Mourdock's comments represent a growing problem for my party

First there was Craig, then there was Vitter. Who was followed by Akin, now supported by Mourdock.

Craig and Vitter broke the law. Senate candidates Akin and Mourdock have an apparent sympathy for rape.

Taken together, these scandals speak to a serious and growing problem for the Republican Party.

While our party has many impressive, honorable national leaders - Romney-Ryan, Boehner, McCain, Portman etc, we also have a minority of officials who fall below the standards deserving of the American people. The problem here isn't just Craig/Vitter style ethics violations- the Democrats have their own affinity for electing representatives of flexible integrity - Jefferson, Rangel, Jackson Jnr, Calvert providing a few examples. Instead for the GOP, the deeper problem is the manner in which a small but substantial number of Republican candidates/officials are left un-restrained to purvey our party as a perceived bastion of hypocrisy and fundamentalism.

            First, where does the GOP's perception failure come from? To start, let's consider the examples above. Senators Craig and Vitter subscribed to aggressive government measures to restrict law abiding homosexuals from greater rights. These same officials then engaged in criminal personal conduct. The perceptive implication stemming from these highly publicized scandals was all too clear; that Republicans believe in utterly hypocritical intrusions into the private lives of law abiding Americans. Sadly, Craig and Vitter are far from lone examples. If this was simply an issue of hypocrisy, it could be written off as the result of a raw pursuit for votes. But then, we also have candidates Rick Santorum. In contrast to some, I believe that Rick Santorum is a decent, honorable man who means well for his country - I believe he is misguided but not without integrity. However, what is unquestionable is that Santorum subscribes to an extreme and highly aggressive understanding of state-individual interactions. Thus, where Craig and Vitter are simple hypocrites, Santorum is a committed fundamentalist. All found (and find) places at the highest levels of the Republican Party.

The central problem for the Republican Party is therefore clear-

In this apparent mixing of stunning hypocrisy and un-repentant fundamentalism, the GOP appears to many Americans as a faux moral police. A party more interested in restricting gay rights than increasing individual freedoms. More interested in lecturing and litigating against certain Americans than responding to their concerns. More interested in winning elections than serving Lincoln's enduring cause of social justice. As I have noted, I believe this perception is ultimately unfair. I know that the vast majority of Republican officials care far more about the economy than they do about gay sex. However in politics, perception is as important as reality. And it is evident that for many Americans, perceptions of the GOP are not good.

At the moment, this perception-dynamic has some political insulation. The social conservative movement offers political candidates a well organized and highly reliable voting block. However in the longer term, the impact of our fundamentalist flirtation will be far less positive. In appearing to stand for both the protection of individual freedom and the simultaneous restriction of individual freedom, too many Americans are coming to believe that Republicans are their enemy. Too many Americans, whether hispanics, women, homosexuals or others, believe that the Republican Party regards them as second class citizens. Again, while I do not believe that this perception accurately reflects reality, the fact that it exists at all should be of great concern to Republicans concerned about future electoral success. When it's personal, voters tend to remember.

As the social conservative movement increasingly cedes supporters to growing currents of libertarian social tolerance, the Republican Party will face a challenge in persuading voters to alter their perceptions of our party. In this regard, statements by Mourdock and co. will have a lasting, negative impact for the future of the GOP. 

For the sake of our identity and our political future, Republicans must more actively condemn those who celebrate the fringe of American politics.

Biden BS

In a message directed at Mitt Romney, Biden says: Governor - you cant run from the truth, your record or your policies.
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) October 23, 2012

Typical absurdity from Vice President Biden. He simply doesn't get the stunning hypocrisy that characterizes nearly every statement that he makes. Obama-Biden love running from the truth (Benghazi), have no record (just check the last four years) and have no affordable policy suggestions for a second term (money doesn't grow on trees). It's a sad joke.

Debate 3# - Analysis

I believe that Mitt Romney won last night's debate.

 I make this assessment on the basis of what each candidate had set out to achieve before the debate began and the manner by which Romney successfully pursued his particular objectives. For Romney, the objectives were clear. 1) Increase his likeability numbers with the American people. 2) Increase the comfort level that American voters have with him re-foreign policy (can he take the 3AM call etc.) but also re-domestic policy 3) Provide a final attack on the President's record over the past four years. 

         On each of these counts, Romney succeeded. Where the President appeared angry and at times highly condescending, Romney appeared composed and at times even complementary. On the big issues - China, Iran, Russia and terrorism, Romney came across as assured of what he would do as President. Romney ended the debate on an especially strong note, issuing a stinging rebuke of the President's first term and then following that rebuke by delivering a warm, confident closing appeal to American voters.

I felt that the President came across as far too angry and condescending. He made some especially idiotic remarks with reference to the US Military. For example when he responded to Romney's Navy ship numbers comment by saying that the US also doesn't use 'horses' and that 'we have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines'. Obama obviously forgot about the use of horses as an instrumental tool for our Special Forces during the opening stages of operations in Afghanistan. I also thought the President was out of line when he said that he was happy Romney viewed Al Qa'ida as a threat. These were silly statements.

Ultimately, I believe that the opinion polls will continue to trend in Romney's favor. The former Governor showed that he has a grasp of the issues, a clear foreign policy agenda and a comfortable demeanor that will enable him to be an effective President. Once again, he asserted a positive contrast to the angry, record redundant President. The tightening polls show that voters are crying out for a change that they can believe in. 

Mitt Romney has showed and is showing that he represents that change.

PS- For a more in depth look at my reasons for supporting Romney's foreign policy, check out my latest op/ed for The Daily Caller

Latest Daily Caller op/ed

My latest piece for The Daily Caller, 'When it comes to foreign policy, Romney gets my vote'

Iran Talks?

It appears that the Obama Administration is planning to talk to Iran if the President is re-elected in November. Of course, the Obama Administration is now denying that the reports are true. I don't believe them.

 I have no problem with any President discussing Iran's nuclear program in one on one talks. However, I would add two caveats to that. First, that the President or his representatives go into the discussion with the understanding that no sanctions are lifted or delayed until Iran accepts full, verifiable inspections of an ended nuclear program. Two, that there is clarity on the part of the President that Iran has a long record of using negotiations as a tool to buy time and divide alliances against them. Iran last tried this in February 2012. It was a joke then and it is probably a joke now. But... the cause of peace and the horror of war demand that we extinguish all diplomatic avenues before resorting to the use of force. Let me emphasize again - no concessions until a full solution is reached.

Beirut Explosion

The bombing in Beirut earlier today is a firm reminder of the intense political dynamics that are at contest in Lebanon and Syria. A contest in which Syria-Iran-Hizballah are at war with regional forces of liberation. I believe that today's attack was carried out by agents of the Syrian government and perhaps also with the co-ordination or support of the Lebanese Hizballah. While I have no specific evidence to back up this assertion, I would point to a number of indicators. Also some analysis...

1) The attack took place in a predominantly Christian neighborhood of eastern Beirut and killed a senior Lebanese civil servant who was an outspoken critic of the Assad regime. In addition, Assad has previously warned that he would seek to push the conflict in Syria into a broadened external struggle.

2) Syria and Hizballah have a clear track record of support for violence against those who challenge their political power. This has involved recent, previous attacks on both major Lebanese officials and foreign entities. Iran also shares this preference for using covert force against those who oppose them.

3) Hizballah is increasingly concerned by the serious damage that their continued support for Assad is inflicting on their broader ideational legitimacy. Instigating further currents of regional instability (as today's attack would suggest) offers Hizballah a method by which they believe that they can distract world attention. I would argue that Hizballah's recent UAV flight over Israel provides another timely example of this dynamic. I have previously suggested that Hizballah would begin to abandon Assad once they came to believe that his regime was doomed. While I expected that this would have occurred before now, I remain confident of that belief. Ultimately, it is my opinion that Hizballah still believes that Assad can be saved. If evidence shows that today's attack (and the future instability that it foreshadows) is linked to Syria, it should serve to re-emphasize the need for the United States to take more concrete action to help Syrians liberate their country.

4) Faced with the EU tightened oil sanctions last week and Iran's continuing economic implosion, I believe (as I have previously argued) that Iran is likely to respond with more acts of aggression in the near future. Again, the United States must be prepared to respond to any attacks that take place.

Latest Polling Data Analysis

My internet now appears to be fixed.

The latest polling data is a mixed bag. However, I think the trends remain firmly in Romney's favor (even if the President remains the overall slight favorite). 

I have a number of observations.

1) The second Presidential debate does not seem to have stopped Romney's ascent in the polls. I think that there is a critical reason for this. While Obama may be seen as the slight winner of the debate, Romney has been able to establish a firm position as the better candidate on the deficit, debt and unemployment/the economy. Crucially also, as I predicted, Romney's likability ratings are now level or greater than the President's. Put simply, winning a debate is not the same as winning the debate.

2) Romney must secure either Wisconsin or Ohio in order to win the election. Using this site you can see the prospective effect of variable state wins on the larger electoral college. Using this site you can see the polling data for each state (hovering over a state will show you the latest polling data, while clicking on a state will show you trend polling). Taken together, the two websites paint a very interesting polling picture. Having seen other polling data in addition to these two websites, I believe that Romney now holds increasingly firm leads in Florida, North Carolina and Colorado. I also believe that Romney has slight but statistically significant leads in Virginia and New Hampshire. However, the President remains ahead in Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio (albeit by 2 point margins). Because of the electoral college points available, Romney must win either Ohio or Wisconsin. So expect his campaign to allocate a huge amount of final resources to those states in the coming days.

3) The final debate on Monday night will be crucial. Voter interest in this year's debates has been unusually high, so both candidates still have a major opportunity to persuade the last undecided voters to come into their corners. Romney needs to slightly adapt his second debate game plan for the final debate. First, he needs to be more aggressive with the President. When the President starts misrepresenting him, Romney needs to say 'Mr. President, these kind of deliberate untruths are unbecoming of your office.' Second, Romney needs to focus his argument on 'jobs, deficit and debt' - the key issues at stake. Obama has 0 record on these issues and is extremely weak in his available defenses. Third, as the final debate is focused on foreign policy, Romney must point out the Administration's continuing absurdity on Benghazi as an indication of their larger foreign policy confusion. The Obama Administration tried to misrepresent the attack as a mob incident, so as to avoid the negative domestic political fallout of successful terrorist attack on their watch. The President neglected his intelligence briefings in the run up to, as well as (and extraordinarily) in the aftermath of the attack. I have previously written more in depth about why I believe Obama's foreign policy is weak.

2nd Debate - Thoughts

My broadband has gone completely crazy today. I am trying to sort it out. Briefly (before my internet cancels out) I will outline my thoughts on last night.

1) Obama did much better - obviously. However, Romney also had a strong performance.

2) Because he doesn't have a record worthy of praise- Obama is trying to paint Romney as an extremist. 'Hope and Change' are long forgotten slogans. President Obama's 2012 slogan is 'Demagoguery and Fear'.

3) While the President is viewed to have won the debate (by slight margins), CBS polling shows that undecided voters believe (following the debate) that Romney is in a far stronger position to resolve the challenges with reference to deficit, debt and economy.

4) Obama was not honest on Benghazi. The Benghazi incident and the Obama Administration's response stink. I have written about why, here and here.

5) The election will be exceptionally close.

Debate #2

Tonight's second presidential debate will be centered around a town hall format. Both candidates have major objectives to pursue.

For Romney, the key will be to continue to shine a light on the President's record. Romney has the momentum in the race but he still needs to close Obama's lead in Ohio. By attacking the President on policy, providing his alternate proposals and maintaining a calm, friendly demeanor, I believe that Romney can win. 

For the President, the key is to provide a better performance. I expect Obama will be far more aggressive and will attempt to go after Romney's record at Bain etc. He will try to paint Romney as a candidate who is fundamentally divorced from the middle class.

          Personally, I think the President is going to have another tough night (though probably not as tough as the first debate). I believe that Romney has the facts on his side and Obama has only a record of failure/a distinct lack of new ideas. Further, I seriously doubt that if the President attempts to wage a class warfare based attack on Romney he will be successful. In fact, I believe that Romney would relish the opportunity to have that discussion. As a final point, the town hall setting for tonight's debate will make it difficult for either candidate to be too aggressive. 

It's a big night. If Romney achieves another convincing win he will chip away the President's lead even further. In that scenario, the run up to Nov. 6 will be very tight.

Benghazi and the Potomac Two Step

My latest piece for The Daily Caller