The Yawn Factor

People who read my blog have probably already guessed that I'm very disappointed and a little surprised by the election results. There's been a lot of talk from the right since Tuesday about why we lost the election and theories abound. In my opinion, Obama rivals Jimmy Carter as the worst President in my lifetime. Both are failures in their foreign policy. Both presided over disastrous economies. Both saw fuel prices sky rocket during their terms. At least Carter can be thanked for real estate values rising during his time in office (a silver lining in the gloomy cloud of the high inflation seen in the 70's) but home owners have watched the values of their homes fall below the amounts of their mortgages due to Obama's lack of a plan to save the housing market.

As much of a failure as Obama had been, I was under the impression that there was no way he could be reelected. The disappointment in his policies hasn't just been felt by me and other Republicans, many Democrats have felt the same way. Support for Obama has waned considerably since 2008. Obama was elected into office with 69,498,516 votes. That was nearly 10 million more votes than McCain received. In this last election, 9 million fewer people voted for Obama. If just ½ of those 9 million had voted for Romney this time, he would have been elected. Instead, they must have decided to stay home.

The ebb in Obama support is only ½ the story. If Romney could have held on all the McCain voters, he would have only needed a few hundred thousand more votes to beat Obama. With the eagerness of the right to get Obama out of the office, I would have thought everyone and his brother would drag people to the polls to vote. But it was not to be. Romney actually got 2 million fewer votes than McCain did!

It seems to me that elections are being decided not as much by the engaged voters but rather the apathetic couch potatoes. Conservatism beats liberalism every time and if we had true conservative candidates, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. Every primary, though, Republicans vote for the candidates they think are the “most electable.” They look for moderates who will supposedly appeal to the “independent” voter so we end up with weak candidates like Romney, McCain, and Bob Dole.

There's nothing appealing about Obama's policies. He certainly can't boast a successful record. He should be an easy candidate to beat. Why couldn't we beat him. We don't have a candidate that conservative voters can be enthusiastic about.

Have you ever heard a Republican say he would hold his nose and vote for McCain or Romney? It's because they're not excited about the candidate but would prefer him over a Democrat like Obama. If a Reagan-like conservative were on the top of the Republican ticket, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. As it it now, they vote reluctantly or stay home.

Yawn.

We're Still at War with Terrorists

I made the decision to not blog anything yesterday, on 9/11. It wasn't because I don't think the date was important but it was out of a sense of reverence. To simply say, “we won't forget,” is obvious to the extreme and was posted on 1,000,000 other blogs already. I also didn't want to risk saying anything that might sound like, “Happy 9/11.” In the end, I thought it best to leave the day to everyone's own, private reflection.

Last night, The History Channel played video footage reconstructing the time line of the events on that dreadful morning. It was stirring. I went to sleep recalling many of the same feelings I felt 11 years ago. Then I woke up this morning to the terrible news that two US embassies were attacked in the Middle East and the US Ambassador to Libya was murdered along with three of his staffers!

Maybe I should have said something yesterday because I think people are indeed forgetting that there are still terrorists out there who hate us. Many people actually seem to have a pre-9/11 mentality where they believe radical Muslims can be reasoned with. As a mob rioted outside of the US Embassy in Cairo, protesting a YouTube movie critical of Muhammad, the Embassy officials actually sympathized with the protesters. They issued this statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Perhaps I shouldn't be too hasty to judge because it's possible that Embassy officials were afraid for their lives and released this statement in hopes is would quell the mob's anger. It seems to me to be counterproductive, though, since this statement might embolden the rioters by admitting the the movie's creators were out of line. Even after the the mob stormed the Embassy's grounds, took down and burned the American flag, and raised a pro-Muslim standard in its place, the Embassy officials tweeted that their previous statement still stands.

However, after a rocket attack on the US Embassy in Libya killed 4, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, got tough – well, sort of. In still another press release, she seemed to apologized yet again:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Yeah, Hillary, that's very clear. You deplore attacks on religious beliefs (except at the DNC where they booed God) but that's not an excuse for violence. OK, where in that statement do you actually condemn the attack on our Embassy?

President Obama finally got around to putting out the “official,” White House statement. He disavowed the Embassy's statement saying it does not reflect the views of the United States. Really, Mr. President? Our US Embassies don't represent the United States? I guess your Secretary of State doesn't represent your administration either? Anyway, the President said:

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

At least in this statement the President condemned the attack before taking a swipe at the makers of the video. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't escape my notice that Republican, Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney condemned the attack before the President.

I'm not the President, of course, and it's hard for me to say how best we should respond going forward. However, after having seen the “blame America first” attitude on grand display so far, I'm not optimistic. The President has said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. He calls acts of terrorism “man made disasters” or, in the case of the Ft. Hood shooting, “work place violence.” The entire Administration refuses to use the words “Islamic extremists” or “radical Muslims.” Democrats will call conservative groups like the Tea Party, “domestic terrorists” but they refuse to use the label for true terrorists!

The anti-American attitudes that has brewed in the Middle East for decades still simmers. Democrats can apologize until they're blue in the face but that won't quell the anger. Liberals can turn a blind eye and call each act of violence an “isolated incident” but that won't stop the violence. And let's be honest, it's not a coincidence that these riots happened on 9/11. We are still at war with terrorists.

Who Has the Biggest Right?

It's not unusual for liberals to lie but the lies... I mean “political spin”... surrounding the contraception controversy are getting a little more whopping than usual. On the DHHS website, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “This proposal [the Blunt Amendment] isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong” (bold added for emphasis). Nancy Pelosi has said the Blunt Amendment is, “part of the Republican agenda of disrespecting women’s health issues [by] allowing employers to cut … basic health services for women, like contraception, mammograms, prenatal and cervical-cancer screenings and preventive health reform benefiting 20 million women” (bold added for emphasis).

Lie, lie, lie. The impression given by these statements is that Republicans want to take away women's access to birth control or any other “health care” service they might want to deny on a whim. It's a bold misrepresentation. No one is denying or even discussing denying women access to any health service. The only question being raised is, “who has to pay for it?”

The controversy was raised when Catholics began to publicly and strongly object to the DHHS guidelines that mandated Catholic employers like churches, hospitals, charities, and colleges, to provide contraception to their female employees as part of their employer-provided health insurance plans. The Catholic church objects to the use of contraceptives and said forcing them to pay for contraception for its female employees violates their freedom of religion.

What part of the First Amendment is ambiguous? Let me remind everyone what the Bill of Rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Catholic Church has long objected to the use of contraceptives. To suddenly mandate the Church to pay for contraceptives for its female employees clearly places a prohibition on their free exercise of this long standing belief.

But liberals see it differently. They believe other rights exists – like a right to “health care.” Now, I've read the Constitution but I can't quote it from memory so I've done a word search on the Constitution. Curiously, the words, “right to health care” aren't found anywhere. By the way, neither could I find a “right to privacy.” If these rights exist, they aren't enumerated the way our freedom to religion is. At best, they are implied.

Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a right to health care. Who has the bigger right? Does the implied right to healthcare somehow trump my enumerated right to exercise my religion? Why must it?

Of course, that's not good enough for liberals. If someone has a right to health care, they believe that means they're guaranteed health care. OK, let's apply that same logic to the right to bear arms. Consider this analogy: The right to own a gun is enumerated in the Constitution. Have you ever bought a gun? A nice gun isn't cheap. A 9mm handgun could set you back about $400.00. Are only rich people allowed to exercise the right to own a gun? How can poor people like me afford $400 to buy a gun? Since I have the right to own a gun, what I need is for my employer to buy me one.

Here's a twist: what if I worked for Rosie O'Donnell? From what I've heard, Rosie O'Donnell doesn't believe people should have the right to carry guns (except for her bodyguards). That doesn't matter, though. I have the right to own a gun and, according to liberal logic, Rosie must buy me one no matter what her own conscientious objection might be.

Somehow I don't think liberals would go for the idea of compelling employers to buy guns for their employees. But they can't see the similarity in that and forcing employers to provide contraceptives for their employees.

“Rights” are not entitlements nor guarantees. The idea that the government can compel one person to act against his conscience in order to guarantee the right of another is anathema to liberty. The dangers that surround this issue are many and I intend to spend a couple of more posts talking about them. For now though, let me just say that a woman's “right” to birth control is no more sacred than my right to exercise my faith. Here's an idea: I will practice my religion and you buy your own contraceptives!

A Preview of President Obama's Job Speech

All day on the radio today I've been hearing news briefs previewing Obama's big job speech tomorrow. According to Bloomberg, “The main components of Obama’s jobs plan... have been largely telegraphed by the administration. For weeks, people familiar with deliberations have said the White House is considering tax incentives, infrastructure and assistance to local governments.” Excuse me? Are they serious? It sounds like more of the same to me.

The “center piece” of the plan is supposed to involve extending the cuts in the payroll tax. Hmmm. Let's see. Obama offers a “payroll tax holiday” to spur job growth, it hasn't worked thus far, so the center piece of his new plan is to extend them? Yep, that sounds like Democrat economics all right.

What's new is that in this plan, he's supposed to include a reduction in the employer paid portion of the tax. I don't see how that's going to make a difference. Temporary incentives never work. Why would they? If you give a temporary incentive to an employer to hire someone, the employer knows that next year he will no longer receive the incentive yet he's still stuck paying the employee.

The second point, according to Bloomberg, is spending on infrastructure. I suppose this is like those “shovel ready” projects that were just waiting to be funded with the last stimulus package. As Obama has laughingly admitted, they “were not as shovel ready as we expected.” I'm sure he's a lot more optimistic about these new projects.

One news report suggested some of the money for infrastructure would be used to repair and update public school buildings. Once again, this is a temporary fix. If I own a construction company and I hire a few workers to help repair an old building, once the building is done the workers will go.

And did I read that correctly? Did Bloomberg really suggest that part of the jobs plan includes “assistance to local governments”? I don't see how funding teachers' unions and bloated government workers' pension plans will create jobs but I'm sure it will result in a lot of grateful voters next November.

The funniest thing I heard on the radio all day was how Obama intends to pay for all this. The report said he will offset the programs with “future deficit reductions.” That is a riot. That would be like me personally saying, “I'm going to borrow $200,000 now and I'm going to pay it back by borrowing less later.” You can see how that doesn't quite work.

I'm sure somewhere in the speech he'll also be blaming Bush and the Republicans. Right after the election, I predicted that Obama would continue for a while to blame Bush. I had no idea, though, that he would continue blaming him 3 years later.

Maybe I'm putting the cart before the horse. Maybe I should wait until I hear the President's plan before I comment on it. Maybe the President has some good ideas about how to create jobs. I just wonder why he's waited until now to present them. I guess he wanted to try placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling and promoting “green jobs” first.

Fair Weather Friends

The Tea Party Movement that's swept the country in the last year has really ruffled some feathers. At first, the liberal media tried to simply ignore them but their silence became so painfully conspicuous that they could no longer ignore the protests and still maintain the label of a news medium. Their next tactic was to attack the movement by trotting out the tired terms like “racists” and the much more vulgar term, “teabaggers.” Liberal politicians said this wasn't a “real” movement but referred to it as “astro-turf.” The concerned citizens who protested at the Town Hall meetings were called a “mob” and “un-American.” In other words, the Tea Party did not have any friends among the liberal elite.

It was a completely different story among conservatives. FOX News (a truly balanced news channel but seen as conservative) was the only news network to cover the Tea Parties. Rush, Sean, Glenn, and all the usual suspects discussed the protesters in glowing terms saying that the movement represented the true heart of America. The people were sick of out of control government and had finally had enough. These were citizens standing up to unfair taxes just like the early revolutionaries of their namesake had done.

Since tax-and-spend is the only play Democrats use to solve anything, much of the Tea Party protest was directed at them. Therefore, Republicans were overjoyed, seeing this as a possible windfall for the Republican Party in the 2010 elections. It seems the friendship was fated to be short-lived. After the recent Tea Party convention, I'm starting to hear a different tune from Republicans.

I think the Republican Party is starting to realize that the Tea Party movement isn't exactly a group of Republican cheerleaders but a movement against government waste – whether the “waster” is a Democrat or Republican. Moderate Republicans (like John McCain) aren't likely to receive a ringing endorsement from the Tea Party.

The fear of the Republicans is that the Tea Party will beginning running 3rd party candidates. In an election, a Tea Party candidate could very well split the conservative vote allowing the Democrat candidate to win. Suddenly, the Republicans aren't so keen on the Tea Party movement. They are starting to warn the protesters that running their own candidates would be against their own best interest.

If the Tea Party decided to run its own candidates, I have to agree that it it's not likely they would win and it very well cost also ruin the election opportunity for the Republican on the ticket. But the solution isn't for the Tea Party to water down their message. Conservatives shouldn't have to hold their collective noses and vote for the Republican (or RINO as the case may be) simply because of the “R” after his name. The solution is for the Republican Party to run more conservative candidates.

I still remember the Republican revolution of 1994. We've come a long way since then (the wrong way). We've not only lost our majorities in both the House and Senate, we've lost them in a big way – giving up until recently, a super-majority in the Senate. I saw it coming when I heard Colin Powell speak at the Republican National Convention, 1996. There had been talk leading up to the convention about how Republicans need to become a “big tent.” At one point, Powell mentioned he was pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) and got a standing ovation. I had to check my TV guide to make sure this was the Republican convention. Had they already forgotten the conservative message that swept them into office only 2 years earlier? What were they thinking?

The Tea Party needs to put as much pressure on Republicans as is necessary to insure they run conservative candidates. If it costs us a couple of elections, then so what? In the last election, Republicans pitted a very moderate McCain against the very liberal Obama and look at what happened?

The Senate Finance Committee to Vote on Health Care Today

In Obama’s recent address to the joint session of Congress, he stated that Americans currently pay $900 per year to cover those without insurance. To that I say, “So what’s the problem?” If we’re already paying to cover the uninsured, what else needs to be done? Well, apparently Congress thinks we should be paying $1,500 per year.

Yesterday, PriceWaterhouseCoopers released a bombshell report stating that the cost to consumers for the proposed healthcare reform could be substantial. From the Associated Press:

“[The report] projects the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions in the bill would be in effect. Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation…

"The study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher."

That’s certainly bad news.

The Democrats were tickled over the recent CBO scoring of the Baucus bill which said the plan would cost $829 billion over the next 10 years. According to the CBO, the plan would actually reduce the deficit over 10 years – the insurance companies, cuts in Medicare, and additional taxes will pay for it. Of course, the bill will still leave 25 million people without insurance. Now Obama said in his address that there are only 30 million without coverage so I guess the Feds are taking over health care and charging consumers billions of dollars to cover 5 million people. That makes a lot of sense.

Today the Senate Finance Committee is going to vote on the Baucus bill. That it will pass is probably a foregone conclusion. It’s expected to fall along party lines with possibly Sen. Snowe, (R) voting with the Democrats. If passed in committee, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid will reconcile the bill already passed by the Senate Health Committee.

I must ask again: Why are we doing this? Who thought it was the job of our government to provide health care to everyone? Please show me this in the Constitution. At least show me where there is a right to health care let alone an entitlement. I also have the right to bear arms but I don’t see Congress setting up a $1 trillion bureaucracy to insure every American has a gun. This is crazy.

In my Sunday School class recently we discussed Matthew 25 where Jesus said to the saints:

“For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” (v. 35-36)

There are actually too many verses to cite but it should be the job of the Church to care for the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the poor, take care of the widows, etc. We are supposed to give to God the things of God and to Caesar the things of Caesar (Matthew 22:21). For some reason we’ve decided to go ahead and let Caesar do the things we’re supposed to do in service to God. But then again, Obama is the “Chosen One” and he said, after all, that we are our brother’s keeper. Maybe he really thinks he is our messiah.

We need to let our elected leaders know that we want them to put the brakes on this bill. I can’t afford it, our country can’t afford it, and we don’t want it anyway. It’s bad medicine for our country. You can view each committee member's website (with contact information) below.

Democrats:

MAX BAUCUS, MT
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV
KENT CONRAD, ND
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
BILL NELSON, FL
ROBERT MENENDEZ, NJ
THOMAS CARPER, DE

Republicans:

CHUCK GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS
JOHN ENSIGN, NV
MIKE ENZI, WY
JOHN CORNYN, TX

Attention Gov. Sanford: Resign Already!!

It’s the story that doesn’t end. The South Carolina governor goes missing, rumors are floated that he’s hiking the Appalachian Trail, and later he shows up to admit he was in Argentina committing adultery. Well, he didn’t quite say he was "committing adultery"; he said, “I've been unfaithful to my wife. I developed a relationship with what started as a dear, dear friend from Argentina.” The latter sounds much more benign. But if that weren’t enough, a NY Post article reports that Sanford, “said Tuesday that he "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than his mistress -- but never had sex with them.”

I’ve followed politics for many years now but I just can’t figure some people out. Why do so many elected officials do such stupid things? I mean, you would expect someone who is able to be elected governor to be somewhat intelligent, right? It’s not so much that I can’t understand why he might do it. People sin – including elected leaders. But if you’re a governor, a congressman, or even the President, you have to know that something like an affair will be found out. Are these people so weak-willed and short-sighted that they can’t see beyond the heat of the moment?

Sanford is a special case. This guy thinks he’s a hero in a romance novel. In the NY Post article he said, “This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story. A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.” Give me a break! This was about sex. You’re a grubby adulterer; you’re not King David. If Sanford specifically confessed to his sin, expressed sincere contriteness, and asked for forgiveness, I might feel differently about him. But to play the part of a tragic hero just tells me the guy is only sorry he was caught and is more interested in saving his political career than in redemption.

I know that people are sinners. People cheat on their spouses every day and try to candy coat it. They don’t “commit adultery,” they have “trysts”, “affairs”, and “relationships.” They’re victims whose spouses don’t understand them. They were driven into the arms of their lovers. Yada, yada, yada.

We need to stop turning a blind eye (or a bleeding heart) toward sin. There’s no longer any stigma in being divorced just like there’s no longer a stigma in having premarital sex or having illegitimate children. We’ve become a “tolerant” society that doesn’t “judge” people. It seems that the only vice society won’t tolerate is hypocrisy – we loathe people who preach morality and cheer (jeer) when they fail to practice it!

I try to call a sin a sin. I hold elected officials to an even higher standard than I do society at large. I even hold Republicans to a higher standard than Democrats. We entrust conservative leaders, for example, to defend traditional marriage. How can I trust Sanford to do that if he can’t even keep his own marriage together?

I’ve said that Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Robert Edwards, Barney Frank are morally bankrupt. I also say that so are Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and now Mark Sanford. I guess I could take solace in the fact that at least Republicans speak out in defense of traditional values even if they don’t always practice them but it seems a very small comfort.

I believe some people who condemn Sanford for hypocrisy are themselves being hypocrites. I suspect many of the people asking Sanford to resign whistled a different tune when their favorite Democrat was caught in a scandal. Did these same people ask Bill Clinton to step down? I suppose I could be accused of many things but hopefully hypocrisy isn’t among them. Gov. Sanford, you need to resign.

Who are they going to blame now?

It’s official – Barack Obama is the President Elect. He’s joined by a net gain of Democrats in both the House and the Senate meaning we once again have Democrat control of Congress and the White House. Looking back, I wonder how we got here. How did we go from winning landslide elections in 1994 to abysmal losses now? I think there are two things at play here.

First, Republicans never learned how to be the majority. We won the Congress after a very conservative “Contract with America” campaign. For a while there, Republican congressmen stuck to their pledge and brought these important issues to a vote. But after the first two years, we slacked off. We started, “reaching across the isle” and tried to be more “bipartisan.” But to Democrats, “bipartisan” means giving up all of our convictions and letting them run congress from the minority, which is exactly what we did. Republicans had a mandate to govern as conservatives and they delivered to us “moderate-ness.”

But another reason for Republican failure is the uncanny ability of Democrats to blame Republicans for everything. It started in 1995 with the Government Shutdown, when Bill Clinton squared off with the Republican Congress – led by Newt Gingrich - over the new budget. Bill Clinton was effectively able to blame the Republicans for the stalemate and the Republican Revolution lost its momentum. Since then, Republicans seem interested in nothing more than saving face and appealing to the media. I’m sorry folks but you’re never going to win the support of the media so just cut it out, OK?

Well Congress’s approval rating currently stands at 18% with 75% of the people disapproving. Up until now, they’ve been able to blame George W. Bush for their woes. But, as the old saying goes, they won’t have W. to kick around anymore. So now what? We’ve got a liberal Democrat President conspiring with a liberal Democrat Congress. Who are they going to blame now?

Of course, we all know they’re going to continue to blame W. for straddling Obama with such a bad economy, but I think that’s going to grow old after a while. Obama did promise to be the agent of change and campaigned strongly on the economy. He assured us over and over that he was ready for the job. It will be a little tough for him to get away with whining about how bad it was when he took over.

OK you dems out there. You wanted him – you got him. You’ve got a strong majority in Congress to boot. Of course, Obama’s going to start appointing judges as well so we’ll just say that’s all three branches of the government in your hands. Show us how it’s done. Good luck. I’ll see you in 2 years at the 2010 election.

The VP Debate

Ok. I watched the debate and was thoroughly disappointed. Joe Biden was true to form so I guess I don’t have a complaint with him except that I disagree with nearly everything he stands for. My disappointment is more with Palin.

I like Gov. Palin. She seems to be fairly conservative in her politics. But since she’s on the same ticket with McCain, I guess she has to back up his moderate ideas. There were many issues where I couldn’t tell a difference between her views (or at least her comments) and Sen. Biden’s comments.

How many times did Gov. Palin talk about the “greed and corruption” on Wall Street? How many times did she talk about “oversight, oversight, oversight”? How many times did she have to defend McCain, assuring us that he wasn’t for deregulation? How many times did she talk about taking on the “Big Oil” companies?

Look, Gov. Palin, we’re supposed to be a free market! Ever heard of capitalism? It’s usually the Democrats that are for more regulation, more government control of business, more for punishing “big business” with confiscatory taxes, and more for the social practice of redistributing wealth. Yet she seemed proud of the fact that McCain is going to do all of these things even better than that most liberal of all Senators, Barack Obama.

And did you notice her stance on global warming? She’s promising to reduce carbon emissions. Now, where have I heard that before? Oh that’s right - Biden was saying the same thing! The only difference seemed to be that Biden unequivocally blamed human activity for increasing global temperatures whereas Palin would only concede were partly to blame.

I guess her performance was Ok. She seemed charming and personable. She spoke directly to the people and she spoke with confidence. She’s certainly attractive. There’s a lot to like about her; She just didn’t convey a conservative message. When McCain picked Palin as his running mate, she was supposed to woo the conservative base of the Republican Party. But we’re not electing her for President. It’s still McCain at the top of the ticket. And Palin can’t do as much wooing if she only parrots the luke warm positions of McCain.

McCain didn’t ask for my advice but here’s my opinion anyway: McCain needs to move to the right. Conservative voters are NOT going to vote for Obama but they might stay home and not vote. If he wants their vote, he needs to give them something to vote for. If he’s trying to garner the “undecided” middle, he won’t do that either unless he can distinguish himself from Obama. Conservative issues win elections. Remember the Contract with America? McCain should stop using Palin’s appeal to try to win the base since she’s not doing anything but repeating his moderation. Instead, he should use these last 2 debates to show us his conservative side – that is, if he really does have one.

Shooting Our Own

One complaint I’ve always had about the Republican Party is that we have a habit of shooting our wounded. Exhibit A - Trent Lott who makes an innocent comment about Strom Thurmond during the congressman’s 100th birthday. A few people were able to twist his benign remarks into a racial slur and many of his fellow Republicans lined up to chuck him overboard. The silly incident led to his resignation as the House Leader. Now I’m seeing a similar attitude during the Republican primaries; only someone doesn’t have to be wounded – he simply has to be in the lead and then everyone starts gunning for him.

In the polls leading up to the Iowa caucuses, it was a pretty close race between Romney and Huckabee. Romney came out with his “contrast ads” against Huckabee. Huckabee came back with his counter ad but decided not to run it; instead, he showed the press the ad and explained he wouldn’t run it because it was too harsh (wink, wink). Come on, Mike. I know I’ve endorsed you and all but even I can see through this tactic. Rush had a good analogy: Imagine if Mike had said, “I want to call Mitt a bad name but I won’t – but if I did, I’d call him a so and so.”

Huckabee did very well in Iowa but in the much more liberal state of NH, McCain is the real competition for Romney. So, over the last few days Romney has been running “contrast ads” against McCain. In some of the televised debates, McCain had some pretty heated exchanges with Romney but in the FOX forum, McCain said he wanted to run a positive campaign and eased off a little.

Rush Limbaugh, while he hasn’t come out against Mike, hasn’t been terribly kind to him either. Still, Rush is holding his endorsement for whichever candidate wins the nomination. On the other hand, Ann Coulter, a conservative author and extremely funny lady, has slammed Mike on her website; she calls him, the Huckster.

The media has been quick to point out all these barbs as well. It seems to me they are much more quick to point out the exchanges among Republican than among the Democrats (the Democrats have actually been much worse).

I know that I’ve had a harsh word or two about some of the candidates in the past, but I’ll take any of them (except perhaps Ron Paul who truly is a nut) over Obama, Clinton, or Edwards. One of these candidates is going to be the Republican nominee for president. When he runs in the general election, I want him to beat the Democrat nominee. All of this in-fighting is going to diminish the electability of whoever wins the nomination.

With Friends Like These…

There’s an old saying that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. In that same vein, you can judge a political candidate by the endorsements he receives. Not so much the endorsement, I guess, but by who is making the endorsement. If there were a judge on the ballot, for example, and I had never heard of him before BUT I knew that he had the endorsement of NARAL, it doesn’t matter what else I learn about him – I’m probably not going to be voting for him.

When Kerry ran against Bush in 2004, I was surprised at the number of times Kerry said he agreed with John McCain on some particular issue. I thought this was a curious strategy: I mean, I know why he kept saying it – he wanted people to think his ideas weren’t radically liberal because he agreed with a Republican about something. But as far as I know, McCain was backing Bush that year.

Anyway, I heard on Fox News this morning that former VP hopeful, Joseph Lieberman (Independent Senator – CT) was endorsing John McCain for president. Not just in the primaries, but for the 2008 election as well.

Now, I know Liebermann is a lot more moderate than most Democrats. For example, he does back our presence in Iraq and the War on Terror in general, which has earned him the scorn of many Democrat colleagues. In his last Senate race, the Democrat Party backed his opponent causing Liebermann to switch from a Democrat to an Independent. But as I listened to him on Fox News, he continuously referred to himself as a Democrat.

So now McCain has the endorsement of a self-proclaimed Democrat. Not a conservative Democrat like, say, Zel Miller - but Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. Doesn’t this speak volumes about how conservative McCain is (or rather, is not)?

Now I know he co-authored that radically unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill known as the McCain-Feingold Act (I can’t believe Bush didn’t veto this and it has even held up in court). Besides that though, he seemed fairly conservative on most other issues. Even so, I’ve always had an uneasy feeling about McCain. And after hearing Liebermann’s endorsement of him this morning, it just reaffirms what I’ve already felt.

I think maybe Liebermann should have waited until the general election to support McCain. His endorsement might help McCain in NH where there are a lot of independent voters, but it’s going to cost him conservative votes everywhere else. When you have liberal Democrats like Kerry siding with McCain on several issues, and now a moderate Democrat like Liebermann actually endorsing him, then there’s something the matter. If McCain should win the Republican primaries, I guess I’d rather have him then Hillary. But for now, I’ll stick with Huckabee.

My Endorsement for the Republican Primary

It’s official - I’m endorsing Mike Huckabee as the Republican candidate for President, 2008. I've looked at him, his statements, and his record and he holds the same views as I do on nearly every issue. What's more, he's consistently been conservative throughout his career. Here are some of the hot issues and where he stands:

Faith & Politics: “My faith is my life - it defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives."

Abortion: “I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life.”

Health Care: “The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes.”

Taxes: “The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now.”

Immigration: “Governor Huckabee knows that securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.”

The War on Terror: “I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society,… As president, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might.”

Marriage: “I support and have consistently supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

Education: “I have been a strong, consistent supporter of the rights of parents to home school their children, of creating more charter schools, and of public school choice.” [OK, so he kind of blew it on this one. Why only public school choice?]

What more can I ask for? The guy is right on. And he's even got Chuck Norris endorsing him - how cool is that? Let’s hear it for Mike. Mike Huckabee, 2008!

Where have all the conservatives gone?

It is no small annoyance to me that Rudy Giuliani is among the front-runners in the Republican primaries. Perhaps he’s a conservative by New York standards, but not for the country at large.

Now don’t get me wrong - Rudy has several strong points: he’s for lower taxes, less government, and pro-defense. He especially looked good after the 9/11 tragedies. He certainly handled the surprise attack in NY much better than, say, the Mayor in New Orleans handled the Katrina disaster. I’d far rather have him in office than any Democrat candidate running.

But in spite of his good points, there are several issues where Rudy fails conservatism. He’s decidedly pro-abortion (he says he’s anti-abortion but for “the right to choose”); pro-gay; and pro-gun control. And though his views on these issues may not be as far left as those of the liberal Democrat candidates, there are obviously more conservative candidates running for the Republican nomination.

Besides his political views, Rudy has some personal baggage to deal with. I mean, come on, the guy’s been married 3 times. And don’t hand me any of that, “his personal life shouldn’t matter” garbage. If Democrat voters say they’re voting for Hillary because she’s a woman, I can say I’m not voting for Rudy because he’s a womanizer. I think a person’s character is part of his qualifications for being president. And a twice-divorced (actually one marriage was annulled) man has some character issues. Never mind his seeming penchant to dress in drag.

Tell me why, then, did Pat Robertson endorse Giuliani over any other candidate? As a Christian, I can’t imagine how a Christian leader like Robertson could endorse someone like Giuliani. Could it be because he thinks Rudy stands the best chance of beating whoever the Democrat nominee is? One of my biggest pet peeves is when Republicans choose candidates they think are “electable” over the people they think are the best for the job - unless Robertson really thinks he’s the best candidate. In that case, Robertson is just plain wrong.

But the Republican Party has started down a slippery slope in its pursuit of “diversity” or “big-tent” ideology. In 1994, when many Republican ran on a staunch conservative platform as demonstrated by the Contract with America, the Republican Party won in droves. Why have we abandoned that?

I first became concerned when I saw Colin Powell speak at the 2000 Republican Convention. He announced that he was “pro-choice” and was cheered! Kay Bailey Hutchison announced at the 1996 Convention she was pro-choice and was booed. Why the change?

Then there was the Governor’s recall election in California, 2003. The moderate Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected over the much more conservative Tom McClintock. Perhaps in CA, a moderate Republican was more appealing to the Hollywood crowd. But Arnold went on to be a keynote speaker at the 2004 Republican Convention. Is he the new face of conservatism?

And now we have Rudy Giuliani. Do you see a pattern here? Where are the true conservatives? Let me ask a question - as we have been moving away from conservatism toward “moderation” have we been winning or losing elections? After landslide victories in 1994 & 1996, we have been losing congressional seats ever since.

I’ve always believed that you get what you settle for. If we settle for mediocre candidates, we’re going to get mediocre candidates. I suggest that we don’t settle for them any longer. Remember Reagan? Where have all the conservatives gone? They need to step up to the plate in these elections. They’ll have my vote!