Eat Mor Chikin

We have been a Chick-fil-A family since our oldest, Political Sphere, turned 16 and got his first job—at Chick-fil-A. And not just any Chick-fil-A, but the third most successful of the about 5000 restaurants nationwide. The only two that rate higher have a double drive-thru—which this one is getting during renovation this summer. All of our kids and one daughter-in-law have worked there. We’ve had kids working for Chick-fil-A almost continually for over a decade. For a family that wants their kids to learn hard work but also wants them to come to church with us on Sundays, Chick-fil-A has been a great answer.

Out local Chick-fil-A
photo from KTRH.com traffic, August 1

The owner has two stores, the other one just a few miles up the same northwest Houston road. And that second store is where Political Sphere works now, as his second job. He works the daytime rush, and then comes home for a bite to eat (usually Chick-fil-A food he has brought home with him) and then heads out for his full-time swing shift job. So he was there yesterday during the onslaught. This second store is always busy. While not in the top three like the one down the road, it is consistently in the top 10%. They handle a huge rush crowd for every meal. They rarely take more than two minutes to get your food in hand after taking your order. Efficiency and good food is what they do. And they have a loyal clientele.

They’re located on a busy corner, adjacent to a Wal-Mart parking lot, across the street from a Kroger and Kohl’s. And neighborhoods are nearby. They have a drive-thru setup where they merge traffic coming in from two directions. There’s often a line at lunch and dinner rush, but it hardly ever takes more than ten minutes to get through with your food. Wednesday, Political Sphere reports, wait times were as long as an hour. At one point they had to stop taking orders, because the system was overwhelmed. (I think that means they couldn’t cook fast enough to meet the needs.) When they made the announcement, the crowd cheered. Giving Chick-fil-A the absolute maximum amount of business was the goal.

The ice machines couldn’t keep up with demand. The need was immediate—no time to make a call and wait for a delivery. So they sent personnel across the parking lot to Wal-Mart to bring back three shopping carts full of bags of ice. The Wal-Mart parking lot was crowded, but not with Wal-Mart shoppers; it was packed with people in line for Chick-fil-A.

The next day Political Sphere got the rest of the story. The store has been prepared for 40% increase daily because the other store is under renovation, so traffic comes to this one. And they thought that a marginal increase over that would do the job yesterday. But they weren’t ready for a 100% increase. At about 8:30 they had to announce that they would run out of chicken in half an hour.

The story today was that all of the Houston Chick-fil-As either doubled or tripled their usual business. About half closed early after running out of food. The one where Political Sphere works doubled, but when it starts with such high volume, that’s still significant. In the hour they had to shut down, they did $4500; they had three $3000 hours during the dinner rush.

By the way, they overwhelmed the system again Thursday. And they’re gearing up for the supposed protest tomorrow—because in our area that is much more likely to mean more of what we saw Wednesday (people supporting the company because of its willingness to stand up for its beliefs) than a group of peace disturbers. Down in the Montrose area things could be more troublesome; we’ll see.

Social Sphere
ready for work
Cow Appreciation Day 2010

I had intended to go to Chick-fil-A yesterday. I was up north, and needed to get a salad right at 6:00 and then drive across town to a meeting by 7:00, somewhat against rush traffic, but while traffic is still heavy. So we had strategized and identified two stores near where I would be, and chose the one closest to the freeway. But I checked my email as I got to my car, and a text had just come in from Political Sphere: “Don’t go to Chick-fil-A.” If I’d waited in an hour-long line, I’d have never made it to my destination. I saw on a nighttime news broadcast that the one I had chosen actually closed at 8:00 PM, having run out of food. So, while Chick-fil-A gets my business pretty often, and my support always, yesterday I had to miss out on the community get-together.

I have often thought that the Chick-fil-A marketers are clever; I love the cows with spelling problems, and the apparently endless ways that idea can be used. (I get a Cowlendar for my kitchen wall every year.) But I don’t think they could have come up with a plan and put it into action that would have accomplished what this spontaneous outpouring of support has done. There are several clear messages sent by the clean, orderly, patient, pro-business throngs:

·         We like your chicken, waffle fries, and the rest of your really good food—and the quick service and good prices we’ve come to expect.

·         We support your willingness to stand up for what you believe.

·         We are against the bullying tactics of those who blacklist and marginalize anyone who doesn’t agree with their opinions.

For your listening pleasure, please take a couple of minutes to hear Christian comedian Tim Hawkins’s latest Chick-fil-A song:

Overseas Narrative

This past week Mitt Romney has had an extremely successful overseas tour, building positive relationships in Great Britain, Israel, and Poland. I’ve watched the interviews, heard or read transcripts of speeches, seen photos. So it is an experience in cognitive dissonance to hear the news narrative that claims he’s an embarrassment, with one gaffe after another. That’s wishful thinking on the part of a biased media who want a negative outcome from this trip. But they have had to make it up.

In last Friday’s post I mentioned the supposed gaffe, where Romney was said to have criticized the London Olympics. In a very positive 9-minute interview, he acknowledges, in answer to a direct question from Brian Williams, that he is aware of concerns the Olympic planners are challenged with. He includes three main parts, two of which are very positive, and then the third, which is always an unknown until the games are underway. He was pulling for things to go well. The only thing he didn’t do was guarantee that all would be well, as though he were unaware of the specific challenges; that would have also been perceived negatively, as though he hadn’t been paying attention, when the Olympics are a huge and positive part of his record. All the rest of his public communications, and also his meeting with the Prime Minister, went well, and clearly he made a good impression there on everyone but the American press.

Here is the interview Piers Morgan had with Mitt and Ann Romney, definitely worth seeing.

Romney Pays Respects at the Western Wall of Temple Mount in
Jerusalem on Sacred Day of Mourning.
Photo from Mitt Romney Central on Facebook

The next part of the trip was to Israel, where he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is a long-time personal friend. He was respectful to the man (who had been snubbed by our sitting president during his visit to our country) and complimented the people and their culture. This was considered a “gaffe,” because he pointed out that the strong work ethic and the millennia-old Israeli culture has led to prosperity for the people. The comparison was made between per capita income of Jews versus Palestinians. It’s demonstrable with data; the only error was in overestimating Palestinian per capita income by several thousand dollars. No matter what the press claim, this was a positive development between US relations and our greatest ally in the Middle East.

Lech Walesa and Mitt Romney
photo from Mitt Romney Central on Facebook

Then there’s Poland, where Romney complimented the people, who have regained freedom from tyranny, and have continued economic progress where countries around them have lately fallen into recession. Lech Walesa endorsed Romney as his choice for president—not that he has a vote, but he clearly has a preference of who he’d rather deal with. The press complaint of Romney’s Poland visit says that an aid had a meltdown. Here’s what happened: they were having a sacred moment at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Rather than respecting the people and the moment, US press people called out rude, taunting “questions,” and were called on it at least twice before the aid used an expletive in pointing out their inappropriateness. That’s what the press thinks Romney should be embarrassed about?

Concerning the cluelessness of the media, radio host Hugh Hewitt says in his July 31^st blog:

Press reaction to Romney's trip will make a great study in the years ahead on just how clueless and inept political reporters have become as a result on their dependency on each other and cable commentary to shape their world view. They don't talk to voters and they don't live among voters. Thus they invent stories that didn't happen and wouldn't matter if they did—a failed trip—even as they miss major events—Romney's speech in Israel—or major trends—the backlash against the enforcers threatening Chick-fil-A.

Meanwhile, back at campaign headquarters, here’s a chart showing money Obama et al. have poured into negative ads (because they can’t very well make ads about his record):

 

And this week Romney came out with this beautifully positive ad, called “Believe in Our Future”:

Texas Runoff Races

I gave my recommendation for Texas’s US Senate race last Wednesday (I’m going for Ted Cruz). But I was putting off the rest of the ballot until after Saturday’s tea party meeting, where we had one last chance to hear from candidates.

So, this is last minute, with election day tomorrow, but some of these races will be deciding the new occupant of the job, where there is no creditable democrat opposition. So your vote in this runoff is not only important, it will count for more than usual, because so few people go to vote in a runoff election.

Note: There are fewer voting locations open, because a runoff has fewer voters, so locations have combined. If you go to your regular voting day precinct voting location, it might not be there. So look up ahead of time where to go: harrisvotes.com.

Texas Railroad Commissioner Races

The RR Commissioner is not about railroads; it is about oil and gas and resource management. You want someone in this job that understands how Texas’s economy is tied to energy, gas, and use of natural resources. Texas is set up with three statewide commissioners; they are 6-year terms coming up for election in alternating years. However, because one of  the commissioners stepped down with an unexpired term, there’s more than one position on the ballot.

Michael Williams had stepped down to run for a congressional seat (after serving as RR Commissioner for more than one term), and Governor Perry appointed Barry Smitherman to fill that slot; he is now on the ballot for that unexpired term. He didn’t receive 50% of the vote in the primary, so is now facing opponent Greg Parker. This is one of those cases where I recognize I am influenced by meeting people in person. I voted for Smitherman in the primary, based only on what I found online. He was the appointed incumbent, and I couldn’t see that the position was causing any particular issues.

But then Greg Parker came to speak. This was the second time he came to speak to our group, but I’d missed the first one earlier in the spring. But the others assure me he was equally impressive both times. He’s a relatively young, very smart, very funny black guy. (Note: I mean no offense by using the term black to apply to race; African-American seems inaccurate, since Charlize Theron is an actual African-American, and to be accurate we’d need to say “descended from an African race with greater melanin concentration,” which would be unwieldy. Incidentally, we’ve had a surprising number of blacks, Hispanics, and even Vietnamese candidates speak at our meetings, and unlike the stories you get from media, their ideology as conservatives makes them completely welcome among us, and we hope they are the vanguard of many among various minorities that join us because we have so much in common.)

Greg Parker has a PhD in public policy and studied economics at MIT. As he said, “I’ve been trained by all the liberals, and I’m still conservative.” He wrote a book meant to reveal the myth of global warning (Global Warming…Really?—which I have not yet gotten hold of, but I’m interested after hearing him). This seems to be a specific difference between him and Smitherman. Both claim to be conservative, want more jobs for Texas, and want energy independence. But it may be that Smitherman’s direction toward that end is by way of “green” energy, such as wind power. I’m not against wind power, and there are parts of the state where that makes sense. But it’s expensive; it doesn’t create a lot of jobs; and it’s not a solution to government interference in the use of our state’s natural resources.

I had hoped to hear from Smitherman, to hear his version of his policies. But he didn’t make it. So, knowing what I do right now, based on meeting Parker in person, I’m giving him my vote in the runoff election.

The other RR Commissioner position was held by Elizabeth Ames Jones, who chose to run for US Senate rather than run for reelection. So this was also an open seat. The two on the ballot are Christi Craddick, a private lawyer specializing in the oil and gas world—from all directions, including land owners as well as small and large operating companies. She has helped write legislation favorable to business in the state, restricting regulation to just what is needed to protect property rights as well as reasonably clean air and water. Her opponent is Warren Chisum, a reliable conservative from the state legislature, who has run a small operator company in oil and gas.

Again, I am influenced by meeting a candidate in person. Christi Craddick is impressive, and handles questions related to various aspects of the business very well, with a wealth of information in her knowledge base. She has a successful practice, where she does a lot of good for the industry. It is probably a cut in pay to take on this job, but it is her passion, and she believes she can well serve the state. She has a lot of energy, and good ideas for meeting people in the field across the state. She grew up in Midland, in a family that has been in oil and gas for generations. She believes in hearing from the people who work in the industry; you can’t do this job from a desk in Austin.

Which brings us to what we know of her opponent. He’s a democrat who has run for RR Commissioner at least twice, and is about 80 years old; remember, this is a six-year term. In other words, the real race is being settled now, in the runoff election. I have nothing in particular against Warren Chisum. But hearing from her, I am convinced she is a good fit for the job.

Harris County Sheriff

One of the tougher races on the ballot right now is for Harris County Sheriff. Harris County, where Houston (a liberal-run metropolis) is located, is one of the largest law enforcement jurisdictions in the nation. It requires someone who is not only very strong on law and order, but also someone good at managing people among challenging circumstances. I like both of the candidates: Louis Guthrie and Carl Pittman. I have heard both of them, more than once, in person. I solved the indecision between them by voting for a third candidate (Ruben Monzon, who was also impressive and had been recommended to me, although I hadn’t met him) in the primary. Now it’s down to these two.

Both campaigns have dug up a bit of dirt on the other. I don’t have the resources to ferret out what if any is true, or maybe even important. So, setting that aside, I am leaning toward Louis Guthrie. I believe he has better experience, of longer duration in this area. And I believe he has both more management experience as well as natural leadership qualities.

Carl Pittman has been endorsed by Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio, which either hurts or helps, depending on your viewpoint. (My son Political Sphere spent half a decade in Arizona, and has mixed feelings about Sheriff Joe.) He’s a big, friendly, conservative black man. Again, totally welcome in our party. I hope that as we make a decision like this, if it goes against him, he will still be a leader in bringing other minorities who share so many of our values into the conservative camp.

This race is not one that will be settled during the runoff. The incumbent is Democrat Adrian Garcia, who got into office during the Obama sweep of county races. He will be a formidable opponent. My sense is that Louis Guthrie is best able to take on that challenge.

Judges

There are a few judges in the runoff. There are just a couple I feel strongly. One is David Medina for Supreme Court, Place 4. He spoke to our little group and seemed to me very well informed, very capable, and truly conservative in the constitutional sense. Another is Michael Landrum, for District Judge, 129th District (in Harris County area). He comes regularly to our meetings, and I like what he has to say. But also numerous other sources have recommended him, reinforcing my opinion.

Let the Games Begin

I’m looking forward to seeing the opening ceremonies of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games tonight, followed by more watching of sports than I usually do except during summer and winter Olympics. I’m hoping there will be inspiring stories worth telling here, because it’s a worthwhile thing that the world gets together in peace and celebrates together in friendly competition.

But this post today relates to the Olympics only peripherally. I was reading Sean Trende’s piece the other day on Real Clear Politics, and he observed (with plenty of data, which he always provides) that the race is always about the incumbent. If the incumbent’s time in office is unacceptable, then it’s about whether the challenger is acceptable.

Mitt Romney heading 2002 Winter Olympics
AP photo/Joe Cavaretta

People have already decided about Obama—and it’s negative among anyone who might change their vote from last time. So the question at this point is not about Obama; it’s about Romney. And people are only just beginning to tune in to pay attention. Surprising to those of us who have paid attention all along, and particularly to those of us who have been learning about Romney since the early 90s, people don’t know him yet.

Ads against Obama (other than those recent ones that took advantage of his moment of candor about government’s omniscience, which is something that needs to be told) are mostly a waste of air time and money. What is needed is a blitz of who Romney is.

Today is my little contribution to that effort. Starting with what we know of him from the Olympics.

Let’s start with setting the stage. Back in the late 1990s, just three years out from the Olympics (so, five years into planning) there was scandal involving the bidding process, and budget deficits and building delays. It looked possible that the games could actually fail to materialize.

Mitt Romney was invited in to head the games for some specific reasons: he was known for saving businesses in crisis, he was known for strong leadership under pressure, and he was particularly know for integrity, which was essential in this particular crisis. In barely more than a week after the request came, he had turned over the running of his highly successful investment capital firm to trusted staff and worked full-time on the Olympics. He took no pay for his service over those next several years. In fact, he donated about a million of his own money, which he felt he need to do while he was calling friends in the business world and asking them for donations and sponsorships.

His beloved wife, Ann, suffered from multiple sclerosis, diagnosed in 1998. Her story is that she felt Mitt focused totally on her as the center of his life. Many people report he is able to make people feel that way, but I think it is most natural with Ann. He clearly adores her.

So, personal challenges and overwhelming Olympic crisis were his life in those days. But the Olympics turned around so well under his guidance that people forget how tenuous that had been. By half a year out, it looked like it would be practically a cake walk. And then 9/11 happened. The meaning of the tragedy for the country was so memorable that the date is one of the few that immediately brings to mind the historic tragedy. For the Olympics, it meant there were just five months left to guarantee that hundreds of thousands of people could come to a US city with safety from attack. You can be certain that this was the real test of Romney’s ability to meet a crisis.

His attention to detail, his ability to inspire by concentrating on the underlying principles (it’s about the athletes, in this case, and the security of the environment was what they deserved), and his extremely capable (and frugal) management of money resulted in not just adequate Olympics that don’t go badly into debt, but highly successful Olympics, as an event as well as a financial boon. It’s not out of line to say that what he did was miraculous—and there aren’t many people in the world today who could have filled his shoes.

There’s a two-part article covering his efforts at the 2002 Winter Olympics in The Deseret News. Part I covers more general leadership over those years. Part II covers more specifically what Romney did in response to the threat caused by the 9/11 attack. Another good source is Romney's own account, Turnaround.

If we only looked at what he did during these Olympic years, Romney would be outstanding as a presidential candidate. But in addition to that we also have his business record, creating profit and jobs in the free market, as well as his crisis management in Massachusetts as governor (again, taking no income for performing that job).

When people say he is hard to know, I think it is because they aren’t used to people like him. To me he seems very similar to many men of integrity I have known; he is just smarter and more successful than most. But, as we say, unto whom much is given, much is required. I believe that his “ambition” to become president isn’t about power; I believe it is about a love for this country and a belief that he has the unique skills and experiences that can help us right now.

That’s really enough for today. But, since it’s in the news, I’ll say just a bit about the “gaffe” this week in London. Here is a transcript of the exchange in a 9-minute interview between NBC’s Brian Williams and Mitt Romney:

BW: And in the short time you’ve been in London, do they [the Olympics] look ready, to your experienced eye?

MR: You know, it’s hard to know just how well it will turn out. There were a few things that were disconcerting. There’ve been stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials. That obviously is something which isn’t encouraging. Because in the games—there are three parts that make games successful. Number 1, of course, are the athletes. That’s what overwhelmingly the games are about. Number 2 are the volunteers, and they’ll have great volunteers here. But number 3 are the people of the country. Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment. But that’s something which we only find out once the games actually begin.

Again, this was from a 9-minute interview. I heard the whole thing and totally missed this part as something troublesome. The memorable moment was when Williams questioned him about the rumor that he was seeking a VP candidate who was a “boring white guy,” and Romney quipped that he’d already checked and learned that Williams was not available. Made me laugh. Not offensive, but quick and dry humor (which Williams seemed to miss).

The “gaffe” seemed to me a reasonable response to a direct question. Romney was validating the suggestion by Williams that there were problems; he was aware of them, as Williams and presumably the viewers were as well. And then he went on to emphasize the importance of the athletes and the volunteers, and his hope that the people of London were engaged and enjoying the games without guaranteeing that for them as an outsider. That is why it was so easily repaired in conversation later with the prime minister.

So, it would have been better if he had foreseen the media’s all-out effort to scan every single word for something to put forth as a gaffe. But it really wasn’t intended as a criticism of London and their Olympics.

I hope both the Olympics and the rest of Romney’s overseas trip go smoothly.

Texas Senate Race

Monday evening I got to attend the last debate between candidates for US Senate from Texas: David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz. Earlier I listened to a radio debate they’d had last week on the Matt Patrick Show. I’ve been leaning toward a candidate for a while, but I wanted to be fair and hear them, just to be sure. [The Monday night debate was filmed and moderated by KRIV, the local Fox TV station, and was presented at King Street Patriots. I haven’t found a full recording to link yet, however.]

Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst
photo from KSEV.com

Let’s start with this understanding: Texas is a conservative state. It hasn’t always been, but it finally elected a Republican governor in the early 1990s and hasn’t gone back, and the legislature has grown continually more conservative since that time. When I started going to Texas state conventions in 2004, most of what we heard was conservative, but mixed in was still a fair amount of “Let’s not be too extreme; we might not want to go that far.” No longer. The last couple of conventions, if anyone had attempted to give a “moderate,” squishy message, they’d have heard boos.

So if you have two candidates in a runoff election for the Republican candidate in Texas, you can be certain that all the words will be conservative. So, to know if they really mean it (and possibly both do), you need to know more of their background, their records, and their hearts—if you can sense that, which is why I wanted to hear them in person.

David Dewhurst has been around a while. He has been Rick Perry’s lieutenant governor since George W. Bush left the governor’s mansion for the White House. He’s done his job well enough. Texas has moved more conservative in that time. Our business climate is better than most states: no income tax, lower taxes and less strangling regulations. That’s why one of the biggest problems is dealing with surging growth while the recession slogs on with high unemployment (around 7% in Texas, lower than the rest of the nation, but still too high).

If you look at the last legislative session (2011), a lot of incremental pro-life legislation got through. And Texas is standing up to the federal government’s health care and other intrusions on our sovereignty. I had wanted a TSA anti-groping bill to go through, but it failed. At the time I believed it was David Dewhurst’s fault that it didn’t come up for final vote. But I am fuzzy on details now. It passed the state senate (where he is essentially the head as lieutenant governor, the way the VP is in the US Senate). It was in the state house where it didn’t come up for final vote. I wanted an answer about how that went down. I wanted to ask this question, but didn’t get a chance (and it didn’t come up during the two debates I heard):

I’m concerned about TSA’s infringement against our right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. What do you see that can be done about it at the federal level, and at the state level?

But I still don’t know their answers. Mostly I was satisfied with their conservative answers to the rest of the questions. Ted Cruz has the advantage of speech. Dewhurst speaks well enough, but he is likely to talk Texas slow, with stories to make a point, and maybe some generalities. He mentioned that he grew up with a stuttering problem, and while he has overcome that (I’d say beyond anything I could notice; I never knew this before), he says he’s a doer, not a talker.

Ted Cruz, a lawyer and former state solicitor general, who has helped argue for Texas on constitutional issues before the Supreme Court issues, is smooth and organized. He’ll answer a question with, “We’ll do these three things,” and then list them. So there are style differences. I can see how Dewhurst can be appealing, and why he’s been reelected without much of a fight. But I prefer Cruz’s style when there’s a “debate” with limited time, and we want to get the answers as efficiently as possible. It shows thoughts organized in a way that are likely to lead to measurable actions.

The two mostly agree on issues, as well as on many solutions. Both agree that immediate full repeal of Obamacare is a first priority—and neither of them like the phrase “repeal and replace.” Just repeal. Cruz said he would “keep not a single word of Obamacare.” Both agree that we need to use market reforms to keep Medicare and Medicaid from bankrupting us and enslaving future generations—but we need to keep our promises to those who need it and have gone through their working lives counting on the help.

Cruz made one of his lists about how to go about the needed reforms: allow insurance across state lines, encourage health savings accounts (that can be passed along to heirs), and de-link health insurance from employments, to make insurance portable—to empower the patient and disempower government.

Dewhurst is very a successful businessman—an oil-related business he built from the ground up and still runs. He grew up poor. His dad was killed by a drunk driver when Dewhurst was only three (he mentioned this more than once in the debate). His mother went to work, and taught him faith, integrity, truthfulness, humility, and hard work.

Cruz mentioned (only once, although it was also in his introduction) that his father escaped from Cuba at age 18, broke and unable to speak the language. But with hard work and perseverance he and Cruz’s mother were able to prepare the next generation for success in America.

Contention in this campaign, as well as during the debate, comes down to accusations against each other. I’ve heard many (many times) of the Dewhurst-approved ads claiming Cruz is crooked, un-American, chooses to advocate for the wrong side (a Chinese-owned company in a case against another Chinese-owned company, if I understand correctly). Cruz was effective when he held up a campaign card, right after telling us about his father’s ordeal in coming from Cuba, and told us to imagine how his father felt when he recently received that card in the mail and read on the back that his son was un-American. Dewhurst said it didn’t say that, but, really, I’ve heard the ads and probably seen those very leaflets: the wording might not be exact, but the implication is clear. That is what Dewhurst was saying.

The kerfuffle the other way was about Dewhurst’s position on immigration and whether he had ever been for amnesty. There was, according to Cruz, a speech Dewhurst gave, I think in 2007, where he said he could support a guest worker program (which isn’t exactly amnesty, but he was talking about creating a legal pathway for those already here, so Cruz has a point). Cruz pointed out the inconsistency, such as it is, and cited Dewhurst’s Lieutenant Governor website as the source with the speech. And then suddenly the speech was no longer there at the previous link. Cruz said Dewhurst must have removed it for political reasons. Dewhurst, while claiming his position has always been consistent, only argued that the speech was not taken down in response to the ad but had been archived a year prior.

Cruz has also claimed that Dewhurst shouldn’t take credit for as much budget success as he has claimed, that some of it is “smoke and mirrors.” This raised the ire of Sen. Dan Patrick, who said the claim maligned the entire legislature, which had done remarkable work and made real budget cuts. Patrick may be right. It is difficult to get traction when coming up with negatives in either record, but at least Cruz has been attacking record rather than character.

This is the worst these two can dredge up; clearly this isn’t Chicago. In the dirty ads contest, I’d say Dewhurst has thrown the most mud. And while negative campaigning in general does work, it also works at the risk of making both sides look bad.

One question was, “Will you keep your promise to be conservative after the election,” and I liked Cruz’s answer, and I’m sorry I didn’t write fast enough for an exact quote. He said yes, but then everyone would say that. So it’s like his father said about being Christian; make sure there’s enough evidence to convict.

I am persuaded to vote for Ted Cruz. I think they are both conservative enough. I think Dewhurst believes he is conservative, but possibly in the way Rick Perry believes he is conservative. Conservative—as long as the support of the people and the legislature make sure they’re conservative. And then they get credit for being kept in line. When I heard Ted Cruz talk about the Constitution, and arguing for our God-given rights, I believed he understood the philosophy of conserving our founding documents.

There isn’t much opposition from the Democrat (unknown to me at this point, until I eventually look up who it is). So it is generally believed this runoff election will decide who will be the next senator from Texas. Early voting is currently underway through Friday. And election day is Tuesday, July 31^st.

Veepstakes

My son Political Sphere has persuaded me about who Romney’s choice for VP will be. Here we are, going on record,  so that on the off chance we're right, we can say, “Yes, we knew it all along.” If we’re wrong, that’s no big loss. All the big name political prognosticators are making a wide range of guesses, which means most of them will be wrong as well.

I don’t know what Romney’s process will be for making this choice. But I do expect it will be meticulously thorough and principle based. I think I can trust his process. So whoever it is, there will be good reason.

I’m more or less representing Political Sphere’s reasons for the choice.

·         The VP needs to be consistently conservative, with a record.

·         The VP needs to be available—i.e., can better serve as VP than in his/her current position.

·         The VP ought to have a significant strength to bring to the ticket—such as foreign policy.

The relatively long list out there has several consistent conservatives. It’s a shorter list that also fits the second criterion. Rep. Paul Ryan articulates the conservative message better than most, but replacing him in Wisconsin, and therefore in the US Congress, would be difficult, unless Wisconsin makes a much larger shift than it has so far.

The same goes for Chris Christie. If we took away a conservative governor from New Jersey so early in their attempted recovery from budget disaster, we’d leave a gaping vacuum—not likely to be filled by another Chris Christie. It’s a similar story for Bobby Jindal. Louisiana finally has a chance to dig its way out of liberal corruption; let’s not take that away from them. Also, both Christie and Jindal could use a few more years of experience, and then be better ready to serve the nation following a Romney presidency.

It’s the same thing for Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. We need him in the Senate. There’s no guarantee Florida would replace him with another conservative, let alone someone of his caliber. And the US Senate is in powerful need of every conservative we can get. Pushing through any conservative legislation (including repeal of Obamacare/tax) requires a senate majority. And, again, Rubio is young and has served at this level only a short time so far. Let’s just say we have a deep bench for future campaigns.

Some people talk about gaining constituencies: women, minorities, unions, etc. I don’t think that way. I’m not against someone because of rheir sub-constituency, but I can only be for them if they have the ideology and record, as well as the leadership ability, that we Americans need.

I think it’s safe to say the choice won’t be Condoleeza Rice. The reason is that the Romney camp is very good about not leaking info. You can be certain Ann Romney knows the rules. And it was Ann Romney who let out the idea that women were being considered, which in turn led to the speculation that it was certain to be Rice. That would only happen as a distraction; Romney doesn’t do trial balloons. Therefore, we can conclude that the choice is not Rice.

Choosing Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic is no more likely. Having a Hispanic or black or female would be a positive—only if that person fit all the other criteria. Because the spin from the opposition is that, if such a person is conservative, then they’re not really Hispanic or black or female, but rather a sellout or anomaly. So any populist-motivated choice is unlikely and unwise.

It’s time for the big reveal: our pick for VP candidate is Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona.

Senator Jon Kyl
official photo from Wikipedia

He has served as minority whip, the second highest GOP position in the Senate. He has roots in the Midwest, moving to Arizona for law school and staying in Phoenix. He is rated as the fourth most conservative US senator, which is high enough to meet the first criterion. And even Time Magazine admits he is one of the top 10 best senators.

And it may be a plus to have someone on the ticket who has legislative experience, rather than a second governor. Ann Coulter, who is the only other person I’m aware of who has been guessing Kyl as a VP possibility, admits that the two-governor thing might be the single drawback to her first choice, Chris Christie. (Note: I noticed her suggestion that it could be Senator Kyl only because Political Sphere had already brought him to my attention.)

John Kyl is retiring this term, and announced that decision early enough to allow for an unhurried election of a replacement. So he is available. Political Sphere thinks his reason for retiring is to be available as a VP pick—that this has been considered and not leaked for many months already. I don’t know if I can go that far, but I like the idea that a VP is there for no further political reason, but simply to serve the country. That was an advantage with Dick Cheney as Bush’s pick.

While Romney is well versed on foreign policy and worked with world leaders for the Olympics, John Kyl does bring some needed foreign policy experience. He has been the ranking member of the Crime and Terrorism subcommittee, as well as Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. I like that he is on the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. And it doesn’t hurt that he is the ranking member on Taxation and IRS Oversight, as well as on subcommittees for Health Care and for Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy.

If you were going to design a senator’s background and experience to aid our country in a time such as this, you would give him the experiences of Senator Jon Kyl.

I think it’s likely that Arizona will go for Romney regardless of his VP pick (assuming he doesn’t choose someone with a fatal flaw, which I cannot foresee happening). But Kyl will help solidify the Arizona vote, which might help down ticket as well. He might even bring in some votes in nearby New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. He was elected to the Senate in 1994, and served in Congress prior to that from 1987. Three terms was a good long run in the Senate, but not a whole lifetime career, as some have made it.

There’s been enough opportunity for opponents and media to fully vet him, and no skeletons have popped up. There has been plenty of time to have negatives appear on his record, but his record is strongly conservative, no matter who was president. The only recent big “controversy” was his statement that Planned Parenthood’s main business is abortion and should therefore not be receiving government subsidies. He used the figure 90%, which was not provable; Planned Parenthood self-reports but claimed that figure was vastly overstated. Hmm. As controversies go, that one doesn’t sound too bad.

There’s a lot to like about Senator Kyl. Maybe enough to put him on the Romney ticket. There was a bit of speculation that the decision would come sooner rather than later, but since the Olympics start this week, my guess is the announcement will wait until the media and the electorate can hear it. Maybe it will be during that week prior to the GOP convention. If the VP pick is Senator Kyl, then Ann Coulter is likely to get credit for being right. But remember, you read it here first.

Still Dancing the Backward-Step-Pivot-Forward

One thing we learned about Romney during the primary debate season was that he was good under attack. Better than when he’s not under attack. When everybody starts to worry that he can’t handle it, something magical happens, and he comes out ahead and stronger.

We talked about this back in January. Somebody who knows a lot more about debate than I do described it as the Backward-Step-Pivot-Forward move. He defends himself (the backward step), then turns (pivots) and makes what looked like a weakness into an offense on his own terms (forward). I think that’s what we saw this week. (Jennifer Rubin used the word “pivot” in this piece Tuesday, which clued me in to what we were seeing.)

Everyone was so concerned about Romney under attack for being rich and successful. How was he going to defend against the onslaught of “Bain Capital outsourced jobs” and “Why doesn’t he give us several decades of tax returns? What is he hiding?” Then, fortuitously, Obama goes off teleprompter and says the offensive “You didn’t build that” line.

Without even knowing what hit him, Obama was on defense in a big way. Some of it would have happened regardless of the opponent; Obama is just tone deaf about how to talk to actual business builders. But what Romney and campaign have done is point out that, “this wasn’t a gaffe; it’s his ideology.” That is the defense, pivot, and offense answer to "He made money at a capital investment firm."

The problem isn’t, as Obama seems to believe, that he hasn’t been able to “tell the story.” The problem is that his way of thinking, his belief system, is harmful to America and Americans. All that needs to happen for him to be defeated is for his beliefs to be revealed.

Romney hasn’t had to say (as others have with conviction, energy, and accuracy) that Obama is a socialist. As they tell you in writing classes: show, don’t tell. He doesn’t have to use a label when Obama accommodatingly announces that he believes government is the all-powerful grantor of privileges that has allowed some hard workers to become successful, and they should be beholden to him as government’s icon. All Romney has to do is call attention to what Obama admits he believes, while contrasting that with what real American workers believe.

Romney came back with this response: “President Obama attacks success, and therefore under President Obama we have less success. And I will change that.” (A good 4-minute video of his response is here.)

And the message has connected. The Romney campaign has made good use of it with new video ads (like this one, titled “These Hands”) and other materials. But plenty of volunteers are carrying the message widely. People start asking, “If I didn’t build my business, who did?” When the president brushes away all their blood, sweat and tears—all the risk and dedication over years of sacrifice on the way to modest but deserved success—as insignificant compared to the advantage they got from government, they’re not going to take kindly to that.

I’ve been entertained by some of the visual representations. I found about two dozen on Facebook in the last couple of days. Below are a few of my favorites. (Some identify sources, but I’m sorry I can’t identify original sources for all of them. The most prolific source was Kevin Jackson’s The Black Sphere page.)