Al-Bagdadi’s Death Does Not Mean War Against ISIS Is Over

The US raid that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi over the weekend was a victory in the War on Terror, but winning the battle should not be confused with winning the war. Both ISIS and al Qaeda are still active threats and the victory should not be taken as an opportunity to leave the Middle East on a high note.

One person who is concerned that the US will declare victory and leave in the aftermath of the raid is Iraqi President Barham Salih. Salih, a pro-American leader, spoke with Axios last week, six days prior to the al-Bagdadi raid, and was already sounding the alarm.

"The staying power of the United States is being questioned in a very, very serious way," Salih said. "And allies of the United States are worried about the dependability of the United States."

“I'm worried about ethnic cleansing,” President Salih, who is an Iraqi Kurd, said, “And this has been the history, tragic history of the Kurdish people and this [is] dangerous and tragic. The humanitarian cost is just awful.”

Although President Salih was not aware of al-Bagdadi’s impending departure from life, he was well aware of President Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds and equivocations on whether to keep American soldiers in Syria at all. The Iraqis must be quite plausibly wondering if the American commitment to their country will be discarded as quickly as our commitment to the Kurds.

They have good reason to wonder since America has already abandoned Iraq once. In 2011, the Obama Administration failed to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement to maintain a small security force there. Three years later, the US had to send troops back to help the Iraqis beat back ISIS. It’s entirely possible that President Trump may be about to make a similar mistake.

Several reports have indicated that the timing of the al-Bagdadi raid was influenced by President Trump’s decision to leave northern Syria. Rukmini Callimachi, a Middle East correspondent for the New York Times, reported that al-Bagdadi’s location was determined “back in the summer” but the raid was deemed too risky because it was in Syrian and Russian airspace. With the US pullout looming, commanders decided to rush the raid. Their gamble paid off.

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1188514608056811530?s=20

There is also the irony that the raid would not have been possible, or at least would have been much more difficult, if President Trump’s policies had been seen through to fruition. Axios also reported that the raid was based at least partially on intelligence received from Syrian Kurds and depended on having American forces in the region to carry out the attack. Jimmy Carter’s Desert One debacle from 1980 is an example of how long-range missions are far more complex and risky than raids that can be staged locally.

President Salih stressed that, despite the concerns of some Americans about “endless wars,” the US should not leave while ISIS and al-Qaeda are still threats, saying, “The military defeat of ISIS is an important victory, but not incomplete [sic] and precarious too as well. It can easily unravel. And this is what I'm worried about.”

“Five years of blood, treasure, effort — a lot of human misery went into defeating ISIS,” Salih added. “This victory was [not] easy, and for anyone to become complacent about it is terrible, reckless, dangerous, tragic.”

The Iraqi president also cautioned Americans about Iraq’s role in a possible war with Iran. “The United States is an important ally, partner. … We want this to continue and we definitely don't want our territory to be used,” he said. “We should try and stop it because Iraq cannot sustain it, cannot survive it.”

Salih’s misgivings about the US using bases in Iraq to attack Iran goes back to the question of whether America would stand by its ally. Iraq is undoubtedly concerned that the US would launch its limited number of airstrikes and then go home, leaving Iraq to deal with the fallout from Iran. Americans may not remember, but Salih definitely does, that Iran and Iraq fought a decade-long war in the 1980s. The Iraqi president does not want to repeat that experience.

President Trump’s decision to authorize the raid to kill al-Bagdadi was a good one and it led to a great triumph. The big question is what course Mr. Trump will take next. Will he follow President Obama’s example and bring the troops home prematurely or will he stick it out until they win?

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump To Ask Allies To Pay ‘Cost Plus Fifty’ To Host US Troops

Friday afternoon is often the time to drop unpopular and controversial news. As the denizens of Foggy Bottom hurry to leave the District of Columbia for the weekend, it can be a convenient time to unveil news that will reflect poorly on the elites who control the government. That was the case today as the Trump Administration dropped a figurative bomb whose effects will be felt around the world.

As the president toured tornado-ravaged areas of Alabama, Bloomberg reported that Mr. Trump is demanding Germany, Japan, and any other country hosting American troops pay the full cost plus an additional 50 percent. Per Bloomberg, the plan would apply first to Germany and Japan and eventually be applied to every other nation where American troops are based. Under the plan, some countries would pay five or six times their current share of defense costs.

President Trump has reportedly pushed the idea for months and his insistence on the requirement reportedly derailed talks with South Korea about the status of the 28,000 US troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula. Trump allegedly overruled negotiators with a note to National Security Advisor John Bolton that read, “We want cost plus 50.”

The proposal seems tailor-made as an excuse for President Trump to unilaterally withdraw American forces from abroad and bring the troops home. During the 2016 campaign, Trump questioned the need for mutual defense pacts such as NATO and railed against the cost of basing troops abroad. While in office, Trump’s relationship with America’s allies has been rocky and the president has reportedly considered withdrawing the US from NATO. The demand for more money from allies may be intended to resolve the issue by having host countries kick American forces out.

It is possible that the demand is simply a negotiating ploy by the president, who has pushed NATO and other allies to pay a larger share of the cost of their defense in the past. The president may also be swayed by advisors to accept a less harsh deal. This week Mr. Trump reversed himself on a decision last year to withdraw American troops from Syria.

The basing of American soldiers around the world benefits both the host country and the United States. In the War on Terror, the US used bases in Germany as a transshipment point to and from the Middle East. Ramstein Airbase was a vital link in the logistical chain to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Likewise, the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center is the largest overseas military hospital in the world. Many American soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan were sent to Landstuhl for stabilizing treatment before returning home.

It is not clear whether the US is close to making a formal demand of its allies or whether Friday’s announcement is a trial balloon, but the proposal comes at an awkward time. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been waging an offensive war on the borders of NATO against Ukraine, another US ally, since 2014. In Asia, Trump’s attempted détente with North Korea has yielded little in the way of results while China continues to solidify its hold on the South China Sea.

While basing American soldiers abroad has not been free for the United States, it has been beneficial. The seventy years that American troops have occupied parts of Europe and Asia has been known as the Pax Americana, the American peace. The period allowed the US to become the world’s preeminent trading power and the leader of the community of nations.

It is a virtual certainty that the forward deployment of American soldiers prevented numerous wars including a Soviet invasion of Europe. If President Trump gives in to his isolationist tendencies, it is likely that the world may find that the cost in both blood and treasure of bringing American soldiers home is much greater than the cost of basing them abroad.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly of Trump's First Year

As the new year begins it also marks the final month of Donald Trump’s first year as president. As President Trump’s first year draws to a close some people proclaim him to be the greatest president since Reagan while others say he is tyrant. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.

In December, the White House issued a list of 81 accomplishments of the Trump Administration. While the list contains many items of fluff (“Trump traveled the world to promote the sale and use of U.S. energy” and “made progress to build the border wall with Mexico”) and economic statistics that may or may not be the result of Trump’s election win (“increase of the GDP above 3 percent,” “saw the Dow Jones reach record highs” and “a rebound in economic confidence to a 17-year high”), the list did include real accomplishments.

President Trump had several legitimate legislative successes in his first year. The crowning jewel of the Trump Administration’s first year is the tax reform bill. The bill slashed the corporate tax rate as well as cutting individual income tax rates. The bill also repealed Obamacare’s unpopular individual mandate. Earlier the in the year, the Republican Congress also passed several bills repealing Obama-era regulations under the Congressional Review Act. A more bipartisan success was a bill reforming the Veterans Administration.

Trump also has made his mark on the federal judiciary. Neil Gorsuch has filled Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court with another conservative, an accomplishment that many said would make a Trump presidency worthwhile. Trump has also appointed 18 judges to lower courts.

Many of the list items relate to Donald Trump’s 55 Executive Orders, which are far more numerous than his legislative successes. With Congress deadlocked for much of the year, the majority of Trump Administration accomplishments relate to executive actions or rulemaking by bureaucratic agencies. Some of these decisions have been good, such as rolling back Obama-era net neutrality rules, reinstating the Mexico City policy and cutting federal regulations. President Trump also signaled his intent to withdraw from the Paris Climate treaty and move the US embassy in Israel to the capital city of Jerusalem.

In other cases, Trump’s executive actions weren’t as good. One of Trump’s first acts as president was to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a move that opened the door for Chinese expansion with their One Belt One Road Initiative. Trump decided against withdrawing from NAFTA, but reopened negotiations with Mexico and Canada. A series of Executive Orders that limited immigration from designated countries were largely upheld by the courts, but are more symbolic than useful in preventing terrorism since many, if not most, recent terrorists have been native-born Americans.

Whether good or bad, the common thread among the Trump Administration’s executive actions is their impermanence. Many of Trump’s executive actions reverse executive actions by Barack Obama. A future president could reverse Trump’s executive actions just as easily.

On foreign policy, Trump’s year has been mixed as well. A one-off missile strike against Syria in May had little discernible effect on the situation in the Middle East. Likewise, Trump’s war of words with Kim Jong Un has not helped to curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. President Trump did score an end-of-the-year win on foreign policy with the news that ISIS had lost 98 percent of its territory.

There were several particularly bad spots for President Trump in 2017. Trump’s firing of James Comey ensured that the Russia investigation would continue indefinitely and, although evidence of illegal collusion between Trump and the Russians is doubtful, the probe has already led to a number of indictments of Trump campaign officials and the investigation is an albatross around Trump’s neck.

The failure of the Republicans to repeal or reform Obamacare was the president’s biggest defeat of the year. Trump and the Republican Party had spent years campaigning against the health law only to have even watered-down versions of their own healthcare bill fail to pass. The repeal of the individual mandate in the tax reform bill is a consolation prize that may make matters worse. The repeal of the mandate may drive healthy Americans from the insurance market just as Trump stops making subsidy payments to health insurance companies. The result could be upheaval in health insurance marketplaces for 2018.

Even with the year-end successes by Republicans, Trump approval averages in the 30s and Democrats hold a 15-point lead on the generic congressional ballot as the country heads into a midterm election year. Trump’s twitter rants and feuds with such varied targets as the FBI, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the National Football League and pretty much every media outlet may be a big part of the GOP’s image problem. In a country at peace and experiencing a good economy, Trump’s unpopularity may be unprecedented.

In spite of a year that the White House heralds as a year of “winning,” President Trump has not been able to win over the American people. If he doesn’t do so in the next 10 months, his administration may not last until 2020.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump shifts on Syria policy

Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of “America first.” During the campaign, he argued, “We cannot be the policemen of the world. We cannot protect countries all over the world where they're not paying us what we need.” Yesterday, President Trump signaled in a press conference that his attitude on foreign policy may be becoming more interventionist.

The catalyst for the change was this week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria that left at least 70 people, including many children, dead. Evidence points to the use of deadly sarin nerve gas by the Assad regime in the attack.

To make matters worse for the Trump Administration, many cite the comments by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as a likely encouragement for the Assad regime to conduct the attack. Last week, Tillerson said in Turkey, “I think the status and the longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,” a statement interpreted by many as indicating the US would not involve itself in ending the Syrian civil war.

“Yesterday's chemical attack, a chemical attack that was so horrific in Syria against innocent people, including women, small children and even beautiful little babies, their deaths were an affront to humanity,” President Trump said in a press conference with Jordan’s King Abdullah. “These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this horrific attack and all other horrific attacks, for that matter.”

When asked if the attack crossed a “red line,” Trump replied, “When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, babies, little babies, with a chemical gas that is so lethal, people were shocked to hear what gas it was. That crosses many, many lines. Beyond a red line.”

Today sources are reporting that the president is considering options on how to respond, but that a firm decision has not yet been made. Complicating the matter are Trump’s campaign promises to have the United States play a smaller role in humanitarian missions and the fact that Russia is heavily involved in Syria. Over the past few years, Russia has supplied Syria with sophisticated air defenses and modern combat jets that would make an American attack difficult.

In spite of a withdrawal of most Russian units from Syria last year, NBC News noted recently that Russian combat troops are still in Syria, sometimes “within hand grenade range” of American soldiers. The presence of Russian soldiers and airmen heightens the possibility of escalation if Russians are killed by an American response.

In spite of the difficulties, President Trump has laid down the gauntlet. After his strong criticism of President Obama for backing down from his own “red line” comments, Trump has no choice, but to act decisively or lose all credibility with the dictators of the world. How the president handles the situation in Syria will affect how other countries from North Korea to Iran treat his administration.

The choices of strategies for intervention in Syria range from a full-scale invasion to limited air strikes of the sort that then-Secretary of State John Kerry called “unbelievably small” when President Obama faced a similar situation in Syria. A likely response would be use cruise missiles and manned aircraft to attack Syria’s air defenses and facilities where chemical weapons are produced and stored.

In the press conference, Trump seemed undecided on how to react and stuck with his patented brand of unpredictability. “I’m not saying I’m going to be doing anything, one way or another,” he said, “but I’m certainly not going to be telling you.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why isn't Trump attacking Hillary?

This week was perhaps the most damaging week of Hillary Clinton’s career. FBI Director James Comey’s decision to recommend that she not be charged for mishandling classified information was overshadowed by the facts that he laid out. Comey called her “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information and judged that her account, as well as email accounts that she was in contact with, were likely compromised by “hostile actors” that could threaten the security of the United States. How has Trump responded to the FBI assault on the basic competence of his opponent? He spent several days embroiled in a controversy over an allegedly anti-Semitic tweet and then came out of in favor of Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi. Why isn’t Trump attacking Hillary?

To be sure, Donald Trump did accuse Clinton of offering a “bribe” to Attorney-General Loretta Lynch by floating the possibility that Lynch might keep her job in a Clinton Administration. The Washington Post noted that Clinton has never publicly stated that Lynch might be welcome in her White House, but that the New York Times had attributed the idea to Democrats close to Clinton.

NBC News also reported that Trump had criticized Director Comey’s decision at a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday, July 5, the day of the FBI announcement. Trump used his pet name for Clinton, “Crooked Hillary,” and told the audience, “You didn't have to be careless. You didn't even have to really know that what you were doing was wrong, and you're guilty. The laws are very explicit. Stupidity is not a reason that you're going to be innocent, OK? It's not a reason.”

At that point, Trump seemed to veer off message. He became distracted by a controversy about a Trump campaign tweet that featured a six-pointed star that some associated with a Star of David. The tweet featured Hillary Clinton in front of a pile of cash and carried the logo, “History made: Most corrupt candidate ever.” The phrase, “most corrupt candidate ever” was inside a six pointed star that has been variously described as a “Star of David” and a “sheriff’s star.” CNN notes that the meme originally appeared “on an anti-Semitic, white supremacist message board.”

Trump said in a tweet that his campaign should not have removed the controversial meme and defended the star on Wednesday, July 6. CNN commented, “Trump's comments on Wednesday revived a controversy that appeared to be quickly fading under the weight of the news that Hillary Clinton's private emails included classified information, and that she will not face charges. On a day when Clinton's controversies dominated the airwaves, Trump resurrected his own.”

By Wednesday night, Trump was totally off message. Rather than spending time attacking Clinton’s judgement, Trump told a North Carolina crowd that Saddam Hussein was a great anti-terrorist.

“He was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what? He did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism,” Trump said.CNN points out that Trump supported the Iraq War in 2003.

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a state supporter of terrorism. The “9/11 Commission Report” stated that “Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups” and “Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy.”

Donald Trump not only is wrong about history, his comments further focused attention on himself and distracted attention from Hillary Clinton’s disastrous week. This is not the first time that Trump has gone easy on Clinton.

On June 2, Clinton sharply mocked Donald Trump on foreign policy. “Donald Trump's ideas are not just different, they are dangerously incoherent,” she said in Reuters. “They're not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies.” She went on to speculate that Trump might start a nuclear war if elected to the White House simply because “somebody got under his very thin skin.”

One might expect a broadside against the Secretary of State who presided over the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and the rise of ISIS, the bungling of the Arab Spring and the Iranian uprising, the implosion of Syria, the failed Russian reset, and, of course, the debacle at Benghazi. One would be wrong.

Rather than challenging Hillary on the substance of her speech or attacking her own record, Trump responded with tweets as Hillary predicted he would do during her speech. The first gave a general challenge to Clinton’s credibility while the second criticized her poise.

“Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton!” Trump tweeted. “Reading poorly from the teleprompter [sic]! She doesn't even look presidential!”

In fact, Trump’s attacks on Hillary seem very restrained. Compare his criticism of Clinton to his concerted attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge assigned to his Trump University fraud case. Trump spent weeks and devoted large amounts of air time to attacking Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage just after becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. The time might have been better spent unifying the Republican Party or launching attacks on Hillary Clinton, who had yet to secure her own nomination.

The Wall Street Journal reported that, after clinching the Democratic nomination, Clinton ran 20,000 ads to get her message out to potential voters. For the same period, Trump ran none. Zero. Not a single commercial. This total shutout in advertising is almost certainly what allows Hillary to maintain a lead over Trump in spite of her seriously damaged campaign.

While Trump may be attacking Hillary at his campaign rallies, his criticisms are overshadowed by his own outlandish and rambling comments. Time and time again, Trump’s antics have distracted the news cycle from Hillary’s troubles. Whatever his strategy or motive, his anti-Hillary message is not getting out to voters. Trump is destroying his own campaign.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

How I changed my mind about Donald Trump

  

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia

Changing your mind is often viewed as a bad thing. People who change their minds are derided as flip-floppers or unprincipled. On the other hand, it isn’t always a good thing to dig in your heels and stick to your guns when you receive new information or the situation changes. As Winston Churchill said, “I’d rather be right than consistent.” Along these lines, I have recently changed my mind on Donald Trump.

I still don’t like Trump and have no intention of voting for him. Trump’s record and demeanor are both disturbing. As a conservative, it would be hard to vote for someone who supports higher taxes, universal government healthcare and is inconsistent on social issues like abortion and religious freedom. To an economic conservative and free trader, his desire for high tariffs is problematic. It was high tariffs like the ones proposed by Trump that turned a recession in 1929 into the Great Depression. As a lover of liberty, the threat of violence if Trump does not win should disqualify him from consideration for leadership of a country that prides itself on peaceful transfers of power.

On foreign policy, Trump’s much-touted erratic behavior and inconsistency could literally cause a war. On at least two occasions in US history, in Korea and Kuwait, failure to establish clear US policy led to shooting wars. Trump’s off-the-cuff foreign policy pronouncements could easily do the same in a world where Russia and China are already expanding their spheres of influence.

My change of mind regarding Trump involves his ability to win. For months, I have joined many others saying that “Trump can’t win.” I didn’t believe that Trump could win primaries. I didn’t believe that he could go above 50 percent. I didn’t believe that a liberal New Yorker could sweep the conservative Christian South and vanquish many more experienced and better candidates. I was wrong on those counts.

While I still believe that Trump would almost certainly lose to Hillary Clinton, I now feel compelled to add the qualifier, “almost.” It is not inconceivable that Donald Trump could beat Hillary Clinton.

The possibility of a Trump victory over Hillary is not a reflection of Donald Trump’s magnetic personality, his policy acumen or any positive quality that a prospective president might possess. It hinges entirely on two factors. The first is Hillary Clinton’s weakness as a candidate and the overwhelming aroma of scandal and corruption that permeates her campaign. The second is Donald Trump’s ability to destroy opponents.

Neither Trump nor Hillary is a likeable candidate. Hillary’s negatives are exceeded only those of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Likewise, neither candidate is trusted and both are believed to be corrupt. Even though Trump shares many of the same negative traits possessed by Hillary, he will still attack her in the same hypocritical manner in which he criticizes “Lying Ted” Cruz for his lack of honesty while at the same time Trump himself was recipient of the Lie of the Year award for his numerous truth-challenged pronouncements.

Furthermore, both parties are divided. The Never Trump movement makes up a large part of the Republican Party, but Bernie Sanders voters are also swearing off voting for Hillary. A recent Rasmussen poll found that almost a quarter of likely voters would not vote for either Trump or Hillary in a head to matchup. The race would likely have historically low turnout and historically high interest in third parties. This is where Trump’s long shot opportunity lies.

A Trump-Hillary campaign would be the dirtiest campaign that most of us have ever seen. Both candidates would viciously attack the other’s long list of weaknesses and character flaws. This is the kind of campaign where Donald Trump, the insult comic, excels.

While Trump stands little chance of winning voters with a positive vision for the future that, almost a year into his candidacy, he has yet to articulate, he does have a chance of destroying Hillary’s image to the point where many voters will just stay home and not vote for either of them. In an election with depressed turnout, the question becomes which fractured party can drive more of its remaining base to the polls. Donald Trump stands a much better chance in this sort of election than in a high turnout election where he has to compete for moderate and independent voters.

Trump would almost certainly still lose, but he has beaten the odds so far. Political betting sites now give him about a 30 percent chance of becoming president. It is possible, but far from likely.

In spite of his recent victories and his likely victory in Indiana tomorrow, Trump is not assured of winning the nomination. If Trump is the Republican nominee, he might conceivably win, but it is far from certain that President Trump would be good for the country.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line or Freedom Daily

Can Scott Walker unite the GOP?

The factions of the GOP are split and the Wisconsin governor is one of few candidates that can bring them together.

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, has generated much buzz as a potential presidential candidate since he addressed the Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa on January 24. Walker has jumped to the front of a crowded Republican field and may be uniquely qualified to unite the various factions of the Republican Party.

There are a number of factions within the GOP, the two most obvious being the establishment and the Tea Party. In addition to these groups, there are also religious conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and libertarians. Most of the potential Republican nominees are championed by only one or two of these groups. For example, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush fall into the establishment category. Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Sarah Palin are prominent candidates from the Tea Party. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have the support of the religious wing of the GOP. Rand Paul is the obvious libertarian choice and no strong foreign policy candidates have yet emerged. Scott Walker is one of few candidates with the potential to bridge the divides between these groups.

Establishment excitement

Establishment Republicans like Scott Walker for his effectiveness and his experience as the governor of Wisconsin. Many conservatives favor a governor with proven leadership abilities after two terms of the meanderings of a former community organizer who was never tasked with a management position until he won the White House. The proven ability to get things done and forge majorities is a big plus for the next Republican nominee.

Additionally, establishment Republicans appreciate the fact that Walker is the best vetted candidate in the country. Likewise, after successfully managing three hotly contested campaigns (two gubernatorial campaigns and recall attempt), the potential for unforced errors is less likely than with untested candidates. Both areas have plagued many Tea Party candidates in the past and caused Republicans to lose races that should have been easily winnable.

Terrific Tea Partier

From the Tea Party point of view, Scott Walker is a fighter. He faced down Wisconsin’s public employee unions and won. He also cut taxes and moved the state budget from a deficit to a surplus. According to National Review, 95 percent of the state’s employers think that Wisconsin is on the right track, reflecting Walker’s pro-business and limited government policies. Walker’s new budget proposal also bans the use of Common Core assessment tests in Wisconsin’s public schools.

Walker’s views largely match those of Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, but, unlike Cruz, Walker has a record of accomplishment. Where Cruz has made a name for himself in making principled, but ultimately unsuccessful stands against Obamacare and the debt ceiling, Scott Walker can point to a record of accomplishments in Wisconsin.

Religious, but not radical

Walker can also appeal to both religious and secular Republicans. He grew up as the son of Baptist pastor, notes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. As a boy in Iowa he even started a “Jesus USA” club to do good deeds. In March 2014, he attracted the ire of the Freedom from Religion Foundation when he posted Philippians 4:13 on his official state Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Walker is pro-life and a defender of traditional marriage as well. In an October 2014 letter described in the Journal-Sentinel, Walker described how he signed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women seeking abortions and hospital-admitting privileges for doctors at abortion clinics. Walker also cut off state funding for abortion providers. With respect to marriage, Walker supports traditional marriage, but a court decision establishing gay marriage in Wisconsin meant that the issue was not prominent in his reelection campaign. As the governor of a blue state, Walker is seen as more mainstream in his faith than Huckabee and Santorum by secular Republicans.

As governor, Walker also had support from libertarians. Walker’s limited government policies and challenges to public unions drew the endorsement of the national Libertarian Party in 2012. When foreign policy becomes an issue in a national campaign, support from libertarians might become more problematic, especially if the pacifist Rand Paul runs.

Aggressive on foreign policy

On foreign policy, Walker has begun to stake out a claim that is decidedly not pacifist. He recently told ABC News, “I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action.”

Walker went on to say, “We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes.” He continued, “I don’t think that’s an immediate plan. [But] I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Walker’s sharp comments come after months of executions by ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris. Polling shows that voters are sharply critical of President Obama’s tepid response to Islamic terror, but are not necessarily ready to commit U.S. ground forces to the fight in Syria.

Immigration impasse

On immigration reform, Walker opposes an amnesty, but does see the need for immigration reform and securing the border. He told ABC News, “We need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty.”

So far, Walker has been vague about his position on immigration, but at various times has voiced opposition to the idea of deporting all illegal aliens and support for a pathway to legalization. With some conservatives decrying any suggestion of reform as “amnesty,” the issue of immigration is likely to be the most difficult for Walker to negotiate in the Republican primaries.

Other possible uniters

Scott Walker is not the only candidate with the potential to unite the GOP. Several other candidates might possibly bring the establishment and Tea Party, the two largest factions, together, but each has their own weakness. Marco Rubio has broad support, but as a one-term senator has little leadership experience. Rick Perry is a successful governor of Texas, but is under indictment for abuse of official capacity and must overcome his poor performance from 2012. Bobby Jindal is the two-term governor of Louisiana, but faces questions of effectiveness and experience at the national level.

The down side

There are several potential problems that might affect a Walker campaign. A simmering investigation in Wisconsin has searched for illegal coordination between conservative groups and Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. A recent Washington Post column hinted at how Democrats might respond to a Walker candidacy. Points of attack include Walker’s cuts to the University of Wisconsin and the state’s Seniorcare prescription drug program. Walker’s response to a projected budget shortfall was a round of spending cuts. Additionally, Walker is one of the few politicians at the national level without a college degree.

Walker’s largest obstacle at this point is coming to terms with immigration reform. While a small, vocal minority in the GOP opposes any change to immigration laws, a large majority of Americans want the system fixed. According to a Beyond the Beltway poll from December, 48 percent, a plurality, favor “a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers if they undergo a background check, pay taxes, and learn English.” This is one area where Republicans are out of step with the rest of the country.

Veering right on immigration in the GOP primary may prove fatal in the general election. Some observers believe that Mitt Romney’s fate was sealed in 2012 by his comments in the primary about “self-deportation.” Romney ended up losing the Hispanic vote by 44 percent according to CNN, a worse performance than any Republican candidate since Bob Dole.

So early into the 2016 race, anything can happen. At this point, Walker is not even a declared candidate yet. Nevertheless, he is well positioned to bring Republicans together, an important first step taking back the White House.

 

Read the full article on Elections Examiner.com

Why you should vote for Mitt Romney

Recently Examiner made the case against Barack Obama’s reelection. There are a multitude of reasons to vote against Obama, but that is only half of the equation. There are many reasons to make a positive choice to vote for Mitt Romney.

First, when it comes to the economy, Mitt Romney is the anti-Obama. Obama’s plan, only unveiled on October 23, is to raise taxes, increase regulation and spend even more. On the other hand, Mitt Romney wants to reform the tax system by lowering rates and eliminating loopholes that favor the wealthy. He wants to replace burdensome regulations like those in Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank finance law with rules that reflect market realities and common sense. Romney would immediately reduce spending to 2008 levels. Romney proposes to cut spending back to 20 percent of GDP (from its high last year of 24.3 percent) by the end of his first term. In spite of Obama’s claims in the debates and on the campaign trail, Romney does provide specifics. You can find the details of his plan on his website.

Romney’s economic plan is based on history. Tax rate cuts have led to economic growth at several points in U.S. history, most famously under John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Higher taxes and higher government spending has the opposite effect. These policies led to the Great Depression and the stagflation of the 1970s. The same is true in other countries as well. When Ireland cut its taxes and government, it went from one of the poorest nations in Europe to one of the most successful. When Japan tried to stimulate its way out of a recession it led to a “Lost Decade.”

Romney is also the anti-Obama on many social issues. Where President Obama negotiated a UN small arms treaty that threatens American Second Amendment rights, Mitt Romney promises to respect the rights of gun owners and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association. Where Obama presided over the erosion of religious freedom, Romney has a long record of supporting religious liberty. Where President Obama is out of the closet as a supporter of same-sex marriage, Romney favors an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Noted evangelist Billy Graham told Mitt Romney, “I’ll do all I can to help you. And you can quote me on that” according to the Washington Post. Graham also took out several full page newspaper ads urging voters “to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the Biblical definition of marriage….”“

The second reason to vote for Mitt Romney is his choice of running mate. Paul Ryan is the most serious reformer in Congress. Ryan is the only person of either party to put forth a credible plan for saving Medicare and balancing the budget. Ryan’s plan, the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” preserves Medicare and Social Security in their current form for seniors while giving younger Americans more choice in their health care and retirement planning. Ryan’s plan also does not raise taxes. By choosing Paul Ryan to be his vice president, Mitt Romney showed that he is serious about reforming the federal government.

Third, a recent Pew poll profiled in the Los Angeles Times indicates that a majority of Americans feel that Iran is a major threat and want the United States to take a “firm stand.” President Obama and Vice President Biden don’t seem to take the threat seriously. In the vice presidential debate, Biden said that he wasn’t worried about an Iranian nuclear weapon because “they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point.” The Wall Street Journal points out that building a weapon is the easy part. Iran is currently working on the hard part: amassing enough enriched uranium to explode one or several nuclear bombs. The Obama Administration resisted sanctions and issued waivers to Iran’s largest trading partners including China. Under Obama’s watch, Iran’s rate of enrichment has tripled according to the Washington Post.

As he made clear in the foreign policy debate, Mitt Romney wants peace not war, but realizes the danger to the United States that a nuclear Iran poses. Romney would make the sanctions even tougher, although time for sanctions to work is rapidly slipping away. Romney also pledges to support the Iranian opposition, noting on his website that President Obama missed the opportunity to support Iran’s Green Revolution in 2009. Romney says on his website, “Only if Iran understands that the United States is utterly determined when we say that their nuclear weapons program is unacceptable is there a possibility that they will give up their nuclear aspirations peacefully.”

Fourth, voters should not be concerned about the fictitious war on women that the Democrats allege that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are engaged in. In reality, the president does not have the power to end abortion, no matter how much he opposes it. In reality, no one has proposed banning contraception. In reality, the Democratic position is that taxpayers and employers should be forced to pay for contraceptive and abortifacient drugs, regardless of whether they want them or not. The issue isn’t the freedom to use contraceptives; the issue is the freedom to not purchase them.

The fifth reason to vote for Mitt Romney is because he isn’t a wild eyed, out-of-touch radical as the Democrats have led voters to believe. As Americans saw in the three debates, he is an intelligent, personable man with a command of the facts and issues that confront the United States. He is generous, having donated nearly 30 percent of his income to charity in 2011 according to the Wall Street Journal. His record in business and as governor of Massachusetts is one of building teams and getting things done.

When Americans go the polls on Nov. 6, they have a real choice. The two candidates differ on almost every issue. Americans must choose between a return to the policies that made the United States an economic powerhouse and the envy of the world or a continuation of the Obama Administration policies of the past four years. Choosing President Obama might very well lead to an American Lost Decade and a loss of liberty as well.

See reasons to NOT vote for Barack Obama

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-you-should-vote-for-mitt-romney

Obama vs. Bush

In the campaign for his re-election, President Obama often points to the fact that the country was in a deep recession when he took office. Obama’s reasoning is that the country was in such a dreadful state in 2008 that it is taking much longer than he originally thought to restore it to prosperity.

It can be instructive to look at the results of the policies of both President Bush and President Obama and compare them side by side. One common criticism of President Obama is his administration’s spending habits. When he recently claimed that “Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” CNS News and many other outlets fact checked the claim and found it to be untrue. In fact, a chart from USgovernmentspending.com shows that, as a percentage of GDP, President Obama’s spending is at a higher level than at any other time in our history except World War II. While spending did increase slowly under most of George W. Bush’s tenure, it was only in 2008, when TARP was enacted, that it jumped sharply.

A closer look shows that, according to figures from the Tax Policy Center, President Bush ran a deficit for all but the first year of his administration. As a percentage of GDP, Bush’s average deficit was about 2 percent. In dollars, Bush averaged deficits of about $251 billion per year. In contrast, in President Obama’s three years, he has averaged deficits of more than nine percent. In each year of his administration, the federal deficit has been more than $1 trillion. Obama’s average deficit in dollars was $1.33 trillion.

When viewing the data from the Tax Policy Center, it is easy to see why deficits increased so rapidly under President Obama. Even as President Obama was increasing federal spending with his various attempts at stimulus, tax revenues were falling due to the recession. Since spending increased at the same time that the government was taking in less money, the difference had to be made up in borrowing.

Borrowing leads to an increasing federal debt. It is true that the debt increased dramatically under George W. Bush. On January 1, 2001, just before President Bush took office, the federal debt stood at $5.6 trillion according to U.S. Treasury figures. When he left office on January 20, 2009, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion, an increase of almost five trillion dollars. As of June 1, 2012, the federal debt was at $15.7 trillion, an increase of $5.1 trillion. The federal debt has increased by as much under President Obama in three years as it did under Bush in eight. CNS News noted in October 2011 that President Obama had added more debt than all other presidents from George Washington to George Herbert Walker Bush.

The difference is even more stark if the election of 2006 is considered to be the dividing line. In 2006, Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. At the beginning of 2007, as the new Democrats took office, the debt was at $8.6 trillion, which means that three trillion dollars was amassed by President Bush and congressional Republicans. It also means that a staggering $7.1 trillion was borrowed by the Democrats from 2007 through 2012. A chart from USgovernmentspending.com illustrates how radically government spending increased after 2006, when Senator Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi assumed control of Congress.

Democrats argue that deficit spending was needed to combat the 2008 recession, but what did taxpayers get for their money? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment averaged 5.26 percent during the Bush years. The average during the Obama years was 9.26 percent.

Even more telling is the fact that the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate, the percentage of Americans working, has declined from 67.2 percent in January 2001 to 65.7 in January 2009 and to 63.8 percent in May 2012. According to Multpl.com, the U.S. population increased in each of those years, from 285 million in 2001 to 306 million in 2009. The U.S. population now stands at 313 million according to the U.S. Census. This means that fewer total Americans are working now than when President Obama took office even though the population has increased by 7 million. When President Bush left office 20.1 million Americans were working. Today only 19.9 million are in spite of a population growth of seven million.

Even though the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009, five months into Obama’s presidency and three years ago, the economy and the job markets have not recovered. By many measures, the economy is worse today than it was three years ago. The Federal Reserve announced last week that American wealth had decreased by 40 percent between 2007 and 2011. Home prices, which crashed in 2008, have not recovered and continue to decline in many markets. The Wall St. Journal reports that economists are “increasingly pessimistic” and more are predicting that the stagnant recovery will turn into another recession.

Foreign policy was an area where President Bush faced intense criticism. The 9/11 attacks, along with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were the defining events of his time in office. President Obama campaigned against the wars and Bush policies such as the detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Three years later, the prison there remains open. Many leftists decried Bush’s “illegal wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan even though he sought and obtained congressional approval. President Obama did not notify Congress or seek approval before intervening in Libya.

In fact, Obama has quietly adopted a defense policy that is similar to that of President Bush. Perhaps the biggest difference is George W. Bush’s policy of capturing and interrogating terrorists where Obama primarily targets them from afar with drones. Obama’s personal involvement in targeting terrorists is reminiscent of President Lyndon Johnson’s personal involvement in selecting targets – and placing others off limits - during the Vietnam War. Obama did remove all but a token force of U.S. troops from Iraq, but American forces remain in Afghanistan. Perhaps this, along with his reluctance to embrace uprisings in Muslim countries, is why many Arab countries have an even more negative view of the United States under Obama than they did under President Bush according to Pew Global.

With respect to Iran, President Obama’s record is mixed. Obama resisted toughening sanctions on Iran until he was mandated by Congress. Obama also continued Bush’s program of cyber attacks against the Iranian nuclear program, but leaks from his administration detailing these and other intelligence matters have hurt U.S. interests. Breaches of security from the administration may have led to the life sentence for treason of Shakil Afridi, a doctor in Pakistan who helped the CIA determine bin Laden’s location.

Perhaps the greatest missed opportunity of the Obama era was the president’s failure to capitalize on the 2009 Green Revolution uprising in Iran. A secret memo obtained by the Washington Examiner reveals that leaders of the dissidents had requested American help in toppling the regime. President Obama failed to act and, as a result, the Iranian government is growing ever closer to becoming a nuclear power.

President Obama’s greatest triumph, foreign policy or domestic, was undoubtedly the killing of Osama bin Laden, yet if Obama had his way the programs that generated much of the intelligence that led to bin Laden’s whereabouts would have been closed down years ago. As Real Clear Politics explains, the enhanced interrogation techniques used during the Bush Administration uncovered much of the intelligence that led to bin Laden. Obama should get credit for issuing the order to attack, but President Bush should also get credit for making the attack possible.

Liberals charge that Bush’s defense and war spending is what led to the massive federal debt. A chart from USgovernmentspending.com does show that defense spending in total dollars increased under President Bush, but it has also continued to increase under President Obama. However, between 2002 and 2008, defense spending as a percentage of GDP remained between four and five percent under President Bush. Total defense dollars and defense spending as a percentage of GDP both increased under President Obama. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, defense spending makes up 20 percent of the federal budget and is dwarfed by Social Security, Medicare, other safety net programs and interest on the federal debt, which together account for 60 percent of the budget.

As Americans head to the polls this November, President Obama is unlikely to ask, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” as President Reagan famously did in 1984. Three years after the official end of the Great Recession, President Obama and his policies deserve the blame for the lack of recovery. Obama has yet to offer any new tactic that has not been tried previously without success. On foreign policy, Obama’s position has evolved, but he has displayed little desire to take strong and decisive action, resulting in many missed opportunities.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

2012 voter guide: Rick Perry

Campaign Website: RickPerry.org
Supporting PAC: makeusgreatagain.com
Ga. Website: Georgians for Rick Perry on Facebook

Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. Read a full biography of Rick Perry by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner here.

Taxes: Perry favors an optional 20 percent flat tax that can be filled out on a postcard. He would eliminate the capital gains and death taxes, as well as the tax on Social Security benefits. He would reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent and tax repatriated profits at a reduced rate.

Economy: Perry would help encourage growth by reducing federal regulation and taxes. He believes that his energy plan would create millions of new jobs.

Obamacare: Perry would repeal Obamacare.

Energy: Perry would open up federal lands to exploration and streamline the permitting process for oil drilling. He would eliminate many of the Obama Administration’s EPA regulations and return environmental authority to the states. He would remove federal subsidies and loans for politically favored companies. Perry favors eliminating the Department of Energy.

Life: Rick Perry is pro-life and has a record of passing pro-life legislation.

Iran: Rick Perry believes that a nuclear-armed Iran is threat to the U.S. He believes that the U.S. should act with its allies to revisit the options for dealing with Iran that President Obama has taken off the table, including tougher sanctions and a military strike.

Immigration: Perry supports secure borders and would deploy the National Guard to border areas. He supports expedited construction of border fencing.
National Security: Perry believes that a strong economy is vital to national security. He believes that the proposed Obama Administration cuts to the defense budget are irresponsible. (CBS News)

Spending: Perry would cap federal spending at 18 percent of GDP and reduce non-defense discretionary spending by $100 billion in the first year. He favors a balanced budget amendment that does not raise taxes.

Entitlements: Perry favors the reform of Social Security and Medicare.

Second Amendment: Perry believes that the second amendment is an individual right and supports the right to carry.

Gay Marriage: Perry supports traditional marriage and a federal marriage amendment.

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.


Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-rick-perry

2012 voter guide: Jon Huntsman

Campaign Website: jon2012.com
Supporting PAC: ourdestinypac.com
Ga. Website: Georgia for Jon Huntsman Jr. on Facebook

Jon Huntsman is a former governor of Utah and U.S. ambassador to China. He is an experienced businessman, having served as an officer in his family businesses. Read a full biography of Jon Huntsman by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner here.

Taxes: Huntsman supports a version of the Bowles-Simpson commission’s “zero plan.” He favors a revenue-neutral plan that replaces current individual tax rates with three new rates: 8, 14, and 23 percent. In exchange for lower rates, all tax deductions and credits would be eliminated. Huntsman would reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent and eliminate the capital gains and dividends taxes. He would also eliminate taxes on repatriated profits.

Economy: Huntsman proposes regulatory reform that would repeal Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, rein in the EPA, and improve the cost-benefit ratio of future regulation. He supports free trade and would pursue new trade opportunities, especially in the Pacific Rim.

Obamacare: Huntsman favors the repeal of Obamacare.

Energy: Huntsman supports the safe use of fracking and conversion of coal to liquid fuel. He believes that the importation of Canadian oil can help the U.S. reduce its dependency on unfriendly nations. He would remove roadblocks to the development of American natural gas fields. Additionally, Huntsman favors the modernization of the electrical grid with an eye toward the increased use of electric vehicles in the future.

Life: Huntsman is pro-life. He would reinstate the Mexico City policy and veto a budget that funded Planned Parenthood. He opposes most embryonic stem cell research, but would allow the use of discarded embryos. (lifenews.com)

Iran: Huntsman said, “"I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that." (Politico)
Immigration: Huntsman supports “a pathway out from the shadows” for illegal immigrants. He personally does not like the idea of a border fence, but says that one is necessary. (the politicalguide.com)

National Security: Huntsman believes that the U.S. has made great accomplishments in the war on terror, but that “mission has evolved into an ill-advised counterinsurgency campaign which continues to carry heavy costs in terms of blood and treasure.” He believes that the core of the military needs to be rebuilt after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continually modernized. He believes that counter-terrorism needs to become more flexible and that preventing WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists should be a primary goal.

Spending: Huntsman favors spending cuts and is favor of a balanced budget amendment. He believes that the current level of debt is a threat to national security. He believes that some defense cuts are necessary as well.

Entitlements: Huntsman favors entitlement reform along the lines of Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal for Medicare, which do not cut benefits for current seniors. He believes that nothing is off the table to reform Social Security, including means testing. (Wall St. Journal, thepoliticalguide.com)
Second Amendment: Huntsman supports gun rights and is viewed positively by the NRA. (2012.republican-candidates.org)

Gay Marriage: Huntsman supported civil unions as a governor of Utah, but he does believe that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. (thepoliticalguide.com)

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-jon-huntsman

2012 voter guide: Newt Gingrich

Campaign website: newt.org
Supporting PAC: winningourfuture.com
Ga. website: newt.org/states/georgia

 Biography:  Gingrich is a former Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia.  Read his full biography by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner here.

Taxes: Newt Gingrich would make the low Bush-era tax rates permanent. He would also create an optional flat tax with a 15 percent rate. This tax would preserve the home mortgage interest and charitable deductions, as well as establishing a $12,000 standard deduction.
Economy: Gingrich would encourage job creation by repealing cumbersome regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, the Dodd-Frank finance law, and the Community Reinvestment Act. He would replace the EPA with an “Environmental Solutions Agency” that works closely with local governments. Gingrich would like to break up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to eliminate their implicit government backing.
Obamacare: Newt Gingrich would repeal Obamacare. He favors tax credits, health savings accounts, and the sale of health insurance across state lines. Gingrich would set up a high risk pool to cover sick people who would otherwise be uninsurable. He would prohibit insurance companies from canceling policies or raising rates due to sickness. Gingrich believes that an electronic health records system could prevent fraud. He favors tort reform and government investment in “research for health solutions.” He would reform the FDA to speed new treatments.
Energy: Gingrich favors development of American energy sources including shale oil and offshore drilling. He would finance clean energy research with oil and gas royalties. Gingrich would replace the EPA with an “Environmental Solutions Agency” which would use incentives and cooperation with local governments and industry and consider the economic impact of environmental regulation.
Iran: Gingrich believes that the U.S. should consider a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program “as a last recourse, and only as a step toward replacing the regime." (Wall St. Journal)
Immigration: Gingrich favors secure borders. He would reform the immigration process and give precedence to those adhere to the law, but would also create a path to legalize illegal immigrants who have deep ties to the U.S. He would encourage investment and legal immigration. Gingrich would allow noncitizens to earn U.S. citizenship through military service. He believes that English should be the official language.
National Security: Gingrich says, “Military force must be used judiciously and with clear, obtainable objectives understood by Congress.” He would try to understand our enemies and build a grand, unified strategy to fight the terrorists. He would create a plan to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and incentivize math and science education to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in technology.
Spending: Gingrich presided over the House of Representatives when Congress balanced the budget in the 1990s. He has signed a pledge to “cut, cap, and balance.” (thepoliticalguide.com)
Entitlements: Gingrich has released a comprehensive plan to reform entitlements. He favors allowing young workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts based on a successful program in Chile. He would use block grants to the states to make welfare and Medicaid more efficient. Gingrich’s plan would reduce federal spending by 10 percent GDP when fully implemented. (Forbes)
Second Amendment: Gingrich believes in an individual right to keep and bear arms. He is a Life Member of the NRA and has earned an NRA A+ rating.
Gay Marriage: Gingrich believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and that same-sex marriage is “a temporary aberration that will dissipate.” (Yahoo)
Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

2012 voter guide: Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum recently gained notoriety as the second place winner of the Iowa caucuses. Santorum is a lawyer and former U.S. Senator representing Pennsylvania. Read a full biography of Santorum by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: ricksantorum.com

Supporting PAC: Red, White and Blue Fund (rwbfund.com)

Ga. website: fundly.com/georgiaforsantorum

Taxes: Rick Santorum would simplify personal income taxes by establishing two lower rates: 10 and 28 percent. He would reduce corporate taxes to 17.5 percent (from 35 percent) and eliminate the tax on repatriated income. He would eliminate the death tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Santorum would also increase a variety of tax credits and deductions.

Economy: Santorum would repeal all Obama-era legislation that costs more than $100 million to implement. He also promises to negotiate five free trade agreements in his first year. Santorum favors tort reform and would approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Santorum also supports an audit of the Federal Reserve and a return to its original charter in which its sole purpose is to manage inflation.

Obamacare: Santorum would repeal Obamacare. He favors health savings accounts and giving Americans the option to purchase low cost, high deductible major medical plans. He would like to increase competition to lower costs, along with allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines. He would give a tax credit for health insurance premiums paid by individuals. Santorum would enact tort reform to cut costs and give Medicare block grants to the states.

Energy: Santorum opposes cap-and-trade and believes that ethanol subsidies should be phased out. He believes that the U.S. needs an “all of the above energy policy that utilizes oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy.” He would remove government roadblocks to domestic oil exploration. (thepoliticalguide.com)

Life: Santorum opposes abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and human cloning. He supports stem cell research that uses non-controversial methods and does not destroy human embryos. He supports religious freedom and opposes discrimination on the basis of opposition to abortion.

Iran: Santorum would support the Iranian democracy movement and work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat, using military force if necessary. He would use sanctions and diplomatic pressure against the Iranian regime. He would work to implement a missile defense system and defend against an EMP attack. He would also put pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah and recall the U.S. ambassador to Syria.

Immigration: Santorum supports comprehensive immigration reform including a border fence and eliminating benefits to illegal immigrants. He does believe that immigrants already in the U.S. must be dealt with separately. Santorum would make English the official U.S. language. (thepoliticalguide.com)

National Security: Santorum favors a missile defense system and protection against EMP attacks. He opposes cuts to the defense budget, but would work to eliminate waste. He cites the need to have U.S. bases around the world in order to fight the War on Terror. While in the Senate, Santorum had a pro-military voting record. (ontheissues.org)

Spending: Santorum would cut $5 trillion in five years and immediately cut non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels. He favors a balanced budget amendment that would cap spending at 18 percent of GDP. He would cut the federal workforce by 10 percent and freeze non-defense salaries for four years. He would reduce foreign aid and his website specifies a number of government programs and subsidies that he would cut or eliminate.

Entitlements: Santorum favors the Paul Ryan plan to reform Medicare while preserving current benefits for seniors. He would reform Social Security to put the program on a sustainable path. He would use block grants to empower the states to find more efficient Medicare and welfare solutions.

Second Amendment: Santorum is a supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms and has received high ratings from the NRA and other gun groups.

Gay Marriage: Santorum is a supporter of traditional marriage. He also authored the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act” to ensure individuals of all faiths could not be discriminated against while on the job.

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-rick-santorum

2012 voter guide: Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts. He was the head of Bain Capital, an investment firm that bought troubled companies, and also managed the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. Read a full biography of Romney by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: mittromney.com

Supporting PAC: restoreourfuture.com

Ga. website: gaformitt.com

2008 Ga. results: 30.2 percent/third place (RCP)

Latest 2012 Ga. poll: 15 percent/second place (RCP)

Taxes: Mitt Romney would maintain current tax rates on personal income and capital gains. He would eliminate the death, capital gains, interest and dividend taxes for taxpayers with an AGI of under $200,000. He would reduce corporate tax rates to 25 percent (from 35 percent currently) and push for a complete overhaul of the tax system.

Obamacare: Romney favors a repeal of Obamacare.

Energy: Romney would amend regulation to allow expedited approval of resource development projects, including nuclear plants. He would open America’s energy reserves for development, including shale oil and gas. Romney supports the construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the U.S. Romney believes that the government should not be involved in “steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches,” but should limit its funding to basic research.

Life: Romney’s website does not address abortion or other life issues. He is formerly pro-abortion, but says that he had come to believe abortion was immoral before his first presidential run in 2008. His record on abortion is mixed. Romneycare, the Massachusetts health plan, covers abortion, but it did not do so in the original legislation. In a veto message regarding an emergency contraception bill, Romney cited his belief that life begins at fertilization and his support for parental consent laws. (aboutmittromney.com, prolifeprofiles.com, Factcheck.org)

Iran: Mitt Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he would back up American diplomacy with a “very real and very credible military option.” He states explicitly that he will act with U.S. allies to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Immigration: Romney supports the right of states to restrict illegal immigration. He would veto the DREAM Act and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. He supports secure borders. (Fox News)

National Security: Romney believes that military spending should be increased to four percent of GDP and would increase the active duty work force by 10,000. He would pursue military, nonmilitary and diplomatic avenues against the jihadists. He believes that the FBI should have the power to wiretap mosques and investigate suspected domestic terrorists. He regrets not having served in the military. (boston.com, 2012.republican-candidates.org)

Spending: Mitt Romney believes that “we have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in.” He would end deficit spending and work toward a balanced budget. He would have the federal government publish a balance sheet each year.

Entitlements: Mitt Romney would reform entitlements as a path toward balancing the federal budget. Romney will not cut benefits for current retirees.

Second Amendment: Romney supported gun control while governor of Massachusetts. He became a life member of the NRA in 2007. He now opposes a nationwide “assault weapons” ban and supports the second amendment as an individual right. (thepoliticalguide.com)

Gay marriage: Mitt Romney opposes gay marriage, but has stated his opposition to discrimination against homosexuals in the past. (LA Times)

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-mitt-romney