Posts Tagged ‘2012 Presidential candidates’

What forced Richard Nixon to resign was the Watergate tapes, or more accurately, the eighteen minutes that were missing from a conversation the President had with Bob Haldeman, his Chief-of-Staff, three days after the botched burglary.

Here is where the comparison to Obama’s coverup of Benghazi becomes relevant. In the fifty emails released by the administration to Congress, none of them were from the first two days after the attack. What these missing emails contain is so damming it will bring down Obama’s Presidency, just as the missing minutes from Nixon’s tapes brought him down forty years ago. To hide what the missing emails contain, Obama and his surrogates have purposefully leaked information about the abuses of the IRS toward the Tea Party, Christian groups, friends of Israel, and conservative Hispanic groups. Obama did this, knowing his administration would take a terrible hit for doing so.

Why would he do that, knowing it would wound him? Why would he create a huge scandal for himself—one that would substantially undermine his credibility? It’s because what these emails contain would mortally wound his ability to lead. The IRS scandal is bad, but it is a diversion from a worse one.

The House Government Oversight Committee needs to subpoena these missing emails, as well as everyone on the email chain. If they do, we will finally get to the truth about Benghazi. If Obama refuses to release them, which he will, the House should draw up Articles of Impeachment immediately.

Right now, there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict Obama, but that could change, especially with vulnerable seats in VA, AR, AK, CO, LA, IA, MN, MI, WV, MT, NC, and SD up for grabs in 2014. If you were a Democratic candidate in these mostly red states, would you stand behind the Benghazi coverup? Not if you wanted to be reelected, you wouldn’t.

If we can obtain the missing emails, our nation will be saved and order restored.

Jack Watts   My Prayer for America

Read Full Post »

In the last Presidential election, I put up numerous posts, imploring voters to use their heads and vote President Obama out of office. Many of my Progressive and Liberal friends replied heatedly, but I didn’t. Using my reasoning skills, I never responded to harshness with harshness. There’s a reason for that. It’s not just that I’m a nice guy.

As a Christian, I have the Spirit of God inside of me, providing me with wisdom, discernment, and compassion for those who are lost. Bashing non-believers for not seeing the world through my eyes is like criticizing a short, fat old man for not being able to dunk a basketball. The man is not physically capable of doing so. The same is true for my liberal friends. Since they have not been regenerated with God’s Spirit, they cannot be held accountable for discerning God’s will. It’s as simple as that.

When I post about governmental abuse, it’s about the issue and not about anything else. When it comes to Obama, I need to write a post focusing completely on him, but not yet.

Since you have the Spirit of God guiding you, stand firm in your convictions, knowing that the attacks you receive come from people who are blind and don’t know any better.

Read Full Post »

As the Presidential race heats up, Americans will start paying better attention to political events. With the Republicans enmeshed in brutal negative attacks flying back and forth among themselves, it’s no wonder President Obama’s approval rating is improving. By comparison, his affability is refreshing, and he appears to be a better alternative. This should cause his opponents concern, but it doesn’t seem to. They are far too busy eviscerating one another.

Normally, if a President has increased the national debt as much as Barack Obama has, while the unemployment rate has remained over 8 percent for his entire administration, you would expect his approval rating to be dismal, but that hasn’t been the case. It has remained near 50 percent, which is excellent considering the state of the economy. There are some reasons for this:

  1. Barack Obama is very likeable, which has certainly served him well. A strong family man, his wife’s charm has also added to his personal popularity among a large segment of the population.
  2. Being the first African-American hasn’t hurt him either. Americans have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt from day one, hoping he will prove to be a good leader.
  3. Throughout Europe and the rest of the world, American prestige was enhanced when he was elected—a black President in the country that fought a civil war over slavery.
  4. Additionally, he inherited a dreadful mess from Republican George W. Bush and the spendthrift Democratic Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, coupled with big spenders like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

As we approach the next election, however, the President—who had no record to challenge—now has one that is indefensible. Gas prices have doubled, and we have increased our debt by more than one trillion dollars for each of the four years Obama has led the nation, while not having a budget for more than 1,000 days.

The list of disastrous economic decisions has become enormous, which is why President Obama is trying to change the issues for this election. If he runs on his record, he will lose by a landslide, while taking Democrats down with him at every level of government.

That’s why he has begun to change the point of contention from economic to social issues. By focusing on contraception and a woman’s right to choose, his strategy is to muddy the water and squeak out a narrow victory. It may work, especially if the Republicans condescend to fight him on his turf. Their challenge is to maintain the focus on the economy—unsustainable debt, high unemployment, wasteful government expenditures, and crony capitalism.

If the Republicans can do this, they will win, but it isn’t going to be easy to stay focused. The mainstream media will rally behind the Obama candidacy and do everything they can to keep the news focused on social issues rather than Obama’s economic failures.

At this point, the end result is unclear with the White House up for grabs. Obama is a formidable candidate—no question about it. If his ability to govern were as strong as his ability to campaign, he would be a shoe-in, which is why the Republicans must remain focused on his record. If they can do this, which they have not been able to do so far, they will win handily. In one sense, the answer is easy, but achieving it certainly isn’t—not for the current crop of candidates anyway.

Read Full Post »

I like Herman Cain. I like his forthrightness, his energy, and his ideas. They are all great. And I love his sense of humor. We haven’t had anybody with his sense of timing since Ronald Reagan. I have laughed out loud numerous times at some of Cain’s statements, which has added positively to the long, arduous process of picking Obama’s replacement.

I also like the idea of supporting a conservative black candidate. Sorry, but that’s exactly the way I feel, and there are a lot of people who feel the same way.  Like most conservatives, when someone I like is criticized, I stand behind them.

When the first woman came forward accusing Cain of sexual misconduct, I didn’t believe a word she said. With Gloria Allred right by his accuser’s side, the entire episode looked like a sleazy left-wing conspiracy to defame a good man.  He didn’t lose me there—not one bit. If anything, my support strengthened.

Following that, when the two cases of sexual harassment surfaced, I was stunned and shaken. When I learned that the women had received settlements, I stopped my support for Cain. There were two reasons why I did.

First, if there were no measure of guilt, why would Cain settle? If he was completely innocent, paying off these women was the wrong thing to do. By making a payment, he sealed his own fate, which would eventually derail his presidential candidacy more than a decade later. It was as good as making a nolo contendere plea in court, which is the same thing as being guilty—just not admitting it, which is exactly what Cain did.

The latest bombshell, coming from Ginger White, has made his continuation in the process untenable. It’s not just that he had an affair. Many Presidents have done that, and some of them have been good leaders. It’s that Cain lied about it, which is the second reason I’ve stopped supporting him. He has a character problem, and character counts in presidential politics, especially for conservatives. How can you follow someone you can no longer trust?

To me, it looks like Cain has deceived us all along, and that’s the kiss of death for a presidential candidate. He has a pattern of behavior in his personal life that is unacceptable, and he has lied about it all along, making his supporters look foolish and naive. No other explanation makes sense.

This means he has to drop out of the race, and if he has any sense, he will do it quickly. I’m sorry Herman, but it’s time to go.

Read Full Post »

Our selection process for picking a Presidential candidate is so flawed; we have become unable to choose the best man or woman for the job. We don’t even look for the best person. Instead, we scrutinize candidates, looking for the one with the least flaws or negative baggage.

If our current methodology were operational throughout our history, many of our best leaders never would have survived the process. For example:

  • Thomas Jefferson, who had a slave concubine and plagiarized much of the Declaration of Independence from John Locke, would never have been taken seriously. The media would have crucified him.
  • Abraham Lincoln, who fought depression his entire life, would have been considered unstable and, therefore, unfit to lead.
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was the allied commander in Europe during World War II and responsible for defeating Hitler, maintained a mistress who traveled with him throughout the war as his secretary. He left his wife, Mamie, back home in Kansas. He would have been considered morally unfit to lead.
  • John F. Kennedy’s profligacy, which included movie stars, would never have survived the finger pointing of his rivals in the primaries.

There are many other good Presidents who would not have been electable, while many weak leaders would have survived, including Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama—the two worst Presidents in my lifetime. To be fair, mediocre Presidents like George W. Bush and Richard Nixon also would have survived. So would most of the Presidents of the late-nineteenth century—the ones nobody can remember.

The point is this: the mediocre survive the process. As finger pointing has become the norm, it seems that few ask the fundamental question, “Can the candidate in question lead us in perilous times or not?”

Take the current crop of Republicans for instance. If you’re going to choose—based on knit picking and who is safe—Romney is your guy. He is a good, safe bet—straight down the middle, as mediocre as they come. He looks good; he’s affable; and he will be whatever you want him to be—just as long as he thinks it will bring him victory. He’s the poster boy for playing the role of a Presidential candidate.

Herman Cain’s popularity, which has certainly peaked, is an exciting candidate. I love his honesty and his candor. By paying those women for their sexual harassment suits, however, his goose was cooked before he ever started. That’s as good as a nolo contendere plea. Actually, I’m not as concerned about the sexual discrimination issue as I am about his competency to lead. Frankly, I don’t think he can do it—nor can Bachmann or Santorum. Ron Paul’s followers are as faithful as hound dogs, but he’s a fringe player—just like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were in the past.

That leaves two others—Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Both have real records, which are impressive. Newt’s baggage appears to be more extensive, but he’s been in national politics much longer than Perry. The Texas Governor has an impressive record leading America’s second largest state, which is important, but he seems ill prepared in many areas.

That leaves Newt who hasn’t gone out of his way to impress me with his conservative credentials, but I still remember how he led the charge to turn the nation around in the mid-nineties. We need someone to do that again, and I believe he can. What has impressed me the most is his knowledge. He’s capable of leading us in turbulent times. I’m certain of it. Finally, I believe he’s eaten enough crow to know he doesn’t want to make a fool out of himself again, but only time will tell.

—Jack Watts


  • What do you think of this editorial? Be specific with your comments.
  • Do we pick the safest candidate or the best one?
  • Which Republican candidate would make the best leader? Why?
  • Is Herman Cain’s candidacy finished?
  • Can Rick Perry’s candidacy make resurgence? If so, how?

If you want to join the discussion, go to http://webelieveamerica.com/forum/topics/who-will-be-the-republican-presidential-candidate and let your voice be heard.

Read Full Post »

Discounted early, especially by the mass exodus of his campaign leadership, Newt Gingrich has made a surprising comeback. When he chose to go on a cruise rather than visit small towns in Iowa, many thought his campaign was dead in the water. In past election cycles, I think he would have been, but times have changed.

With so many debates, which has kept his face in front of the camera without expense, Newt has been free to do what he does best—be a professor. I remember him when he was at West Georgia College—the only conservative political scientist in the entire state. Even then, his intelligence was clear.

Now, more than three decades later, he has resurrected his campaign and become the clear favorite for all of us who want Obama out but can’t stomach Romney as an alternative.

Newt knows what he’s talking about. Everybody knows that. He’s clearly the best qualified Republican, but his sordid past has clouded his potential success. He says he has changed, and I’ll be darned if I don’t believe him. He’s older and wiser—both of which are appealing, especially when you look at the alternatives.

In the 1930s, people counted out Winston Churchill, many thinking his career was over, but it wasn’t. Instead, he became the champion of democracy and the man most responsible for the defeat of the Fascists and the NAZIs.

When Ronald Reagan ran in 1980, he was an old man, clearly past his prime, disrespected by most in politics. He paid no attention and became a man of destiny, ushering in a quarter-century of prosperity. Now, universally acclaimed, Reagan’s accomplishments have become legendary.

In Newt, perhaps we have exactly what we need—a “new” old man, someone who has the courage to lead and the strength of hisconvictions. He has seen it all and may have the opportunity to become a “Man of Destiny.” At bare minimum, his positive spirit is refreshing.

—Jack Watts

For more about American values, join me at http://webelieveamerica.com/

Read Full Post »