“I have decided the iowa straw poll is like mo state Lincoln days on steroids crossed with a tailgate party.”  @ReneeHulshof

 Almost 17,000 ballots were cast and including vendors, visitors, curiosity seekers, and the media, the estimates were that about 25,000 were on the campus of Iowa State University in Ames yesterday.  Remarkably, or maybe not:   The ISU and Ames police reported no arrests or incidents.  Congratulations, everyone! 

 As you undoubtedly know, Congresswoman Michele Bachman bettered Congressman Ron Paul by 152 votes to be declared the ‘winner’ of the straw poll.   Gov. Tim Pawlenty was third, and less than 24 hours after the voting began, he dropped out of the Presidential race.

 Sen. Rick Santorum, finished a respectable fourth as his campaign was building momentum after what arguably was the best performance in the debate on the Thursday before the Straw Poll.  It was reported today, that online contributions to the Santorum campaign started coming in after the Thursday night debate and continued through this morning.  Very good for the cash strapped campaign.

 Rick Perry, the non-candidate candidate, who actually announced his candidacy while voting was going on in Ames garnered enough write-in votes to beat Mitt Romney.  Fabulous job by the 527 groups who worked the event on behalf of the Texas governor and helped to get the momentum for his candidacy started.  Romney chose not to take part in the straw poll after spending over $2M  on this event four years ago.  Many Romney people have told me that the national management of the campaign made the fatal mistake of thinking that a straw poll win translates into a caucus victory, but that was not to be as Gov. Mike Huckabee built on the momentum from his 2^nd place finish at the 2007 straw poll into an Iowa caucus win four months later.

 As the winner of the Ames Straw Poll, Michele Bachmann has now entered into what the media likes to call the ‘top-tier’ of candidates.  I am not about to start advising the Bachmann campaign, but it is important to point out that even with Reagan advisor Ed Rollins on board, it is a different political climate in 2011 than it was in 1980.  Any gaffe by the candidate is broadcast almost immediately through the internet, 24 hour news channels, and social media.  As I write this tonight, a story has just crossed Twitter that Cong. Bachmann delayed giving her remarks at the Black Hawk County GOP dinner (in her birthplace of Waterloo, IA) because she did not want to appear on stage with Gov. Rick Perry and her staff wanted the lighting in the room changed.   Can you say “Diva” (in a bad way this time)?

 Mitt Romney has not been heard except to make a statement on the departure of Gov. Pawlenty.  Gov. Perry has a campaign bus (shazam–how did that happen so fast?).  Sen. Santorum is in John Paul Jones mode-“We have just begun to fight”.  And Michele Bachmann, well she is  showing up late to events, making demands and the rounds as she continues to almost beg the media to take her seriously.

 It appears that there are four viable candidates to compete in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries which follow Iowa in a short time period. Bachmann, Perry, Romney, and Santorum.  The Presidential campaign is out of the exhibition season and everything counts from this moment on.

 The Iowa Straw Poll did what it was designed to do:  raise money for the Iowa GOP and winnow the field.    Gov. Pawlenty left first, just wondering who will follow and when.  Stay tuned.

Bret Baier, Fox news Commentator came on stage about 7:50PM and after the obligatory references to “Field of Dreams” (Is this Heaven?  No, it’s Iowa) and pork chops on a stick, he explained the rules and asked that the audience applaud only when the candidates came on stage, after the commercial breaks and he said that he would give ample time to cheer at the end.  Most of that request fell on deaf ears.

Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn then addressed the crowd.  Note to Matt:  next time you have a debate, make sure that the notices for not taking cameras into the venue are in place and are displayed in a manner that anyone would be able to know that no cameras would be allowed.  And, since every cell phone sold in the US now has a camera on it, what was that rule about anyway?  Lots of ticked off people walking back to put cameras in their cars upon learning this at the ‘security’ check point.

It was then time for the main event as the candidates took the stage and began the two-hour televised event timed just prior to the Ames Straw Poll.

While admittedly, I am a supporter of Sen. Rick Santorum, it was obvious to even the most biased observer that his performance last night was outstanding.  Given the fact that in the first 45 minutes, he was asked only one question, when he was asked to respond or rebut, the answer was thoughtful, concise and to the point.  I have been at many of Sen. Santorum’s events and admittedly he, like the rest of the candidates has a stump speech.  However, I did not hear much of that speech last night and he demonstrated what I have come to know about this man, he is a committed, consistent conservative and was second only to Newt Gingrich last night in his ability to express his message in an articulate manner.   I would give Sen. Santorum five stars for his performance last night based upon his exchange with Cong. Ron Paul, which was the only real ‘debate’ of the evening.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich was the winner of the sound bite contest.  As  Dr. Frank Luntz stated on the Hannity post-debate show last night, Mr. Gingrich ‘won the war’.  His exchange with Chris Wallace, while red meat for the anti-mainstream media audience both in the auditorium and watching at home in my sense was more showmanship than anything else.  I am convinced more than ever that Newt Gingrich is in this race for the long haul.  He will still be left standing not only after the Straw Poll, but the Iowa caucuses and the leadoff primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  I give him four stars for his debate last night.

I thought that Herman Cain was also given less attention by the panel than other candidates. While I did not tally the number of questions or the amount of camera face time, I would say that Mr. Cain was summarily dismissed by the panel as well.  This incredibly articulate man with a common sense manner has appealed to so many Americans.  His missteps have been amplified in the press to his disadvantage, and while he tried to correct those last night, they were lost in the minutiae of some of the other nonsense that went on.     I also give Mr. Cain four stars for his performance last night.

Mitt Romney, who has decided that he would not be investing in Iowa like he did four years ago, gave a polished and well-rehearsed performance. But of course, he has not been on the campaign trail for the past month, and had ample time to memorize his seven-point plan for the economy and have his consultants ‘test’ certain buzz words for maximum response.  Also, this is his second time at the rodeo. There was nothing that he said that I disagreed with.     I understand from ‘insiders’ that he was the last to arrive for the debate, just minutes before the candidates were to take the stage.  He and Mr. Cain both went out of their way during the commercial breaks to interact with the other candidates and it appeared to me that both men were very genuine in doing so.  Given all this, I would rate Mitt Romney’s performance at three and one-half stars.

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman made his one and only visit to Iowa in this debate. Why he was on stage rather than Thad McCotter is a mystery to me.  As far as his debate style, he did well.  He is articulate and got his ideas across, although he was probably the most liberal of the candidates who took the stage last night.  For showing up and not embarrassing himself, I give Mr. Huntsman three stars.

Now, to the last three candidates on stage—all of which tie for the worst performance of the evening.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty looked desperate in his attacks on Michele Bachmann.  I was not sure at some point whether we were at a debate for some office in the state of Minnesota or what.  Quite frankly, I do not care what Minnesota does.  I have come to believe that the ‘executive experience’ that one gets by being a governor does not always translate into the kind of experience that is needed to be President.  Tim Pawlenty lost me in the previous debate when he was served up the question about his previous comment on ‘Obmneycare’ and he failed to launch what could have been a significant strike on Mitt Romney.  His attacks on Michele Bachmann to me were reminiscent of the Senate debate between Hillary Clinton and her GOP opponent in 2000 when Mrs. Clinton was first running for the NY Senate seat.  Bad form for Pawlenty and I believe that he all but took himself out of the race last evening.  Gov. Pawlenty gets one star…and that is for attending.

Michele Bachmann started out the debate with her standard campaign rhetoric and then when she saw that would not work decided to portray herself as a victim.  Her body language, her deer in the headlights look when she was questioned, her delay at one point in returning to the podium after a break demonstrated to me that she is not as confident as she would like everyone to believe she is.  I will give Cong. Bachmann one and one-half stars.  She gets a boost over these other two because of the way that she answered Byron York’s question about ‘submission’ to her husband.  I was very disappointed in Byron—as he is a columnist that is on my must read list.

Lastly, Congressman Ron Paul.  His supporters were the most boisterous and confrontational of the night.  Bret Baier asked repeatedly of the audience to not applaud after answers, but those requests fell on deaf ears with his supporters.   Ron Paul’s answers to the questions were rambling, disjointed, and left me asking more often than not “What did he just say?”.  Sen. Santorum owned him on the issue of nuclear weapons in Iran and his ‘peace at no cost’ mantra did not play well with the rest of the adults in the auditorium.   His supporters are loyal and seem to be out to make a point.  I believe that it is a very real possibility that he could win the Ames Straw Poll tomorrow—but it will be somewhat like Roger Maris’s 61 home run season—with an asterisk after it.  Cong. Paul gets one star from me, but then I have to penalize him for the behavior of his supporters, so he nets a zero.

Looking forward to tomorrow’s Ames Straw Poll. Now it will get even more interesting.

This year, things got a bit convoluted.  As in 2007, there were declared candidates who chose not to pay to play, but whose names were put on the ballot.  One undeclared, but anticipated candidate, Fred Thompson was also on the ballot.   Mitt Romney spent some $2Million to transport, ticket, feed, and adorn with campaign gear his supporters and came in first in the balloting, only to be overshadowed by the second place out of the blue finish by Gov. Mike Huckabee, now Fox News superstar. 

But back to this year:  Mitt Romney chose not to participate—at all.  In fact, when he comes to Iowa for the Iowa GOP /Fox News debate, it will be only his second visit to Iowa this campaign season, after practically becoming a resident of the state four years ago.   Newt Gingrich, running on empty in funding, also chose not to participate.  Rick Perry, the coy but engaging Governor of Texas still has not decided what he will do, but there are 527 groups who are advocating for his candidacy who will set up shop in the Holiday Inn Express, some four blocks from the main event.

Despite not paying to be a part of the Straw Poll, Romney, and Gingrich will all be listed on the ballot.  For the first time ever, a write-in provision is being offered. 

So on Saturday, an estimated 15,000-20,000 political activists and media will converge on the beautiful campus of Iowa State University for a day of speeches, music, free t-shirts, entertainment and those who are actual residents of the state of Iowa will cast a vote for their preferred candidate.  While this is by no means a binding election, it is significant because those candidates who do not garner a respectable showing in this poll, will most likely rethink their candidacy and may just pack up and go home.  Names of some of the more notable people who have fallen into that category are Elizabeth Dole, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Fred Thompson, and Dan Quayle to mention a few. 

So what is the function of the Iowa Straw Poll?  My friend, Bob Haus, one of the most politically astute people I know wrote about it today comparing it to the NFL Combine:  http://t.co/M4MImSi

Yet, I have also heard it referred to aptly as the first bite of the apple.  Iowa has the unique role of not only having the first official vote—by the caucus—the second bite of the apple to determine the party nominee, but by the Ames Straw Poll also gets to have a say in winnowing out the field.      Two bites, get it?

It will be an interesting day for sure in Ames.  Will Ron Paul’s campaign finally show some real organizational strength?  Can Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann meet or exceed expectations?  What will the absence of Mitt Romney have on the voting and will a write-in effort on behalf of Rick Perry bear fruit?  Will Rick Santorum* be able to be the Mike Huckabee of 2012?

NBC’s Meet the Press will be live from Ames next weekend along with Fox News Channel’s Huckabee both  no doubt both interviewing as many of the candidates as possible. 

I am not going to make any predictions—except for this:  In what may be the last year for the Iowa Straw Poll as too many other states are complaining about Iowa’s influence in the presidential selection process, I believe that conventional wisdom may not be the hallmark of the day.  Stay tuned, but more importantly, if you live in Iowa, sign up to go.  The campaigns all have tickets and transportation available.    Be a part of history!

*In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a member of the Campaign Steering Committee for Sen. Rick Santorum and will be supporting him with my vote in Ames.

It was a hot day, and the Pawlenty campaign bus was caught up in traffic on I380—the interstate that connects Cedar Rapids with the Iowa City/Coralville area.  A local political reporter tweeted that it could be a metaphor for the campaign as the bus crept along at 10 mph.

Gov. Pawlenty was introduced by his wife, Mary.  She is a lovely woman and the two of them make a very attractive couple.  He then went on to speak for about 25 minutes talking about his background growing up in a blue-collar meat packing community, being the first in his family to attend college, campaigning for Ronald Reagan on the campus of the University of Minnesota, and  his vision for this country, and the need to get it back on the right track.  He cited his experience as Governor of Minnesota as the experience that had honed his skills to operate in the political environment that is Washington, DC.  The comment that was met with the most enthusiastic response was when Pawlenty talked about being a Republican governor in a state that had given us Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and now Sen. Al Franken.  

But that is where the enthusiasm ended.  Gov. Pawlenty took questions from the group and outlined what he sees as the steps to help the failing American economy:  cutting corporate income taxes in half, putting individual income tax into two rates—10% and 25%, and eliminating taxes on capital gains, interest and dividend income, and phase out subsidies for not only ethanol, but all energy industries.  Pretty standard Republican (primary) fare.

But, Governor Pawlenty did not, and has not sealed the deal for me.  He spoke in a manner that was more rehearsed than from the heart.  He took a swipe at President Obama for his teleprompter, but let’s face it; these candidates have a stump speech that they can recite in their sleep.   In his cadence and with the volume that he spoke, he brought very little excitement to the event.

In his initial remarks, he took a veiled swipe at fellow Minnesotan, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann by saying that Iowa is the place to launch a Presidential campaign and that Iowans should be vigilant not to launch the wrong candidate into the race against Barack Obama next year.  I found this comment particularly interesting given that faux-pas that eliminated Gov. Pawlenty from my consideration about a month ago.  On a Fox News Sunday program he criticized Mitt Romney by referring to his Massachusetts state health care plan as “Obamneycare”.  Then the next night, in a debate in New Hampshire, when given the opportunity, with Mr. Romney on the same stage, he retreated and backed off of that remark.  It was at that moment, that I decided that Gov. Pawlenty would never be able to withstand what will be withering attacks from the Democrats in a Presidential campaign. 

Craig Robinson, in The Iowa Republican writes about Pawlenty’s recent campaign to paint Cong. Bachmann as not ready for prime time:  http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/pawlenty-equates-bachmann-with-obama-%e2%80%9cbig-speeches-and-no-experience%e2%80%9d/

Michele Bachmann is definitely the one to beat in the upcoming Ames Straw Poll.  For reasons that I cannot explain, she seems to be the prohibitive favorite to win the Iowa GOP’s quadrennial fundraising event/poll next month.  But why would Pawlenty come out to criticize another Minnesotan, but unwilling to go after the national leader in the polls, Mitt Romney?  The answer can be found in the US Constitution.

The Twelfth Amendment which outlines the qualifications for Vice-President has a Habitation Clause.  It specifically prohibits the President and Vice-President from being residents of the same state.

So, if Michele Bachmann would become the GOP nominee for President, her fellow Minnesotan will be eliminated from consideration as her running mate.

Tim Pawlenty is an attractive man, taller than I expected, with a message that resonates with Republicans and is palatable to independents, but he lacks the passion to make the case for himself, and is probably too nice of a guy to be in the rough and tumble world of Presidential politics.

From the film, “1776″

By placing their names on that document, these Patriots sealed their fate. The battles fought for our independence were not going well. After initial victories at Lexington and Concord, MA,  dispatches from General George Washington indicated that his small, but inspired militia was outmanned and at times overwhelmed by what was the most powerful military power in the world of that day.   If the British Army had prevailed, General Washington along with the signers of the Declaration no doubt would have been branded traitors against the Crown and summarily hanged as such.

But, that was not to be the case.  For five years, the Americans fought bravely and with inspiration,  ultimately defeated the Redcoats and the American nation was born. 

On this day, as we celebrate in our own ways and reflect upon the history and glory of our nation, we must never forget what was at stake for those brave Patriots some 235 years ago.  In their honor, please read this document, crafted so masterfully by Thomas Jefferson and through debate and compromise—at times with much rancor ratfied the document that became the birth certificate of America.

Happy Birthday, America!

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Michele Bachman, with husband Marcus Bachmann

Since making her candidacy for President official earlier this week in Waterloo, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is back in Iowa for the Independence Day holiday weekend for a bus tour of our state. 

This morning Congresswoman Bachmann held an event at the Bluebird Diner in Iowa City.  It was not well publicized and I would have not known anything about it without a Facebook message from John Archer (soon to be announced GOP candidate for Iowa’s 2^nd Congressional District).  The 8AM event was not at the traditional breakfast spot in Iowa City, the Hamburg Inn.  After all, it was Ronald Reagan who was the first candidate from either party to visit there during the caucus season of 1979, and it has become a tradition, a rite of passage if you will for all Presidential contenders since.  But the Bluebird it was this morning. 

After spending the night in Iowa City, Michele Bachmann, her husband, Marcus Bachmann and daughter arrived about 8:40 AM for the 8AM event.  She worked the room masterfully, talking to everyone there, autographing whatever was presented and had a picture taken with everyone who asked.  She was particularly attentive to the children and young people in the room and even posed with the wait staff at the Bluebird for a picture.

I met some other friends there who had new neighbors moving in this weekend.  The parents of these neighbors were in town from New Jersey and when my friends told them that they were going to see Michele Bachmann this morning, they got directions and attended as well.  They were the first people that she met as she descended from her campaign bus. 

For about an hour and fifteen minutes, she visited, encouraged people to attend the Ames Straw Poll in August and by sitting down and eating breakfast with the owner, she gave the media, both local and national, enough for the obligatory photo ops.  CNN broadcasted live, and I saw a young man with NBC credentials around his neck, Time magazine, the Cedar Rapids Gazette, along with our local ABC affiliate were in the press throng covering the event.

She gave no general address to the group as a whole and a little bit before 10AM headed out the door to her next stop in Cedar Rapids, for which I overheard one of her staffers say that they were going to be about 45 minutes late there as well.

Michele Bachmann has created quite a buzz in the time that she has served as a Congressman from suburban St. Paul and is a Tea Party favorite. She organized and established the Tea Party Caucus in the Congress.   She is a social and fiscal conservative and there can be no question of her credentials in that regard.  Congresswoman Bachmann is a genuine person, she looks at you straight on (well probably looking up at you, because she only appears to be about 5’ tall) with piercing blue eyes as if you and she are the only two people in the room.  She was gracious and warm. 

I would have liked to hear something from her today.  With the debt ceiling negotiations going on in Washington it would have been a perfect time to take advantage of that to let the people who had gathered hear what she had to say about that.

The most amusing moment of the morning, was when she met a ‘seasoned citizen’, a local Republican activist whom I know well.  He and his wife had arrived about 7:30 AM for the scheduled 8AM event.  When he stood up to meet her, he said that he would like to give her some advice, “Be on time for your events” is what he told her.  Good advice, John.  I would agree.

Thank you, Congresswoman Bachmann for coming to Johnson County and stopping in Iowa City.  In this liberal bastion, you will not garner a significant amount of support, but you get kudos from me for even making the effort.   God speed in your travels this weekend.

John Archer with Michele Bachmann

 Approximately 15 conservatives from eastern Iowa sat down in a Perkins Restaurant in Cedar Rapids to listen, ask questions, and challenge the former Senator from Pennsylvania.  This was the second time I had met Sen. Santorum.  He was the speaker at a fund-raiser for my friend, now State Senator Sandy Greiner in June, 2010.   Back then I found him to be an articulate speaker and unquestionably a committed conservative.  At last year’s meeting, while making an impression, two things concerned me about Rick Santorum:  one being his support for Arlen Specter in a contested GOP primary back in 2004 and that he lost his Senate seat in 2006 by 18 points to his Democratic challenger. 

I found out quickly, that those assembled for this week’s meeting had the same concerns.  After an opening statement and introduction to us he then opened the floor to questions, and the first one, not from me, was about the Specter issue.  Sen. Santorum with conviction in his voice explained that in 2004, the Republicans had the slimmest of margins with a 51-49 majority in the Senate.  At the time, Senator Specter was the chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.  He was the gate-keeper for President Bush’s nominees to the United States Supreme Court.  Sen. Santorum quite simply made the case, that Specter’s chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee was tantamount to nominating and confirming President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees.  While John Roberts, one of Bush’s nominees had a relatively easy path to confirmation, other conservative judges would not have.  When Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court, Santorum gave Specter the credit for this conservative jurist being nominated and eventually confirmed.  Santorum simply stated, “Without Specter, there would be no Alito”.  Justice Alito gives the conservatives a 5-4 edge on the US Supreme Court.  Even more telling, when asked if he would do it again, he replied with no hesitation, that he would. 

When the question about his defeat in 2006 was raised, he explained that running against the son of a popular Democratic pro-life former Governor, lost him the support of the Catholics who had previously supported him in runs against pro-choice Democrats.  Along with the fact that 2006 was the year that the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives it was not a good year for Republicans.  He also cited the historical note that Abraham Lincoln had lost his election for the US Senate from Illinois before running for the Presidency.

To his credit, he made no derogatory comments about any of the current or potential candidates.   He did state that the thought that Donald Trump was causing damage with his Obama birth certificate obsession, and hopefully with the release of the President’s birth certificate today, this issue has been put to rest.  Santorum shared that he had been born in Virginia and that he would not be able to produce any other kind of document other than a registration of his live birth, not a birth certificate as such.  He said that he had no question that Barack Obama was a lawful President by virtue of being born in this country.

Sen. Santorum spoke on topics ranging from education, energy, economy, national security, and immigration.  In education he said that public education in this country should not be controlled by “No Child Left Behind” and that the US had to do a better job of educating and graduating engineers and scientists who will lead the research and innovation that will help rebuild the American economy and allow us to compete in the global marketplace.  

He supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and said that he would again, but questions President Obama’s commitment to victory in Afghanistan.  He sees Iran as a serious threat in the Middle East and thinks that the Libya policy is misguided. His commitment to defend Israel was clear as well. There is no question that Santorum believes that there is a jihad against the US and there are Islamic fundamentalists who want nothing more than to destroy the United States and its allies. 

 He would build the fence along the border to prevent any more illegals from entering and then deal with the problem of illegals in this country at that point.

 He said that for the American economy to fully recover that the corporate tax code needs to be changed to incentivize entrepreneurship and that we needed to start making things again. He would consider a repatriation of investments by Americans in foreign accounts to bring that money back into this country. 

His energy policy would be one that the United States would to drill for oil here to end the problems that a turbulent Middle East has on oil and energy prices in the US.   He opposed ethanol subsidies as a US Senator, but conceded yesterday that ethanol was an important component to achieving energy independence, and that the ethanol industry had turned the corner and is now doing well enough those subsidies may now no longer be necessary. 

Then, succinctly and with true conviction, he remarked that the repeal of Obamacare was the signature issue of this campaign. ObamaCare, fully instituted, Santorum sees as the end of America as we know it.  He told of defeating three incumbent Democrats in congressional elections in his home state of Pennsylvania, and stated with no hesitation, “I know how to beat incumbent Democrats.”  He does not believe that President Obama will raise $1B for his re-election campaign and he is ready to commit the time and resources to an election which he regards as the most important in this country since the Civil War.

I am ready to keep listening to Rick Santorum.  As I emailed to a friend last night, he exudes confidence and has a take no prisoners attitude.  There is no question that he has the credentials to appeal to all segments of the conservative voting bloc.    Sen. Santorum plans to spend a lot of time in Iowa as well as the other early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.  He has assembled a campaign staff in Iowa who already understand Iowa politics and know the intricate workings of the Iowa caucus system.  He has positioned himself well in this state.  And if he can keep up the intensity and visit here often so that he can conduct the retail politics that Iowans have come to expect, there is no question that he could do very well in the caucus and go forth to do well in succeeding primaries as well.  I will definitely be watching.

Let me be clear:  (who else says that?)  I do not oppose labor unions. I have never been a member of a labor union, but understand the role that they have played to improve wages, benefits, and working conditions for the workers that they represent.    My opposition to them is the power that they have amassed over the years, many times to the detriment of the very people that they are supposedly organized to help.  In the past three days, the unionized teachers of the public schools, especially in Dane (Madison) and Milwaukee Counties, with help from OFA, Organize for America—the offshoot of the Obama 2008 campaign, and various other sympathetic groups marched on the state capitol.  They are protesting the newly elected Republican governor and state legislature’s attempt to limit their collective bargaining agreement and increase the amount that they contribute toward their health insurance and retirement.  

Interestingly enough, George Meany, former President of the AFL-CIO, stated in 1955:  “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”    The Heritage Foundation has a great article about this, pointing out that in 1959; Wisconsin was the first state to allow collective bargaining with public employees.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/19/fdr-warmed-us/

Adding to the intrigue of it all is the AWOL status of the Democratic members of the Wisconsin Senate. In a 19-14 split Senate, only one Democrat would have to be present to meet the 3/5ths quorum required to conduct business.  None of the Senate Democrats wanted to be the “one” to help make that quorum.  So, because of a quirky Wisconsin state law that allows Wisconsin State Police to bring legislators, who are in-state, to the Capitol to make a quorum what did they do?  Boarded a bus and headed for Rockford, IL.    Now nothing against Rockford, but why not Dubuque?

This video shot during the Madison protests shows the vitriol, anger, and downright hatred of these protestors against the legally elected Governor and Republican state legislators.  It is a great video because it shows the contrast of what the Democrats in the US Congress had to say about the Tea Party protestors for the past two years.  Ah…how quickly the tables turn.  Also, remind me again about civility in our rhetoric.     I can say with reasonable certainty that Sarah Palin is nowhere near this group in proximity or ideology.  So, this one is not her fault!

What is at stake here is not the future of the organized labor movement in the US.  It is virtually the future of our nation itself.  We have a staggering debt. In addition to the federal government,   states like California, Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York are teetering on bankruptcy.  My own home state of Missouri and adopted state of Iowa are not in good financial shape either.  The “kick the can” philosophy taken by our elected leaders, both Democrat and Republicans has put our nation and our states in the precarious position that we find ourselves in now.  We do not have a tax deficit, we have a spending surplus.  Cities, counties, states, and the federal government find themselves with balance sheets where the liabilities far exceed the assets.  Expenses outpace income. And one of the biggest liabilities every level of government has are because of the lucrative public employee compensation contracts as well as the public employee retirement systems. Public school teachers, firemen, police officers, public works employees are all a part of this system. 

Many years ago, when the salaries for public employees were not at the level that they are today, more generous benefit packages were offered.  In the state of Iowa, there is something called the rule of 88. It is age plus the years of service—and when added together for a total of 88, one is eligible for retirement.  Retirement benefits cannot be collected until one is age 55.  Because of this, we have many in their early 50s who have achieved the 88, then can retire.  And many come back to work for state or local governments as a private contractor—working full-time in the same job that they had with the government!  Only public school teachers are precluded from this arrangement.

There is nothing wrong with a healthy, vibrant 55-year-old who may still want to work. But what is wrong with the system, when in many cases we offer an incentive for early retirement only to have these same people back doing almost the same jobs they did while on the public payroll as private contractors?  And why the incentives?  Because over the years, governments began to think that in addition to the gold-plated benefits packages, they had to offer wage packages that mirrored the private sector.  In the state of Iowa alone, public sector salaries outpace private sector ones for similar positions.  Those receiving a paycheck from the taxpayer often time is making more than the taxpayer themselves! It all comes down to the power that the public employee unions have amassed.

For these  Wisconsin teachers and other state employees to call in sick, head to Madison, and protest against this, while is their right to do so, is it the right thing to do in these economic times?  And what kind of message does that send to students…that it is okay to lie about something if it is to do what one perceives as something for the greater good? Not so sure that is the message that we want to send. 

My Bachelor’s degree is in elementary education. I was an elementary school teacher in Missouri public schools for 18 years. I remember vividly that one of the professors I had as a senior in college told us that if we were planning to become wealthy as a public school teacher, that we needed to reconsider our major right then and there, because, he said, when you are dependent upon tax dollars for your wage, you will always be at the mercy of others who will make the decision about how much you are paid  who will be guided by the voters in telling them how much they were willing to be taxed. It will never be based upon your marketable skill but whether the taxpayers of the school district were in a generous mood on any given election day.

I signed my first teaching contract in 1975 for $7200.  Because the state legislature passed a funding increase for elementary and secondary education, by that fall, my salary had increased to $7500.   I am not saying that to begrudge any teacher in any school the wage that they are paid today.  Quite the contrary.  In a perfect world, our school teachers, nurses, police, fire, sheriffs, state patrol, and snow plow drivers, nurses, and care givers to the elderly would all earn what we pay our major league baseball, football, and basketball players.  And along with that the money that is spent to build the majestic palaces of play for them would be put toward schools, libraries, hospitals, long-term care facilities and infrastructure in our cities and states.  But alas, it is not a perfect world.

And it is not a perfect world for public employees now. State, city and county budgets are stretched to the max, and just like in business, personnel costs are the biggest portion of that budget.  When the taxpayers who are paying the taxes to pay the salaries are not getting raises, and for what I believe is almost 20% of the population of our country-do not have a job at all, public employees have to be willing to make the same sacrifices that others are making to get out of this economic black hole that we find ourselves in at this time.  

Another prime example is here in Iowa with the Department of Human Services.  Before leaving office in January, the outgoing {Democratic} Governor negotiated a new salary and benefits package with the state employees’ labor union.  Because of budget cuts, the current {Republican} Governor has stated that unless the DHS union employees will rescind that salary and benefits package, then 136 positions will be eliminated, and services at several of our mental health facilities will have to be cut back. To me this is a no-brainer.  Give it back to save your colleagues’ jobs and keep services!  But rather, a press release and in-house email went out about the big, bad Governor who was cutting jobs and services.  He is doing the only thing he can do. 

Compromise is not always pretty, but when it is the alternative to losing jobs then it has to be done.  Wisconsin is just the beginning.  New Jersey is fighting this battle and I expect more skirmishes as states continue to work to put their budgets together for the next fiscal year—with more red than black on the balance sheet.

So to the protestors:  rant, rave, protest, but do it on your own time. Get back into the classroom on Monday morning and teach your students a lesson in how the system works.  But be ready to realize that the system will only exist if everyone is willing to give some to get by until better times are here.

And for Madison, you may have just joined the ranks of Lexington, Concord, Fort Sumter, Gettysburg  and Shanksville as a place where the battle lines were drawn and an important stand was made by those willing to do the hard work.  It appears that you will be leading the way….again.

Here in Iowa, we will have a front-row seat. Contacts have been made. Staffs are starting to be hired.  Alliances are starting to gel.  Endorsements are being sought.  All in anticipation of what will be the political equivalent of the Kentucky Derby.   April 1 is a significant day for one reason:  MONEY.  Staffs, alliances, media buys, and even endorsements are available only if you have been successful in fund-raising. While volunteers are essential in the early states, paid staff is also necessary to shepherd those volunteers into an organization that turns out the caucus goers in Iowa and voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  Media has to reach those that volunteers can not.  And while most electeds do not want to talk about it,  a contribution or attendance at a fund-raiser for a legislative or state candidate can go a long way to get into that person’s political Rolodex and campaign organization for more volunteers and contacts.

Money, it has been said is the Mother’s milk of politics.  FEC filings are fodder for the ‘analysts’ and opponents as to the health and sustainability of a campaign at any level.   April 1- June 30 is the time frame of the 2^nd quarter, and those reports which will be released in mid-July will give an early indication of organization and fundraising strength of any candidate.

The GOP candidate will not be chosen in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina this time.  I truly believe that it will be early spring—April or May before the front-runner is decided.  And that is a good thing.  To have a candidate who can have a strong showing in the primaries in the battleground states of Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania,  New Mexico, North Carolina and Colorado will  serve to make that candidate that much stronger going into what will undoubtedly be a brutal Presidential campaign in the fall.

So as this April 1 date approaches, let’s take a quick look at the possible candidates:

Newt Gingrich:  Name recognition, incredibly articulate, no one is better on any issue.  But as I ‘tweeted’ this morning, if it were only 20 years and 2 wives ago.  This is a problem for Newt. Whether the stories are urban legend or actually true about how he treated his ex-wives, these reports are difficult for many to accept.  Now that being said, with everything that was known or not known about Barack Obama, if it is more about  Newt the candidate and not Newt the husband, it could work out for him.  He was back in Iowa recently—at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City meeting with doctors and nurses on the staff there.  Iowa City and the University of Iowa typically not friendly territory for conservative candidates–which speaks volumes about Newt and his political acumen.

 Mitt Romney:  Mr. Romney has much support among the Republican Party ‘establishment’ players in Iowa.  He has kept in touch with staff and volunteers and those who supported him in 2008 will not be blindsided by an under the radar campaign as that which was waged by the Huckabee people to win the Iowa caucus then.  He has money, name recognition, a political pedigree, looks Presidential, great family.  But he has one major flaw:  RomneyCare—the health care initiative that he put forth while Governor of Massachusetts.  He continues to avoid addressing the issue and until he can and give a reasonable explanation and set the record straight he may still find himself coming up short.   There is talk that he may put more effort into New Hampshire and South Carolina than Iowa, but he has the boots on the ground here and would be a strategic error to dismiss the first in the nation caucus.

Tim Pawlenty: as the former Governor of a neighboring state, he has name recognition and an instant geographical connection in Iowa.  He has garnered the support of some major players in Iowa Republican politics and has made many trips and has covered all the major media markets in the state to get the saturation that he needs. But then again, the trip from St. Paul to Sioux City, Davenport, Council Bluffs, Ottumwa,  Cedar Rapids and Des Moines can be done by automobile in an easy drive.  So, that is an advantage especially when funds are not being spent for air travel.  But outside of Iowa, I do not see Pawlenty as a contender.  He is pleasant, well-spoken, on the ‘right’ side of the issues, but lacks the “wow” factor that is needed to carry him past the initial contests in IA, NH, and SC. 

 Michele Bachmann: another Minnesotan with Iowa ties. At every stop in Iowa, she makes sure that she reminds everyone that she is an Iowan by birth.  That help makes the connection, but Iowans who are involved in this process are much more politically savvy to allow a birth certificate to sway their decision.  On the other hand, at least she has one…but I digress.  There is nothing else to say about Michele Bachmann except this: She is running for Vice-President.

John Thune: good looks, strong conservative, Midwestern, strong western Iowa ties-but it ends there.  I watched his CPAC speech and it was a good speech to introduce himself to the gathered faithful.  He appears to have been very hesitant to make any kind of move in Iowa or anywhere else for that matter.  He does have $7 million in his campaign war chest as he had no primary or general election opponent in South Dakota re-election contest.  Will he be willing to move that into a Presidential campaign committee remains to be seen.  One major positive for Sen. Thune in Iowa is his closeness to Iowa Senator Charles Grassley.  Sen. Grassley has indicated that unlike 2008, he will endorse a candidate for President in the Iowa caucus.  Grassley and Thune are two peas in the political pod on many issues—ethanol being one of them.  While that is a huge positive in Iowa, and not saying that he will win Grassley’s endorsement here, but how does that play in the rest of the country and could John Thune having his ticket punched out of Iowa get him the support he needs in subsequent contests.  If he does not prevail in the Presidential field he will stay in the Senate…no VP run for him.  He says he will make a decision by the end of February….stay tuned. 

Haley Barbour:  Governor of Mississippi, one of the few GOP survivors of Katrina, former RNC Chair, extensive contacts throughout the country, probably one of the few who can co-opt the Reagan thing given his work in the Reagan administration.  He gave the best speech of any of the candidates at CPAC.  I like him, I could support him.  I think he could carry the day in November.  He could also benefit greatly from a Grassley endorsement. Now, will he run?  Again, he “will be making a decision” in the near future.

 Mike Huckabee: Why in the world would he give up a lucrative gig at Fox News where he has a weekly platform to say and advocate for whatever he wants.  Earlier this week it was announced that his Presidential campaign committee from 2008 was dissolved.  Now whether that is so that he can set up a 2012 committee, who knows.  Gov. Huckabee is a very pragmatic politician.  He understands that the social issues that garnered him so much attention in 2008 will not have the same significance this year.   He may make trips to Iowa to advocate for an agenda, but I will be very surprised if he enters the race here.

Sarah Palin: She and her daughter, Bristol trademarked their names recently. What is that about?  A young conservative woman and Twitter friend, Jackie Seal  recently wrote in her blog http://jackieseal.wordpress.com/2011/01/ about the Palin Factor.  Again, as a Fox News contributor and with the success of her recent Learning Channel series, her platform is much broader with than any that she would have in a Presidential campaign.  She has been much too coy about her plans—when she has known what they have been all along.  She is a remarkable person and deserves much of the credit for waking the sleeping giant that President Nixon referred to in his day as the “Silent Majority”. The Tea Party movement would not have had the impact in 2010 without her.  I am sure that she will be a great help to any candidate that she would support, but do not look for Sarah Palin’s name on a ballot again.

Rick Santorum:  He has made numerous trips to Iowa and helped out several state and legislative candidates  in 2010 not only with appearances but through financial contributions from his PAC.  He is an impressive speaker. I had the pleasure of meeting him last spring at a campaign event and it was quite clear then that a Presidential run was definitely on his radar.  His Achilles heel so to speak is his endorsement of Arlen Specter for the Pennsylvania Senate at the urging of President George W. Bush in 2004.  Sen. Specter then turned (again) which resulted in the Democrats taking back control of Congress in 2006, and Sen. Santorum eventually lost his Senate seat.  Some say that all has been forgiven with the win back of that seat by Pat Toomey last year, but then again, he was Specter’s primary opponent when Santorum gave his endorsement.  Interestingly enough, Santorum told the story that even his wife, Karen told him at the time that the Specter endorsement was a mistake.  Well, maybe if he runs, President Bush will come back and help in his campaign. (not!)  Nice man.  Strong conservative values.  But can he carry the day?  Iowa is the big test for him.  If he falters here, he is on the short list of Vice Presidential candidates.

Donald Trump and Ron Paul:  Well everyone needs to have their 15 minutes every so often.  Is ”The Apprentice” starting a new season anytime soon?   That being said, Ron Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is certainly one to watch. His father should take great pride in the influence that he has had on one of the up and coming leaders of the Republican Party.

Other names that are frequently mentioned:  Governors Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie, former Governor Jeb Bush, and Congressman Mike Pence have all indicated that they do not intend to run and I take them at their word.  Congressman Pence will undoubtedly run for Governor of Indiana.  Governor Christie is focused on New Jersey.   Jeb Bush will not run for public office while his mother is still alive—Barbara Bush is still a force to be reckoned with in the Bush family.  Mitch Daniels very well could be a Cabinet Secretary in a Republican administration for any candidate that he may aid in a campaign to win the White House.

So there it is.  My take (along with at least 50,000 others) on the landscape of the Presidential primary season which whether you like it or not is in full swing.  The horses are all in the starting gate, and on April 1 I believe that we will hear the shot of the starter’s pistol as we watch the race begin.  For the first time in many cycles, this will be a race that will be won with endurance, not speed.  Watch those FEC reports for steady and consistent fundraising numbers to see who will have the staying power to last not only through the retail politics of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, but the multi-state primary media contests in March and April.  It is all about the money.

This January 20, 2011 is the anniversary of the inaugurations of three American Presidents who have had a profound effect on the American nation in the latter 20^th and early 21^st centuries.  John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush were inaugurated on this day with 20 years intervals separating them from one another. 

In 1961, 50 years ago today, John F. Kennedy, a young, charismatic Senator from Massachusetts, the first Catholic ever to be elected President, was inaugurated on a cold, snowy day in the District of Columbia.  A Democrat, he called for a reduction in the marginal tax rate to help spur the economy and supported  a strong military as a defense of our nation, which would align him more with the conservative Republicans of today.    The tax cuts passed with the help of conservatives from the Midwest and Northeast were instrumental in the growth of the American economy and establishing a standard of living for Americans unequalled anywhere in the world.  With strategic allies in Western Europe and the Far East, Kennedy was a committed anti-Communist.   Even though he had been embarrassed by a shoe pounding Nikita Khrushchev  earlier in the year, in October, 1962 he guided the United States through eight days of crisis by ordering a naval blockade of Soviet ships loaded with short range ballistic missiles headed to be installed on the island of Cuba, a mere 90 miles from the US shore.    By causing the other side to blink, he established himself as the leader of the free world and went on to be admired by people of all nations.  On a trip to Germany in the summer of 1963, he spoke to an almost immeasurable crowd in the divided city of Berlin, and told them that “Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

This first World War II veteran to occupy the White House, Kennedy inspired future generations of Americans to public service, as the words from his inauguration, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” are some of the most quoted from any Presidential inaugural and still ring true today.  

Sadly, this President would be killed at the hand of an assassin in November, 1963, and his term of about 1000 days in length would be remembered more for references to ‘Camelot’ than what was actually accomplished.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40^th President of the United States.  A new kind of conservative who had served as Governor of California through a turbulent time, this almost 70-year-old became one of the oldest to ever occupy the Oval Office.   Prior to becoming Governor he had been a movie and TV actor known for hawking General Electric appliances,  co-starring with a chimpanzee and inspiring the Notre Dame football team to “win one for the Gipper”. 

After the divisions left from Vietnam, the disappointing years of Watergate, the four years of Jimmy Carter telling Americans that we were in a malaise, this eternal optimist  spoke of the “shining city on the hill”  and reminded us that we had a  “rendezvous with destiny” to “preserve for our children this last, best hope on earth”.  He reminded us that America is a remarkable and exceptional country and made us feel good about ourselves again. His enthusiasm and patriotism was contagious. So many of the conservative leaders of today talk of how Reagan inspired and influenced them and helped to cultivate their conservative principles.  President Reagan, through his remarkable communication skills gave us such memorable moments including that of admonishing the Soviet President by stating at the Brandenburg Gate:   “Mr. Gorbachev:  Tear down this wall!” in reference to the that which was constructed some 25 years earlier to divide free from Communist Berlin.   

Both Kennedy and Reagan had two of their more memorable moments in Germany.

In carefully staged and crafted event, he saluted the ‘boys of Pointe Du Hoc’ by commemorating the 40^th anniversary of the landing at D-Day with the 60 year olds of the Greatest Generation.   And in January, 1986, Reagan lead our nation as we mourned the loss of the NASA astronauts killed in the Challenger explosion.   Dubbed “The Great Communicator” Reagan brought a new era to the Presidency, one that was tailor-made for the medium for which he had gained acclaim earlier in his professional life,  television.  It was during his term, the advent of cable TV news and the 24 hour news cycle began, and President Reagan was never short on photo-ops and sound bites to feed the appetite of  the ever-increasing national media.

While the nation sang along with his campaign theme song “God Bless the USA”, a young Marine officer was working behind the scenes under the direction of the national security advisor to help bring democracy to Central America. Ollie North then traded arms for hostages with those who were determined to destroy Israel and cause harm to the United States in the infancy of what would become the defining conflict for the United States for the rest of the 20^th century.  Reagan’s legacy would forever be entwined with what was referred to as the Iran-Contra Affair. 

After the most disputed election in our nation’s history, a son of a President, for only the third time in our nation’s history was inaugurated on January 20, 2001.    Ten years ago today President George W. Bush; with his father, former President George Herbert Walker Bush looking on, became the 43^rd President of the United States. 

He had campaigned on a platform of lowering taxes, limiting government, improving America’s schools for its children along  with bringing about a more compassionate kind of conservatism.

He had passed a landmark tax cut early in his administration and appeared to be making good on his campaign promises to work to grow the American economy and guide it out of the downturn that was inherited from his predecessor.

Then, on a bright, sunny, September morning, while he was in a primary school classroom in Florida listening to children read, in an event meant to advance his education initiative, his Chief of Staff Andy Card, with the TV cameras recording the moment, whispered into his ear, “Mr. President, America is under attack”.  Nineteen young men, extremists from Islamic nations in the Middle East, had hijacked four airplanes:  Two had struck the World Trade Center, one plowed into the Pentagon, and one by the grace of God and because of the heroism of Americans on Flight 93, crashed into a field in western Pennsylvania, thus saving the intended target, thought to be the US Capitol from the same fate as the WTC and Pentagon that day.  Over 2000 Americans lost their lives that day in the worst attack on the American mainland.

From September 11, 2001 on, the Bush administration focused on the War on Terror.   In a speech before a joint session of Congress, he put the world on notice, with the words:  “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”  For the next seven years, throughout the rest of his Presidency, George W. Bush focused on the safety of the American people to insure that there would never be another terrorist attack on the American homeland.  He was determined to bring these ‘evil-doers’ to justice, and with the might of the American military, he brought an end to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that harbored and encouraged the terrorist training camps where the 19 hijackers of the Sept. 11 flights had honed their skills.  That fight in Afghanistan continues to this day in what has become the longest war in American history.

In 2003, with intelligence reports from several corroborating sources that there were weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, President Bush with the support of the US Congress gave the order for US troops to invade and occupy Iraq.  The Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein twelve years earlier had invaded the neighboring nation of Kuwait, leading to Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, the military action ordered by his father, President George HW Bush, and with President Bush 43’s Vice-President, Dick Cheney as the Secretary of Defense.

During the Iraq War of President Bush 43, Saddam was captured by American forces, and then tried in an Iraqi court and sentenced to death for his crimes against the Iraqi people.    

The Iraqi War would be the defining and most frustrating issue for Bush.  The American people grew increasingly skeptical of the mission there, and in 2006, handed President Bush a midterm election defeat returning control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats for the first time since 1994.

Despite his campaign promise of a smaller, less intrusive federal government, he oversaw the largest expansion of the federal government in our nation’s history.  The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has become one of the largest bureaucracies in the federal government.

As Barack Obama was inaugurated two years ago today, the outgoing Republican President, George W. Bush handed over the power and responsibility of leading not only America, but the free world, to his Democratic successor.  It is without a doubt a wonder to the rest of the world that at the stroke of noon on January 20 every four years, with the utterance of an oath, the peaceful transfer of power occurs often between political opponents.   The only gun fire to be heard is that from the 21-gun salute from the assembled ceremonial military units.

It is one of the most remarkable displays of what our republic is about, and what our Founders envisioned some 240 years ago as they established a new nation. 

The office of the Presidency has been held by a variety of people  over the years from varying backgrounds, having differing temperaments, and possessing methods of leadership that cover the gamut from laissez-faire to that of an iron fist.  But what each of these people know, is that when their term is ended, when the 4 to 8 years that they occupy the White House will come to an end, they will sit in a chair on the steps of the US Capitol as their successor recites the Presidential oath and observe as a new leader takes the reins.

This display of a peaceful transfer of power is the envy of the world and what makes America truly exceptional.  On this January 20, the 50^th, 30^th, and 10^th anniversary of the inaugurations of Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush, respectively, we should celebrate from where we have come and what is still to be for this American nation, and honor that which sets us apart from the rest of the world.