Obama is brilliant. Yes, he’s also a horrendous President and a constant threat to freedom, but he is absolutely brilliant.

Here’s his problem: if the Republicans are talking about unemployment, the economy, jobs, spending, deficits – you know, the real issues, he can’t win. Sure you can speculate which GOP contender would be better to beat Obama in a head-to-head matchup this fall, but the reality is that if Obama is answering questions about important issues, he’ll be obviously under-qualified for another term in the White House.

So what does he do? Distract, divide, and dominate.

Distract
To get conservatives talking about issues other than his weak points, Obama came out with a mandate that would require religious organizations to provide insurance that covers contraception, even if it requires violations of conscience. Of course, Obama knew that people would get all upset about that (as they should), but he did it anyway.

That got us into a debate of religious freedom. People got all upset about the contraception mandate (as they should have), and then Obama offers his compromise: it’s still covered by insurance but there’s no violation of conscience for the religious organizations. Well, not technically.

Divide
Obama’s great compromise brought the liberal Republican Rick Santorum to the front of the GOP presidential candidates talking about being a “conservative” president who will tackle the tough issue of contraception. As if that’s something government should be concerned with at all. (And as if that would be a conservative approach to handling the issue.)

Now the small percentage of Republicans who endorse Santorum’s approach to family planning are at odds with the rest of the Party, and we have this huge conversation about birth control and other topics irrelevant to the presidential race. What’s more, other social issues are coming along in the discussion as well: banning pornography, women in combat, a fear Mormons running the country, and more.

Dominate
No matter where you stand on any of these social issues, the fact remains that as long as we aren’t talking about a failing fiscal policy, failed war efforts overseas, or a troubled economy, Obama has the advantage as we head to November. If the important topics of our election involve contraception and Mitt Romney’s religion, then we’re basically saying that the economy, wars, and inflation aren’t all that bad. If that’s the case, the status quo is fine, and Obama will be around for another term.

Members of the Republican Party are literally falling apart at the seams because of the divide-and-conquer tactics of the President. He’s an awful President, but he’s no idiot. He knows exactly what he’s doing, and don’t think for a second that the chaos you’ve seen in the GOP over the last few weeks is accidental.

We don’t want Obama to win in November; we can all agree on that. But what do we do about this problem? How do we regain our focus and, along with our focus, the upper hand in a very important election?

We have to realize what makes sense, and then do it. Stay on topic – on relevant topics, that is. Leave the pornography ban and fear of Mormons for another time. Focus on what will beat Obama; if we stick to the trivial social stuff, Obama will be re-elected.

And then we will have lost on social issues and the important issues as well.

The other day when I kind of alluded to something about Ronald Reagan that was not necessarily 100% positive, I struck a chord with some people. Or rather, I struck a nerve. To all of you, I’m sorry I offended you.

To make it up to you, and to prove that I really don’t hate President Reagan, I’ve pulled out some quotes of his that are some of my favorites. Feel free to add your favorites in the comments below.

Abortion
I’ve noticed everyone who is for abortion has already been born.

Economy
The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Government
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Gun Control
You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens.

Inflation
Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man.

Leadership
A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough.

The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.

Libertarianism
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism…The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Liberty
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Coercion, after all, merely captures man. Freedom captivates him.

As government expands, liberty contracts.

If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

If there’s one observation that rings true in today’s changing world, it is that freedom and peace go hand in hand.

Politics
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

Spending
Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.

So many campaigns are run with good intentions, yet they often fail in some key areas. Sometimes these failures cost the election; but win or lose, there are some areas where most campaigns could improve. Here are five:

They think they can’t lose. The truth is that you can lose, and if you aren’t prepared for it, you could be in for a rude awakening on election night. I learned this the hard way in 2010 when I was working on a campaign I thought couldn’t lose. Lesson learned: it’s not over till it’s over.

They take the low road. Politics is dirty because dirty politics works, but if you take the low road, you send the message that you will do anything to win. Go nuts when it comes to calling out voting records or things opponents have said, but do your part to keep the mud slinging to a minimum. Lesson learned: you can end a campaign – win or lose – with dignity and integrity.

Their support never goes beyond Facebook. I love social media; it is a great way to identify supporters and get your message out to a lot of people. However, there has to be a point where the campaign goes beyond social networking sites. Lesson learned: status “likes” on Facebook won’t get anyone elected.

They lack focus. This one typically comes from inexperience, but a lack of focus can kill a campaign. Without focus, there is no leadership; without leadership, there is no direction. Sure, the ultimate goal is to win, but you won’t get there by accident. You need a leadership focused on how to win if you hope to have a chance on election day. Lesson learned: know where you’re going and how to get there; otherwise you won’t.

They don’t use their volunteers’ strengths. Among other things, you need to knock on doors, make phone calls, ask for money, and plan events. If you try to get a shy person to knock on strangers’ doors, you’ll lose a volunteer. Ask that person to drive for the people canvassing neighborhoods, or ask how he might like to help. Then put him to work doing something he can do well. Lesson learned: volunteers excited about how they are contributing are very effective volunteers.

These are just a few ways campaigns fail. I’m sure there are many, many more (leave them in the comments below if you think of others). When you are out campaigning for your candidate of choice this year, remember these critical areas, and don’t let them be weaknesses for your campaign.

I remember some time ago – maybe as far back as a couple of years ago – I saw a link pointing to a list ranking the presidents on a libertarian scale. I did some digging around tonight, and I believe that this is that list I saw.

Of course, it’s all subjective. There are several lists like this one, and they all vary a little bit depending on the views of the person who wrote the list. I say that to stress that while I’m linking to this list, I didn’t write it, so don’t assume that I endorse everything in it.

His top five U.S. Presidents:

1. Martin Van Buren
2. Grover Cleveland
3. John Tyler
4. Calvin Coolidge
5. Zachary Taylor

And, of course, no “best of” list is any good without an accompanying “worst of” list. Here are his list of the worst 5 presidents:

1. George W. Bush
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Ronald Reagan
5. Harry S. Truman

A few of my thoughts on the list:

• Make sure you see the note on that post that says if the list were updated, Obama would be at the very bottom.
• I’ve never been a fan of Lincoln – not even a little bit, and it was interesting to see him ranked better than GWB. After seeing the reasons why, I understand, but before looking at this list, I would have argued that Lincoln was our worst President.
• Bush was awful for liberty. I’d say he’s accurately portrayed in this list with an overall score of -332. Not good.
• I’m still trying to swallow having Reagan as one of the worst. I know he wasn’t perfect, but that’s a tough pill for a Republican to swallow.
• Remember, that’s a ranking based on a libertarian mindset. That means that things like provoking war and interfering in free markets are generally frowned upon (which is probably why Reagan isn’t higher on the list).

It’s an interesting list, to say the least. I’ve enjoyed reading through it to see what he has to say about all of these men. Take a look and see what good and bad was said about each President. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts and how well (or poorly) your favorite President was ranked.

Once again it’s Friday, and once again here are some links I think you’ll find worth reading this weekend.

• Did you hear about the man who had a heart attack while eating at the Heart Attack Grill? If that’s not the definition of irony, I don’t know what is.
• Here is Rand Paul’s speech at CPAC. I really like that guy.
• Make sure you see this: 10 Reasons Liberals Should Love Rick Santorum, As Told By Rick Santorum. This guy is bad, bad news. Don’t fall for his lies.
• Here is the final word from Freedom Watch. It’s a shame that show got cancelled.
• Finally, a good visual representation of the delegates awarded to the GOP presidential candidates.

It seems a lot of Republicans have recently lost the ability to distinguish between conservative and liberal. If you’re one of those people, I hope this guide will help.

A liberal secures federal funding for major campaign donors.

“The announcements flowed out of Rick Santorum’s Senate office: a $3.5 million federal grant to Piasecki Aircraft to help it test a new helicopter propeller technology; another $3.5 million to JLG Industries to bolster its bid to build all-terrain forklifts for the military; $1.4 million to Medico Industries to upgrade equipment for its munitions work.”

A liberal gets the government involved where it shouldn’t be.

Last October, Rick Santorum gave an interview with an Evangelical blog called Caffeinated Thoughts, in which he said contraception is “not okay,” and that this would be a public policy issue he would tackle as President.

A liberal has a liberal voting record.

“This is not the record of a man committed to scaling back the welfare state or the nanny state. Had he been up for re-election in 2010 instead of 2006, this is the record of a man who the tea party movement would have primaried.”

A liberal brags about his liberal voting record.

“The White House probably called me a lot of things when I fought their efforts to cut Amtrak funding.”

A liberal appeals to liberals in his campaign literature.

“Food Stamps! Head Start! Earmarks! And he sued Donald Rumsfeld! We’ve unearthed this pamphlet from his unsuccessful 2006 attempt to appeal to Pennsylvania moderates as a compassionate conservative.”

Recently I was running some errands around town during the day and was listening to Neal Boortz on the radio. I’m not a huge Boortz fan; sure he’s got good things to say from time to time (and I like his abrasive approach to the idiot callers), but the way he rants about stupid stuff usually turns me off. So I usually turn him off.

But this time was different. He was playing some clips of Rick Santorum talking about libertarian philosophy. I’ll post some of those quotes in just a minute, but for now, suffice it to say that Rick Santorum didn’t have a clue what a libertarian is.

I’ve come to realize that there are a lot of people who don’t really understand what a libertarian is, or, if they do, they don’t understand how a libertarian (with a small “L”) differs from a Libertarian (with a big “L”). What’s really unfortunate is that one of those people, Rick Santorum, is running for president.

In case you’re not aware of the differences, here is a quick explanation: a Libertarian is generally associated with the Libertarian Party, and libertarians are people who (while not necessarily being members of the Libertarian Party) believe in increasing individual liberty by removing the influence of government hindering that freedom. Of course, there are similarities between the two, and those similarities can make for good friends between libertarians and Libertarians.

Back to Boortz’s show…he was playing some clips of Rick Santorum answering questions for people in the audience. This, specifically, is the quote he pointed out:

“I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t believe they have it right when it comes to what our history is. We are not a group of people that believes in no government. “

Of course, if Santorum had any real understanding on the libertarian movement, he would know that libertarians are not people who favor having no government. We favor having limited government. For example, there should be a government to protect life, liberty, and property. There should not be a government forcing people to purchase health care even when they don’t want it.

Beyond that gem, here are some other classic Rick Santorum quotes.

“I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

“I’ve got some real concerns about this [libertarian] movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”

“This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do…that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

“My general feeling is that we have a free market and a free market that works; but, like any freedom, there has to be regulation…”

Make sure you get that last one: Santorum believes all freedom should be regulated. He believes people shouldn’t be allowed to live their lives without heavy government regulation. He believes the federal government needs to enforce his “conservative” personal beliefs on everyone.

Rick Santorum is a bigger fan of more government than he is of more freedom, and therein lies the problem.

He can call himself a conservative because he has personal views that can be classified as socially conservative, but by the definition where “conservative” means less government involvement in citizens’ lives, Rick Santorum is an out-of-control, freedom-hating liberal.

Santorum’s sly assault on freedom is a huge turnoff to both big- and small- “L” libertarians, and should he be the eventual Republican nominee, any voter who truly loves freedom more than party politics is going to have a hard time casting a vote for Rick Santorum.

I find it interesting that in the midst of the battle for the Republican nomination for president, we’ve got Santorum, a moderate (at best) former senator claiming to be a conservative and pledging to fight to resist the libertarian movement, while Jim DeMint, one of the few rational voices in the Senate has been making the case that “the new debate in the Republican Party needs to be between conservatives and libertarians.”

There are two very different sides to that issue: the (mostly) conservative DeMint on one side saying that these ideas (things like sound monetary policy and constitutionally limited government) should be embraced and the liberal Santorum on the other side resisting the efforts of freedom by grassroots efforts all across our nation.

That’s enough of a difference to make you wonder why DeMint isn’t running for president and why anyone who claims to be a conservative could even consider voting for Rick Santorum.

Make no mistake: a vote for Rick Santorum is a vote for bigger government, increased regulation, and limited personal freedom and personal responsibility. And nobody who believes freedom is worth having should spend more than a couple seconds considering whether or not they should cast their vote for Rick Santorum.

Today, in case you forgot, is Valentine’s Day. It’s a day used by chocolatiers, florists, and greeting card companies to boost Q1 revenues. It’s also a good day for telling your special someone what he/she means to you.

For today’s post, I researched the intersection of politics and love and found Ronald Reagan.

First, a couple of quotes on love from President Reagan:

“If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.”

“Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God.”

I also found this quote, which is part of a letter he wrote to Mrs. Reagan on Valentine’s day 1960:

“February 14 may be the day that they observe and call Valentine’s Day. But that is for people of only ordinary luck. I happen to have a Valentine’s life which started on March 4, 1952, and will continue as long as I have you.”

Then there was a letter written around their 20th anniversary, which includes the line “I can’t remember ever being without you.”

So apparently President Reagan was quite the romantic. In fact, there’s a book that’s been published of his letters to Nancy. It’s called “I Love You, Ronnie” and is available at Amazon if you’re looking for some good Valentine’s Day reading.

The Maine caucus results were released this weekend. Well, kind of. With 84% of the precincts reporting, the state was called for Mitt Romney. The finish was close – too close to call, really – and a large percentage of the outstanding precincts are expected to favor Ron Paul.

Still, here are the results as they stand now:

A few thoughts on Maine’s results:

Mitt Romney should have walked away with this one. The fact that he gets such a serious challenge so close to home is yet another indication of how much excitement (or lack thereof) people have for Romney.

Ron Paul was dominating in the exit polls I saw. Of course, exit polls aren’t binding, but the Paul camp is convinced something’s up with these results. I’m not so sure I disagree.

Speaking of non-binding, Maine’s delegates awarded in this are non-binding. This of course means that the delegates at the national convention can vote however they want. And that means it’s likely that Ron Paul will control the Maine delegation at the convention.

Santorum and Gingrich probably didn’t do well in Maine because the big government Republicans voted for Romney. He’s well known up there, and they probably prefer the big government guy they know over the big government guys they don’t know.

While the final count from the remaining precincts could easily change the winner, even if Ron Paul does emerge as the winner, it’ll be after the fact, and he won’t get the deserved boost in media coverage. I’d bet his supporters will have something to say about it on the social media sites though.

I found it suspicious how Paul mysteriously didn’t do as well as he should have in Iowa. And it was odd that Paul didn’t get the increase over his 2008 support in Nevada. Now they have suspicious activity in Maine. As “weird things” become more predictable in states where Paul is expected to do well, expect to see a lot of intense Paul supporters at the national convention. If you think they’re obnoxious on Facebook, just wait until they’re convinced they’ve been cheated out of the nomination.

It’s Friday, which means it’s time for my weekly post of links for your perusal. There’s no common thread in the links this week, but they all offer some good food for thought.

• Remember when we defeated SOPA/PIPA and heard warnings that the fight wasn’t over? Well, Harry Reid is bringing Internet censorship back in the form of a cyber security bill.
• Indiana recently became the first state in a decade to adopt a right-to-work law.
• Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has a thing or two to say about President Obama’s attack on religious freedom.
• From Tom Woods, “26 Things non-Paul Voters are Basically Saying.” This one is packed full of truth. You all need to read this, especially you non-Paul folks.
• On the lighter side, here is a fun rewrite of Psalm 23.