A Bold Proposal For Conservative GOP Candidates

Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

“My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas’; still another, ‘I follow Christ.’”– 1 Corinthians 1:11-12

As Jesus warned, “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mark 3:25). Nothing has borne out this reality in recent decades like that exasperating spectacle called the Republican presidential primary. These last few GOP horse races have been jam-packed with would-be conservative presidents who, after infighting with largely simpatico opponents, have canceled each other out, limped off to lick their wounds, and left the perpetually underwhelmed GOP base to stay home and not vote for “imminently electable” establishment paragons like Presidents Dole, McCain, and Romney. Divide and conquer. That’s how the “moderate” RINO establishment plays the primary.

And then they lose the general.

Albert Einstein famously quipped that the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In that sense, we conservatives are insane.

How about trying something new?

As John Fund told Newsmax TV in January: “If Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum both run for president in 2016, they will split the primary votes of most conservative evangelicals and open the path for the nomination to somebody else.”

I agree, but I’ll take it further. Add Ted Cruz to the mix, and you divide the conservative Christian vote – the majority base of the Republican Party – three ways. I’ve had the distinct honor of visiting with each of these fine leaders and could enthusiastically support any of them in a general election. But if they all run, chances are neither I nor anyone else will have that opportunity.

Still, it gets worse. Add Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, and Ben Carson to the mix–and the pie pieces turn to slivers. Lop on a scoop of Rand Paul to keep the libertarians happy; slice in Marco Rubio, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and others; and the votes become crumbs.

I’m not alone on this.

“What has happened in the last two presidential election cycles is that the candidates that the Christian conservatives favored split the votes up,” Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, told CNN in a recent interview. “When you get three or four social conservative candidates splitting up the vote, McCain and Romney are going to win.”

Or Jeb Bush.

I promise you that for 2016, Bush and the Republican congressional leadership are salivating over the prospect of a packed conservative field. They’re hoping that every conservative Christian pol in America will soon announce his presidential bid. As they offset one another, Jeb (or some other establishment candidate) will, once again, be the last man standing.

And, once again, he’ll lose.

Admittedly, there is no easy answer. “A major roadblock in unifying behind a singular candidate,” observes CNN, “is the deep, personal relationships that social conservative activists and leaders have developed with individual candidates over the years. As one activist noted, ‘You bleed with them in battle. There are alliances, friendships … people who worked hard for you. You don’t want to burn them.’”

So here’s my proposal. Don’t burn them. Let’s take “social conservative activists and leaders” out of the picture on the front end. Let’s let the candidates decide who should run. Let’s let them “unify behind a singular candidate,” and then the rest of us can follow suit.

A conservative presidential primary summit

Maybe I’m dreaming, but I think it could happen. It would take tremendous courage and conviction on the parts of each of the aforementioned candidates (and any other credible conservative who might decide to run); but if a majority of them signed off on the idea, this thing could happen.

I’ll let them hash out the details, but here’s the general idea. Before too many of them officially declare, I propose that all prospective conservative candidates gather at a pre-determined, undisclosed location. They could then shut themselves in a room, alone (with no staff or supporters), for as long as it takes. Each candidate would have an allotted amount of time to make his or her case to the others as to why he or she is best suited to take on Jeb Bush and the GOP establishment in the upcoming primary. Q&A, open discussion, and collective prayer and fasting would play a critical role.

After everyone is satisfied, they would then vote, via written ballot, for the one candidate (other than themselves) who they believe can take it all.

Having signed an agreement beforehand, they would then publicly announce their support for the candidate with the most votes. In the months leading up to the general election cycle and beyond, they would actively campaign on behalf of that candidate and strongly encourage their supporters, including potential voters, activists, leaders, and organizations, to likewise band together behind that candidate.

To the victor go the spoils. But not all the spoils. If the winning conservative candidate ultimately defeats both the GOP establishment in the primary and Democrats in November, then perhaps it could be agreed that the other candidates be given, in reward, the vice presidency, a Supreme Court nomination, a Cabinet-level appointment, or the like.

We saw a national thirst for true conservative leadership on display in the 2014 mid-term elections. In addition to being a repudiation of Barack Obama’s insane, cultural Marxist policies, the election was a firm rebuke of the Democrat-lite GOP establishment. It is the conservative candidate, not the establishment candidate, who will defeat Democrats in 2016.

But only if we have a conservative candidate.

Recently, several of the individuals mentioned above attended a California event organized by the Family Research Council. According to Newsmax, “One woman who took part in efforts to identify a single candidate acceptable to social conservatives addressed [Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal] with what sounded like a supplication: ‘I would love to see you godly leaders pray and fast and see who God would be anointing to raise up.’ Adding, ‘we would rally behind him. We cannot be so divided. Our money, our time, our loyalty is so divided.’

“Jindal responded: ‘Amen.’”

To which I respond: Amen.

Can you make it happen, Governor?

(Note: Political strategist Deryl Edwards contributed to this column.)

Photo credit: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Bill O’Reilly And Glenn Beck Clash Over Future Of Republican Party

Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly

Founder of TheBlaze Glenn Beck joined Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor to discuss earlier comments made by Beck about leaving the Republican Party.

Last week, Beck spoke about leaving the party due to its inability to stand on principles and failure to stand against Obamacare and immigration.

“I’ve made my decision. I’m out,” he said. “I’m out of the Republican Party. I am not a Republican, I will not give a dime to the Republican Party. I’m out.”

O’Reilly pushed back against the comments, suggesting Beck would vote for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and therefore not be leaving the Republican Party.

Beck argued that “blind support” for the party should be avoided, speaking to voters who simply vote for the D or R. But while he said that Cruz is his guy for now, he added that he would also support Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis.

“Here’s the thing — don’t vote for parties,” Beck said, with O’Reilly agreeing. “Don’t blindly support the parties. Support the people.”

h/t: The Blaze

Share this article on Facebook if you agree with Beck that parties need to be overlooked and candidates need to be elected based on their principles alone.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

It’s Easy As ABC: Anybody But Bush Or Christie

Facebook/Jeb Bush

With 21 months until the 2016 presidential race, the GOP field of candidates is large and impressive. Approximately two dozen prominent Republicans have expressed an interest in running for President. Most of the candidates are strong conservatives with solid credentials. Unfortunately, the field also includes two well known moderates, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who both have the ability to raise large sums of money and become a major factor in the upcoming election.

The most serious establishment candidate is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is the odds on favorite to secure the presidential nomination. Bush is actually leading in the polls with the most name recognition. With a brother and father who served as President, Jeb Bush will be difficult to beat.

In recent weeks, he has been aggressively working to lock up big donors and key activists. His campaign organization has been growing so steadily that it forced former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to exit the race. In early January, Romney announced to a small gathering of donors that he was interested in running for President a third time. However, when he started trying to build a campaign network across the country, Romney realized that Jeb Bush has already signed up many of the top GOP contributors and consultants. Romney soon came to the realization that he could not raise enough money to seriously challenge Bush for the nomination. Thus, three weeks after floating a trial balloon expressing interest, Romney officially decided not to run for President.

Bush is a good man from a good family; but he is wrong on an array of issues such as taxes, immigration, and common core. He made the ludicrous comment that Romney lost in 2012 because he ran too far to the right. The country does not want or need another person with the last name of Bush as President. Even Barbara Bush admitted as much in an interview last year. Unfortunately, too many big Bush donors do not realize this fact, showing how seriously out of touch they are with real Americans.

For those moderates who are not enamored with Bush, they have a viable alternative: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is currently in Europe trying to burnish his foreign policy credentials. Christie met with Romney last week, as the former Massachusetts Governor left the race. Christie is considered a moderate on social issues such as gay marriage. He is soft on immigration and has supported the Dream Act. In addition, Christie is a strong supporter of strict gun laws, which may be popular in New Jersey but is likely to be very unpopular in the South. Sadly, like Bush, Christie is just wrong on too many issues.

The moderate wing of the Republican Party, otherwise known as the establishment, has controlled the GOP nomination process since the Reagan years. This wing of the party is usually at odds with the more conservative or grassroots wing of the party, which is often associated with the Tea Party movement. Most moderates view the Tea Party activists with disdain and will work tirelessly to prevent a conservative from achieving the nomination in 2016.

The problem with this scenario is that the moderates are very successful at winning the Republican Party nomination, but horrible at winning the presidential election. As evidence, we can view the failed presidential campaigns of George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. The last true conservative who won the Republican nomination, Ronald Reagan, won a 49 state electoral landslide.

If the Republican Party wants to win the White House again, a conservative needs to be nominated for President. This should be a foregone conclusion, but it is a subject of much debate within the GOP. The establishment wing of the party believes that only candidates like Bush and Christie can reach the Independent voters who are in play for every presidential election. In contrast, only a conservative nominee can reach the blue collar Reagan Democrats who are not typically Republican voters and unite the various groups within the party such as libertarians and evangelicals. Only a conservative presidential nominee will be able to draw a sharp distinction with a liberal Democrat candidate, such as Hillary Clinton, on the critical fiscal, social, and foreign policy issues that will be addressed in the campaign.

In 2016, it will take a strong conservative to win the White House for the GOP and defeat the Democrats. By the next election, our country will have suffered through eight years of a dangerously liberal President. It will be essential for a true conservative to become our next President and rebuild our economy and bolster our national security.

Conservatism works as a framework for both governing and winning elections. Hopefully, a majority of Republican Party voters will come to this realization in time to save their party and, more importantly, save their country.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: Here’s How A Surging GOP Contender Just Handed A Hostile Interviewer Her Head

Image Credit: ABC News

With Mitt Romney out of the race for the White House in 2016, supporters of the GOP’s failed 2012 presidential candidate are looking for someone else they can get behind.

And if a new preference poll is any indicator, that someone may be Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

As reported by Townhall:

…a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll released over the weekend shows Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker jumping out to a small lead in the state — followed by Rand Paul, Mitt Romney (now out of the race), Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson. Jeb Bush pulls eight percent, with Chris Christie struggling at four percent….

Though he has shown his ability to stand tall and fight tough against unrelenting liberal attacks and union opposition in Wisconsin, the Republican governor has been viewed by some in the GOP establishment as lackluster, even uninspiring.

That view, however, is not shared by conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh, who recently hit quite a few high notes in singing Walker’s praises:

“…I believe Scott Walker is the blueprint for the Republican Party if they are serious about beating the left.  Scott Walker has shown how to do it.

Scott Walker has shown the Republican Party how to beat the left. Scott Walker has the blueprint for winning and winning consistently and winning big in a blue state with conservative principles that are offered with absolutely no excuses.”

Although Walker has not formally declared his intention to seek the GOP nomination for the 2016 race, he is widely expected to throw his hat into the presidential ring.

So how does the Wisconsin governor fare in the media ring, especially when facing off with a not-so-friendly interviewer who, by the nature and tone of her questioning, was looking to trip up the Iowa front-runner?

There was a chance this past weekend for Governor Walker to show how he can handle what could be called a mainstream media “inquisition” when he appeared on ABC’s “This Week” with substitute host Martha Raddatz.

As noted in a post on Biz Pac Review: “Whether she was in search of her ‘Katie Couric moment,’ or just trying to take advantage of the opportunity to shore up her liberal bona fides, Raddatz was gunning for Walker from the start.”

It was a challenging interview about the governor’s “big, bold ideas” for the country; but Walker took the fire and shot back effectively, as you can see from watching the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

How Will History Judge Us?

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

It is so hard to see what is going on unless you are able to take a step back and get the panoramic view.

It’s like fighting the problem with an ever-increasing waist line.  Usually, it goes unnoticed to the one who’s growing the belly until some old pictures of past times are pulled out of the scrapbook.

“Wow!” I often respond when looking at old pictures of myself. “Look how skinny I was back then.  How did I gain so much weight?”

Eating and sitting on my butt is the short answer.  Every day that I overeat and eschew exercise, I provide an opportunity for my belly to balloon.  That is why exercise is a billion dollar industry. Trying to undo the effects of undisciplined behavior becomes very heavy lifting. Loose living is not easily overcome.

As I, and millions of others, slowly roll into our seventh decade upon this earth, it becomes harder and harder to blame others for the condition that America finds itself in. No longer can we blame our parents’ generation; but we must come to understand that when the ‘torch was passed’ to a new generation of Americans, the responsibility for the fruit grown in the vineyard must now rest upon those of us who were supposed to be ‘tending the garden’ of America.

We’ve dropped the ball. My generation, the baby boomers and the hippies, are now great grandpas and must bear the blame for what America has become. America has grown lazy, self-indulgent, and apathetic as our waistline continues to sag over our belts.  In covetousness and greed, we have eaten the inheritance of ‘our children’s children.’

How will history judge us? Well, I have a few thoughts that I’d love to share today. It has been said that hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps it is time we took a peek in the review mirror; for history will be our judge.

A century from now, if there is still a planet here, historians will look back at the latter half of the 20th century and first two decades of the 21st and scratch their heads as they ponder, “What were they thinking?” Indeed, what WERE we thinking? Those who study us will ask:

How could a nation built upon such clear-cut Christian principles have so openly and purposefully rejected the values of their forefathers?

How could the wealthiest nation in the world have allowed their currency to be removed from the gold-standard and believe that the ‘full faith and credit’ of the government was enough to keep evil men from destroying the financial system?

How could a nation built upon the nuclear family redefine that institution in such a way as to make the term nearly meaningless?

How could a nation whose laws were built upon two tablets permit the wrecking ball of litigation to remove those teachings as foundational, generational beliefs from the hearts of their children?

How could the false teaching of separation of church and state become so ingrained in the minds of Americans that public prayer would be ruled illegal?

How could a nation of laws have permitted unelected judges to determine what law is?

How could the Christian churches be so willing to yield the moral education of their children to an amoral, atheistic system designed to install the God of Government as the granter of all liberties?

How could the people have possibly fallen for the folly that there was no difference between a man and a woman, or a father and a mother, and that children would not be affected by the absence of either?

How could we have possibly allowed our children to be taught that all relationships were the same and that sex was normal no matter which appendage you chose to insert in what opening?

How did we permit ‘rights’ to be judged on such base unnatural behaviors?

How could a man with three Muslim names be elected President of the United States in the midst of the greatest surge of Islamic extremism in the history of America?

How could Christian churches permit the nation to be taught that Christians and Muslims serve the same God?

How could a nation buy into the lie that spending more than one earns will lead to financial prosperity?

How did the defense of Biblical morality become ‘hate’ while the drive for debauchery and licentiousness become loving and tolerant?

How could the churches actually believe that non-Christian governmental leaders would lead to a society where Christian values and laws would be supported?  And how could they believe that the Republican Party would become the standard bearer of the truth for millions of Bible believers?

How did the minority become powerful enough to bully the majority?

How did the preaching of sin and repentance give way to the gospel of tolerance and personal fulfillment? How did the threat of hell-fire damnation go the way of pay-phone booths?

How could America have permitted the slaughter of unborn children in the womb of their mothers for no other reason than the inconvenience of motherhood? How could they possibly have thought that there would be no consequence to such barbaric behavior?

How could the American people have permitted electronic voting in an age when computer hacking was as easy and common as the dialing of a telephone?

How could a nation that was birthed by The Black-Robed Regiment give way to pulpits filled with man-pleasing, corporate, government-controlled churches?

How could the nation embrace and teach to their children as normal a lifestyle that is incapable of reproducing progeny? How could a religion replete with examples of the ‘judgment of God’ so easily capitulate to the sinners’ cry to “Judge not?”

How did we expect God to ‘bless America’ when so much of what we did flew in the face of everything He taught us?

How will history judge us? How did my belly get so big?

How, indeed.

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom