Thursday, October 27, 2011·
Barack Hussein Obama is in full campaign mode (not that he's been in any other mode since 2008). Summarizing his 2012 re-election bid at a recent Hollywood fundraiser, Obama said, "This election will not be as sexy as the first one. We've got to grind it out a little bit. We've got to grind it out. I'm going to keep on pushing."
The regrettable double entendres aside, what Obama was trying to say is, given the abject failures of his policies to restore our economy, his re-election campaign will be difficult. But make no mistake: Obama kept his promise about "fundamentally transforming the United States of America." He has broken the back of free enterprise and consequently, seeds of discontent are sprouting in urban centers across the nation in support of his vision for Democratic Socialism.
Of course, history records that the terminus of Socialist ideology, whether it be the Marxist, Nationalist or Democratic variety, is tyranny. Therefore, this election cycle is about much more than bantering back and forth on matters of policy. It is, at its core, about the future of Liberty defended by our Founders at the dawn of our Republic.
In 2010, the "Tea Party Movement," a term used to describe the national grassroots body of outspoken and articulate constitutional activists, emerged to restore a Republican majority in the House.
To put it simply, the Tea Party stopped Obama's agenda from moving forward; they did so by mobilizing a conservative electorate that, last November, put a congressional restraining order on this president and his destructive policies. The 2012 presidential and congressional elections, however, must build upon that resounding conservative victory in order to reverse the socialist agenda.
To that end, next year's presidential campaign will dominate the national debate and will ultimately determine whether Obama's failed statist propositions will be rejected and free enterprise restored.
The critical question for conservatives is, who best to lead that debate? In the interest of restoring free enterprise and our national economy, which in turn will provide the opportunity to further reinvigorate the principles of Essential Liberty, we offer the following "pro and con" assessment of the current field of GOP presidential candidates, each of whom will be assigned a "Patriot Rating."
Now, "pros" could be understood to mean "professionals" and "cons" could mean deceivers. In that context, there are indeed pro and con elements within some of the GOP candidates' platforms. However, our pro and con appraisals are in the context of exposing the good, bad and ugly of all candidates, as reflected by their records and platforms.
Our list of candidate pros and cons is compiled from responses to a questionnaire sent to our editors and members of our National Advisory Committee, and the responses posted are those which occurred most frequently.
Additionally, we have assigned all candidates a Patriot Rating based on comprehensive analysis of many factors. Among these are their record, experience, capability, character, leadership qualifications and, of course, a demonstrated ability to abide by their prescribed oath "to support and defend" our Constitution. We evaluate their record of defending Essential Liberty, and their support for restoration of constitutional limits upon government -- including the judiciary -- the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. The rating is from 1 to 10, the higher the better.
In short, our Patriot Rating reflects each candidate's ability to reignite the Conservative Revolution launched by Ronald Reagan in 1980. Notably, we do not rate candidates on "electability," as that is often a reflection of Leftmedia propaganda. Nor is a candidate's Patriot Rating based solely on the "pros and cons," which are just collected observations.
Many voters support candidates on the basis of one or two platform issues. However, our Patriot Rating is based upon a broad profile for each candidate, which is to say that if your favored candidate did not score as highly as you anticipated, it is likely because of platform issues or qualifications we assessed in addition to those on which you base your support.
If we could combine the best qualities of all candidates into one, the 2012 election would be won. Strategically, the number of constituencies represented by the GOP slate should coalesce, at the end of the primary, in support of one candidate. If that coalition holds, Obama will be defeated.
Suffice it to say that every GOP candidate has, in our assessment, more ability than Obama, who has yet to demonstrate any real skill beyond that of a smooth-talking "community organizer." (As one of our respondents noted, "If the choice was between Obama and a mushroom, I would choose the latter.")
Obama, however, controls a loyal constituency that will support him regardless of mitigating factors, and in the next election as with the last, his deceptive charisma will make up for his aptitude deficit. Those factors, combined with the unfortunate fact that GOP contenders continue to hack away at each other rather than at Obama, constitute Obama's greatest re-election assets.