Once again, Ann Coulter's humor:
"Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, Obama could agree to let Iran push only half of Israel into the sea. That would certainly constitute "change"! Obama could give one of those upbeat speeches of his, saying: 'As a result of my recent talks with President Ahmadinejad, some see the state of Israel as being half empty. I prefer to see it as half full.' And then Obama can return and tell Americans he could no more repudiate Ahmadinejad than he could repudiate his own white grandmother. It will make Chris Matthews' leg tingle. "
~ANN COULTER
Special Mention:
"In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style."
~Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Hello, brain? You in there?
Liberals love talking about sex-education in schools, as if children weren't already inundated with it from all the television they watch.
I'm not one of those who says a child or teen should know nothing up until the moment they have to get married. I'm pretty sure nobody does. But where exactly do liberals draw the line? Especially as regards the parental notification aspect of sex-ed.
Predictions that the schools would try to teach homosexual-themed aspects in sex-ed sounded alarmist. But it came to pass. And then there were fears that schools would fester the notion among children that they didn't yet know their sexual 'orientation.' Came to pass.
And now this story from Australia:
----""""A JUDGE has allowed a 12-year-old Victorian girl to start a taxpayer-funded sex swap, despite objections from the child's father...
Only her father, who lives interstate, opposed the proposed sex change, though he did not attend the final court hearing and could not afford to send a lawyer on his behalf.
The court was told he could not accept that his daughter had always seen herself as a boy and considered her too young to make such a decision.
The mother expressed sadness and deep concern for her daughter, but said she would stand by the girl.
The child's lawyer told the court she considered the girl capable of making an informed decision...
The court was told early intervention was needed because the child was stressed and anxious at the prospect of starting her period and had threatened self-harm.
Hormones implanted under her skin every three months will stop her menstruating and prevent her hips and breasts growing.""""----
LINK HERE: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23753182-2,00.html
So this is it. Courts in Australia can decide that a confused child has the right to change his/her anatomy. And parents can't do diddly about it.
My English teacher rolled her eyes when I uttered the phrase "building block of society" in reference to the family. She probably thought my fear that gay marriage would destroy family was just reactionary and stupid.
Maybe I should stop worrying about gay marriage. It isn't gays that have ruined the family, it's liberalism in the schools
I'm not one of those who says a child or teen should know nothing up until the moment they have to get married. I'm pretty sure nobody does. But where exactly do liberals draw the line? Especially as regards the parental notification aspect of sex-ed.
Predictions that the schools would try to teach homosexual-themed aspects in sex-ed sounded alarmist. But it came to pass. And then there were fears that schools would fester the notion among children that they didn't yet know their sexual 'orientation.' Came to pass.
And now this story from Australia:
----""""A JUDGE has allowed a 12-year-old Victorian girl to start a taxpayer-funded sex swap, despite objections from the child's father...
Only her father, who lives interstate, opposed the proposed sex change, though he did not attend the final court hearing and could not afford to send a lawyer on his behalf.
The court was told he could not accept that his daughter had always seen herself as a boy and considered her too young to make such a decision.
The mother expressed sadness and deep concern for her daughter, but said she would stand by the girl.
The child's lawyer told the court she considered the girl capable of making an informed decision...
The court was told early intervention was needed because the child was stressed and anxious at the prospect of starting her period and had threatened self-harm.
Hormones implanted under her skin every three months will stop her menstruating and prevent her hips and breasts growing.""""----
LINK HERE: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23753182-2,00.html
So this is it. Courts in Australia can decide that a confused child has the right to change his/her anatomy. And parents can't do diddly about it.
My English teacher rolled her eyes when I uttered the phrase "building block of society" in reference to the family. She probably thought my fear that gay marriage would destroy family was just reactionary and stupid.
Maybe I should stop worrying about gay marriage. It isn't gays that have ruined the family, it's liberalism in the schools
Memorial Day Post (to be edited in following days
"Be mindful, O Lord, of all civil Authorities, of our Armed Forces, of this city in which we dwell, and of every city and land; grant us peaceful times, that we may lead a calm and tranquil life in all godliness and sanctity." ~from the Orthodox Christian prayer for the world.
"For the President of the United States and all civil authorities, for our Armed Forces everywhere, that He will aid them and grant them victory over every enemy and adversary, let us pray to the Lord." ~from the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom
"For the President of the United States and all civil authorities, for our Armed Forces everywhere, that He will aid them and grant them victory over every enemy and adversary, let us pray to the Lord." ~from the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Why the Obama/Clinton ticket is inevitable
These past months have seen Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton go from friendly rivals to bitter ones. And their respective supporters are almost as partisan. Half of Hillary's bloc say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and a good portion of Obama's say the same. Add to that the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton have estranged African-American voters with their various [percieved] insinuations about his race.
What's happened is the near tearing-apart of the Democratic Party's most important voting blocs. This is the fault mostly of the Democrats' political theology. They held that a person's race or sex was a determining factor in that person's political value. Women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Everyone else will vote for her so it can be a symbol for overcoming sexism. People will vote for Barack Obama as a symbol for overcoming racism etc.
Both are noble thoughts, of course. The problem is that it translates very harshly in politics when the "first woman" and "first black" candidates have to endure the same kind of scrutiny that George W. Bush or John Kerry (*cough*) did.
America DOES need to elect a "first" [fill in blank], but American voters should not change the rules when it comes to qualifications for those candidates. The lesson that Democrats need to learn with this year's two Democrat candidates is: race and sex must take a backseat to policy ideas. It is the focus on victimization that is tearing Democrats apart. Finally they've been hoisted on their own petard: Hillary Clinton knows what it is like to be accused of racism when she is clearly not racist. Barack Obama knows the dangers that come with critisizing a female, even if those criticisms are legitimate.
Will they learn? That's the question. My answer is: no, they won't. But what they will realize before November is that they must pull the coalition together to win against John McCain. And to do that, Obama will need Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate. The reasons are numerous.
First, no other white candidate --male (Strickland, Warner) or female (Sebelius, Napolitano)--will do. Hillary has legitimized herself. She's winning 48% of the Democratic vote in the primaries. By this time the frontrunner has the nomination wrapped up, yet Obama has weakened not strengthened, over time. His problems with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright have alienated southern white voters, the moderate types who would vote for Bill Clinton or George Bush. Hillary Clinton is Obama's only chance of winning this bloc. Conversely, if Hillary were capable of winning the nomination, she would need Obama because of the alienation that occured between African-American voters and the Clintons.
More importantly, the reason for an Obama/Hillary ticket is to keep all the regular Democrat votes voting Democrat. As I pointed out above, a large section of each candidate's constituency are threatening to jump to McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. If this were to happen, McCain would be riding the train to a more probable victory.
Here's why it won't happen: the Democrats are realizing this as the Denver convention approaches. Obama has recently given a rationale for putting Hillary on the ticket, and there have been rumors that Bill Clinton has been pushing his wife for the VP slot behind the scenes. Whatever water may have passed under the bridge, the idea of possible defeat in November is a stronger drink than personal hatred.
That means McCain needs to gear up. He has to hope that the college vote gets too drunk to vote, he has to hope his hand-extensions to Union workers and African-Americans will add to his constituency. He has to hope, above all, that not a single person who voted for George W. Bush stays home. God Help Us All.
What's happened is the near tearing-apart of the Democratic Party's most important voting blocs. This is the fault mostly of the Democrats' political theology. They held that a person's race or sex was a determining factor in that person's political value. Women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Everyone else will vote for her so it can be a symbol for overcoming sexism. People will vote for Barack Obama as a symbol for overcoming racism etc.
Both are noble thoughts, of course. The problem is that it translates very harshly in politics when the "first woman" and "first black" candidates have to endure the same kind of scrutiny that George W. Bush or John Kerry (*cough*) did.
America DOES need to elect a "first" [fill in blank], but American voters should not change the rules when it comes to qualifications for those candidates. The lesson that Democrats need to learn with this year's two Democrat candidates is: race and sex must take a backseat to policy ideas. It is the focus on victimization that is tearing Democrats apart. Finally they've been hoisted on their own petard: Hillary Clinton knows what it is like to be accused of racism when she is clearly not racist. Barack Obama knows the dangers that come with critisizing a female, even if those criticisms are legitimate.
Will they learn? That's the question. My answer is: no, they won't. But what they will realize before November is that they must pull the coalition together to win against John McCain. And to do that, Obama will need Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate. The reasons are numerous.
First, no other white candidate --male (Strickland, Warner) or female (Sebelius, Napolitano)--will do. Hillary has legitimized herself. She's winning 48% of the Democratic vote in the primaries. By this time the frontrunner has the nomination wrapped up, yet Obama has weakened not strengthened, over time. His problems with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright have alienated southern white voters, the moderate types who would vote for Bill Clinton or George Bush. Hillary Clinton is Obama's only chance of winning this bloc. Conversely, if Hillary were capable of winning the nomination, she would need Obama because of the alienation that occured between African-American voters and the Clintons.
More importantly, the reason for an Obama/Hillary ticket is to keep all the regular Democrat votes voting Democrat. As I pointed out above, a large section of each candidate's constituency are threatening to jump to McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. If this were to happen, McCain would be riding the train to a more probable victory.
Here's why it won't happen: the Democrats are realizing this as the Denver convention approaches. Obama has recently given a rationale for putting Hillary on the ticket, and there have been rumors that Bill Clinton has been pushing his wife for the VP slot behind the scenes. Whatever water may have passed under the bridge, the idea of possible defeat in November is a stronger drink than personal hatred.
That means McCain needs to gear up. He has to hope that the college vote gets too drunk to vote, he has to hope his hand-extensions to Union workers and African-Americans will add to his constituency. He has to hope, above all, that not a single person who voted for George W. Bush stays home. God Help Us All.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Seems to me...
Here's a few thoughts of mine on the BBQ-Friday that governors Crist, Jindal and Romney (among others such as senators Lieberman, Graham, and Brownback) spent at McCain's place in Sendona, Arizona. First, this article from TIME:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1808816,00.html?imw=Y
First, this could indeed be just a BBQ-weekend. But why would that not be McCain's way of looking at his potential veep picks? Indeed, he's been giving these BBQ-weekends for a while now. It's probably his way of finding out the character of his nearest allies. Seem pretty smart to me.
Also Huckabee (hat tip: Nachama Solveichek at Veep Watch) WAS invited to the BBQ but had a more pressing date to keep, his 35th anniversary. Could be that, or it could be that he didn't want to be in the same place as Romney.
One thing about these two other guys though ( Crist and Jindal). I can't imagine McCain seriously considers them. For several reasons. Jindal is just TOO new. I like his resume, but picking him will look really convenient. It'll also amp up the issue of McCain's age. He's admitting defeat on age if he chooses someone that young. It'll also bring up the "inexperience" issue as the Democrats try to make Jindal the Republican double-standard on inexperience.
Charlie Crist is more likely, but not by much. Like McCain, he is known for being very moderate on some things and openly leftist on issues like Global Warming (meaning: government solutions). He's also pro-choice ( but anti-abortion---the Giuliani trick).
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1808816,00.html?imw=Y
First, this could indeed be just a BBQ-weekend. But why would that not be McCain's way of looking at his potential veep picks? Indeed, he's been giving these BBQ-weekends for a while now. It's probably his way of finding out the character of his nearest allies. Seem pretty smart to me.
Also Huckabee (hat tip: Nachama Solveichek at Veep Watch) WAS invited to the BBQ but had a more pressing date to keep, his 35th anniversary. Could be that, or it could be that he didn't want to be in the same place as Romney.
One thing about these two other guys though ( Crist and Jindal). I can't imagine McCain seriously considers them. For several reasons. Jindal is just TOO new. I like his resume, but picking him will look really convenient. It'll also amp up the issue of McCain's age. He's admitting defeat on age if he chooses someone that young. It'll also bring up the "inexperience" issue as the Democrats try to make Jindal the Republican double-standard on inexperience.
Charlie Crist is more likely, but not by much. Like McCain, he is known for being very moderate on some things and openly leftist on issues like Global Warming (meaning: government solutions). He's also pro-choice ( but anti-abortion---the Giuliani trick).
Romney News: Money, Change, VeepWatch, and Lunatic
1. This article says wealth will be Romney's strong point in being picked as VP. HERE: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/23/report_romney_wealth_may_help_make_him_vp/6399/
~~~~~
I agree that his checkbook is a big plus, and McCain definitely needs it. But that's not the only thing McCain has to consider. Romney plays strong in Michigan and Minnesota.
~~~~~
2. Another snarky article that spreads the lie that the only thing about Romney is that he "changes...again." If something is repeated enoughj etc...Article HERE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121141533544012615.html
Notable quote: "My plans are consistent with being a supporter of the ticket, not a member of it."
~~~~~
3. Lamar Alexander, one of my state's US Senators, has been chosen by the McCain campaign to vet VP candidates. Matt Lewis at TownHall.com is my source, HERE: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/4cb1ccbc-9d90-4974-ba6d-20e344d7a2d6
Lewis notes: "Hopefully, he won't pull a "Cheney" and pick himself..."
~~~~~
4. Romney and President Bush will be in Salt Lake City, Utah to raise money for McCain. HERE: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3375544
Rocky Anderson, the lunatic mayor of SLC will be protesting Bush's visit. Juvenile or what? Full disclosure here, and not without a touch of irony: Romny endorsed Rocky Anderson for mayor. Apparently he knew him from the Salt Lake City Olympics turn-around in 2002. My guess is that Romney knew him as fairly sane person who helped turn the SLC games around and thus thought he'd make a competent mayor. Indeed, Anderson may be a competent mayor. There's nothing in the rule book that says all Bush-hating Democrats are inherently incapable.
~~~~~
I agree that his checkbook is a big plus, and McCain definitely needs it. But that's not the only thing McCain has to consider. Romney plays strong in Michigan and Minnesota.
~~~~~
2. Another snarky article that spreads the lie that the only thing about Romney is that he "changes...again." If something is repeated enoughj etc...Article HERE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121141533544012615.html
Notable quote: "My plans are consistent with being a supporter of the ticket, not a member of it."
~~~~~
3. Lamar Alexander, one of my state's US Senators, has been chosen by the McCain campaign to vet VP candidates. Matt Lewis at TownHall.com is my source, HERE: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/4cb1ccbc-9d90-4974-ba6d-20e344d7a2d6
Lewis notes: "Hopefully, he won't pull a "Cheney" and pick himself..."
~~~~~
4. Romney and President Bush will be in Salt Lake City, Utah to raise money for McCain. HERE: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3375544
Rocky Anderson, the lunatic mayor of SLC will be protesting Bush's visit. Juvenile or what? Full disclosure here, and not without a touch of irony: Romny endorsed Rocky Anderson for mayor. Apparently he knew him from the Salt Lake City Olympics turn-around in 2002. My guess is that Romney knew him as fairly sane person who helped turn the SLC games around and thus thought he'd make a competent mayor. Indeed, Anderson may be a competent mayor. There's nothing in the rule book that says all Bush-hating Democrats are inherently incapable.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Obama's Veep Material
The Obama Veepstakes are heating up, as he struggles to shore up his foreign policy credentials.
Two names popped up on the Hugh Hewitt Show yesterday. Sen. George Mitchell and General Anthony Zinni.
ZINNI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni ---the Wiki on the General. Here's his site: http://www.generalzinni.com/
MITCHELL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell
and the more oft-mentioned names: Rendell, Strickland, Sebelius, Richardson, James Webb, and Hillary herself.
RENDELL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Rendell
STRICKLAND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland
SEBELIUS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
RICHARDSON: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson
WEBB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb
HILLARY: wait a sec, who needs to know anymore about her?! ;-)
I'll offer my own smart pick, the genuinely moderate Tenn. Gov. Phil Bredesen.
BREDESEN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bredesen
Two names popped up on the Hugh Hewitt Show yesterday. Sen. George Mitchell and General Anthony Zinni.
ZINNI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni ---the Wiki on the General. Here's his site: http://www.generalzinni.com/
MITCHELL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Mitchell
and the more oft-mentioned names: Rendell, Strickland, Sebelius, Richardson, James Webb, and Hillary herself.
RENDELL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Rendell
STRICKLAND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland
SEBELIUS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
RICHARDSON: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson
WEBB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb
HILLARY: wait a sec, who needs to know anymore about her?! ;-)
I'll offer my own smart pick, the genuinely moderate Tenn. Gov. Phil Bredesen.
BREDESEN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bredesen
Time for a new poll...
The question: which potential running mate for Obama poses the most danger to the Republicans?
I'll gather the necessary profiles and so on in just a sec...
I'll gather the necessary profiles and so on in just a sec...
Romney News
1. Romney will speak at the Colorado GOP convention. HERE:
http://cbs4denver.com/politics/romney.colorado.convention.2.728544.html
2. RomneyCare's failure in Massachussetts continues to haunt Mitt, as it has turned into a disaster (under Deval Patrick's tinkering I should add). This is probably the biggest obstacle Mitt faces as far as being a VP pick. HERE:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132884197208937.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
3. Romney decries the Calif. Supreme Court's recent decision. HERE:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1094559&srvc=home&position=rated
http://cbs4denver.com/politics/romney.colorado.convention.2.728544.html
2. RomneyCare's failure in Massachussetts continues to haunt Mitt, as it has turned into a disaster (under Deval Patrick's tinkering I should add). This is probably the biggest obstacle Mitt faces as far as being a VP pick. HERE:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132884197208937.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
3. Romney decries the Calif. Supreme Court's recent decision. HERE:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1094559&srvc=home&position=rated
McCain and Three other sailors
The New York Times reports that McCain will be meeting with Charlie Crist, Bobby Jindal, and Mitt Romney on friday to talk about Veep stuff. HERE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24762893/
Notice anyone missing?
My question is why McCain thinks Crist will help him. Obviously these weren't my final three (Romney, Pawlenty, Portman), but at least Mitt is there, and that's what counts!
Also, the GC POLITICS match-up has been whittled down to a final two. Surprisingly, those two are Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. As I suspected, it was mostly Huckabee supporters voting in the game (perfectly legal), and Sarah Palin is WAY behind him. Go help her out...HERE: http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
Notice anyone missing?
My question is why McCain thinks Crist will help him. Obviously these weren't my final three (Romney, Pawlenty, Portman), but at least Mitt is there, and that's what counts!
Also, the GC POLITICS match-up has been whittled down to a final two. Surprisingly, those two are Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. As I suspected, it was mostly Huckabee supporters voting in the game (perfectly legal), and Sarah Palin is WAY behind him. Go help her out...HERE: http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
Quote of the Week
You really can't get any better than Ann Coulter:
"Liberals think all real tyrants ended with Hitler and act as if they would have known all along not to appease him. Next time is always different for people who refuse to learn from history. As Air America's Mark Green said: "Look, Hitler was Hitler." (Which, I admit, threw me for a loop: I thought Air America's position is that Bush is Hitler.) "
~ANN COULTER
"Liberals think all real tyrants ended with Hitler and act as if they would have known all along not to appease him. Next time is always different for people who refuse to learn from history. As Air America's Mark Green said: "Look, Hitler was Hitler." (Which, I admit, threw me for a loop: I thought Air America's position is that Bush is Hitler.) "
~ANN COULTER
Monday, May 12, 2008
Last chance to help Mitt....
Hey Romney Supporters,
Once again I have to urge you to go to CQ POLITICS' Veep Matchup game, and help Romney out against Mark Sanford! Link is here....
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
If we don't boost Mitt up, he can't make it to the next round of matchups! The last chance we have is today. The next round starts tomorrow.
Once again I have to urge you to go to CQ POLITICS' Veep Matchup game, and help Romney out against Mark Sanford! Link is here....
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
If we don't boost Mitt up, he can't make it to the next round of matchups! The last chance we have is today. The next round starts tomorrow.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Article
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez has a nice article on Mitt Romney's recent speech, HERE:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjdjY2U4OTUyZTQ0YTA1ODgxNmQ3MGFiODdhMzliMWI=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjdjY2U4OTUyZTQ0YTA1ODgxNmQ3MGFiODdhMzliMWI=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjdjY2U4OTUyZTQ0YTA1ODgxNmQ3MGFiODdhMzliMWI=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjdjY2U4OTUyZTQ0YTA1ODgxNmQ3MGFiODdhMzliMWI=
Romney Needs Your Help!!! *bumped*
I want to repost this....
CQ POLITICS has a bracket-style match-up going on between potential veep choices. Condi vs. Huckabee, Jindal vs. Steele etc...and Mitt Romney is up against Mark Sanford. Looks like he's a little behind. Round 2 ends in a few days, so go help Mitt out by choosing him over Sanford, HERE:
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
CQ POLITICS has a bracket-style match-up going on between potential veep choices. Condi vs. Huckabee, Jindal vs. Steele etc...and Mitt Romney is up against Mark Sanford. Looks like he's a little behind. Round 2 ends in a few days, so go help Mitt out by choosing him over Sanford, HERE:
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The terrorist vote vs. the racist vote
When a prominent Obama campaign spokesperson said in essence that racists were all voting for McCain, there was no media firestorm. It is accepted at this point that the Republican Party holds the "racist vote" spellbound. Of course this is supposed to scare us into thinking that the Republican Party is somehow encouraging to racists, or is racist itself. This is the kind of crap that Democraps--er, Democrats--use to try and keep African-American voters voting for them. Everyone believes the slander except for Republicans themselves.
Of course saying that McCain holds the "racist vote" is only talk. Nobody who is a prominent figure who is racist, not anyone, has come out and said, "thanks McCain for being the only white guy to vote for!"
But the Democrats have a problem with their own electorate---or at least, an 'electorate' that would vote in the United States election for President if it could. The Democrats have a strong hold of the terrorist vote. No, I don't mean Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn--those two are actually American citizens. The terrorist force of Hamas has expressed preference for a Barack Obama presidency. When John McCain pointed this out, Obama's campaign responded that it was a smear. As if saying McCain had a hold of the racist vote wasn't a smear.
So instead of assuring the American electorate that Hamas has plenty to fear from him, Obama and his campaign assure us that McCain has a lot to fear--Don't make them call you a racist! Because they will if McCain persists in pointing to Hamas' preference for Obama.
It is fair to ask what McCain is implying when he points out this telling fact: is he saying Obama and Hamas are pals? Well, that's how Democrats would like to paint it; McCain is trying to say Obama is a Hamas-friendly terrorist.
But what McCain is doing is simply pointing to the fact that dictators and terrorists have a preference for Democrat foreign policy ideals. Obama has promised to sit with Ahmadinejahd, Castro (the dead wax figure version) and Raul, Kimmie Jong-Il et al. How could Hamas NOT like Obama? He is the second-coming of the Democrat Messiah: Jimmy Carter!
It is interesting that Obama is so often compared to JFK. As history well knows, JFK wasn't exactly a Castro fan. It is hard to imagine JFK sitting down with Castro. Even to mock a dead, waxed version sitting in a rocking chair.
What McCain wants to point out---and what we should all realize---is that an Obama presidency is more likely to see friendly-relations with terrorist and dictatorial states, thus reversing years of tough-love American rejection. Democrats are big fans of talking and making empty gestures. Somehow talking to Ahmadinejad is supposed to persuade him not to pursue his theologically-driven plan to annihilate Israel. Somehow boycotting the Beijing Olympics will make China rethink their human rights policies...IF ONLY we could insult and abandon all our athletes, China would change! UN resolutions one after the other do nothing to make Iran and other such countries see the light.
This has veered from my original point, so let me wrap it up by relating this to McCain, Obama, the election and the "racist" vote vs, the terrorist vote.
The Democrats take offense when something true is pointed out; namely that their foreign policy ideals are comforting to terrorists and dictators. Meanwhile they feel no remorse in painting the Republican Party as racist--something that is, we can agree, at least debatable, not factual.
One thing for sure, terrorists are a lot more dangerous than racists. While the age of dangerous and violent racism has passed and a strand of silliness remains, the age of terrorism dawned. The Republicans should reject racism of course. How could they not? The Democrats' case for the Republican Party as racist relies on the fact that they reject affirmative action--which is, to paraphrade the great Martin Luther King jr--a policy that judges on the color of skin rather than character. The Democrats also base their reasoning on the fact that African-Americans overwhelmingly support them. Nevermind the fact that Republicans so have very prominent and capable leaders among them that are African-American: Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas in the governmental and judicial sphere and Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, and Walter Williams in the punditry sphere.
But what the Democrats refuse to acknowledge is this: even if Republicans have a lock on the racist vote, a much dirtier horse than racism resides in their own stable: terrorism. They don't want to address this fact, they just want to paint a picture of Republicans as accusing them of being terrorist-friendly. But that's not the problem. Of course Democrats don't endorse or agree with terrorists. The problem is that terrorists agree with them.
Of course saying that McCain holds the "racist vote" is only talk. Nobody who is a prominent figure who is racist, not anyone, has come out and said, "thanks McCain for being the only white guy to vote for!"
But the Democrats have a problem with their own electorate---or at least, an 'electorate' that would vote in the United States election for President if it could. The Democrats have a strong hold of the terrorist vote. No, I don't mean Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn--those two are actually American citizens. The terrorist force of Hamas has expressed preference for a Barack Obama presidency. When John McCain pointed this out, Obama's campaign responded that it was a smear. As if saying McCain had a hold of the racist vote wasn't a smear.
So instead of assuring the American electorate that Hamas has plenty to fear from him, Obama and his campaign assure us that McCain has a lot to fear--Don't make them call you a racist! Because they will if McCain persists in pointing to Hamas' preference for Obama.
It is fair to ask what McCain is implying when he points out this telling fact: is he saying Obama and Hamas are pals? Well, that's how Democrats would like to paint it; McCain is trying to say Obama is a Hamas-friendly terrorist.
But what McCain is doing is simply pointing to the fact that dictators and terrorists have a preference for Democrat foreign policy ideals. Obama has promised to sit with Ahmadinejahd, Castro (the dead wax figure version) and Raul, Kimmie Jong-Il et al. How could Hamas NOT like Obama? He is the second-coming of the Democrat Messiah: Jimmy Carter!
It is interesting that Obama is so often compared to JFK. As history well knows, JFK wasn't exactly a Castro fan. It is hard to imagine JFK sitting down with Castro. Even to mock a dead, waxed version sitting in a rocking chair.
What McCain wants to point out---and what we should all realize---is that an Obama presidency is more likely to see friendly-relations with terrorist and dictatorial states, thus reversing years of tough-love American rejection. Democrats are big fans of talking and making empty gestures. Somehow talking to Ahmadinejad is supposed to persuade him not to pursue his theologically-driven plan to annihilate Israel. Somehow boycotting the Beijing Olympics will make China rethink their human rights policies...IF ONLY we could insult and abandon all our athletes, China would change! UN resolutions one after the other do nothing to make Iran and other such countries see the light.
This has veered from my original point, so let me wrap it up by relating this to McCain, Obama, the election and the "racist" vote vs, the terrorist vote.
The Democrats take offense when something true is pointed out; namely that their foreign policy ideals are comforting to terrorists and dictators. Meanwhile they feel no remorse in painting the Republican Party as racist--something that is, we can agree, at least debatable, not factual.
One thing for sure, terrorists are a lot more dangerous than racists. While the age of dangerous and violent racism has passed and a strand of silliness remains, the age of terrorism dawned. The Republicans should reject racism of course. How could they not? The Democrats' case for the Republican Party as racist relies on the fact that they reject affirmative action--which is, to paraphrade the great Martin Luther King jr--a policy that judges on the color of skin rather than character. The Democrats also base their reasoning on the fact that African-Americans overwhelmingly support them. Nevermind the fact that Republicans so have very prominent and capable leaders among them that are African-American: Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas in the governmental and judicial sphere and Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, and Walter Williams in the punditry sphere.
But what the Democrats refuse to acknowledge is this: even if Republicans have a lock on the racist vote, a much dirtier horse than racism resides in their own stable: terrorism. They don't want to address this fact, they just want to paint a picture of Republicans as accusing them of being terrorist-friendly. But that's not the problem. Of course Democrats don't endorse or agree with terrorists. The problem is that terrorists agree with them.
Mitt Romney's Speech
Mitt Romney accepted the Cantebury Medal award from the Becket Fund for defending religious freedom in America. The award was for his "Faith in America" speech in December. The text of the speech can be found at Townhall, but I'm posting it right here after the jump...
"""It is an honor for Ann and me to be with you this evening. We have a lot of friends who work with the Becket Fund. As you can imagine, that makes your recognition even more meaningful.
Your mission--and my topic this evening—involve the intertwining of religion and government. It’s not a new topic. It was in the 12th century that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett famously refused to allow Henry II to control the Church of England. As you are well aware, his conviction came with a high price: he was killed by the king’s soldiers in his own cathedral.
Our religious liberty in America was bought in large measure by the sacrifice of men and women like Thomas Beckett.
The battle for religious freedom is not over, nor is it likely to ever be. I appreciate the work you do to protect a fundamental human liberty and to defend those who are modern victims of religious intolerance and persecution.
As you know, I gave a speech about religious liberty during the height of my campaign. This was not a speech I was forced to give, it was a speech I wanted to give. I felt that I had a unique opportunity to address in a very public way the role of faith in America.
In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest—unheard and unheeded. It also gave me an opportunity to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.
Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off—after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers—why should non-believers get special treatment?
But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.
If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief--to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience--it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.
We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.
Perhaps the phrase which elicited the most comment—and controversy—was this: “[the Founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Looking back, do I still believe that religion requires freedom?
History abounds with examples where religion has been imposed by the state upon a people—from the Greek city-state to the dictatorship of the Taliban. But that is not the faith of which I speak. True religious faith is a matter of conviction and can only be discovered through personal communion with God, sought in the heart and in the heavens. And that path of personal discovery is of necessity free of constraint and censor. Yes, I believe religion requires freedom.
The more controversial claim nowadays is that freedom requires religion.
One critic dismissed this idea by pointing out that there are indeed countries in Europe which have become godless but nevertheless remain democratic. But that underscores my point. I was not speaking about Europe’s recent experiments in state secularism, I was speaking about America and the larger family of free nations; and I was not speaking about a moment of time, but rather about a span of history. Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive--over centuries--if we were to abandon our faith in God?
I don’t believe so.
This is hardly a novel view. Nor is it divisive.
It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were the gift of God, not of kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,” Jefferson once asked, “when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”
John Adams offers a further perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man’s nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion” he said “…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”
This great experiment in liberty will endure and flourish only so long as we maintain the humility, faith and character to govern ourselves.
Nor can we overlook that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.
“We and God have business with each other,” even the father of pragmatism William James once observed. “In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled.” When a people’s “deepest destiny” can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!
We have recently been visited by Pope Benedict XVI. It was interesting to me that both he and Pope John Paul II, testified of the connection between freedom and truth. Pope Benedict quoted his predecessor: “In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.” Calling those words “prophetic,” he said they echo in some sense the conviction of George Washington’s Farewell Address, that “religion and morality represent ‘indispensable supports’ of political prosperity.” And then he added his own conviction: “Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.”
I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: “Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”
I don’t mean to suggest that truth can only be found in religion or that morality exists only among believers. But I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that “national morality” as Hamilton put it, “require[s] the aid of…divinely authoritative religion.” I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against moral relativism—which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable that it can label “evil good, and good evil;” as it says in Isaiah and “put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”
I also believe that religion and the general precepts of morality defended by religion make us better men and women. And on the whole, I believe we are a stronger people and a stronger nation because of faith. Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy. That last teaching alone may help us escape the demographic nightmare that is haunting Europe.
There is one more reason why I am convinced that our freedom requires religion.
One day as a boy when a sermon at church was unusually boring, my attention turned to the dollar bill I had for the collection. On the back, there is a curious picture of a single eye surrounded by rays suspended over a pyramid—the great seal of the United States. What’s that, I asked? My father explained that it was the eye of God, and that the Founders believed that He watched over the affairs of this nation. And I later learned that the words on the seal were from Virgil - Annuit Coeptis – “God has favored our undertakings.”
This may not be at all compelling to the non-believer, but it has been compelling to every president who has led this nation at a time of peril. It is that God has blessed America. It is that God will bless America if we continue to deserve His blessing. Washington saw the hand of Providence in the nation’s founding: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.”
As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: “we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.” And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.
God bless America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.
Thank you, and may God continue to bless our great nation!"""""
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MittRomney/2008/05/08/religion_and_freedom?page=full&comments=true
THOUGHTS: First, I'm glad he included a segment about atheists. The quote from John Adams is very interesting since so many people believe that the founders (i.e. Jefferson) saw no place for religion in government and therefore set up a wall to seperate "church and state."
"""It is an honor for Ann and me to be with you this evening. We have a lot of friends who work with the Becket Fund. As you can imagine, that makes your recognition even more meaningful.
Your mission--and my topic this evening—involve the intertwining of religion and government. It’s not a new topic. It was in the 12th century that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett famously refused to allow Henry II to control the Church of England. As you are well aware, his conviction came with a high price: he was killed by the king’s soldiers in his own cathedral.
Our religious liberty in America was bought in large measure by the sacrifice of men and women like Thomas Beckett.
The battle for religious freedom is not over, nor is it likely to ever be. I appreciate the work you do to protect a fundamental human liberty and to defend those who are modern victims of religious intolerance and persecution.
As you know, I gave a speech about religious liberty during the height of my campaign. This was not a speech I was forced to give, it was a speech I wanted to give. I felt that I had a unique opportunity to address in a very public way the role of faith in America.
In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest—unheard and unheeded. It also gave me an opportunity to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.
Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off—after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers—why should non-believers get special treatment?
But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.
If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief--to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience--it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.
We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.
Perhaps the phrase which elicited the most comment—and controversy—was this: “[the Founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Looking back, do I still believe that religion requires freedom?
History abounds with examples where religion has been imposed by the state upon a people—from the Greek city-state to the dictatorship of the Taliban. But that is not the faith of which I speak. True religious faith is a matter of conviction and can only be discovered through personal communion with God, sought in the heart and in the heavens. And that path of personal discovery is of necessity free of constraint and censor. Yes, I believe religion requires freedom.
The more controversial claim nowadays is that freedom requires religion.
One critic dismissed this idea by pointing out that there are indeed countries in Europe which have become godless but nevertheless remain democratic. But that underscores my point. I was not speaking about Europe’s recent experiments in state secularism, I was speaking about America and the larger family of free nations; and I was not speaking about a moment of time, but rather about a span of history. Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive--over centuries--if we were to abandon our faith in God?
I don’t believe so.
This is hardly a novel view. Nor is it divisive.
It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were the gift of God, not of kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,” Jefferson once asked, “when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”
John Adams offers a further perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man’s nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion” he said “…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”
This great experiment in liberty will endure and flourish only so long as we maintain the humility, faith and character to govern ourselves.
Nor can we overlook that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.
“We and God have business with each other,” even the father of pragmatism William James once observed. “In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled.” When a people’s “deepest destiny” can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!
We have recently been visited by Pope Benedict XVI. It was interesting to me that both he and Pope John Paul II, testified of the connection between freedom and truth. Pope Benedict quoted his predecessor: “In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.” Calling those words “prophetic,” he said they echo in some sense the conviction of George Washington’s Farewell Address, that “religion and morality represent ‘indispensable supports’ of political prosperity.” And then he added his own conviction: “Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.”
I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: “Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”
I don’t mean to suggest that truth can only be found in religion or that morality exists only among believers. But I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that “national morality” as Hamilton put it, “require[s] the aid of…divinely authoritative religion.” I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against moral relativism—which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable that it can label “evil good, and good evil;” as it says in Isaiah and “put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”
I also believe that religion and the general precepts of morality defended by religion make us better men and women. And on the whole, I believe we are a stronger people and a stronger nation because of faith. Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy. That last teaching alone may help us escape the demographic nightmare that is haunting Europe.
There is one more reason why I am convinced that our freedom requires religion.
One day as a boy when a sermon at church was unusually boring, my attention turned to the dollar bill I had for the collection. On the back, there is a curious picture of a single eye surrounded by rays suspended over a pyramid—the great seal of the United States. What’s that, I asked? My father explained that it was the eye of God, and that the Founders believed that He watched over the affairs of this nation. And I later learned that the words on the seal were from Virgil - Annuit Coeptis – “God has favored our undertakings.”
This may not be at all compelling to the non-believer, but it has been compelling to every president who has led this nation at a time of peril. It is that God has blessed America. It is that God will bless America if we continue to deserve His blessing. Washington saw the hand of Providence in the nation’s founding: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.”
As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: “we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.” And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.
God bless America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.
Thank you, and may God continue to bless our great nation!"""""
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MittRomney/2008/05/08/religion_and_freedom?page=full&comments=true
THOUGHTS: First, I'm glad he included a segment about atheists. The quote from John Adams is very interesting since so many people believe that the founders (i.e. Jefferson) saw no place for religion in government and therefore set up a wall to seperate "church and state."
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Romney Needs Your Help!!!
CQ POLITICS has a bracket-style match-up going on between potential veep choices. Condi vs. Huckabee, Jindal vs. Steele etc...and Mitt Romney is up against Mark Sanford. Looks like he's a little behind. Round 2 ends in a few days, so go help Mitt out by choosing him over Sanford, HERE:
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
Olympics, Veeps, and Automobiles
1. Mitt talks about the Beijing Olympics issue. Says Beijing should make a symbolic gesture....Here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135932
2. Despite being relegated a few notches down on the Veep list in recent pieces and polls, Mitt continues to work for McCain and the Party, here:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/romney_talks_up.html
3. In Massachusetts, automobile insurance issues have become a part of both frmr Gov Romney's agenda as well as now-Gov Deval Patrick. Massachussetts is the only state to regulate insurance rates. Both governors have promised to make the market for auto insurance "more competitive" so as to lower costs. Sounds like a mess....Here:
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&neID=20080414475.1507_b47500872ed1ec8c
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135932
2. Despite being relegated a few notches down on the Veep list in recent pieces and polls, Mitt continues to work for McCain and the Party, here:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/romney_talks_up.html
3. In Massachusetts, automobile insurance issues have become a part of both frmr Gov Romney's agenda as well as now-Gov Deval Patrick. Massachussetts is the only state to regulate insurance rates. Both governors have promised to make the market for auto insurance "more competitive" so as to lower costs. Sounds like a mess....Here:
http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&neID=20080414475.1507_b47500872ed1ec8c
Saturday, May 3, 2008
My Veep Selection Process, Part 2: Governors
Mark Sanford: OK in my book, but not the best pick. Bob Novak reported a few weeks ago that McCain's inner-circle were not considering Sanford. Also, he has a reputation for being a maverick like McCain. At this point that would not be reassuring.
Tim Pawlenty: I often hear that he isn't as conservative as Minnesotan GOPers would like, thus his waning popularity. Add to the fact that he isn't the most popular governor and was elected on a very slim margin. The concerns about his conservatism are not merited, IMO. He works in a largely Democratic state. As a Romney supporter, that's a familiar subject. I think he'd be a great pick, overall.
Tom Ridge: Pro-Choice. Adios.
Bobby Jindal: Needs to do his good work in Louisiana.
Sarah Palin: Needs to do her good work in Alaska.
Jon Hunstman jr: Not a bad consideration, in the long run. He doesn't carry any state (Utah is Republican through and through), but he does have an appeal. He certainly keeps Mormons at the Republican table.
Tim Pawlenty: I often hear that he isn't as conservative as Minnesotan GOPers would like, thus his waning popularity. Add to the fact that he isn't the most popular governor and was elected on a very slim margin. The concerns about his conservatism are not merited, IMO. He works in a largely Democratic state. As a Romney supporter, that's a familiar subject. I think he'd be a great pick, overall.
Tom Ridge: Pro-Choice. Adios.
Bobby Jindal: Needs to do his good work in Louisiana.
Sarah Palin: Needs to do her good work in Alaska.
Jon Hunstman jr: Not a bad consideration, in the long run. He doesn't carry any state (Utah is Republican through and through), but he does have an appeal. He certainly keeps Mormons at the Republican table.
Caution
I'd like to remind my fellow American conservatives that the "Conservative" Party in Britain is much different from ours and is not necessarily more allied with our ideals as the Blair/Brown Labour Party was. At least not as far as Foreign Policy issues are concerned.
The fact that the a party named "Conservative" overwhelmingly won over the Labour is not a good sign.
The fact that the a party named "Conservative" overwhelmingly won over the Labour is not a good sign.
My Veep Selection Process, Part 1: Former Rivals
In the footsteps of the Dan McGloughlin Redstate Blog piece, here's my own take on the most mentioned veep names.
My rules are pretty much the same as anyone's...
1. Veep choice must not hurt the ticket
2. Must be seen as "ready" to take over on day one.
3. Must not be TOO connected with Bush or congress.
4. MUST unequivocally be pro-life and socially conservative.
Category 1: Former Rivals:
Let's get Mike Huckabee out of the way first. McCain's campaign has already said Huckabee WILL NOT be a Veep consideration. And I suspect that McCain's people know the rift created by Mike Huckabee with Mormon voters.
While Huckabee has his band of supporters who would no doubt be enthusiastic, he brings as many negatives as he does positives. That defeats the purpose of picking him.
Fred Thompson had some fans as well, and I think picking him might actually be workable. However, the biggest downer is that Fred has been seen as lazy, and when people see two bald-ish guys side-by-side on stage....
Rudy Giuliani has to be ruled out right now. Pro-Choice, and a very weak candidate for president. He consistenly got 4th, 5th and 3rd place. I realize there are a lot of famous Rudy supporters (Hollywood actors like Adam Sandler, Jon Voight). But the fact is that he never got anywhere much.
Mitt Romney....He has a lot of positives, and a few negatives. Of course I fully support Mitt as VP. Let's talk about his negatives. It can't be ignored that a lot of voters, mainly Huckabee supporters, are anti-Mitt. Moreover, it seems Romney did himself no favors in New Hampshire where a new poll has a McCain/Mitt ticket being touted at 41% to a negative 48%. The negative percentage says 48 percent of likely McCain voters are "less likely" to vote for McCain if Mitt is on the ticket. Lastly, there is Mitt's HealthCare legacy in Massachussetts. Now every Mitt supporter knows that current Democrat Governor Deval Patrick is at fault for the failure of the system. But with Michael Medved on his show blaming it on Mitt, that may not be how it is seen.
Now for the positives. 1) Minnesota. A lot of people have been counting on Pawlenty to deliver MN for McCain. However, the Gov's popularity is not exactly through the roof even among MN Republicans. Romney however, solidly won the state. My guess is that while Mitt may not deliver NH, MA for McCain, he might deliver MN. 2) Money, Vetted, Seen As Presidential. McCain needs deniro ahora. Romney has that. Romney and McCain also vetted eachother with their rivalry. Mitt had the largest rockets launmched at him during the primary process, from questions about his religion, doubt about his conservative credentials, and looking at his legacy in Massachussetts. But Mitt came through (for the most part), and had a very solid second place on Super Tuesday. It took Huckabee weeks to catch up with Romney's delegate and popular vote count. And unlike Huckabee, Romney was popular not only with Mormons, but he often halved evangelicals with Huckabee, and seemed to get a large chunk of Catholics as well.
My rules are pretty much the same as anyone's...
1. Veep choice must not hurt the ticket
2. Must be seen as "ready" to take over on day one.
3. Must not be TOO connected with Bush or congress.
4. MUST unequivocally be pro-life and socially conservative.
Category 1: Former Rivals:
Let's get Mike Huckabee out of the way first. McCain's campaign has already said Huckabee WILL NOT be a Veep consideration. And I suspect that McCain's people know the rift created by Mike Huckabee with Mormon voters.
While Huckabee has his band of supporters who would no doubt be enthusiastic, he brings as many negatives as he does positives. That defeats the purpose of picking him.
Fred Thompson had some fans as well, and I think picking him might actually be workable. However, the biggest downer is that Fred has been seen as lazy, and when people see two bald-ish guys side-by-side on stage....
Rudy Giuliani has to be ruled out right now. Pro-Choice, and a very weak candidate for president. He consistenly got 4th, 5th and 3rd place. I realize there are a lot of famous Rudy supporters (Hollywood actors like Adam Sandler, Jon Voight). But the fact is that he never got anywhere much.
Mitt Romney....He has a lot of positives, and a few negatives. Of course I fully support Mitt as VP. Let's talk about his negatives. It can't be ignored that a lot of voters, mainly Huckabee supporters, are anti-Mitt. Moreover, it seems Romney did himself no favors in New Hampshire where a new poll has a McCain/Mitt ticket being touted at 41% to a negative 48%. The negative percentage says 48 percent of likely McCain voters are "less likely" to vote for McCain if Mitt is on the ticket. Lastly, there is Mitt's HealthCare legacy in Massachussetts. Now every Mitt supporter knows that current Democrat Governor Deval Patrick is at fault for the failure of the system. But with Michael Medved on his show blaming it on Mitt, that may not be how it is seen.
Now for the positives. 1) Minnesota. A lot of people have been counting on Pawlenty to deliver MN for McCain. However, the Gov's popularity is not exactly through the roof even among MN Republicans. Romney however, solidly won the state. My guess is that while Mitt may not deliver NH, MA for McCain, he might deliver MN. 2) Money, Vetted, Seen As Presidential. McCain needs deniro ahora. Romney has that. Romney and McCain also vetted eachother with their rivalry. Mitt had the largest rockets launmched at him during the primary process, from questions about his religion, doubt about his conservative credentials, and looking at his legacy in Massachussetts. But Mitt came through (for the most part), and had a very solid second place on Super Tuesday. It took Huckabee weeks to catch up with Romney's delegate and popular vote count. And unlike Huckabee, Romney was popular not only with Mormons, but he often halved evangelicals with Huckabee, and seemed to get a large chunk of Catholics as well.
Mitt News Round-Up
It's been a while since I've been able to post, mainly due to school finals. There's a lot of interesting material to catch up with. Most recently and interesting is #1 today...
1. Mitt Romney addresses the State of Maine's Republican Part Convention. Mitt continues his (well-meaning) pursuit of the VP slot.
http://www.wmtw.com/mostpopular/16129888/detail.html
2. An interesting article from Savanna (Georgia) Morning News about the relationship between Mormons and Christianity in the southern part of the country. Mitt's name is mentioned, of course.
http://savannahnow.com/node/491190
3. Dean Barnett's Weekly Standard column shows up at CBS' website. Dean talks mostly about Obama and "judgement". He mentions Mitt Romney in an interesting anecdote in paragraph 7.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/02/opinion/main4065150.shtml
4. Dan McGloughlin's Redstate blog: an interesting piece on how McCain should choose his VP. I agree with pretty much everything he says, though I think he mistakenly excludes some exceptions to the rule. For instance, he rules out "Perennial Short-listers," mentioning frmr congressman John Cox, John Kasich, and JC Watts. I might take JC Watts off that list, and I think he forget the usual perennial mention: Newt Gingrich.
I especially agree with his assessment that no rookies should be considered. Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin are great folks, but they are exactly where they need to be right now. We can wait to run them in the future. Who knows, we might even see a Jindal/Palin ticket.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/the_mccain_veepstakes_rules
5. Two polls. First, a bracket game for picking VPs. Very fun to play.
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
AND THEN, a poll at ABC News. Huckabee has the most votes, so all you Mitt supporters need to get over there and vote!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4710917&page=1
1. Mitt Romney addresses the State of Maine's Republican Part Convention. Mitt continues his (well-meaning) pursuit of the VP slot.
http://www.wmtw.com/mostpopular/16129888/detail.html
2. An interesting article from Savanna (Georgia) Morning News about the relationship between Mormons and Christianity in the southern part of the country. Mitt's name is mentioned, of course.
http://savannahnow.com/node/491190
3. Dean Barnett's Weekly Standard column shows up at CBS' website. Dean talks mostly about Obama and "judgement". He mentions Mitt Romney in an interesting anecdote in paragraph 7.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/02/opinion/main4065150.shtml
4. Dan McGloughlin's Redstate blog: an interesting piece on how McCain should choose his VP. I agree with pretty much everything he says, though I think he mistakenly excludes some exceptions to the rule. For instance, he rules out "Perennial Short-listers," mentioning frmr congressman John Cox, John Kasich, and JC Watts. I might take JC Watts off that list, and I think he forget the usual perennial mention: Newt Gingrich.
I especially agree with his assessment that no rookies should be considered. Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin are great folks, but they are exactly where they need to be right now. We can wait to run them in the future. Who knows, we might even see a Jindal/Palin ticket.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/the_mccain_veepstakes_rules
5. Two polls. First, a bracket game for picking VPs. Very fun to play.
http://innovation.cq.com/vpmadness
AND THEN, a poll at ABC News. Huckabee has the most votes, so all you Mitt supporters need to get over there and vote!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4710917&page=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
