I’m undecided and conflicted in the 2012 presidential race. As a purely political matter, I think that former Missouri Senator Jim Talent is absolutely right: Romney would be a significantly more formidable Republican presidential nominee than anyone else now running.

However, as an iconoclastic conservative, and as a contrarian, I must confess to being a big political admirer of Newt Gingrich. Newt’s willingness — and, indeed, eagerness — to do political battle appeals to me. And his willingness to think big and to challenge the conventional wisdom also is praiseworthy in my judgment.

In fact, given the magnitude and intractability of our problems, Newt’s willingness to think outside of the proverbial box is essential. And this helps to explain, I think, his continued appeal to Republican primary voters.

What’s more puzzling is why Romney and his team seem not to grasp this. Why have they not risen to the challenge, with a more bold and audacious campaign? I mean, it’s not as if Romney can’t challenge Newt on Newt’s own terms.

Newt, of course, loves to talk about how we need to “fundamentally change” Washington, and he’s right about that. We do. But as GOP political consultant Alex Castellanos pointed out this morning on Meet the Press:

The best thing about Mitt Romney is not that he’s been a cautious man. The truth about his success is he’s been a transformational figure.

He transformed the Olympics; he transformed, you know, Bain Capital. Built companies. Transformational change in Massachusetts.

That’s the Mitt Romney I know. And this campaign, I think, has diminished him, [Romney], by making him smaller than his great gifts really reveal.

I think that’s right, and it helps to explain why Romney has been unable to surpass 25 percent of the vote in the polls: GOP primary voters suspect that he lacks sufficient depth, vision and courage to tackle the immense challenges that lie ahead.

That may not an unfair rap against Romney; however, the burden is on him to show otherwise. And his time to do so is running out.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.

Spencer Ackerman has written an amusing piece in which he predicts “The Post-Gadhafi Journalism You Will Read In the Next 72 Hours.” Ackerman offers up 10 examples of how well-known journalists, pundits and publications are likely to use Gaddafi’s death to justify their own views, ideologies and prejudices.

For example, predicts Ackerman, Tom Friedman will write, “Why Gadhafi’s Death Vindicates ‘Leading from Behind.’”

Former Obama administration hawk Anne-Marie Slaughter, by contrast, will insist that “Gadhafi’s Death Shows the U.S. Was Never Really ‘Leading from Behind.’”

And of course, the Washington Post editorial page — which, to its great credit, has been very much at the tip of the journalistic spear re: the Arab Spring — will remind everyone that “There Is Still More to Do in Libya.”

What will the Weekly Standard say? Why, “On to Damascus, Then Teheran” of course!

As I say: very amusing. But beneath the good humor is a very serious point. Libya is a unique country, with a unique set of political, cultural and historical circumstances. More than 82 percent of the population, for instance, can read and write. This is extraordinary and hardly commonplace in North Africa.

So we should guard against extrapolating too much from our experience in Libya. What worked there may not work in other countries. A “Libyan model” for regime change may prove illusory and chimerical.

One thing we do know is that, as always, you cannot win wars from the air and the sea alone. You absolutely must have “boots on the ground.” And we had them in Libya, thanks to the indigenous rebels, CIA operatives, and British and French special forces. We will need them again — and more conventional U.S. troops as well — in the future.

Yet, the Obama administration is preparing to gut the size of our ground forces on the assumption that Iraq and Afghanistan are historical anomalies which won’t ever happen again.

They may be right, but what if they’re not? It seems to me that we’ve seen this movie before, at the end of almost every war or conflict in our nation’s history. And the results, sad to say, have not been pretty: more senseless American deaths when the next war or crisis strikes.

Libya is an apparent Obama administration success. Let’s not allow it to become a future American debacle.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.

The Heritage Foundation has announced that it will co-host — with the American Enterprise Institute and CNN — a Republican presidential debate on foreign policy and national security.

Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait a month (the debate won’t happen until Tuesday, November 15), but such a focus is long overdue. Because if the past is prologue — and it is — then tonight’s GOP presidential primary debate will give short shrift to the most urgent questions of war and peace, which, typically, only the commander-in-chief himself can resolve.

Worse yet, many of the views expressed by this evening’s GOP primary hopefuls will be downright hostile to a robust defense, adequately funded, and an assertive and engaged U.S. foreign policy.

Ron Paul, of course, is the most offensive and un-Republican of the lot. In the Aug. 11 GOP debate, for instance, Paul said that it was understandable why Iran is seeking nuclear weapons; and that, as president, he would “stay out of their [Iran’s] internal business.”

“We’re there occupying their land,” he explained Osama bin-Laden-like in the September 12 debate. America is “under great threat because we occupy so many countries.”

“We have been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years,” he added. “Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem.”

Of course: America is the problem! But then again, as former United Nations ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick once put it, “They always blame America first.”

In 1984, when Kirkpatrick spoke, “they” were the San Francisco Democrats. But today, “they” are the Ron Paul pseudo-Republicans — aka “non-interventionist” or isolationist libertarians.

In truth, Paul is perpetuating a malicious lie about America. We have not been indiscriminately “bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years.” In fact, we have been remarkably careful and circumspect in our use of military force.

Indeed, never before in history has a country waged war more judiciously and with greater care and deliberation. And so, according to the Iraq Body Count, an authoritative, nongovernmental database of Iraqi civilian deaths, fewer than 12,000 Iraqis have died at the hands of American and coalition forces.

Moreover, reports CNSNews, the “IBC recorded 630 ‘non-combatant Iraqi deaths resulting directly from actions involving U.S.-led coalition forces’ in 2008, 80 in 2009, and 32 in 2010.”

Then there’s Jon Huntsman. “Our core is broken,” he declared in the September 7 debate. “We are weak. We have got to strengthen ourselves. I say we’ve got to bring those troops [in Afghanistan] home… We’ve going to do some nation-building right here at home.”

Obama and the far Left couldn’t have said it any better. There’s only one problem: Huntsman purports to be a Republican, not a Democrat. And last I checked, the GOP was for winning our nation’s wars, not forfeiting them.

Oh, it’s not all bad. Rick Santorum, for one, has been a voice of calm and steady defense and foreign policy reason in a sea of irresolution, retreat and confusion.

“Someone who’s running for president of the United States [for] the Republican Party should not be parroting what Osama bin Laden said on 9/11,” Santorum said in response to Ron Paul’s far-left, don’t-blame-Iran rant.

“Iran is a country that has been at war with us, [America], since 1979,” Santorum explained. “Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and the Afghans have.”

Mitt Romney, likewise, has pledged to increase defense spending, and specifically, defense modernization spending, which has been so dramatically cut by Obama.

Unfortunately, Santorum and Romney are fighting a defensive battle against the “non-interventionists” or isolationists, who now command the energy and enthusiasm of the Republican base. George McGovern would be proud; Ronald Reagan: ashamed.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.

One of the things that we’ve learned in the past decade is that failed and failing states are probably the single greatest threat to America. They too often become breeding grounds for terrorists and radical extremists.

The corollary of this, of course, is that there is no substitute for American boots on the ground. The stabilizing presence of an American soldier or Marine has no parallel and cannot be replaced by any ship, missile or airplane.

For these reasons, our most urgent military challenge is to maintain a robust ground force that can be rapidly deployed, even to distant and austere regions, for long and indefinite durations.

We may never have to do another Iraq or Afghanistan — but then again, we might. And, if we are unprepared for a prolonged ground engagement, then the likelihood of its occurring will escalate.

Yet, policymakers across the political divide — both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives — are preparing to gut the size of America’s ground force.

“We know that the military of the 21st century will be smaller,” says Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The Pentagon chief implies “that the force structure cuts would fall most heavily on the Army,” reports Lexington Institute analyst Dan Goure.

He specifically mentioned the size of the ground forces in addressing the subject of future force structure. He suggested an expanded role for the National Guard and Reserve to respond to a crisis — which I would interpret as the second war.

The only way to meet the range of missions defined by the secretary, to be globally deployed, agile, responsive and extremely potent, is to focus the 21st century military on air and sea-based capabilities. Modern air and sea-based forces provide the presence, flexibility and sheer combat power the U.S. will most require in the 21st century.

To the list Panetta provided I would add missile defenses, long-range strike and anti-submarine warfare which are also areas of U.S. technological and operational advantage.

Now, it is important that the United States have an air force and a navy that are second to none. Power projection capabilities are, indeed, crucial, as is missile defense.

But with all due respect to Goure and the Washington cognoscenti, missiles, ships and aircraft don’t win wars; soldiers and Marines do. And the truth is that our ground forces are already undermanned and underfunded.

Which is why we have had great difficulty sustaining our deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Too many soldiers and Marines, consequently, have had to do multiple deployments for as long as 15 months at a stretch. Further reducing the size of our ground forces is a surefire recipe for tying the hands of future commanders-in-chief and severely limiting their military options.

Effete policymakers love to wage war from a distance with technology and machines. But if our long twilight struggle with Islamic terrorism has taught us anything, it is that technology and machines are, in and of themselves, grossly inadequate for the challenges that we now face. War is a fundamentally human endeavor; and that remains as true today as it was 100 or 1,000 years ago.

By all means, let us better utilize and employ the National Guard and Reserve. They are a crucial part of the American military. But don’t shortchange our active-duty ground forces. They’re more important today than they were during the Cold War; and their deployments are a long ways from being finished.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.

Steve Jobs’ remarkable life and legacy of high-tech innovation has important lessons for policymakers, both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.

For liberals and “progressives,” of course, Jobs’ success should be a lesson in the importance of entrepreneurship and individual initiative. Simply put, Jobs was able to found a company, Apple, that transformed the way we live, work and play because he lived in a country, America, that is among the freest in the world.

Indeed, consumer-driven markets, not bureaucratic-driven planning boards, drive American success and American prosperity. And this is as true in healthcare as it is in the high-tech world of personal computers, smart phones and the digital tablet.

And so, the key to prosperity is not to “spread the wealth around,” as then-candidate Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber. Instead, the key to prosperity is to create more wealth and greater opportunity through the autonomous and self-regulated market.

But conservatives, too, can and should learn from Jobs. They should learn that clinging to old and dated policy ideas in a fast-changing world can be a recipe for economic stagnation and political failure.

Jobs, remember, returned to lead Apple in 1997 after being ousted in 1985. But when he returned, Jobs didn’t simply champion new and better personal computers. He didn’t simply push Apple to keep producing the same, albeit better, product line.

Instead, Jobs pioneered new ideas and new products, such as the iPod, the iPhone, the iTunes store, the Apple Store, and now, the iPad. He thought wisely and creatively about how to address new consumer needs in a new consumer and business marketplace.

Republicans need to much the same thing in the political and policy marketplace if they are to survive and flourish in the 21st Century. Replaying our greatest policy hits from the 1980s and ‘90s won’t cut it.

It’s not that conservative ideas and conservative principles are inadequate; they are not. These ideas and principles, however, must be applied in fresh and innovative ways to the challenges and problems that we face today.

And, on that score, I regret to say, we conservatives have fallen short. Our policy cupboard is bare. We speak in too broad and too sweeping philosophical terms; and we pay too little heed to the formulation of sound public policy.

How, for instance, would the Republicans reform healthcare and insure the uninsured? We don’t really know. Oh, a few policy wonks in Washington, D.C. have given the matter some thought, but not many GOP pols. And, until that changes — until Republicans take public policy seriously — the Grand Old Party will never become a true governing majority party.

Steve Jobs didn’t simply set out to build a computer company; he challenged himself and his colleagues to produce transformative products and services that would change the world.

By the same token, the Republican Party shouldn’t simply set out to defeat President Obama in 2012; it should challenge itself to articulating a winning reform agenda that will make government better and more responsive, and Americans freer and more prosperous. Yes we can – and we must.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResoluteCon.Com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.

Last night’s debate showed that, in 2012, Rick Perry may be what Phil Gramm was in 1996: an overrated, negative candidate with a lot of money who goes nowhere very fast.

It gives me no pleasure to say that. I am not committed to any one of the GOP presidential candidates. But no one could watch CNN’s excellent debate and conclude that Perry is ready for prime time.

As Fred Bauer and Corey Chambliss point out, that’s because Perry won’t engage. He won’t talk specifics. He won’t tell us what, exactly, he would do as president. He’s all blow-hard rhetoric and obfuscation signifying very little.

Moreover, like former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, Perry is kind of a downer. He has a negative message. He simply wants to “make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can.”

Gramm talked about forcing able-bodied Americans “to get out of the wagon and help the rest of us pull” the wagon. GOP primary voters were underwhelmed and unimpressed and thus forced Gramm to “get out of the race” altogether.

Perry’s problems were most notable on Social Security. Perry did say, finally and belatedly, that he won’t take Social Security away from those who now depend upon it. But what he would do to reform or restructure Social Security remains a mystery. As Mitt Romney observed,

the real question is: Does Governor Perry continue to believe that Social Security should not be a federal program, that it’s unconstitutional; and [that]  it should be returned to the states — or is he going to retreat from that view?

We don’t know. But what we do know is that Obama and his team will exploit Perry’s Social Security ambiguity and weakness big-time in pivotal states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and Arizona.

Unfortunately, Social Security isn’t the only issue where Perry tried to skate by on airy and platitudinous pronouncements. When it came to his controversial mandate for HPV vaccinations, Perry spoke literally out of both sides of his mouth.

He admitted a tactical error (“I made a mistake by not going to the [Texas] legislature”), but said that the policy was right:

At the end of the day, this was about trying to stop a cancer and giving the parental option to opt out of that. And, at the end of the day — you may criticize me about the way that I went about it, but at the end of the day, I am always going to err on the side of life. And that’s what this was really all about for me.

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, though, would have none of Perry’s equivocation and doublespeak. They jumped all over the hapless Texan, and deservedly so.

Bachmann: “The question is: is it about life, or was it about millions of dollars, and potentially billions, for a drug company?” Perry’s former chief of staff, she explained, was the chief lobbyist for the drug company, Merck, that stood to make millions of dollars from his executive order mandating the HPV vaccination.

Ditto Santorum: “I think we need to hear what Governor Perry’s saying. He’s saying that his policy was right. He believes that what he did was right. He thinks he went about it the wrong way. I believe [his] policy is wrong… [It] is big government run amok.”

The government mandates vaccinations against communicable diseases, Santourm explained; but HPV is not a communicable disease. (It is spread through sexual contact.)

Worse yet, on Afghanistan Perry showed that there is no daylight between him, Jon Huntsmann and Obama: They would all work to effect a rapid American withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Well, I agree with Governor Huntsman when we talk about it’s time to bring our young men and women home and as soon and obviously as safely as we can. But it’s also really important for us to continue to have a presence there.

Again, the Perry doublespeak! As with most things, he’s for it, but he’s also against it. If, however, you cut through Perry’s rhetorical evasions, he’s saying that we should continue to help Afghanistan, but not with our military.

Of course, this is makes no sense and betrays a real ignorance of the world in general and Afghanistan in particular: Because without American boots on the ground, aid workers surely will be targeted and unwilling to venture forth in Afghanistan to dispense aid.

To be sure, Perry wants to “make a transition to where that country’s military is going to be taking care of their people,” but that will take many years to fully effect. What does Perry propose we do in the meantime?

The real unanswered question is: Why is Perry running? What motivates him? Where does his passion lie? What banner does he hold high? States rights?

If Perry thinks he’s gonna win the 2012 presidential election on a platform of states rights, then he’s even more clueless than his weak debate performance last night suggests.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResoluteCon.Com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.

Over at Contentions, John Podhoretz says that “Perry’s handling of the [Social Security] question was crude last night.” However, he adds,

Perry’s critics are foolish — including Mitt Romney’s team — to imagine that a candidate who says Social Security is unsustainable in its current configuration — and that it needs to be changed if today’s 25 year-olds are to receive any kind of benefit — has traveled beyond the pale.

But of course, Mitt Romney didn’t say that in last night’s debate. In fact, he said the exact opposite of what Podhoretz alleges.

Romney agreed that Social Security funding is broken and needs to be fixed. He disagreed, though, with Perry’s characterization of Social Security as a failed program, which states ought to be able to opt out of if they so choose.

“You can’t say that to tens of millions of Americans who live on Social Security and those who have lived on it,” Romney explained.

Romney is certainly right politically. In 1964, Barry Goldwater talked about making Social Security voluntary, and he lost badly as a result. In 1980, Reagan didn’t repeat Goldwater’s mistake and he won in a landslide.

I think there’s been a tendency amongst many conservatives to rally around Perry because he’s dared to address the “third rail of American politics”: Social Security. I respect Perry’s willingness to address this important issue, but not the politically cavalier, dangerous and slipshod way in which he has broached the subject.

As Philip Klein explained in an aptly titled piece, “Conservatives should keep Perry at arm’s length.”

On many occasions, conservatives have made the mistake of thinking that anybody who drives the left crazy must be ‘one of us.’ This mistake was particularly damaging during the Bush era, when conservatives offered only token opposition when it came to big government policies like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug plan.

Just because the Left is salivating at the prospect of taking on Rick Perry doesn’t mean that Perry is “one of us.” It doesn’t mean that he’d make a good presidential candidate. And, most importantly, it doesn’t mean that he could win a general election race and then govern effectively.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResoluteCon.Com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.

Like most Americans, I want the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial to be great. I want it to be an awe-inspiring monument to greatness and an eternal reminder of the promise of America — a promise that King helped make real for millions of African Americans and people of color.

But alas, after visiting the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial yesterday, I am afraid that Noah Kristula-Green is mostly right. Despite some impressive conceptual underpinnings and sculptural success, the new memorial is, ultimately, unsatisfactory — and unbecoming of the man and the Civil Rights Movement that King inspired and led.

Noah is disturbed by the massive sculpture of King, which, he says, bears an eerie resemblance to other pieces of Communist Socialist Realism. As Charles Krauthammer observes, this “flat, rigid, socialist realist King does not do justice to the supremely nuanced, creative humane soul of its subject.”

That’s true. Still, I found the sculpture of King to be perhaps the most impressive or least offensive aspect of the memorial.

True, King looks stern and intimidating — more stern and intimidating than this warm and reflective apostle of non-violence looked like in real life. But at least there’s a formidability to the sculpture. There’s a sense, both literally and figuratively, that King is larger than life. He towers above us because he is, in a real and fundamental sense, better than us.

This is a refreshing return to artistic tradition and a change in approach taken by most national memorials of recent vintage.

For example, the Lincoln Memorial, which was dedicated in 1922, elevates Lincoln to the status of an American political saint, which he was. Thus when entering the Lincoln Memorial, you feel almost as if you are entering a church or a temple. There’s a sense of solemnity and solitude that is awe-inspiring.

The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, by contrast, was dedicated in 1997. This newer and more modern memorial thus downsizes FDR — literally and figuratively — into one of us.

We see FDR, then, at eye level, and without his trademark cigarette holder, which is now politically incorrect. The idea that this four-term president, who led America through the Great Depression and World War II, might somehow be special, distinct and extraordinary is purposely denied.

No such mistake can be made when looking at the towering sculpture of King, which is impressive and noteworthy, though lacking perhaps in overall grace and majesty.

And, conceptually at least, the sculpture is fitting. King is looking forward, across the Tidal Basin, toward the Jefferson Memorial, which is clear and visible, though distant. The implication is clear: King is looking forward to the promised land — to that one day in which:

this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’

Those, of course, are the words of the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson.

So it is entirely appropriate that, in his new memorial, King has his eyes on Jefferson: Because in truth, Jefferson — and the American political creed that Jefferson helped write — was a guiding inspiration behind King and the Civil Rights Movement.

Similarly, behind King lies the sculpture of a mountain, which serves as the memorial’s entrance. And, on the left side of the King sculpture is inscribed: “Out of the mountain of despair, a Stone of Hope.”

This line comes from King’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech. But what is conspicuously missing from the inscribed quote is King’s purposeful reference to faith, by which King means both his political and Christian faiths. Here, in fact, is the full King quote:

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

These are beautiful and moving lines. And in fact, King’s entire “I Have a Dream” speech is filled with memorable and poetic verse.

But unfortunately, as Krauthammer points out, most of the quotes inscribed in the new King memorial are decidedly unmemorable and some are actually banal. You simply cannot separate King and the Civil Rights Movement from their uniquely Judeo-Christian American inspiration without losing much of their awe-inspiring majesty.

Yet, this seems to me to be exactly what the memorial builders have tried to do: They’ve tried to rewrite history to portray King not as the uniquely Christian American leader that he was, but rather as a world leader who espoused United Nations-like pap about universal man-made rights.

Here, for instance, is one of the 14 King quotes inscribed into the memorial:

Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

King may have said this, but this is hardly the type of sentiment that makes King stand out in the American pantheon, and for which he will be remembered by his fellow Americans. It is hardly the type of idea that made the Civil Rights Movement such a stunning and remarkable success.

In fact, quite the opposite: King and the Civil Rights Movement succeeded precisely because they appealed to the American political creed as articulated by Jefferson and the founding fathers.

Now, it is true that the American political creed speaks to all peoples everywhere; it is universal in its reach and application. Nonetheless, it is uniquely American in its origins; and King petitioned Americans upon the basis of that creed. He appealed to our national civic or political religion.

Equally offensive and wrong, the new memorial gives pride of place to King’s left-wing economic views and his opposition to the Vietnam War. There, are for instance, these two quotes:

I oppose the Vietnam War because I love America. I speak out against it not in anger but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and above all with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as a moral example of the world.

I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits.

It is true, of course, that, in his latter life — after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and before his assassination on April 4, 1968 — King was moving leftward politically. He was becoming more anti-war and more committed to the economic redistribution of wealth.

But again, this is hardly what made King an important and historical figure. This is hardly what history will remember about the man and the Civil Rights Movement. It is hardly what resonates now, let alone 100 years from now.

So why inscribe these banal and unmemorable quotes into the King memorial? Why introduce politically divisive comments that will divide Americans and, which, I would argue, run counter to the American political and economic traditions?

The answer is obvious: Because the King memorial is as much an act of politics as it is a work of history. It was designed, I regret to say, to promote a certain secular, left-wing worldview. This political lesson, fortunately, is not pushed on us in a tendentious and heavy-handed manner, but it is there nonetheless.

And so, what is missing is any of King’s distinguishing Christianity and Americanness. Indeed, there’s no real sense that King was not simply a great man, but a great American and a great Christian. (And yes, King was a great Christian. Whatever his private failings, his public Christianity was rich, memorable and wonderfully inclusive.)

There’s no sense that King drank deeply from the America political tradition; and that he helped to develop, foster and promote that tradition. One hopes that, in time perhaps, this shameful and lamentable oversight can be remedied through additions to the memorial grounds.

What is needed is an explicit acknowledgement and recognition of King’s Christianity and of the American political creed. These underlie and undergird our history. And you simply cannot understand King and the Civil Rights Movement unless and until you understand how and why they captured the American imagination.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResoluteCon.Com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.

I’ve violated every rule of investing in the past two-and-a-half years and am all the richer — literally! — for it. (I’m richer at least on paper, not rich. Please note the difference!)

In any case, what’s the key to my success? One word: Apple. I made a conscious decision in March 2009 to start investing in the Cupertino, California-based company. Apple then was trading at about $78 a share; it’s now trading at around $370 a share.

My only regret is that I didn’t shift more of my investments into Apple when the company was at its nadir. Instead, I’ve periodically and regularly shifted an increasing share of my portfolio into this amazing American success story.

The result, not surprisingly: a stunning and dramatic increase in my financial wealth (at least on paper)!

Yeah, I know: It’s risky to put most of your financial eggs into one investment basket. What happens if Apple falls, which it might? What if a competitor firm comes out with better and less expensive products?

Believe me, I’m well aware of the risks involved. But I’m also well aware of the potential financial upside. More to the point, I simply believe in Apple because I’ve come to love their products and their customer service.

I mean, have you been to the Apple Store? If not, you should definitely go visit. It’s really quite impressive. The Apple customer service reps run the gamut chronologically from ages sixteen to sixty. And they are all bright, energetic and passionate about what they do, which is to explain and support Apple products.

Indeed, the Apple Store is decidedly unlike most retail electronics stores, where you sometimes have to beg for help. And even then, all too often, the help that you get is weak, subpar and lackluster.

The Apple Store, by contrast, generates an inspiringly positive vibe and feel, which is quite real, but difficult to fully articulate. You have to experience it to really appreciate it.

And so, when (three-and-a-half years ago) my then-girlfriend shared with me her passion for her MacBook and iPod, I quickly became a believer. And I’ve been hooked ever since, and happily so (on Apple I mean, not my ex-girlfriend: She and I broke up long ago, and she has since married.)

Of course, given my experience as a Marine in Iraq, this is not surprising. After all, a Marine infantry Lieutenant and Harvard grad (Seth Moulton) with whom I worked in country was a big Apple aficionado.

So much so that, in the spring of 2003, after major combat ops had ended, Moulton and I convoyed back to Kuwait for a couple of days to purchase an Apple computer and other Apple products.

The reason: to start producing television broadcasts to help counteract widespread anti-America propaganda and other misinformation. Our production facilities were primitive, but, thanks to Apple, quite effective!

So yeah, I’m in the tank for Apple. I think Steve Jobs is a pioneering visionary and genuine American hero.

“Jobs is a great entrepreneur,” writes Nick Schultz, because he “gave people products they didn’t know they wanted, and then made those products indispensable to their lives.

I didn’t know I needed the ability to read the Wall Street Journal and The Corner on a handsome handheld device at my breakfast table, on the Metro, on the Acela, or in any Starbucks I entered. But Steve Jobs did.

I didn’t know I wanted to mix and match my music collection on a computer and take it with me wherever I went, but Steve Jobs did.

I didn’t know I wanted a portable multimedia platform that would permit me and my kids to hurl angry birds out of a slingshot at thieving pigs. But Steve Jobs did.

That’s exactly right. And that’s why, in the short and medium terms at least, I’m still bullish on Apple. The same products and services — the iPhone, the iPad, iTunes, the Mac computers, the Apple Store, et al. — that have made the company such an integral part of people’s lives are still dominant and ascendant.

Of course, whether Apple will continue to out innovate its competitors in the longer term remains to be seen. The company, remember, almost collapsed and went under back in the 1990s.

Jobs had been fired by Apple in 1986 — but, in an act of desperation, the company brought him back 10 years later to work his magic. Jobs then effected one of the greatest and most improbable business comebacks in history. (Maybe Apple’s comeback from the abyss presages America’s comeback from the Great Recession. Let’s hope so!)

The bottom line: I wouldn’t bet against Apple anytime soon — just as I wouldn’t bet against America either! Steve Jobs may be out as CEO, but he’s not yet dead, nor are the products that he helped shepherd to market. And so, his influence will be felt, both within Apple and within the consumer retail markets, for many years to come.

All of which means that yes: you should invest still in this amazing American success story. I did, and I’m smiling as a result. Steve Jobs and Apple, I can truly say, have changed my life — and in more ways than one!

Noah Kristula-Green pokes fun at the Weekly Standard and its editor, Bill Kristol, for their unabashed promotion of a Paul Ryan presidential run. Fair enough. However, it also should be noted that Kristol and the Standard are not alone. Politico reports that the conservative policy elite is “profoundly dissatisfied with the current field” of GOP candidates and thus pines for a fresh face such as Ryan’s.

I share their dissatisfaction, which is why I also have been urging Ryan to run. (Unfortunately, he didn’t listen to me!) Because of his intelligence, his convictions and his studiousness, I believe that Ryan has a unique and rarified ability to make the case against Obama, while uniting the disparate center-right factions.

A Ryan candidacy, moreover, would have seriously shaken up the race and made the ultimate GOP standard-bearer — even it wasn’t Ryan — a better and stronger nominee. (Remember the Obama-Hillary race in 2008 and how it generated enthusiasm and excitement for the Dems?)

Other pundits and analysts agree with this assessment, but think that it’s premature for Ryan to risk his political career on a difficult presidential run.

Philip Klein, for instance, thinks that Ryan made the right decision. He “still has plenty of years to run for president,” Phil argues. “In fact, even if he waited until 2032, he’d still be younger than Mitt Romney is now.”

This is literally true, of course, because Ryan is just 41 years young. But in fact, a prospective presidential candidate doesn’t really have his entire life to run for the presidency. He has a small and fleeting window of opportunity in which to make his case to the American people.

Indeed, a convergence of the man and the moment happens rarely in politics; and when it does, a politician had better be prepared to act. Otherwise, he’ll quickly be discarded and forgotten. In the digital age especially, the public’s attention span is short; people are fickle and impatient. They want what’s fresh and new, not stale and old.

Certainly, this helps to explain how Barack Obama went from being an obscure and little known state senator in 2004 to becoming the President of the United States in 2008.

So by 2032, unfortunately, Ryan likely will be yesterday’s news. Politically speaking at least, he might be little more than an aging, career politician whose time has passed. The same set of unique public policy issues and historical circumstances which made a Ryan presidential candidacy so compelling in 2012 likely will no longer be in play. America will have moved on; and so, too, will have Ryan.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama understood this dynamic. They understood the nature of American politics in the digital age. That’s why they ran for the presidency when many political “experts” counseled that doing so was a fool’s errand. Clinton and Obama disagreed; and, as a result, they made history. Paul Ryan’s time may have come and gone. I hope not.

John Guardiano blogs at www.ResoluteCon.Com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano.