Even if Mitt Romney wins, both parties could have primaries in 2016.

I was thinking about the 2016 Presidential Election recently. That’s right, 2016.

I’ve seen several stories that have mentioned the possibility of Hillary Clinton or (hold the laughter) Joe Biden running in 2016. Here’s a question: If Barack Obama loses, which I think seems likely, will he run again in 2016? If so, we could see a repeat of the 2008 election.

This scenario also led me to think about Mitt Romney’s chances in 2016 if he should win in 2012. I’m not referring to the General Election, but rather the primary. Romney will be the Republican nominee in 2012, but if he becomes president, is it a foregone conclusion that he would win in 2016? I don’t think so.

By now, we all know how much flip-flopping Romney has done over the years. If he wins and moves too closely to the middle during his first (only) term, I could see a ground-swell of support for a primary opponent. If he is victorious, he should keep this possibility in mind.

Over the past couple of years, there have been many Republicans in Congress who have been defeated by opponents who are more conservative. Is it really far-fetched to think that the President would be held to the same standard?

What does Mitt Romney really believe?

The more I think about it, the more I think I might be too conservative to be a Republican. On both the local and national level, I’ve seen things that have made my head spin. It has me wondering if I would be better off as an independent, without the baggage associated with the hypocrites and flakes.

Republicans have rightly criticized Barack Obama for his socialist-leaning views, and their warning that things will get worse if he were to be reelected. My problem is with the revisionism and lack of insight amongst many in our party.

Obamacare is an abomination that deserves to be struck down by the Supreme Court. The only positive thing about this legislation is that it mobilized conservative organizations to take action. The problem is that some Republicans agreed with some of the basic tenets of Obamacare in the past and only changed their mind when it became politically expedient to do so.

We have Mitt Romney, author of Romneycare, whose healthcare plan as Governor of Massachusetts bore a striking resemblance to Obamacare. Now, he’s attempting to split hairs, grasping for details that differ between Obamacare and his own socialist scheme. Besides Romney, there’s Newt Gingrich, who was a vocal proponent of a mandatory health insurance, until it became politically unpopular. Plus, let’s not forget about Newt’s couch time with Nancy Pelosi.

Those who oppose Obamacare also bemoan the ever increasing size of government, growing deficits, repeated debt-limit increases, and an intrusive government. Here’s the problem: During the Bush Administration, we had the prescription drug plan, increases in the size of government, growing deficits, repeated debt-limit increases, and an intrusive government. Sound familiar? Granted, these similarities are far worse now than during the Bush administration, but where were the Republican complaints between 2001 and 2008? This failure to speak up has caused many Republicans to look like hypocrites, which damages the party’s credibility.

Any Republican candidate would be better than Barack Obama, but this still puts us in the lesser-of-two-evils mindset. With Mitt Romney poised to become the Republican nominee, I expect him to do the right thing for as long as it is politically popular to do so. That’s why it’s important for fiscal conservatives to stay vigilant and continue to voice our displeasure with big government and attacks on liberty. We cannot become complacent.

For those who are fans of fine art and small government, artist Jon McNaughton has created another painting you might want to check out. I’d also suggest visiting Jon McNaughton’s official site, which has a dizzying array of beautiful art work.

Rick Santorum seems like he would be right at home running a Parish...or a theocracy.

I dislike Rick Santorum for several reasons, but the biggest is how he forces me to side with Democrats. Santorum is so confused, that his ridiculous comments can’t go unchallenged.

In his latest rant to be unearthed, he criticizes John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech about religion to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech,” said Santorum

In a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, Santorum adds:

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

He went on to note that the First Amendment “says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square.”

“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”

Santorum needs to look at history. In 1960, there was a great deal of anti-Catholic sentiment, and some believed the Pope would attempt to influence Kennedy, if he were elected. That was the main impetus for the speech: Convincing the ignorant. Now, more than 50 years later, we have another Catholic running for president, but this one would rather rely on the Bible to Govern, rather than the Constitution.

If Rick Santorum is so smitten with the idea of a theocracy, he should move to Iran and run against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

For Tea Party members, Ron Paul should be the only choice.

There has been a lot of talk about the Tea Party, and what effect its members will have on the Presidential race. So far, it has been much ado about nothing.

All of the candidates have attempted to court the Tea Party to some extent, but it should be a wasted of time, since only one candidate represents the group’s alleged philosophy. If you support a balanced budget, then how can you vote for someone who voted to raise the debt ceiling several times, and is a big spender? Santorum is bad, but Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are no better.

If one of them is elected President, I have no doubt they will spend less than Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the cuts proposed by them are miniscule, and would do little to reduce the deficit, let alone the National Debt. If you don’t believe me, check out the size of the deficit, then read their plans. Are they really going to right America’s ship?

The only candidate who deserves Tea Party support is Ron Paul. Members of the Tea Party talk a good game about respecting the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, but if this rhetoric is true, Paul is the only candidate who deserves their support. As for cutting the budget, Paul proses a $1 Trillion cut to end the deficit. Part of this will be financed by cutting the size of the Federal Government, and bringing our troops home.

Many have criticized Ron Paul’s foreign policy in the same breathe they bemoan runaway government spending. Look at the money we’ve spent rebuilding foreign countries? Is this a wise use of tax dollars? This exorbitant spending is nothing but an attempt to buy friends and increase our international footprint. It’s unnecessary, and will contribute to the bankrupting of our nation.

If you’re looking for someone who will spend less than Barack Obama, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich will probably all come through…with less than stellar results. Make no mistake, they would be big spenders. The difference is that they have different spending priorities than Obama, and like recent Presidents, will represent the Status Quo.

The only one who has the slightest desire to solve our Nation’s problems is Ron Paul. Throw in his intelligence, honesty, and understanding of the Constitution, and you have the perfect candidate. If you call yourself a Tea Party member and you don’t see this, you’re a fraud.

Over the last few years, we’ve seen more and more candidates invoke the memory of President Ronald Reagan. I don’t blame them for admiring Reagan’s accomplishments, but I do often question their sincerity. Are these candidates simply sharing thoughts about their fondness for Reagan, or is it solely a transparent method of trying to ride the coattails of a man they may not really identify with?

This has been going on a while, but it has been Newt Gingrich’s frequent mentions of Reagan during debates that have annoyed me. To hear Gingrich tell it, he and Reagan were rather close, and shared credit for some of the accomplishments of the Reagan Presidency.

Upon hearing Gingrich’s boasts for the first time, I was taken by surprise. How would a fairly young Congressman with little seniority actually gain so much power in the Reagan Administration? Well, it turns out he didn’t.

Since Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina, members of the Reagan Administration have come forward to refute Gingrich’s wild claims. Others have pointed to times where Gingrich criticized Reagan on several occassions.

When it comes to flip-flopping and getting creative with the truth, Newt’s only competitor might be Mitt Romney.

President George W. Bush spent, and spent, and spent...

Politico has an interesting article titled, “GOP Magic Trick: Making George W. Bush Vanish.” To sum it up, Republicans are starting to embrace the fiscal conservatism that was the bedrock of the party’s platform, while moving away from George W. Bush’s reckless spending.

Thankfully, many Republicans are moving away from the neoconservative philosophy that has resulted in never-ending wars, expanded government, and a ballooning national debt. I’m glad to see this philosophical change break into the Republican mainstream, but why did it take so long? There are Republicans who are (rightly) criticizing attempts by the Obama administration to raise the debt ceiling. Where were they when George W. Bush made similar requests? Why did they support increases then?

Of course, the answer is the team mentality that politicians have, a ridiculous tendency to give too much slack to a member of their own party. Ladies and gentlemen, if an idea stinks, it stink regardless of the party affiliation of the person who caused the stench. If more Republicans believed this, they would have far more credibility when opposing Barack Obama’s policies. They could say, “we didn’t like it when Bush did it, and we’re not going to support you.” Instead, they’re left saying, “we won’t support your decision, but we supported President Bush when he did almost the same exact thing.” So you see the problem?

I hope more of our elected officials do see the problem, and make an attempt to put their country before their party.

Presidential Candidate Michele Bachman

If Michele Bachman were to win the Republican nomination, I would definitely vote for her rather than Barack Obama. With that said, I hope Bachmann doesn’t win the nomination. There are certainly worse choices, such as Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, but ideally you would get to vote for someone you like rather than the lesser of all evils.

Here’s one of my problems with Michele Bachmann: She criticized Mitt Romney for not signing the Susan B. Anthony List’s anti-abortion pledge. Here’s her rationale for the criticism:

“It is distressing that Governor Romney refuses to sign the SBA Pledge, even while claiming to be pro-life. The excuses for not signing clearly continue the doubts about his leadership and commitment to ending the practice of abortion – particularly for a candidate who ran as pro-choice for the Senate and Governorship of Massachusetts. Any Presidential candidate seeking our party’s nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death. Governor Romney should reconsider his decision not to sign the Pledge just as he reconsidered his position on the life issue during the last campaign.”

Romney claims he didn’t sign the pledge because it’s too broad. In my opinion, he didn’t sign it because it would be harder to flip-flop in the future. When I hear Romney speak, I don’t feel like I can trust anything he says. He seems interested in saying the most popular thing, while leaving room to wiggle out of a position if need be. I want someone who is principled, and Romney doesn’t fit the bill.

As for Bachmann, I really don’t understand her. I admire her support of limited government, but I have problems with politicians who preach limited-government then embrace socially conservative causes which undermine personal responsibility. There seem to be a lot of Republicans who don’t get the distinction. They’re ready to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon and use the talking points, but the underlying philosophy seems to be lost.

Michelle Bachmann will go far into the primaries, and if Sarah Palin doesn’t decide to run, she will attract her supporters. I just hope that those who vote for her realize that she isn’t truly a “limited-government” candidate.

In a recent Gallup poll, 53% of Americans support gay marriage in 2011, up from 44% in 2010.

For the first time, a Gallup poll indicates that a majority of Americans support gay marriage. 53% support gay marriage in this year’s Gallup poll, compared to just 44% last year.

As a registered Republican who supports gay marriage, I’m disappointed and a bit surprised that only 28% of those in the G.O.P. support same-sex marriage. For those who think of the Republican party as a bastion of social conservatism, it makes perfect sense. Still, I find troubling inconsistencies.

In recent years, groups like the Tea Party have pushed for small government and found many Americans who are sympathetic. I’m one of those people who support limited government, but unlike many Republicans, I go beyond taxation. I respect personal beliefs of what’s right and wrong, but I disagree with using those beliefs to limit individual liberty.

If you’re an advocate of small government, spend some time looking for inconsistencies in your thinking. Just like you might support restricting someone’s liberty today, someone else may try to do the same to you in the future.

Ron Paul will run for President in 2012.

There are several Republicans who might run for President in 2012. There are some, like Newt Gingrich, that I could see myself voting for, while there are others, such as Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, that I wouldn’t vote for in a million years. With that said, there is only one candidate whose honesty is unquestioned, and whose views on limited government developed from well-researched, strongly held beliefs, not because it was the hot idea of the moment. That candidate is Ron Paul.

Today, Ron Paul announced that he will run for President in 2012. Now, Americans are assured of at least one candidate who truly understands the Constitution, and will put forth a unified plan, rather than some hodge podge of ideas grounded in the polling data.

My only concern with Ron Paul is the probability that he will run as a Republican. Getting by some of the establishment names will be difficult, especially for those who don’t fully understand or appreciate his libertarian views. Ideally, I’d like to see Ron Paul run as an independent. With his built in following, he would surely have enough support to assure himself a spot in the Presidential debates against the Democrat and Republican candidates. Once those who are unfamiliar with Ron Paul had the opportunity to hear his idea, I have no doubt that his popularity would skyrocket. Unfortunately, an independent run doesn’t seem likely.

It’s my hope that conservatives and Tea Party members realize that Ron Paul truly believes in limited government, unlike those who merely parrot the group’s talking points.