama, beating him in every poll I’ve seen. I think Romney would make a quality President, and I’ll be pleased if he’s the nominee. That said, come Super Tuesday, if he’s not my number one choice, I won’t hesitate to vote for a lesser known candidate like Rick Santorum or a less “electable” candidate like Newt Gingrich if they better represent my views and are not nearing mathematical elimination.

How do you view the situation? Will you vote for the candidate that would be the best for America or the one that you estimate will have the best shot of defeating President Obama?

As always, please subscribe to this blog by clicking the “Follow” button at the top of the right sidebar. If you don’t have a WordPress account, you’ll have to enter your email address. Thanks for reading!

Impressing an Uninformed Electorate: Be ‘Cool’

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

When a news article claims that “dropping obscure subjects like ‘Keynesian bubble’ and  ‘monetary policy’ into the conversation” at a debate hurt a Presidential candidate by making him sound “fringe,” you’re reminded that the American voter is pretty uninformed. They’re referring to Ron Paul, a true Libertarian who ran for President in 2008 and is trying again in 2012, and to be fair, they’re right, but it shouldn’t be so. I didn’t vote for Paul in last year’s primary, but it saddens (and scares) me that when a Presidential candidate explains how the government’s involvement in the economy created a “Keynesian bubble”–a false boom–or how the Fed is intentionally watering down the dollar because it is the world’s currency and they can (our main export is basically the American dollar) voters are turned off.

This is not to say you should go out and vote for Ron Paul, it’s simply to point out that the two most intellectual candidates in last night’s debate (obviously subjective), Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, performed the worst. Go figure…

Gov. Chris Christie: New Jersey’s Saving Grace

Posted on by Ryan Kantor

Republicans are crushing Democrats in the pre-midterm election polls, but they still don’t have a great candidate to oppose Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Now I’m fully aware that I am getting way ahead of myself here, but there’s a rising Republican star in New Jersey. A state that hasn’t cast its electoral votes for a Republican president since Lord knows when, didn’t just elect some wishy-washy RINO Republican, they elected a real fiscal conservative who’ll stand up for what he believes in (which just so happens to be right.)

Taxes in New Jersey are already notoriously high. The cost of living in that state is brutal! So what do local politicians want to do? Enact more taxes. They want to pass another tax and call it “The Millionaire’s Tax.” They hope by calling it a millionaire’s tax they’ll get the middle class to feel like the government is only increasing taxes on “them” and not “us.” Obviously a tax increase on the wealthy may cause the wealthy to leave New Jersey, and they’re the ones who provide the jobs. When this bill got to Chris Christie‘s desk he vetoed it immediately. No debate was needed.

While some politicians seem to believe they can raise taxes more and more and eventually create a budget surplus, Gov. Christie is determined to cut spending. Christie is challenging one of the most adored and put-on-a-pedestal groups in the country–school teachers. First, let’s acknowledge that we love good teachers, we appreciate their work and so on. Second, let’s praise Gov. Christie for calling teachers’ unions an “interest group.”

The “great recession” has hit private sector employees hard, but those in the public sector have been shielded. Gov. Christie is one of the few politicians willing to be honest and essentially say New Jersey is broke. I’m sorry, but we’re in bad shape.

In order to fix the budget, Christie is telling teachers and state workers that part of their pension plans will have to be sacrificed. As it is now, the pension pool is $46 billion underfunded, and in 15 years it will be $85 billion underfunded. Christie has said the “system is completely out of control.”

Christie on Tuesday proposed rolling back a 9 percent benefit increase granted a decade ago. He also would require public workers to contribute 8.5 percent of their salaries toward retirement and would raise the retirement age to 65 for teachers and state workers with less than 25 years in the system.

He proposed reducing pension payments by 5 percent for police and firefighters who retire after 25 years, and would make public safety employees work five additional years to get 65 percent of their salaries as pension. Police and firefighters can now retire after 25 years regardless of age for 65 percent of their salary.”

Obviously the teachers’ unions are going berserk. Christie has been blunt (like a true Yankee) and honest. He has told them to take reduced pensions or get nothing because the state is nearing insolvency, is in a desperate situation, and without changes won’t be able to pay for the pensions.

The national story out of this is Christie as a rising star in the Republican Party. Obama is trying to pass another (wasteful) stimulus bill. This one he is calling a small business stimulus, which makes it sounds nice, but doesn’t change the fact that he wants to spend more money we don’t have. Republicans have opposed the bill. When asked about the Republicans being called the “Party of No,” Chris Christie said, “It’s the Republican party’s obligation to say no. We believe in less taxes, less government, and common sense regulation.” Sounds like a winning platform to me!

Chris Christie called the problems in New Jersey a ”preview for what the rest of the country is about to handle.” When Neil Cavuto mentioned his “extensive travel plans,” Christie says he is just helping other fiscal conservatives win their elections. Could there be more to it? Something greater? Can Christie save New Jersey from “insolvency” and then do it on a bigger scale?

What do you think of Chris Christie’s brash honesty and is he a legitimate star in the Republican party?