In Summation: Final thoughts on candidate Obama

Win or lose next Tuesday, the candidacy and campaign of Barack Obama will be studied and emulated by future Presidential aspirants. His campaign's masterful handling and use of the mass media, along with it's deft use of the new frontier of political fundraising, the Internet, will be analyzed by political scientists for years to come. For better or worse, we have seen the future of American national political campaigning, and the ill spoken and poorly financed need not apply. It is only the weight of John McCain's life story of real political and personal accomplishment and challenges that has kept this race as close as it is. For perspective, McCain received a total of 84 million dollars to conduct his general election campaign. Obama made 150 million dollars in September alone.

Honestly ask yourself if you can name anything Obama has done on the national stage prior to his Presidential campaign. Oppose the Iraq war? That makes him just as qualified to govern as my good friends Bob Wilhelms and Chris Garcia who also oppose the war for their own good reasons. While liberal democrats Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold found enough common ground with McCain to co-author bills on campaign finance and illegal immigration, can you name the highest ranking Republican Obama has worked with?

Lacking a record, what source do we have to rely on in order to make an informed judgement on Obama the candidate? For most of us, it is the words of Obama himself. As a responsible consumer, would you rely solely on a salesman's pitch on a shiny, new car or computer? No, most of us would do some background research as well. Does the product have a solid history of performance? Is it dependable? Has it been rigorously tested? Compared to Barack Obama, we have more in-depth information on the perspective performance of a 2008 Dodge or an Apple laptop.

Obama is a man of fascinating contrasts. Professing himself to be a friend of Israel, Obama has dined with and feted a former member of the PLO terrorist organization, and has told the Palestinians that the future of Jerusalem, the sovereign capitol of Israel, should be up for discussion. Obama has lambasted the unilateral tilt of the Bush Administration, but he has told crowds in Ohio that he will tear up the trade treaty NAFTA, over the objections of our neighbors Canada and Mexico. Obama says he will end the war in Iraq, but his campaign has committed itself to leaving tens of thousands of US troops there for years to come.

Obama has also lied twice to John McCain. McCain approached Obama over legislation on Congressional ethics reform, to which Obama agreed to cooperate with McCain on. However, Obama, feeling pressure from fellow Democrats decided to back out of the agreement. Obama also reneged on a promise he made that, if McCain accepted, Obama too would take public financing. That was before Obama started making money by the tens of millions, mostly by small donors he refuses to track and document.

Obama has been a master practitioner of political expedience. The Democratic Party is about to sweep the congressional and senatorial elections. Obama has proven himself to be a purely partisan politician, never standing up to the Democratic Party.

In contrast, John McCain has been tested in ways none of us can imagine. He has also put national interest before his party on tough issues, such as Big Tobacco, the environment, and the initial strategies used in Iraq. McCain is the only option to ensure responsible balance in the government.

Should Obama win, attaining the Presidency will obviously be the greatest accomplishment of his political career. His second greatest accomplishment? Running for the Presidency. These challenging and dangerous times demand proven leadership, not expert campaigning. Please join me in voting for a tough,tested, bi-partisan reformer. Please join me in voting for John McCain.

What does a broken clock and Barack Obama have in common?

I have been intently watching as much of the Democratic National Convention as I can manage, and, for the most part, the proceedings can be boiled down to these three ideas: 1.) The service (read imprisonment, torture) of John McCain is all well and good BUT he is weak on the economy 2.) John McCain and Bush the younger are one in the same, and finally, 3.) The Republicans are the party of the few for the few, while the Democrats hold exclusive license as far as caring for the masses is concerned, (the irony of millionaires accusing other millionaires of being out of touch with people like you and me need not be further explored).

Today, the DNC has been giving Obama credit for his year-long pledge to withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq within the first 16 months of his presidency. A year ago Obama stated far and wide that the upcoming surge was a mistake, and that we needed to get out of Iraq, and the quicker, the better. Now, the Democrats have the astounding gall to claim that Obama was ahead of the curve on current events, even as the Dems are attempting to take credit for the results of a troop increase that they roundly and publicly criticized.

All of this brings us to the question that is the title of this blog. At this moment in time, Obama, just like a broken clock, has found himself in the condition of being "correct", in spite of himself.

Not so fast, Mr. Robinson...

A couple of days ago in the Valley & State section of the Arizona Republic was a column by Washington Post writer Eugene Robinson. If you missed it, you can find it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/31/AR2008073102820.html . Robinson accuses the McCain campaign of playing the "race card". A serious allegation considering Barack Obama is indeed half Kenyan.

The source of Robinson's consternation was Obama's comments at a recent campaign stop. Obama warned that those opposed to him would "...make you scared of me. You know, 'He's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.' In response to these interesting, pre-emptive charges, McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis accused Obama of playing the dum, dum, duuuuum, race card. Which of course the Illinois Senator did.

Robinson, employing a not so subtle intellectual/journalistic slight of hand, has deemed that Obama was merely reminding (as if people have to be) that he is the first black politician with a viable chance to be president. If this was the idea that Obama, a master practitioner of words, wanted to convey, it just didn't come out right. I suspect that Mr. Obama meant exactly what he said.

This whole episode, though, is emblematic of the Obama campaign's attitude towards criticism of it's candidate. Oppose Obama, then witness race mentioned as a possible motivation for such criticism at times by the Obama campaign.

In the end, Robinson would like us to believe that Rick Davis' accusation of calling out Obama's comment as "race card" material was wrong. Robinson feebly asserts that Obama was innocently pointing out a rather obvious truth. People are much smarter than Obama and Robinson would like to believe. The unfortunate, narrow-minded and grossly over simplistic attitude that inspired Obama's words cannot be simply explained away, especially with an attempt as inane as Robinson's. And by the way, John McCain doesn't look like any of those other guys on "the dollar bills" either. Any resemblance would be strictly skin deep.

The Iraq War and the Gas crisis: Exit stage 'Right' for Obama and the Dems?

The Democrats have defined themselves as against both the war in Iraq and increased off-shore oil drilling. Recent events however, show these positions to be possibly untenable. The war in Iraq is going so well that it is now quite clear that the only way to reverse this success would be an arbitrary withdrawal of US forces. Recently, Barack Obama has commendably stated that he would not withdraw US forces from Iraq if their presence was needed to maintain the gains General Petraeus realized with his controversial troop surge. There are now no true anti-war candidates left.

$4.00 per gallon gasoline is apparently the threshold at which most Americans will walk away from our Hummers and F-150's. In a recent poll, a majority of Americans favor increasing domestic supplies of oil. The Democrats have a point that it will probably be several years before the fruits of any new drilling hit the market. However, what exactly is the Dem's Grand Strategy?. A windfall profits tax levied on oil companies? A $1,000 tax credit? More emphasis on alternative sources of energy?. Hardly anybody,(including myself), would seriously argue against the last two ideas, but the sheer idiocy of the first, espoused by both Candidate Obama and the Democratic-led congress is truly epic. Just what do they expect Exxon, RD Shell, and BP to do? Accept the new reality of artificially/arbitrarily lowered profit margins? In reality they would simply pass the cost of the new tax on us, the consumer. Just how does this tactic alleviate the pain of $4 a gallon gas?

What of the Republicans, then? When it comes to Iraq, McCain has been steadfastly advocating the very course of action Obama has now adopted. While McCain wishes to keep ANWR intact, he feels individual states should be allowed to make the call on new offshore drilling. McCain is also a proponent of alternative energy, having recently advocated a Federally funded reward to be given to the inventor(s) of a radically improved electric car battery.

In 2004, the Democrats found themselves on the wrong side of the defense debate. Now, in 2008, they find themselves on the wrong side of the energy debate. I, for one, can't wait until they support new offshore oil drilling.

Barack Obama: He Supported Public Financing before He was Against it.

In yet another disturbing development from Sen. Obama's campaign, the Senator has formally reneged on a promise to the country to use public funding for the general election. Obama, using characteristic eloquence, stated last year to "..aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." No doubt that line drew the Illinois Senator rapturous applause and acclaim from those listening intently to his words. It cannot be understated how frightening it is for a candidate like Obama to go back on his word, when it is only by his words that the greater nation has come to know him.

John McCain, the presumptive loser in this November's election, finds himself in the unenviable position of actually following through on what he believes and says: that public financing reduces the influence of Big Money on public officials. Thus McCain shall have 85 million dollars to get his message out to the country, while Obama raised 71 million dollars combined in the last two months alone .

Whatever opinion one has on public financing, the irony of this situation will not be lost on McCain's numerous Right-wing detractors. McCain's independent stance on this issue will no doubt cost him votes ( and cash) this November. What will be the Arizona Maverick's reward? The slanderous charge leveled upon him by both Howard Dean and Barack Obama of being just another cookie-cutter Republican. Obama will have the cash on hand to shape public perception of McCain any way he wants to. The youth vote has been lost to Republicans from the get-go, but what of the great, Silent Majority? Do they buy into what Illinois Senator is selling/saying?. Clearly Obama himself does not.

Hillary Clinton: Ideal Running Mate and Nightmare Veep.

First, congratulations are in order for Sen. Barack Obama. Second, should anyone read this, my thanks and apologies. Though politics is always roiling around my brain (as all friends and family within 50ft. of me know), a general writing malaise overcame over me. However, tonights developments have left me, in the words of Mr. Obama "Fired up, and ready to go".

To my great surprise, apparently Hillary Clinton wants to be Obama's Vice Pesident. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say she wants to be his running mate. Picture this: Clinton wins a ton of primaries in her own right, then campaigns vigorously for, and on behalf of, an Obama/Clinton ticket. Let's then say that against all odds they lose to McCain/_ _ _ _ in November. She would then have a tremendous case for the 2012 Democratic bid because hey, Obama blew it the last time. The other scenario would have her serving diligently and loyally for the dynamic and tremendously popular two-term President Obama.

Riiiiight. Obama may turn out to be a two-termer, but he may be wise to steer clear of Clinton Squared, because to say Hillary comes with baggage is alot like saying Tiger Woods is an alright golfer. An understatement to end all understatements. Obama will have to contend with the Clinton legacy. Clearly he wants to forge a new Democratic legacy, not partially extend an old one. President Obama could find his Administration mired in one Clinton faux pas after another. Why? Bill Clinton still loves the limelight, for better and worse, while Hillary as VP brings to mind thoughts of Adams/Jefferson and not the harmonious, albeit controversial, duo of Bush/Cheney.

Yet Clinton is likely Obama's key to the front door of the White house. Numbers don't lie. If the Democrats can even nominally unify the Obama and Clinton camps, the Dems will overpower McCain first in the cash box, and then in the ballot box in November.

Guest Spot: Keith Tessen

Keith Tessen is my Step-Father, although I refer to, and consider him, my Dad. He is a man of learning and respect, and there is no doubt that there is much he can teach me. He is also a Democrat and, though we disagree on policy, his e-mail response to my second blog just screamed for a chance at wider exposure. His response was incisive and respectfully passionate, and his line on TR, Reagan, and Nicaragua had me, in the lexicon of the internet, lmao. With limited editing, here is a contrary view:


First of all, I completely agree with you about TR being a truly great Republican president. In fact, he was a truly great man overall, having overcome some huge obstacles to reach the pinnacle of American political life. He was fair and he was intelligent and he really looked out for the common man. A bit heavy-handed with the foreign policy, but hey, no one's perfect. (It might have done Roosevelt--and the country--a bit of good if some other country had grabbed TR's big stick and smacked us a few times; then we might not have been so willing to bully everyone else in the hemisphere.)But that was 100 years ago, Kevin. Your Republican champion has been dead for many, many decades. My question is this: What Republican president since TR could be considered one of the greats? We've had 10 since then. I'm assuming we can both agree that Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Ford, and both Bushes cannot be considered great. That leaves Ike, Nixon, and Reagan. I personally would argue that Eisenhower was a great president (and, like TR, a truly great man overall). About the only major flaw I see in Eisenhower's administration was his reluctance to do what he knew was right in Little Rock. But even there he prevailed; he overcame his innate strong aversion to the use of federal power over the states, and he ordered the National Guard to protect the people who needed protection rather than those who were threatening the people who needed protection. Even though he himself was largely a product of the American military, he warned the country about the potential danger of the military-industrial complex as he left office.Perhaps you would include Reagan as a great president, and perhaps you would be right. I don't deny for a moment that he had a huge impact on history, and his dealings with the Soviet Union were astute and certainly very successful. I myself have a hard time assigning him the title of 'great' because I disagree with much that he did and because the guy had what seemed to be a pathological obsession with Nicaragua. (In that respect, he and TR weren't all that different.) The whole Iran-Contra fiasco clearly indicates that policy toward Nicaragua and the Sandinistas was based not so much on rational thought as on knee-jerk, radical anti-socialism/communism. That leaves us with Nixon, a man about whom, I have gathered, we have very strong but different opinions. I think Nixon was the worst president of the 20th century. By that I don't mean he was the least effective; no one could argue that. But he was a moral midget, an ethical cripple. In your essay you write about how Republicans are "proud of being Americans." Well, to me, Nixon made it very difficult to be proud to say I am an American, just as Dumbya makes it very difficult today. Am I proud that I am an American? Absolutely. But I definitely am not proud of my current president, or Nixon. The important things that Tricky Dick did accomplish (including normalizing relations with China and helping to develop the EPA) were accomplished between long hours spent plotting (and then ordering to be carried out) major crimes against American citizens. It seems to me that any president who orders people to steal psychiatric files and to plant incriminating evidence in the homes of perfectly loyal Americans (whose only "crime" was opposing the president's policies) can hardly be considered great. Psychopathic and unbalanced, maybe, but definitely not great.Thus, to my mind, we had exactly two great Republican presidents in the 20th century: TR and Ike. And this brings me to the title of your essay: "What the Republican Party was, and should forever be." If today's Republican Party was dominated by the likes of TR and Ike, I could envision myself as a proud member. I am all for the ideas of environmental protection, government protection of labor, and middle-of-the-road policies. Instead, today's party is dominated by people who I personally consider the near-antithesis of the Roosevelt/Eisenhower legacy, people like Gary Bauer of Focus on the Family and Pat Robertson. These are people who want to legislate morality, and that morality shall be THEIR morality and no other. People who want to force their own narrow, right-wing religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else. Instead of emphasizing the virtues of heterogeneity and pluralism, they want to enforce strict homogeneity that is largely based on biblical principles, and woe be unto those who disagree. Obviously not all of today's Republicans are like that, and I am so very happy that you are not like that, but I think you must admit that the scary (at least they're scary to me) and uncompromising Christian fundamentalists represent a bedrock of today's party, a group of people without whose active support electoral victory would be very difficult indeed. I cannot bring myself to support a party that is largely controlled by such people.So I remain a Democrat, hoping against hope that the virtues and beliefs of TR and Ike will return to capture the Republican Party. Until that time, I cannot imagine myself voting for the glorious party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight David Eisenhower. I wish I could, but I cannot and will not until the party is once again dominated by moderates, not radicals.

Obama and Clinton: More inconvenient truths

It has recently been revealed that top Clinton campaign advisor Mark Penn was having it both ways. Penn, on behalf of the lobbying/communications firm he is chief executive of, attended a meeting with the Colombian ambassador to the United States. Their topic of discussion: a potential free trade agreement between the U.S. and Colombia. Colombia had hired Penn's firm to drum up support in Congress for the trade agreement. Problem is, Penn's other boss, Hillary Clinton is against the deal. The old saying about the left hand not knoing what the right hand is doing comes to mind, but the other one about the mouse playing while the cats' away is probably the correct one to use.

Barack Obama's campaign had it's own suspension of disbelief moment, this one on the Iraq war. Obama is THE anti-war candidate, just ask him. If you want out of Iraq, Obama is your candidate. Turns out, he might just be mine as well!. A paper from Obama's Iraq working group is recommending that the U.S. retain 60-80 thousand troops in Iraq until...dum.....dum....duuuum.....2010!. Bring 'em home huh? Guess "Bring some of 'em home" just doesn't resonate enough or fit as well on a podium placard.

My issue with these two campaigns isn't the policies mentioned above. On both counts, I agree with both campaigns. I support a free trade agreement with Colombia, a key ally in the war on drugs, along with maintaining responsible troop levels in Iraq. Perhaps a 2010 troop level between 60 and 80,000 will be spot-on. Yet these positions aren't what the two candidates are publicly running on. One is left to wonder: Is it possible for America to get some Straight Talk on the campaign trail? I say 'Yes We Can'!.

The fight for 2012: The Republicans

A group of conservatives (most, formerly of the Mike Huckabee camp) have sent a public petition to John McCain urging him not to select Mitt Romney as his running mate. For the record, Huckabee has claimed no connection whatsoever to this brazen gambit at wringing John McCain's arm, a tactic the sometimes irascible Arizonan probably does not appreciate.

While the Democrats are fighting it out over whom will be their '08 nominee, it appears some Republicans have decided to start duking it out for the 2012 race right now. The battle lines are being drawn by Huckabee supporters who have grown fearful of a photo op Romney and McCain shared recently. It is no secret that Huckabee wants the VP job, why else would he have doggedly continued to campaign for weeks after it was clear to all the universe that the nomination was McCain's. Huckabee reckoned that if he stayed in the race long enough, he would pass Romney in the tally of Republican delegates, and therefore lay some claim to the Veep-Stakes. Huckabee accomplished his mission, and did indeed edge out Romney for 2nd place, but the former Arkansas Governor probably hurt his cause by doing so.

The political calculus is this: John McCain is the Republican nominee. But he is also a 71 year old nominee. McCain may lose in November, and, as long of a shot as he has at securing the Presidency later this year, there is zero chance McCain will be running in 2012 as anything else but as the incumbent President. Win or lose, McCain's running mate would be in prime position to be "next in line". Huckabee's supporters have rightly or wrongly surmised that the future of the Republican party rests either in Mitt Romney's or Mike Huckabee's hands.

Personally, I feel that Romney and Huckabee are both unlikely prospects. Romney and Huckabee were once moderate governors of Democratic-leaning states. Unfortunately for them, in the Republican primaries they both energetically ran to the right of McCain, which would make them unsavory to independents. The fact that they are relatively new converts to mainstream conservatism could also make them untrustworthy to some conservatives. It is true that McCain could use a Veep who would help shore up Southern support. McCain may also be calculating that between himself, ( popular in New Hampshire) , and political ally Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the Northeast will be in play as much as it ever will be for a Republican. A competent Southern/ Midwestern state governor or member of congress might just fit the bill. Better McCain choose a popular moderate or nationally obscure conservative than the potentially polarizing Huckabee and Romney. Of course, the cagey Arizona Maverick could make all of this talk of 2012 moot, by winning in '08.

Congressional Earmarks: An Arizona focus on a national addiction.

This year, Congress, under Democratic leadership, commendably set out with the goal to suspend the practice of "Pork Barrel" spending for a year. Unfortunately, this proposal appears to have been killed by politicians from both parties.

Some Arizona members of Congress, however, have decided to make the principled decision not to ask for any earmark dollars for their home districts and state. Congressmen John Shadegg(R), Jeff Flake(R), and Sen. John McCain(R) all "failed" to bring home the bacon, to the chagrin of two other members of Arizona's Congressional delegation. Representatives Raul Grijalva(D), and Ed Pastor (D),both chided the three Republicans, with statements like:

Grijalva: "We have members of our delegation who feel their job is not to bring equitable resources back to the state. The fact remains we are shortchanging our taxpayers by not bringing more resources into the state."*

Pastor: "All the money Arizona doesn't take goes to Alaska" *

While the three Republicans base their decisions based on responsible economic principles, their detractors justify profligate Congressional spending by prescribing to an idea enunciated by that def economist Snoop Dogg: "You gotta get yours before I gotta get mine."

This is exactly what is wrong with politicians on both sides of the aisles in the Capitol. At a time when America is fighting wars in two countries, is financing large entitlement programs for the elderly and infirm, and providing a record amount aid to Africa, both parties refuse to cut out pet projects, even for a year.

In a sense, Grijalva is wrong and Pastor is right. Sorry, Rep. Grijalva, but Arizona receives $1.19* in Federal funds for every dollar in taxes Arizonans send to Washington. To Rep. Pastor's credit, Alaska, ( a traditionally Republican state), does indeed receive $506.34* in earmarks for every Alaskan, while we Arizonans must make due with $18.70* a head. True political principle is a rare commodity nowadays. It is something American voters seem to be yearning for. It's just sad that Grijalva and Pastor are too jaded to recognize leadership when it is staring them in the face.

*Source: Arizona Republic article: "AZ last in pork barrel cash, lawmakers say it's a waste"

Barack Obama: Pay no attention to the man behind the Speeches

Saying one thing to voters but intending to do another. Embellishing about one's past, in an attempt to ingratiate one's self to an audience. Employing lofty, uplifting speeches in order to unite us, but stauchly defending a personal advisor whose words betray an angry divisiveness.

Based on his rhetoric, Barack Obama would seem immune to the practices listed above, but recent revelations would argue otherwise. Untruth and the parsing of words is considered Clintionian by some, but Obama is apparently taking pages from the successful duo's playbook. I was quite surprised about how casually Obama, (H.Clinton included), spoke about unilaterally tearing up NAFTA. I thought strong unilateral action was a Republican trait, and an undesirable one at that. Yet there was both Democratic contenders attacking what was considered a signal North American trade accomplishment. Publicly alienating Canada, ( a stauch ally in Afghanistan and No.1 importer of U.S. goods), may be one thing, but secretly assuring the Canadians that this NAFTA tough talk is all just campaign jibberish to appease American primary voters is quite another. In a speech in Alabama, Obama shared with the audience that during the Selma civil rights marches in 1965, his parents were inspired to have a child (him). Except Obama was born in 1961. In Hawaii. PreacherGate is the latest (and perhaps greatest?) of the inconvenient truths about Barack Obama's life/campaign to come out. The vicous vitriol that Obama's spiritual advisor employed is, describing it mildly, upsetting. Whatever Rev. Wright's qualms with America and her social ills, demonizing others is no way to start a dialogue. By Obama's own admission, Wright has had a tremendous amount of influence over him, which begs the question: just how much?

A potential Obama Administration was supposed to provide a "new" brand politics, a politics of the future. Being a newcomer on the national stage, we as voters have little to gauge Senator Obama by, except his rousing speeches. In the end, though, what are speeches? Just talk.

What will it be for the Chinese Olympiad?: Berlin '36, or Tokyo '64?.

What ties all three of the above mentioned Games together? In each case, the Games symbolize(d) a global coming-out party for the host countries concerned. Berlin of 1936 and Tokyo of 1964 were both eager to prove that their respective countries had fully recovered from recent wars that had ravaged them.

In both cases, the recoveries were seen as nothing short of miraculous. After World War 1, the Germans were a beaten people, forced to push around wheel-barrels of near-worthless currency to buy bread. With many Japanese cities left smoldering in World War 2's aftermath, Japan found itself under foreign occupation.
From here, however, the two aggrieved states depart from one another. Hitler, fresh from his swastika-bedecked Games, went on to start World War 2 in Europe. By 1964, Japan was already the world's third-largest economy, but she contented herself on eventually becoming the second, brought about by a postwar version of bushido practiced in boardrooms and on factory floors rather than battlefields.

And here now is China, a country with her own historical baggage of past wrongs committed by predatory foreign powers and self-inflicted economic and social misery. Presently, China can boast about 10% GDP growth and a rapidly growing middle class. Already the Earth's 6th largest economy (based on it's own accounting), China is well on her way to global economic super-stardom. Alarming though, is the fact that with some of the proceeds of her surging economy China is rapidly adding technological sophistication to the hordes of the People's Liberation Army, and it cannot be forgotten that Beijing is committed to bringing Taiwan under it's control, one way or another.

Which path then, will China choose? The bellicosity of Berlin, or Tokyo's benign economic assent?. A hybrid course is equally plausible. It's indeed a funny thing how these Games tend to find powers on the rise. The United States hosted her first Olympiad in 1904, the dawn of what is widely considered the American Century.

What the Republican Party was, and should forever be...

The Republican Party is accused by some of being the party of inequalities of all kind, when in reality, the Party's genesis is owed to it's strident belief in the equality of all. The GOP has been framed as the party of environmental corruption, but alas, it was under Republican Presidents that the first national parks and the Environmental Protection Agency were established. Many assume that the Party is the unabashed guardian of big business, but here again, Republican chief executives moved first to limit industrial monopolies and corporate malfeasance.

What then, are the true core tenets of the GOP? They are justice, trust, and freedom. This is expressed by the GOP's insistence that people and their enterprises be given the freedom to flourish, so long as they are just in their operations. Further, the Party insists that every citizen should be trusted to make the core decisions of their lives.

The Republican party is an optimistic party, unashamed in it's pride in America, and respectful of the traditions and innate wisdom of the people that make up this nation.
Or at least it should be.

Introduction to The Central Phoenix Republican

Greetings to all who read this!

The intention of this page is to share my musings on all subjects political, historical, and perhaps, even the non-sequitur. Please be forwarned that I may approach subjects from a moderately Republican point-of-view. Feel free to chime in, but please, let's be civil!