It doesn’t take a ‘political scientist’ to realize that the GOP field is weak this election cycle. Scratch that, the last two election cycles.

Some will argue that Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney–sorry Rick Santorum–are legitimate contenders to defeat President Obama. And that may end up being true, who knows. But the reality of the present GOP race is that none of these candidates poll well enough right now to beat President Obama.

A lot can change between now and November, but some things need to change quickly for the Republicans to make a strong case that President Obama should no longer be president.

These are just a few strategies that I believe the GOP must use to defeat the Democratic incumbent in 2012:

1. The GOP nominees must start personalizing their campaigns. Rhetoric and philosophical arguments only have so much appeal before people begin to wonder, “Is there legitimate substance to what these guys are saying?” Personalizing one’s campaign is as simple as following the 2008 Barack Obama campaign strategy. The GOP nominees simply need to connect with American people who are struggling with unemployment, growing their businesses, or out of control healthcare costs. The candidates would be wise to mention specific individuals in speeches, debates, and interviews. If the GOP nominees adopt a similar strategy to President Obama’s in 2008, they can begin to showcase their empathetic side–something that has been missing on the trail for a while.
2. The GOP nominees must attack the ‘big government’ policies of the past and present–yes, that includes the beloved George W. Bush. Certainly, President Obama has done enough of that himself; but if Republicans want to earn credibility in the eyes of independent voters, they will acknowledge their past mistakes. The GOP insists that it is the party of ‘fiscal responsibility & limited government’. Now is the time to start showing the American people what responsibility is all about.
3. The GOP nominees must define capitalism in such a detailed way that folks cannot question its’ merit. No economic or political system is perfect–neither are the people living within these systems. History is the GOP’s best friend. The GOP nominees must articulate how past democratic, free-market countries, empires, and regions have fallen for the lie that a stronger government can cure the ills of capitalism. Societies become more restrictive, not less, when government assumes too much responsibility in the free market system.
4. The GOP nominees must define the “obstructionism” that President Obama so often mentions. The mainstream media has assisted the administration in labeling the GOP as the “Party of No”, and now is the time for the Republicans to meet that criticism head on. Obstructionism is not one-sided; President Obama constantly tells the American people that the Republicans are standing in the way of a greater America. Well, now is the time for the GOP nominees to explain the reasoning behind this obstruction and demonstrate the logic behind their fundamental, economic principles. World history shows that this cultural clash is not unusual for a pluralistic society of this size. The American public needs to be reminded that there are competing beliefs for a reason.
5. The GOP nominees must be unafraid to proclaim that their religious beliefs impact their decision-making. In an increasingly, pluralistic society with competing interests and beliefs, it has become incredibly difficult not to offend others. There is a misguided belief in our culture today that religion and politics should not mix. Some Americans believe that politicians should not bring their religious faith to the public office. That is not only constitutionally incorrect, but logically absurd. The government is not supposed to favor irreligion to religion or vice versa, and each one of us–Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic–adheres to our personal belief systems in our every day lives. The GOP nominees need to speak out strongly to protect religious–and irreligious–liberties.

The political process is a competition, quite frankly. But it is possible to have a winning strategy, while also standing firm in principle. These are just a few strategies that I believe will make the GOP stronger, more empathetic, and more genuine to the American people.

Thousands of South Carolinians stood to their feet to applaud Newt Gingrich’s “brave” rebuke of CNN anchor John King, who started the debate by using allegations on past affairs from Newt’s second wife.

The crafty, former speaker of the House cried foul and proceeded to paint the image that he was the victim of liberal media attacks. While the timing of the ABC interview was nothing short of sketchy, it does not take away the former speaker’s responsibility to own up to his mistakes. Rather than addressing the question with humility, Mr. Gingrich decided to blast the liberal media.

This strategy paid off. Debate attendees and viewers across South Carolina ate it up. There is no denying that former Speaker Gingrich is an excellent orator–and more importantly–a debater. He was able to successfully fluster the former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on several occasions. These moments of weakness for Gov. Romney, combined with Newt’s harsh rebuttal of liberal media bias, flipped public opinion in favor of the former speaker.

I’ve always hoped that Republicans wouldn’t be as fickle as Democrats in politics. Or hypocritical. Yet when push came to shove, the GOP caved in like I hoped they wouldn’t. The South Carolina Republicans proved that they care less about the morals they claim, and more about the superficial characteristics of a candidate.

Isn’t this what Democrats did in the ’90s with President Clinton? Overlook Mr. Clinton’s obvious character flaws because of his superficial qualities? Over a decade later, evangelicals who yelled and screamed for President Clinton to be impeached for his infidelity, are now supporting the guy who led the crusade against Pres. Clinton while simultaneously having multiple affairs of his own.

This is certainly more than irony. It is hypocrisy to the ultimate degree. I absolutely believe in forgiveness, and giving people second chances. What I don’t believe in are double standards.

If character counts for President Clinton in the 1990s, it most certainly should count for Newt Gingrich in 2012. The South Carolina Republicans effectively hurt the GOP’s chances in the 2012 general election, whether in the short term or in long term, by the way they voted on Saturday.

Speaker Gingrich is a brilliant man, well-versed in political savvy. But, evangelicals, is it really that hard to see that Newt Gingrich is putting on a performance? The guy lived in Washington for decades and knows how to manipulate the system. Enter ethics charges here.

While Newt Gingrich is certainly the most articulate on the debate stage, he certainly lacks what I thought most evangelicals thought was the most essential trait–character. Obviously times have changed in American politics, but things continue to remain disgusting.

Strike one up for religious liberty. The Supreme Court ruled against the government’s ability to interfere with church employment hiring–in this case, firing–practices.

The decision is a breakthrough for religious liberty. At issue in this case, was whether ‘ministerial exception’–which prohibits employment-related lawsuits against religious organizations by employees who perform religious duties–should apply to a teacher at a religious elementary school who teaches mostly secular subjects, yet also teaches daily religion classes. The court had to determine if the plaintiff, Cheryl Perich, would be considered a “commissioned minister” since she led students in prayer and worship. The plaintiff had been diagnosed with narcolepsy and decided to take a leave of absence. The school subsequently filled her position and later asked her to resign. When she threatened to file a lawsuit for Equal Employment discrimination, she was fired–the church cited that she did not attempt to resolve the matter within the church.

In a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Sixth Circuit Court’s ruling, citing that the ‘ministerial exception’ clause, designated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, applies to this specific case. Chief Justice John Roberts and the other eight justices on the Supreme Court, however, were unwilling to create a “rigid formula” to determine future ‘ministerial exception’ cases.

The decision in Hosanna-Tabor Church v EEOC is a significant step forward for religious liberty in an increasingly secular society that has become more hostile to religion. The 9-0 vote was a bit shocking to me, considering whom President Obama recently nominated to the bench. But, it appears that reason and adherence to original intent jurisprudence ruled the day.

Up until recently, I was a naysayer. I did not believe that Rick Santorum was capable of winning–neither the GOP primary nor the general election.

That was until I saw his response to students at The New England College, where Santorum was fielding questions on many issues including gay marriage.

For most political observers, it should be pretty easy to remember that former Sen. Rick Santorum has always preached the importance of restoring and preserving the ‘American family’. And for far too long, I discounted his views as ‘unelectable’. Not that I didn’t agree with the former senator that life is precious at birth, or that families are strongest when they have a mother and father to lead them–but it seemed to be the only thing Mr. Santorum always wanted to talk about.

Today at his speaking engagement at New England College, former Sen. Santorum encountered students’ questions on gay marriage. In an attempt to stump him, students attempted to use the Declaration of Independence to prove that gay marriage is a human rights issue–”…all men are created equal.” Contrary to what the students were probably expecting, Mr. Santorum turned the questions around on them. Mr. Santorum essentially asked them to provide an objective standard for how to define an appropriate marriage, and they could not.

In American culture today, and in civilizations throughout world history, people have struggled to find a standard or moral code that is acceptable to everyone. Yet, even among the most “progressive” among us, there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

For these students, it seemed that they weren’t willing to accept polygamy as an acceptable form of marriage–even though other civilizations and religions practice these types of relationships. Men can love men, and women can love women–but some of them drew the line at multi-partner relationships and marriages.

This was a fascinating interchange between Mr. Santorum and the students. It provided context for a debate that is greater than politics–one that involves the meaning of life. So many of us have our own political beliefs, yet we fail to realize where these beliefs originate.

Usually in these political debates between politicians and ‘concerned citizens’, it gets out of hand with shouting or anger. But Mr. Santorum presented his case in such a logical, reasonable, and gracious way that it seemed to inspire intellectual discussion rather than indiscernible shouting.

Maybe this event will just be a quick snapshot of ‘what could have been’ of a dying campaign, but I tend to think this event may have turned the tide on Rick Santorum’s candidacy. Whether he is electable in a general election, or in the GOP primary–it is unclear. But if political observers take notice of this event at New England College, I think Mr. Santorum’s political gains are on the rise.

At worst, Mr. Santorum just provided rational thought to an increasingly uncivilized debate.

It’s quite simple. Focus on the economy.

No issue matters more to the American public right now. Now that our troops are completely out of Iraq, it is quite clear that the main issue in this election will be the economy.

For many years, Republicans have thrived on the political activism of the evangelical base. Social issues have driven evangelicals to the voting booth for decades. Yet, in 2012, I see the economy affecting more lives than social issues.

It’s not that social issues should not be important to the GOP. Ultimately, shifting their focus to the economy is the logical and pragmatic thing to do. President Obama and his campaign team have attacked Republicans for creating the current economic mess and for trying to get rid of entitlement programs. Now is the time for Republicans to set the record straight, distance themselves from the Bush Administration liberal spending habits, and continue to propose substantive plans for economic recovery.

Rather than bash Ron Paul for being libertarian or Mitt Romney for previous positions and policies, the GOP base needs to come to the reality that Republicans will have an imperfect candidate no matter who is nominated. I’ve heard conservatives, libertarians, moderates say that they wouldn’t vote for certain GOP candidates in the general election. This division is exactly what will lose the Republicans the 2012 election unless people swallow their pride.

Conservatives, libertarians, and moderates need to ask themselves, “What is our main objective?” The answer should be “to remove President Obama and his administration from the White House.” If it’s not, then there is a problem.

Party unity, substantive ideas, and effective communication are three ares the GOP has to improve in order to win the 2012 election. Republicans failed in all three categories last election, and are on the verge of doing so again.

Whether the candidate is Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, or any of the others–if you identify with Republicans and want government to change–these GOP candidates give you a better chance at positive change than the current president. President Obama certainly inherited a difficult economy, wars in two difficult regions, and a host of other issues. But his leadership has not advanced America’s ideals or economic standing.

I urge my fellow registered Republicans to consider their end goal–to advance Republican ideals–and vote accordingly. If President Obama advances your Republican ideals, than vote for him. But if he does not, than why not vote for the GOP candidate–whoever he or she may be–to change the direction of this country? Politics is pragmatic, and that is what we must be in 2012.

The topic of social justice is never an easy discussion for conservatives–who are often maligned as ‘heartless’ and ‘unconcerned’ for the needs of others. While this may be true in some cases, it is certainly not the rule.

Liberals, in theory, advocate for those who are the least fortunate.  Some may even practice what they preach, which is to provide financial and moral support to those in need. However, there is a serious disconnect between Washington’s sociopolitical economics and real social justice.

Liberal elites in Washington D.C., despite their own material success, have proclaimed their message that wealthy Americans do not care for the needs of the poor. They call out ‘Wall Street’ executives and corporations as the greed centers of our society, yet they manage to find loopholes for their private green-energy related businesses. Miraculously, Nancy Pelosi & Co. have effectively portrayed themselves to be average Americans fighting for the rights of the poor.

It’s ironic that Democrats, who statistically claim less religiosity than Republicans, will often utilize Scripture verses to further their social agenda. While many of these Democrats who use Scripture may claim to be Christians, their party as a whole prefers science & reason to the ‘unproven’ concept of faith.

Whether these verses get used out of context or not is a different matter. But it is utter hypocrisy for Democrats to promote science & reason over faith in climate change, women’s rights, or sexual orientation issues–then proceed to use Scripture to prove their point on protecting the poor. It seems to me that if your party largely wants religion removed from politics, you should steer clear of religious texts and make logical arguments for why it is government’s responsibility to provide for those in need.

Christians and atheists each have their own belief systems. You cannot sincerely claim to have one of these belief systems when you rationalize an answer, toward a difficult topic, from the ‘other’ belief system. When liberals, Christian or not, use Scripture to rationalize government provisions for the poor, they are inadvertently accepting that the Bible is truth. They will argue that many “good books” have truths in them; but if you are confident in your own belief system, why do you need to look for spiritual guidance? Science cannot explain how we feel the urge to help those in need. Even genetic research has yet to prove why we feel compassion.

As for Scripture, never once does Christ call for income equality. He calls His church to meet the needs of the poor–which does not equate government raising their standards of living to a certain level by taking from the most wealthy. As heartless as this may sound in our politically-correct society, income equality or the ‘American dream’ are not God-ordained concepts.

This is biblical truth.  The same truth that those “average Joe” Democrats in Washington shamelessly quote to secure voter blocs in an election.

Decades of federal government inaction on the issue of immigration will be questioned on the legal system’s highest stage.

After federal courts had blocked significant parts of Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, known as SB 1070, the Supreme Court has decided to hear the appeal. This is a significant issue for every American–but particularly those who understand the Bill of Rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment, as seen above, provides states the ability to regulate themselves on matters that are not specifically delegated to the federal government. But what about matters that are delegated to the federal government that are not adequately addressed?

Securing our borders is the United States government’s responsibility–not the state of Arizona, or any other state. Yet, the federal government continues to remain on the sidelines in this debate. Many furiously question the intent of Arizona’s state law, saying it violates the rights of U.S. citizens. That in itself is its own discussion, but certainly not the intent of this article. I do think, however, that any outrage on this subject matter should be directed toward our national leaders who have repeatedly refused to address the issue due to fear of political repercussions.

Both parties have been consumed with securing voter blocs, that they have ‘forgotten’ to secure the borders of the United States. It is unfair that Arizona and the southwestern states have had to battle immigration by themselves with little to no help from Washington.

Arizona’s SB 1070 has been completely misrepresented throughout the country as legislation that is “racist” and “threatening.” Is it perfect legislation? Absolutely not. But when the Obama Administration, and every previous administration, essentially sits on their hands to avoid upsetting the Hispanic population, it forces Arizona and other states to act. These states do not have the luxury of worrying about perception. Their security and livelihoods are at stake.

GOP candidates have also been unable to address this issue of illegal immigration. Newt Gingrich proposed “Citizen Review Boards” and Mitt Romney essentially has no plan, neither of which are viable options in addressing our national security.

The federal government has failed to act, and now the Supreme Court justices must decide if the states have the constitutional right to enforce their borders since help is NOT on the way.

The bullet point answers were getting old for me. But Herman Cain was one of the few guys that could have threatened Barack Obama’s presidency in 2012.

Now that the sexual allegations–”false and unproved”–have forced Mr. Cain to suspend his run for president, it appears that the remaining GOP hopefuls have big shoes to fill. The two remaining GOP contenders that actually have a shot at the White House in 2012–Newt and Romney–are not creating enough excitement amongst the Tea Party and conservatives. Newt has been largely undiscussed in the sexual “scandals” that ended Cain’s campaign. But I imagine these stories will be brought up in the near future as a way for the media to sideline another serious contender from the GOP race.

The last few weeks, it has been evident that the media wants a general election involving Barack Obama and Mitt Romney–or Jon Huntsman. Whether they feel less threatened by these gentlemen, or more comfortable with their more moderate (past and present) views, liberals have no desire for the ‘Cain’, ‘Perry’, or ‘Bachmann’ types to ever see the light of an election day.

I personally believe that Mitt Romney poses a threat to Barack Obama. Sure, Democrats can point to his healthcare plan in Massachusetts as a major sticking point. But can they boast that they saved the Winter Olympics? Or turned around the state economy in Massachusetts? Mitt Romney can. While Mitt Romney is no Herman Cain, an ‘outsider’ with no political experience, Mitt is able to balance his image as a ‘politician’ with his ability to create jobs in the private sector.

The Democrats are so afraid of President Obama’s inexperience–before and during his presidency–that they are trying their hardest to attack those who pose the greatest difference. Part of it is the media’s desire to get rid of the ‘radical’ right–they believe progress is achieved when everybody stops questioning the principles and motives of liberalism. The other reason Democrats want Romney or Huntsman so bad is the fact that, if for some reason, President Obama loses the election, they have a president who has more moderate views. Or in Mitt Romney’s case, a political history of ‘liberal-esque’ ideas to manipulate.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mitt Romney can win over the independent voters. I work with folks who voted for Barack Obama last election who have told me they would vote Romney if he got the nomination. However, these discouraged Obama supporters and independents must feel like the GOP base is behind Romney or else they will vote for the status quo.

Nearly eleven months from the general election, and the GOP field has shrunk tremendously with serious candidates. There certainly is time to add more to the mix, but it is becoming crunch time for the GOP with primaries less than two months away in some states.

We are at a point in the political process where we have to ask ourselves, “Is President Obama the solution? Or is he part of the problem?” I hope the GOP base and independent voters are willing to answer that negatively, and unite behind a nominee who actually has a chance to defeat the President. Republicans have to recognize their own diversity–Tea Party, libertarians, moderates, social conservatives, etc.–and act like the Democrats in 2008. If not, the 2012 election will come and go, and America will drift further away from its’ founding principles.

It seems that the media–and many liberals–have practiced modern day slavery in their political discrimination. If you’re a black conservative, you better be prepared to be called “Uncle Tom” or a white man’s “tool”. Rather than try to win an honest discussion on the issues, liberals have chosen to label and name-call.

Herman Cain and Barack Obama should be treated as equals who have very different opinions. Instead, Herman Cain is treated like he is a second-class citizen who cannot think on his own. This is the type of mentality that slaveholders used in America not so long ago. Yet the media and many progressives–who claim to advocate ‘progress’–cannot seem to accept the fact that some blacks do not desire the government to provide all of their needs.

I don’t pretend to think that free-market principles always work as they should, nor do I suppose that government assistance is NEVER needed. The point I am trying to make here is that the 14th Amendment, which liberals use to justify every progressive policy issue they want to pass, should apply to black conservatives who feel it is in their best interest to support limited, responsible government rather than uncontrolled Washington spending.

Of course, if anyone opposes the Obama Administration’s “stimulus, anti-rich” agenda, they must inherently be racist–even black folks. Tell me the logic in that one. Perhaps, the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection clause), only applies to those Americans who side with those fighting for ‘progress’. That is what the liberal media wants us to believe–subtly.

As much as I may disagree with liberals on many policy issues, I will never take away their right to believe that way. I do believe, however, that both political parties possess people who blindly follow what they hear rather than search for the truth. That is the real shame in all of our political division.

Real ‘progress’ would be to acknowledge the right of every American to his opinion, whether the majority agrees or not. We wonder why racial tension still exists–well, when we continue to label people as ‘racists’ or ‘Uncle Toms’ it puts everyone on the defensive and brings no sense of togetherness. And for my liberal friends who want to claim conservatives use the “socialist” or “communist” label against liberals, it is not even close to being the same thing. You have a race, and a political ideology. One is God-given, the other man-made. Racism is completely uncalled for in this “free, forward-thinking” society, and that starts with liberals name-calling black conservatives.

Perhaps most disgusting of all, is the fact that President Obama’s harshest “criticism” is that he isn’t liberal enough. It’s not that he hasn’t created jobs as he promised, reduced unemployment, or gotten the budget under control.

Talk about softball criticism. Everybody knows that Democrats in their “rage” will never put up a serious candidate to challenge Obama. They put all of their marbles in one jar when they nominated President Obama over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last election. Simply put, there is no other option for Democrats. Their goal is to make the president appear more moderate than he really is. Now I will say, even as liberal as he is, he at least seems to entertain discussion from the other side. It may not be serious consideration, but he has minimally tried to “compromise”. Democrats have made it seem like he is a “sell-out” by compromising with Republicans–when in fact, he has openly berated Republicans for being the “Party of No” and never chastised his own party for political divisiveness. Democrats have not played fair in the compromise game, that’s for sure.

Just a few years ago, former President Bush was attacked by almost every network for being unsympathetic toward black people during Hurricane Katrina. Add on liberal attacks that he was a ‘war criminal’. Never mind the fact that we were attacked by ruthless killers from countries within the Middle East. I won’t get into the justification of the Iraq War, but let’s just say that our military efforts in Libya were far less justified than in Iraq. These awful attacks toward President Bush were not policy driven–but character driven. Like the members of the media really took the time to find out more about President Bush’s character. Criticism of President Obama is strictly related to policy. No personal attacks.

There is nothing “post-partisan” about the Obama administration. ‘Yes We Can’ has become “The Few, the Proud, the Democrats”. A more united American will not exist unless the name-calling ends, and policy differences are addressed respectfully.