The Growth Triangle

by: the Common Constitutionalist

This past election has taught me a couple important lessons. One is that evidently, cheaters do prosper, at least temporarily. That, however, is a discussion for another time. The second is, what is really important to concentrate on going forward.

What I’ve discovered is that relatively minor issues are constantly sidetracking us.

It isn’t that they are not important, they are, but we need a grander vision.

Issues like pro-life versus pro-abortion, homosexual marriage, funding PBS and such. They are all important, but without a viable and vibrant free Republic to decide them, they are all meaningless.

Thus is my grand vision.

Going forward, I have decided to concentrate on three major issues. If I am unable to find candidates that concur on these positions, I cannot and will not vote for them. No more exceptions!

The three issues are the economy, national defense and illegal immigration.

I chose these because I believe them to be the fire triangle of America, as it were.

If you recall, the fire triangle is named for its three essential components; fuel, heat and oxygen (air). A fire must have these three components in order to be maintained.

If you take one of these components away, the fire cannot sustain itself and will extinguish. Likewise, if you are lacking just one of these the fire will not ignite.

Let’s examine the three components of my newly adopted “Growth Triangle”.

The fuel of the “fire triangle” would equate to the American economy. Mitt Romney touched on this during the campaign. Without it, obviously we would cease to exist as a nation.

But there are many types of fuel for fire. If one were to make a fire using only sticks and twigs, it would still be considered a fire, albeit a small one and not much good for warmth, cooking and fending off predators. The small fire could be sustained, however would service but a very few.

If however, you added large logs, thus greatly enhancing the fuel source, quite soon the fire would grow, providing ample warmth, a reliable cooking source and a formidable barrier for predators or enemies.

Merely maintaining a small economy is not good enough either. A weak economy is the twig and stick fire. Yes, it’s a fire, but a pretty sorry one.

The twigs, sticks and logs equate to jobs that fuel economy. Adding little twigs and sticks to your fire will never do. Large logs must be added to keep it stoked properly.

Without these logs, the fire cannot grow and without jobs, lots of jobs, nor can the economy.

The heat of the fire triangle, I liken to our national defense. Without heat the fire cannot be sustained, regardless of the fuel source. You may add all the sticks, twigs, logs or even gasoline you like and without heat they will never ignite.

Thus is the dependency of the economy and a strong national defense. No economy can thrive and grow without protection.

When the heat is drastically reduced, the fire will not extinguish, but will become much more vulnerable to attack by the slightest rain or wind.

Thus it is regarding national defense. By drastically reducing our military, we become more vulnerable to attack and not just by a large force.

Immigration has always been the oxygen of the “Growth Triangle”.

Without a constant stream of fresh air, no amount of fuel and heat will sustain a fire. On the other hand, too much wind and the fire will be blown out. The fires fresh air supply must be controlled. Two little and the fire will choke; too much and it will also succumb.

Such is it with immigration. Too few legal immigrants and our country becomes lazy and stagnant. Too many and the fuel and heat cannot maintain the imbalance.

No fire or economy can sustain the hurricane force winds of illegal immigration.

Looking ahead, I pray I can find at least a few viable candidates that fit into my “Growth Triangle”.

It is sad they all don’t.

Malkin Beats Me to the Punch

I am a Santorum supporter. Rather than just explaining why I don’t support the other schmoes, I’ve had a request to write an article explaining my support for him.

Well, it appears, I don’t have to. Michelle Malkin has expressed her support for Santorum as well as I ever could.

From Michelle Malkin:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual U.S. Senate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum
has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth”, as Newt did.

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists
at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t

changed for me in 2012.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.