My president selection “litmus test” is this:
“Which presidential candidate shows the most enthusiasm for defending our nation and culture, promoting the prosperity of this nation, and also has a track record that demonstrates his ability to do what he says.”
Here is a subjective matrix I’ve created based on six broad categories of candidate characteristics that I believe are important. “1” is least and “10” is most. Higher “total” is better than lower total…
|Demonstrated Ability to Accomplish||Ability to Show and Generate Enthusiasm||Speaks with Boldness and Truth - Not "Politically Correct"||Proposes Programs and Actions That Get to the Heart of the Problem||Promotes Private Sector Growth over Government Growth||Promotes Actions that Enhance our own Nation over a One World Govt.||TOTAL|
A candidate’s ability to accomplish what he sets out to do is demonstrated by their accomplishments in office or in their chosen career. Time or family in political office is not an indication of ability. In career development, transferable skills and successes are much more important than longevity.
Enthusiasm and energy shown by a candidate translates to generating enthusiasm in others. Which candidates are most motivational? That is critical in a leader.
A major problem in our nation is the inability or unwillingness of our leaders to speak the truth. Truth is too often withheld for fear of offending. This is particularly relevant to the truth of the consequences of unbridled immigration and our collective and self-inflicted ignorance of the dangers of orthodox Islamic doctrine on our national security and form of government. Who speaks most boldly and truthfully on these topics?
What most threatens the security, prosperity, and freedoms of our nation? Which candidates have proposed bold viable solutions to those threats? It is clear that uncontrolled illegal immigration, poor international agreements, failure to recognize threats posed by opposing world views, and discounting the role of the individual in achieving success are among the major threats to the security, prosperity and freedoms this nation has been known for. Takng responsibility away from the individual, family and community and pushing it toward government is policy that diminishes personal freedom.
The private sector is the engine of national prosperity. The government is not. The government consumes and controls resources, products and skills – it doesn’t produce them. Which candidate is likely to best promote private sector success over the growth of government?
There is a world-wide impetus toward a world wide mega government. Nationalism is increasingly condemned as an evil to be avoided. Borders are ignored, national identities scorned, and multi-national agreements that diminish national sovereignty are the new cure to the world’s ills. Is this the direction we think is appropriate for our nation, our heritage, our culture, our freedoms and our sense of well-being? Not for me they aren’t.
Here is a quote from Diana West that nails it:
“For many decades, the unspoken answer to this inconceivable question (inconceivable, that is, before Trump) has been yes. "We Are the World" has been the USA's unofficial anthem, the political muzak of our times that we either hum along to, or accept in teeth-gritted silence for fear of censure (or cancelled party invitations). "Openness," "multiculturalism," "globalism" -- all have been pounded into us for so long that I think Americans despaired of ever hearing anyone give voice again to a patriotic vision of American interests. Then Trump came along and changed the tune. Americans perked up their ears. Maybe a wall -- which is just the beginning of Trump's detailed immigration policy, which Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) calls "exactly the plan America needs" -- would make America possible again. That would be great, indeed.”
As for me, the table above reflects the priorities that are most important in a national leader.
I like Cruz, Carson, and Rubio. But their shortcomings diminish their effectiveness in areas critical to an effective Presidency.
Cruz withholds the truth about Islam, giving us the George Bush impession that “Islam is peace.” He fails to express the truth. Why, I don’t know. But that is a huge problem. Again, from Diana West:
“I regret to say that Sen. Cruz does not support Trump's moratorium, deferring instead to a rosier vision of Islam and immigration screening both in order, politely, to reject it.”
Carson is bolder with the truth, but he fails in the leadership arena. I agree with pundits who suggest “speak softly but carry a big stick” is excessively minimalist. Sometimes speaking loudly is necessary to rally the masses and intimidate the asses.
Rubio speaks a good speech. He is lucid, just like Obama, but moreso. But he is weak on immigration, and is Bush-esque, rather reserved, really, on the Islam problem.
Those who are lower-end candidates based on my criteria?
O’Malley is barely running, like the lower half of the Republicans in the polls.
Clinton is a serial liar and has made a disaster of her credibility both in the Middle East and in defending her husband.
Sanders is an unapoligetic Socialist, some say Communist, who has dreams of more aggressive wealth redistribution, bigger government, world governance, with the consequences of reducing individual freedoms and initiative.
It would be refreshing if a few candidates shared former Muslim Nonie Darwish’s list of hopes for the new year as shown HERE.