If the Top Guys Are This Bad, Might as Well Vote for the Long Shot

Because the front runners of the Republican candidates are equally flawed, you might as well vote for your favorite long-shot candidate.

Trump is no more dependably conservative than Romney was. The biggest difference between Trump and Romney is the 216 miles between I-95 that separates New York from Boston. The next biggest difference between them is that Trump is the wolf that barks the louder. And he wears a finer wool blend.

Cruz has most of the conservative bona fides. What he lacks is leadership. He seems to have been a pretty good litigator, but despite his big talk about stopping the Obama agenda, he was not even able to impact McConnell’s Senate, let alone slow down the Obama agenda. Cruz and a dozen other conservatives could have had a major influence on McConnell’s Senate if a leader had emerged to make the difference. People’s anger is high because people make promises to get elected to Washington but then fail to deliver, and Cruz is the premier example.

So, there you have it. Vote for the erratic Donald Trump who is yet another conservative of convenience like Romney, or vote for a big talking freshman senator who hasn’t yet delivered. Trumps problems offset Cruz’s failures. Both men are equally flawed candidates. If the nomination is ultimately between these two, then why bother.

If neither of the front runners is better than the other, we might as well vote for the long-shot candidate, if the long-shot candidate is highly qualified and who is strongly committed to the conservative agenda.

In 1994, Rick Santorum came into the 435-member House of Representatives as a freshman congressman. He worked with seven other congressional delegates to expose the scandalous practices of the House Bank, working against nearly all incumbent representatives, including Newt Gingrich, but doing so in a way that made a huge impact on the House.

Why Freshmen Senators Should Rethink their Run for the Presidency

Ted Cruz was the keynote speaker for the IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANS conference, September 2015. No doubt he figured this would be a friendly audience. He should, however, have done some more homework before speaking.

The audience consisted of a wide range of Christians, mostly from the Middle East, and not your average Southern Baptist gathering in Texas. Attendees had worked hard over the previous 48 hours of the conference to unite to promote the well-being of persecuted Christians. It seems that Cruz was unaware that a large number of Christians do not have a friendly disposition toward Jews. I am no presidential candidate, but even I know this.

With all due insensitivity for his audience, Cruz repeatedly made comments that Israel is the greatest friend to Christians, that if you hate Jews then you oppose Jesus, and that if anyone opposes Israel then Ted will oppose them. He was booed off the stage.

Frankly, Cruz was sophomorish in this appearance. In light of audience protestations, a speaker should make concessions whenever possible, express a measure of understanding for the protesters’ concerns, and then proceed rationally. Cruz became flustered and abruptly ended his speech with an insult and a feigned “God bless you.”

I’m not sure that Cruz’s personal theology would have allowed a truly evangelical response to this crowd. Clearly, many in the crowd thought that Israel has been more at fault than not. An evangelical response would be to condemn Israel when Israel is at fault, and support Israel when in the right. Even the biblical prophets condemned Israel’s kings, prophets, judges, priests, teachers, and nobles when they were in the wrong (see, for example, Micah 2-3). Some deviant positions within the American church would suggest that the US should never condemn Israel, that the US should support Israel right or wrong.

In my perspective, Israel is the United States’ most reliable ally. It is the most democratic state in the region and upholds American values better than any other country in the region. It is also the region’s most stable country. All things considered, America would be wise to strengthen its ties with Israel and to provide all due protection for Israel’s security. This is a pragmatic perspective, and not an ideological perspective. If Israel was the problem, security agreements with Israel should be reviewed, by all means.

Some Christians allow a certain apocalyptic interpretation of the Bible to influence foreign policy.

Many questions remain about Cruz’s theology, especially in terms of End Times doctrine. Reliable analysis of Cruz’s theology seems unavailable. What we are left to say is that for whatever reason, Cruz left the IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANS conference in turmoil. Instead of advancing the conference’s goals of helping persecuted Christians, he did much to undo the reconciliation achieved in the previous two days of the conference.

The take away for this incident is that foreign diplomacy is tricky, and that Cruz is not quite ready for a prime time role as a peace maker. 

In a Dangerous World, Experience Matters

I suppose that the most serious international crisis in my lifetime was the coup d'état of Mikhail Gorbachev and the fall of the Soviet Union; picture Gorbachev caged up like a bird, surrounded by rebellious generals and tanks, and no one knowing where the nuclear football was.

Regardless of one's personal view of George H.W. Bush, the world had at the American helm in this extremely volatile time someone with these credentials:

• Eight years as Vice President
• Several years as the U.N. ambassador, 
• Two terms in congress, 
• Head of the C.I.A., 
• Special envoy to China that prepared the momentous opening of that country for President Nixon
• World War II hero as well.

The world is a dangerous place. President Obama ran for president with less than four years in office as a Senator. Senators Cruz, Paul, and Rubio are no different. If they are elected, we will again be offering on-the-job training to them.

I understand the appeal of supporting candidates who hold conservative positions, but in this case, the differences between Santorum and these other conservatives do not outweigh the experience factor. Consider Santorum's credentials:

• Two terms in Congress (in freshman term exposed the House Bank Scandal--Gang of Seven)
• Two terms in Senate
• Third highest ranking Republican at age 43 (one and two years younger than Cruz and Rubio at present)
• Chair of the Armed Services Committee in an era of military modernization
• CEO of Film Production Company EchoLight Studio
• Fellow at Ethics for Public Policy Center where he authored over 200 articles on the Middle East and Radical Islam (The Gathering Storm)

Conservatives might disagree with a policy or two, or a decision or two in Santorum's storied career. But all in all, the combination of the right positions, and level of experience, and record of accomplishment easily makes Santorum a top pick for the Republican nomination.

Turning the Herd: Someone Has to Get in Front and Lead

We’ve all seen the movie scene when the herd of cattle is stampeding toward the edge of the cliff. Someone must race to the front of the herd and turn it before the he

rd topples over to disaster. Most constitutional conservatives think that America is the cattle herd, and that disaster is imminent. To mix metaphors, it is as if Barack Obama and his heir apparent Hillary are pressing the pedal to the metal, and are driving the herd over the cliff side. Conservatives are desperately looking for someone to turn the herd.

I have no doubt that establishment Republicans can put forward a candidate who will competently manage the herd over the cliff’s edge. A McCain, a Romney, or a Bush would make sure that every bovine would keep in step as it races toward death. The establishment Republican might even slow down the pace, but the herd would meet its destined disaster, nonetheless.

Based upon their ineffectiveness in the Senate to stop the Obama agenda, we should envision Republican leaders such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio as those cowboys who race to the front

of the herd and promptly get run over and stomped into the ground. Republicans elected constitutional conservatives and gave them majorities in both House and Senate, but none of them have mounted effective opposition against the Obama agenda. They followed the establishment leadership of Boehner, McConnell, and Ryan, and they gave Obama everything he asked. They will not be able to turn the herd. They are unable to forge alliances necessary for effective leadership, and they will be trampled into the dirt.

We’re looking for the kind of leader who not only holds the right positions, but also knows how to lead—someone who is courageous enough to take a stand in front of all opposition, and who knows how to work the system to tur

n the herd.

In his time in public office, Santorum stormed Congress, exposed the bank scandal and changed congressional practice. Against a presidential veto, he pressed through Welfare Reform. With cultural winds against him and the Supreme Court as well, he effectively won the ban against Partial Birth Abortion. When Senate Republican Mark Hatfield decisively voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment, Santorum had his head; despite Jesse Helms’ surprising attempt to protect Hatfield, Santorum’s opposition to Hatfield culminated in Hatfield’s retirement from the Senate. These were all herd-turning moments for American life.

The only objection that constitutional conservatives have to Santorum is the assertion that he has no chance of winning. Yet, the Santorum campaign is well ahead of its 2012 game when he won the Iowa Caucuses after being down at 2% in the polls two weeks prior. The fact that the number two candidate in the 2012 election gets so little recognition from the Republican establishment is noteworthy. The Republican establishment seems to have little fear of Cruz or Rubio or Paul, but is deathly afraid of a Santorum presidency. They have seen him turn the herd before, and they know that his election would mean that their party is over.