I suppose I could be accused of over-dramatizing, but I truly worry about the direction this nation is headed when contemplating a presidential race where the choices are liberal and liberal-light. If John McCain is the GOP nominee, that's what we'll be faced with, despite the Herculean efforts of some to spin it otherwise.
In that case, the presidential candidates of both parties would be willing to use the bully pulpit and governing power of the presidency to suppress political speech, punish producers, oil companies and drug companies, open wider our borders, cater to the whacko environmental movement and its junk-science-driven pseudo-consensus on global warming, nominate judges who don't "wear their conservatism on their sleeve," close Gitmo, confer constitutional civil liberties on enemy combatants, end life-saving interrogation techniques, demonize evangelical conservatives, and obstruct efforts of conservative Republican legislators.
It is also distressing that many conservative commentators are so deeply mired in rationalization in order to spin their support for John McCain.
Sure, if I'm a paid staffer for McCain or a high-school debater forced to take the affirmative side of the proposition that McCain is a conservative, I can make a colorable case -- intellectual honesty be damned -- that he's a conservative. But I am under no such constraints.
Getting 50 endorsements from well-placed Republican officials or even respected conservatives doesn't make McCain conservative. Being a conservative makes one a conservative. I bet, truth be told, McCain can't even stand the word.
How quickly we forget that McCain said that conservative evangelicals are "agents of intolerance" and that social issues just aren't his thing.
How readily we overlook that his environmental and immigration policies alone contradict his self-identification as a budget hawk.
How quickly we forget that he really was just one of two Republican senators who actively opposed the Bush tax cuts, which, despite liberal disinformation, led to sustained economic growth.
How blindly we're willing to overlook McCain's fib that he opposed the cuts because they weren't coupled with guaranteed spending cuts. That was most certainly not the thrust of his opposition to the cuts -- and he knows it. The facts are available for all to see. He opposed the cuts because he said, quite dishonestly, that they were skewed in favor of the wealthy. That, "my friend," is apparently what he means by "straight talk."
McCain has no abiding loyalty to conservative principles. His loyalty is to John McCain. If he captures the nomination and then goes on to win the election after leading the charge for open borders and against the Bush tax cuts, can you imagine how liberally he'll govern? How long do you think it will take for him to abandon his opportunistically acquired, more restrictive immigration policy when he has already stated that he hasn't changed his position at all? It's time for Rod Serling to bring us back from the Twilight Zone.
With McCain's many liberal predispositions and his craving for approval from elitist liberal circles, how likely is it that he will be able to resist the temptation to govern so as to please The New York Times? Would the Old Gray Lady have endorsed McCain had she believed he had actually converted to the supply -- er, dark side? Would this most liberal of liberal print-publication giants eulogized McCain if he hadn't established himself as a persistent annoyance to the Republican Party and conservatism? Would the liberal commentariat in general be salivating over McCain if he'd seen the error of his quasi-liberal ways?
It would be one thing for a Democratic president to rail against capitalism, slander those as racists and bigots who want to protect the unique American culture and safeguard our national security through prudent protection of our borders and rule of law, routinely pay homage to the gods of global warming, and use the tax code as a weapon against achievement and realization of the "American dream." But for a Republican, also falsely labeled as a conservative, to do it would be tragic.
We've already gone far enough in that dangerous direction under Republican administrations. We can't afford to go any further.
No matter how freely both parties have neglected the essential principles of limited republican government established in our Constitution, and no matter how foolishly we assume our unique experiment in constitutional self-rule will thrive even if we continue to reject the constitutional principles underlying it, we can destroy ourselves just as quickly from within as our enemies can destroy us by force.
We can't ever expect the ultra-liberal modern Democratic Party to vigilantly safeguard the pillars of self-government that guaranty our liberties. We have no choice, then, but to work to bring home the GOP and its principal leaders, to conservatism.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Republican Party Can't Afford More Liberal Leaders
David Limbaugh has a great column at Townhall.com that explains why McCain is bad for the Republican party. Not only does he sprinkle in gratuitous examples of how McCain has abandoned the Republican party, but he speaks to the ideological damage that a McCain nomination could do. It's a bit long, but definitely worth investing a couple minutes to read it:
If You Think McCain Has A Chance Against Either Democrat...
...think again!
Last night on Fox's Hannity & Colmes, they interviewed pollster Frank Luntz and a focus group of undecided Democrat voters. I found the discussion with that group extremely illuminating on two counts.
First, conservative host Sean Hannity asked the group -- which was split about half and half between Clinton and Obama -- to name one of Obama's accomplishments. They gave a series of statements like 'I trust him' and 'I like him' and 'He seems genuine', which are all perfectly valid statements of opinion. BUT...not one person in the entire group of about 30-40 Democrats could cite a single thing that Obama has accomplished in his tenure in the Senate!
Can you?
The other thing that jumped out at me was almost an off-hand last-minute question to the group: if your preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination, would you support McCain instead?
Not a single one said they would. In fact, most of them looked amused at the suggestion!
So, if you're a Republican voting for McCain because you think that McCain is going to pull enough Democrat and Independent votes to win against either Clinton or Obama, you need to realize that's simply not reality. As I've said before, McCain is a liberal-leaning Diet Democrat, and why would anyone vote for McCain when they could have the full-bore real thing in either of the true Democrats?
They won't. McCain will lose.
A couple more good questions that you need to ponder: McCain is asking conservatives to put aside their ideological differences with him and support the party, but his own track record shows he is clearly unwilling to do that himself! Even more telling, why is it more difficult for McCain to reach out to members his own party than to those of the opposing party?
Before you vote for McCain, you need to think about these things! They are clear warning signs about John McCain's candidacy.
There's my two cents.
Last night on Fox's Hannity & Colmes, they interviewed pollster Frank Luntz and a focus group of undecided Democrat voters. I found the discussion with that group extremely illuminating on two counts.
First, conservative host Sean Hannity asked the group -- which was split about half and half between Clinton and Obama -- to name one of Obama's accomplishments. They gave a series of statements like 'I trust him' and 'I like him' and 'He seems genuine', which are all perfectly valid statements of opinion. BUT...not one person in the entire group of about 30-40 Democrats could cite a single thing that Obama has accomplished in his tenure in the Senate!
Can you?
The other thing that jumped out at me was almost an off-hand last-minute question to the group: if your preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination, would you support McCain instead?
Not a single one said they would. In fact, most of them looked amused at the suggestion!
So, if you're a Republican voting for McCain because you think that McCain is going to pull enough Democrat and Independent votes to win against either Clinton or Obama, you need to realize that's simply not reality. As I've said before, McCain is a liberal-leaning Diet Democrat, and why would anyone vote for McCain when they could have the full-bore real thing in either of the true Democrats?
They won't. McCain will lose.
A couple more good questions that you need to ponder: McCain is asking conservatives to put aside their ideological differences with him and support the party, but his own track record shows he is clearly unwilling to do that himself! Even more telling, why is it more difficult for McCain to reach out to members his own party than to those of the opposing party?
Before you vote for McCain, you need to think about these things! They are clear warning signs about John McCain's candidacy.
There's my two cents.
If You Plan To Support John McCain, You Need To Read This!
Michelle Malkin has complied one of the most damning collections of facts on John McCain and his record. If you plan to support John McCain today, you need to read this first:
*************************************************
Before you vote for John McCain, I ask you just one question: can it get any more obvious that a McCain Presidency is NOT in America's best interest?
While not perfect himself, Romney is a far better choice...
There's my two cents.
*************************************************
The McCain campaign continues to perpetuate its Big Lie in the run-up to Super Tuesday. And thanks to MSM enablers and open-borders Republicans rooting for a McCain win, voters are swallowing the Big Lie. The Big Lie is that McCain can be trusted on immigration and border security. Dinocrat reports that the McCain campaign called him again and left a recorded message touting the shamnesty promoter's border security credentials. Here's the text of the call:
On the issue of immigration there is no debate that our borders are broken. There are 12 million people here illegally. I've listened and learned. We must secure our borders first and restore trust and confidence in our government. As President, I'll hire new border patrol guards, build a fence, ask governors to certify that their borders are secure. The two million people who have committed crimes will be deported immediately. No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior. They'll go the the back of the line, pay fines and learn English. For those already in our country, there will be no special privileges, and we'll punish employers who hire illegal immigrants. We'll be humane and compassionate, but we will be firm. It's a matter of national security.
According to the WaPo/ABC News poll released this weekend, 47% of respondents said McCain was the candidate they trusted most on immigration; 22% said Romney; 10% chose Huckabee; and 5% went with Paul.
If those voters knew about Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio, McCain would be in single-digit Paul territory.
You want straight talk? McCain's tongue says he's "listened and learned." But his heart is with La Raza, the militantly ethnocentric, anti-immigration enforcement Hispanic lobbying group that honored him in 1999 and whose annual conference he keynoted in 2004.
Go back and watch McCain on the Senate floor during the amnesty debate. Refresh your memories. Here he is comparing guest-worker tax treatment to Jim Crow laws.
Let me remind you of how he and his good friend Teddy Kennedy engaged in nauseating identity politics straight out of the Raza playbook. From May 25, 2006, these are the true, extremist views of John McCain:
An extraordinary exchange just took place on the Senate floor over the last 40 minutes. It's the most important debate of the year, in my opinion.
The questions are these: Who do we let into this country and how many?
On one side of the debate: Democrat Sen. Jeff Bingaman of N.M. and Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
On the other side, the blubbering open-borders duo of GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Sen. Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Bingaman is offering an amendment to cap the number of visas for legal permanent residents at 650,000. The current Senate immigration bill essentially obliterates the current employer-based green card cap of 140,000. Spouses and children currently count against that cap. Under the Senate bill, that would no longer be true. There would be, in effect, no limits. Bingaman's cap would be four times the current rate–yet both McCain and Kennedy are responding hysterically as if Bingaman has proposed some human rights crackdown on the world.
When Bingaman pointed out the need for prudence in opening the floodgates to unlimited numbers of low-skilled workers, both McCain and Kennedy pulled the race card. McCain's immediate response was to sputter that the "Chamber of Commerce, unions, and Hispanic groups" oppose the caps! McCain called it un-American to be selective about whom we let into this country. Yeah, he did.
When McCain accused Bingaman of "discriminating against" poor immigrants, Bingaman pointed out that the McCain-Kennedy bill itself had a 290,000 cap. No response from the Open-Borders Tag Team.
Sen. Tom Coburn, a staunch amnesty opponent, has endorsed McCain. He's letting bygones be bygones in the spirit of senatorial collegiality.
But I remind you that McCain refused to support Coburn's amendment to the shamnesty bill calling for full enforcement of our immigration laws.
And here's a reminder of John McCain's "leadership" from June 2007 via the Washington Times:
Often lost in the big picture coverage of major legislative issues like the now-troubled Bush-Kennedy immigration bill are the little moments that say everything about how Washington works. They're the little moments that your legislators don't want you to know about and figure will never make it back home through the media.
But Stephen Dinan, our excellent national political reporter who has led the way for months on coverage of immigration legislation, captured this priceless moment in his story this morning as the supporters of the bill struggled to keep it together.
The late-night vote was on an amendment that would require illegal aliens who get legal status to have a minimum level of health insurance. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chamber's most liberal member, was — not surprisingly — opposed.
Writes Mr. Dinan: "Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona both went to check with Mr. Kennedy before casting their votes to match his. Soon after, (Arizona Republican Sen. Jon) Kyl also switched his vote to match Mr. Kennedy's."
The amendment was defeated.
And let's remember McCain pulling the threat-of-violence card in support of immigration capitulation: If we don't give in, it'll be like the banlieus in France!
Crooked talk: He says he'll build the fence.
Straight talk: He resents what he calls the "goddamned fence."
John McCain and La Raza-The Race share a deep-seated contempt for grass-roots conservatives who worked successfully to defeat the disastrous amnesty bill. And they share a common impulse to marginalize their political opponents as "haters."
Thus, La Raza-The Race has launched a new "We Can Stop the Hate" campaign–smack dab in the middle of the campaign season–to redefine tough policy criticism from the Right as "hate." They protest that it is "racist" and out-of-bounds to talk about reconquista–even as the McCain campaign boasts a "Mexico First/"Just A Region"/"Free Flow of People" outreach director who's practicing it out in the open for the leading GOP presidential front-runner.
Yes, an ethnic separatist group that calls itself "The Race"–a group that has embraced John McCain and vice versa–has the gall to crusade against "hate." Chris Kelly notes that La Raza-The Race head Janet Murguia is calling for networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and that both La Raza-The Race and another open-borders group are pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes.
Read it:
Ms. Murguia argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights: "Everyone knows there is a line sometimes that can be crossed when it comes to free speech. And when free speech transforms into hate speech, we've got to draw that line. And that's what we're doing here today. And we need to make sure that network executives will hold their people accountable and not cross that line."
Murgia praised McCain and looks forward to the "tapering down" of immigration enforcement efforts if he wins the White House: "With his emergence as a leading Republican presidential primary contender, I do think that we'll see this toned down… Does it mean that we know everything he's going to do in that area of reform? And I know he's got his work cut out for him with a number of people, and we'll see him put this whole platform together, but we do believe that if he ends up being in a lead role here, we think that that issue will be tapered down."
No respect for the rule of law. No respect for the First Amendment.
Like John McCain said: "I'll rely on people to judge me by the company that I keep."
The company John McCain keeps:
Russ Feingold.
Teddy Kennedy.
Lindsay Grahamnesty.
Juan "Mexico First/Free Flow" Hernandez.
Jerry "Spanish first" Perenchio.
Geraldo Rivera.
La Raza.
Charles Keating.
John Kerry.
The New York Times.
Before you vote for John McCain, I ask you just one question: can it get any more obvious that a McCain Presidency is NOT in America's best interest?
While not perfect himself, Romney is a far better choice...
There's my two cents.
One Last Primary Update
I expect this will be the last primary update before most of you head to the polls to vote.
First off, the big prize today is California. Obama and Romney are pulling away there, depending on which poll you look at. John J. Pitney Jr. writes about several reasons that will affect the outcome:
1. mail-in voters --- many Californians use absentee ballots to vote early, meaning they voted for candidates who are no longer in the race
2. delegates, not the 'win', is what counts --- CA awards delegates based on winning a precinct, which means a precinct with 8,000 voters nets as many delegates as a precinct with 80,000 voters, and Romney appears to be utilizing this strategy very well; Democrats are awarded on a different basis (see the article for details) which could mean winning the most votes doesn't win the most delegates
3. Indies --- Independents can vote Dem, but not Rep (this could hurt McCain and Obama)
4. Dem demographics --- CA is heavily Latino and elderly, both of which lead toward Clinton
5. Rep leanings --- though Schwarzenegger leans very hard to the left, most CA Reps lean much more to the right, which should help Romney
6. endorsement folly --- Schwarzenegger's endorsement of McCain doesn't matter one little bit
Scott Rasmussen says that Obama has 'all the momentum' going into Super Tuesday.
Melanie Morgan, the big mover behind the CA recall of former Governor Gray Davis, expresses concerns about McCain's conservative credentials. Excerpts:
A number of GOP Senators are hesitant to embrace McCain as their commander in chief. Take a look:
Same with the House:
Other major voices, like Rick Santorum and Rush Limbaugh, continue to endorse Romney over McCain.
Mike Huckabee is expressing frustration with some conservatives' call for him to bow out of the race to allow Romney the best possible chance against McCain. While his frustration is understandable, so is the electorate's...Huckabee doesn't have much of a shot to actually win the nomination.
The Washington Post predicts 8 questions that will be answered on Super Tuesday, including what constitutes victory.
The general consensus seems to be that the Democrat race is likely to stay fairly even after Super Tuesday, while the Republican race could be much, much clearer. Don't accept a rushed victory coronation by the MSM in any state (especially CA) - we know they want McCain to win, so they'll jump all over any indication of that as soon as possible. Just be patient, and let the votes be counted. No matter what, don't let any news report deter you from going to vote yourself.
Let the fireworks begin!
There's my two cents.
First off, the big prize today is California. Obama and Romney are pulling away there, depending on which poll you look at. John J. Pitney Jr. writes about several reasons that will affect the outcome:
1. mail-in voters --- many Californians use absentee ballots to vote early, meaning they voted for candidates who are no longer in the race
2. delegates, not the 'win', is what counts --- CA awards delegates based on winning a precinct, which means a precinct with 8,000 voters nets as many delegates as a precinct with 80,000 voters, and Romney appears to be utilizing this strategy very well; Democrats are awarded on a different basis (see the article for details) which could mean winning the most votes doesn't win the most delegates
3. Indies --- Independents can vote Dem, but not Rep (this could hurt McCain and Obama)
4. Dem demographics --- CA is heavily Latino and elderly, both of which lead toward Clinton
5. Rep leanings --- though Schwarzenegger leans very hard to the left, most CA Reps lean much more to the right, which should help Romney
6. endorsement folly --- Schwarzenegger's endorsement of McCain doesn't matter one little bit
Scott Rasmussen says that Obama has 'all the momentum' going into Super Tuesday.
Melanie Morgan, the big mover behind the CA recall of former Governor Gray Davis, expresses concerns about McCain's conservative credentials. Excerpts:
Immigration is the foremost reason why conservatives part company with John McCain. McCain's campaign partnership with a former spokesman for Mexico's president sends a clear message that a President McCain would welcome anybody who busts into our country illegally instead of sending them home. It is a scary, dangerous position. McCain-style open-border policies would allow terrorists, already known to cross our porous borders, to walk in without challenge.
Immigration, of course, isn't the only McCain position that fires up conservatives. McCain-Feingold restricted First Amendment rights. Then there was the McCain-Kennedy education fiasco. As a conservative, I flinch anytime I hear of a new piece of legislation that begins with the name McCain.
Voters rallied around Republican-led efforts to throw Davis out of office. One of the biggest motivators was his support for driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
We got rid of Davis, but then came time for choosing from 28 other candidates on the ballot. The GOP loved state Sen. Tom McClintock, the principled conservative with a proven track record of reform, but instead chose Arnold Schwarzenegger because of their concerns about McClintock's 'electability.'
What did California get for the big 'win'? A 14 billion dollar deficit, his advocacy for business-crippling regulations backed by the phony junk science of man-made climate change, and bad policy on, you guessed it, illegal immigration.
Is it a coincidence that Arnold Schwarzenkennedy endorses John McCain?
Conservatives oppose McCain because of the long-term damage done to the party by his defining it as a pro-amnesty, environmental extremist, high tax, high regulation, and liberal judge party. As conservatives we can not endorse this.
Ironically, at the end of Schwarzenkennedy's first administration, the California State GOP is broke. In debt. And with no future viability for perhaps decades to come.
John McCain may very well do the same for the Grand Old Party if he is our next nominee.
A number of GOP Senators are hesitant to embrace McCain as their commander in chief. Take a look:
"There would be a lot of people who would have to recalibrate their attitudes toward John," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), a supporter of Mitt Romney's who has clashed with McCain.
"I forgive him for whatever disagreements he has had with me. We can disagree on things, but I have great admiration for him," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee who has often argued with McCain over government spending.
A former colleague says McCain's abrasive nature would, at minimum, make his relations with Republicans on Capitol Hill uneasy if he were to become president. McCain could find himself the victim of Republicans who will not go the extra mile for him on legislative issues because of past grievances.
"John was very rough in the sandbox," said former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who is outspoken in his opposition to McCain's candidacy. "Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. . . . He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill."
Santorum was a fierce advocate for the GOP's social conservative wing -- a group particularly hostile to McCain because of his apostasy on immigration and same-sex marriage -- while Cochran is considered one of the more genteel senators. Both men back Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, for president.
"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
Same with the House:
McCain's relationship with House Republicans has been strained for years. After stumping for more than 50 GOP candidates during the 2000 campaign, McCain dramatically scaled back his efforts in 2002 out of pique toward House Republicans who opposed his effort to overhaul campaign finance law. In 2004, while McCain was objecting to GOP-backed tax cuts, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the senator, a former prisoner of war, should go to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to see what "sacrifice" meant to the nation.
Other major voices, like Rick Santorum and Rush Limbaugh, continue to endorse Romney over McCain.
Mike Huckabee is expressing frustration with some conservatives' call for him to bow out of the race to allow Romney the best possible chance against McCain. While his frustration is understandable, so is the electorate's...Huckabee doesn't have much of a shot to actually win the nomination.
The Washington Post predicts 8 questions that will be answered on Super Tuesday, including what constitutes victory.
The general consensus seems to be that the Democrat race is likely to stay fairly even after Super Tuesday, while the Republican race could be much, much clearer. Don't accept a rushed victory coronation by the MSM in any state (especially CA) - we know they want McCain to win, so they'll jump all over any indication of that as soon as possible. Just be patient, and let the votes be counted. No matter what, don't let any news report deter you from going to vote yourself.
Let the fireworks begin!
There's my two cents.
Today's The Day!
I cast my vote on the way to work this morning...when will you cast yours?
For those of you in Kansas City, it may look ugly out there right now, but the rain is supposed to give way to sleet and snow later this afternoon, so getting wet might be a better option than braving the ice. The busiest times at the polls are usually over lunch and from 5pm-7pm, so if you want to avoid a line, go outside of those times.
Also, keep in mind that on the ballot (regardless of party) you will probably see a number of candidates who are no longer in the race. Just because their name is on the ballot doesn't mean that a vote for them counts. These are your main choices:
Rep
Mick Huckabee
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Dem
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Finally, you will need some form of identification. I wish the law required a valid photo ID, but I believe the reality is that you can bring any bill or statement that shows your name and mailing address to 'prove' you are who you say you are.
Let the games begin! Happy Voting!
For those of you in Kansas City, it may look ugly out there right now, but the rain is supposed to give way to sleet and snow later this afternoon, so getting wet might be a better option than braving the ice. The busiest times at the polls are usually over lunch and from 5pm-7pm, so if you want to avoid a line, go outside of those times.
Also, keep in mind that on the ballot (regardless of party) you will probably see a number of candidates who are no longer in the race. Just because their name is on the ballot doesn't mean that a vote for them counts. These are your main choices:
Rep
Mick Huckabee
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Dem
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Finally, you will need some form of identification. I wish the law required a valid photo ID, but I believe the reality is that you can bring any bill or statement that shows your name and mailing address to 'prove' you are who you say you are.
Let the games begin! Happy Voting!
Monday, February 4, 2008
Quote: Reagan On Taxes
In this election's context of universal health care, universal preschool/kindergarten, the mortgage bailout, and the economic stimulus, please take a moment to read this quote from former President Ronald Reagan about using taxes to 'help out' certain small segments of the population:
Posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
“I’m sure everyone feels sorry for the individual who has fallen by the wayside or who can’t keep up in our competitive society, but my own compassion goes beyond that to the millions of unsung men and women who get up every morning, send the kids to school, go to work, try and keep up the payments on their house, pay exorbitant taxes to make possible compassion for the less fortunate, and as a result have to sacrifice many of their own desires and dreams and hopes. Government owes them something better than always finding a new way to make them share the fruit of their toils with others.”
-- Ronald Reagan --
Posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
Absolutely Shocking Facts About America's Economy!
Do you have any idea just how wealthy the United States is? Do you really understand how big our economy is compared to the rest of the world? Get a load of this little video - it's about four minutes long, but it will absolutely blow your mind!
That is one of the most unbelievable things I have ever seen! Three conclusions hit me from this. First, do you now understand why the church of global warming is squarely targeting the United States and Japan (remember the Kyoto Protocol)? We're the two largest economies on the planet. If you haven't believed me in the past when I tell you it's all about the money, maybe you will now.
Second, if you have wondered why it is that America often gets its way around the world, this helps explain it - any economy this big has a LOT of financial weight to throw around. I've always thought that U.S. foreign policy should include something like a simple list of those who play nice with us and those who don't. If you're on the not-nice list, we cut off all aid and trade with you until you decide to play nice. If you're on the nice list, you must adhere to a few key things, like:
1. never, ever, EVER attack us or harbor anyone who does
2. you back us up if we ever have to take military action
3. you implement freedom and/or democracy of some kind
Given the size of our economy, I think we could make it work, don't you? Remember the other golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules! ;)
Back to seriousness, though, the most critical thing to understand here is exactly WHY our economy dwarfs everyone else's: freedom. It is freedom that has unlocked the human spirit, allowing innovation and advancement as fast as people choose to run with it. It is the freedom to worship, live, speak, and work as we see fit that allows people to achieve their full potential. Also, did you notice the second and third place countries? Japan and Germany are both democracies, too, now that we're done with them. That's what America does when we use military force - we take out the thugs and put in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That's what we've done around the world for decades, and that's what we're doing in Iraq now.
America doesn't conquer, it liberates. Freedom is what unlocks success, and freedom is what America promises.
There's my two cents.
That is one of the most unbelievable things I have ever seen! Three conclusions hit me from this. First, do you now understand why the church of global warming is squarely targeting the United States and Japan (remember the Kyoto Protocol)? We're the two largest economies on the planet. If you haven't believed me in the past when I tell you it's all about the money, maybe you will now.
Second, if you have wondered why it is that America often gets its way around the world, this helps explain it - any economy this big has a LOT of financial weight to throw around. I've always thought that U.S. foreign policy should include something like a simple list of those who play nice with us and those who don't. If you're on the not-nice list, we cut off all aid and trade with you until you decide to play nice. If you're on the nice list, you must adhere to a few key things, like:
1. never, ever, EVER attack us or harbor anyone who does
2. you back us up if we ever have to take military action
3. you implement freedom and/or democracy of some kind
Given the size of our economy, I think we could make it work, don't you? Remember the other golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules! ;)
Back to seriousness, though, the most critical thing to understand here is exactly WHY our economy dwarfs everyone else's: freedom. It is freedom that has unlocked the human spirit, allowing innovation and advancement as fast as people choose to run with it. It is the freedom to worship, live, speak, and work as we see fit that allows people to achieve their full potential. Also, did you notice the second and third place countries? Japan and Germany are both democracies, too, now that we're done with them. That's what America does when we use military force - we take out the thugs and put in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That's what we've done around the world for decades, and that's what we're doing in Iraq now.
America doesn't conquer, it liberates. Freedom is what unlocks success, and freedom is what America promises.
There's my two cents.
A Local Economist's Take On The Stimulus
I caught an interview with a local economist who was talking about the stimulus package being negotiated in Congress right now. He brought up a number of great points that I wanted to share with you.
First, he said that for any stimulus to actually work, it needs to be big and it needs to be fast, or the economy will likely come out of its slump on its own. If you compare a $150 billion stimulus package in the context of our $11 trillion economy, it's really not that big. And, Congress's politicking with the package is causing more and more delay -- it's a shock, I know -- so it is not coming fast, either.
And, depending on the final level of the checks being written to individuals, it may not work anyway. The idea behind a stimulus is to put enough money into people's hands that they do something out of the ordinary with it. Maybe they buy a big-ticket item, maybe they go on vacation, maybe they invest it aggressively. Whatever they do, the idea is to get them to put it right back into the economy somehow. With a small check, though (like a couple hundred bucks), people are more likely to just pay a bill or save it for a rainy day, which won't help the economy at all. This economist suggested that to be effective, the checks would need to be at least $1000.
Anyway, the bottom line is that this is simply an election year publicity stunt by politicians who love to hand out taxpayers' money. Again, I won't complain about receiving some of my tax money back, but it's looking like less and less of a good deal all the time.
There's my two cents.
First, he said that for any stimulus to actually work, it needs to be big and it needs to be fast, or the economy will likely come out of its slump on its own. If you compare a $150 billion stimulus package in the context of our $11 trillion economy, it's really not that big. And, Congress's politicking with the package is causing more and more delay -- it's a shock, I know -- so it is not coming fast, either.
And, depending on the final level of the checks being written to individuals, it may not work anyway. The idea behind a stimulus is to put enough money into people's hands that they do something out of the ordinary with it. Maybe they buy a big-ticket item, maybe they go on vacation, maybe they invest it aggressively. Whatever they do, the idea is to get them to put it right back into the economy somehow. With a small check, though (like a couple hundred bucks), people are more likely to just pay a bill or save it for a rainy day, which won't help the economy at all. This economist suggested that to be effective, the checks would need to be at least $1000.
Anyway, the bottom line is that this is simply an election year publicity stunt by politicians who love to hand out taxpayers' money. Again, I won't complain about receiving some of my tax money back, but it's looking like less and less of a good deal all the time.
There's my two cents.
Berkeley Madness
I blogged last week about the crackpots in Berkeley, California who have essentially declared war on the Marines coming through their city. Well, the Marines' battle has finally been taken up by a very high profile advocate. Before that, though, take a look at a partial list of what these crazies have done:
- repeated vandalism of the recruitment office
- repeatedly demonstrated against Marines
- openly demanded the Marines (and the recruitment office) leave town
These actions are sanctioned by the city council, by the way.
Now, in defense of the Marines, Senator Jim DeMint has finally stepped in:
The Senator is working on legislation to withdraw all federal funding from cities that act this way. Yes!!! It's about time!
If you want to sign a petition in support of our troops and delivering a message to the Berkeley city council, go here.
Again, the point here is not to shut these people up - they have a right to free speech, just like you and I do. But, speech does not include violence and vandalism. Furthermore, DeMint is right - if this city wants the military presence gone, the money should go, too.
There's my two cents.
- repeated vandalism of the recruitment office
- repeatedly demonstrated against Marines
- openly demanded the Marines (and the recruitment office) leave town
These actions are sanctioned by the city council, by the way.
Now, in defense of the Marines, Senator Jim DeMint has finally stepped in:
"This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families," DeMint said in a prepared statement. "The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money."
"If the city can't show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer-funded handouts," he added.
The Senator is working on legislation to withdraw all federal funding from cities that act this way. Yes!!! It's about time!
If you want to sign a petition in support of our troops and delivering a message to the Berkeley city council, go here.
Again, the point here is not to shut these people up - they have a right to free speech, just like you and I do. But, speech does not include violence and vandalism. Furthermore, DeMint is right - if this city wants the military presence gone, the money should go, too.
There's my two cents.
Election Update
Lots of stories about the primary and Super Tuesday.
First, the Democrat side. Things are tightening up as Super Tuesday approaches. Totally losing the air of inevitability and suffering from from a vicious case of the Bills, Hillary Clinton has shown some major cracks in the facade. Barack Obama has closed the gap in national polls over the past week or so by gaining a whopping 11 points. It seems that lots of Democrats (even prominent ones) are uncomfortable with the low-blow attacks and slash-and-burn tactics the Clintons have turned on a fellow Democrat (it's apparently okay to do it to Republicans, though). On the endorsement front, the notorious anti-American propaganda group MoveOn.org has officially endorsed Barack Obama. The real irony here is that MoveOn.org was originally created to encourage people to 'move on' from Bill Clinton's scandals...and now they're opposing his wife! Gratitude is apparently an elusive thing in today's Democrat party!
Now, the Republican side. Michelle Malkin collects a number of stories about Huckabee's record on supporting open borders. Also, Powerline suggests that one of the main differences between Romney and McCain is illustrated by the flap about who supported the surge and when. McCain is accusing Romney of not supporting the surge despite not having any concrete information about it. Instead, Romney waited to take a position until he had a chance to study it. Kind of strange how that's a bad thing, isn't it? Anyway, Powerline suggests that McCain tends to make snap judgments based on slim evidence, and doesn't appear willing to reverse course when proven wrong. Not good.
When questioned about how conservative he is, McCain is on the record as saying that he should be judged by the company he keeps. Michelle Malkin took him at his word and compiled this list of people hanging around with McCain:
Who's the actual conservative again? Duh.
NumbersUSA reports that McCain laid out his Immigration Plan in radio ads in South Carolina:
Of course, there's no proof to indicate that McCain would actually secure the borders first, and his history indicates exactly the opposite. After that apparent lie, it just continues downhill from there. Illegal immigration is a huge, HUGE problem, and McCain's solutions will only help illegals and terrorists.
Moving on, some have questioned Romney's viability for the long haul after not winning Florida. The question was answered in spades by him sinking millions of dollars of his own money into TV ads in many of the Super Tuesday states. It looks like it worked quickly, because over the weekend Romney won the Maine caucuses easily, with 52% of the vote to McCain's 21% (Paul had 19%, Huckabee 6%). Several national polls show the race between McCain and Romney closing as we come to Super Tuesday. As McCain's liberal stripes and low-blow attacks have come out over the past couple weeks, many prominent conservatives have openly come out in favor of Romney. Mark Levin, one of the biggest (and a former Reagan aide), has a lengthy article explaining why Romney is 2008's only remaining choice for conservatives, calling for the base to rally to Romney before McCain gains too much momentum to be stopped.
On the lighter side of things, watch this fun little video of Romney's son pranking the old man on the campaign trail, posing as Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Of the states in play tomorrow, each of the candidates is leading in several (though Huckabee is less than McCain and Romney), so it's still anyone's ballgame. For example, McCain is leading in more states overall, but Romney is leading in California, which has the most delegates to offer. But, given how wrong some of the polling and predicting has been so far in some of the early primaries, polls are hardly an indicator you can hang your hat on at this point. Plus, some states (like California) award delegates on a precinct-by-precinct basis, so even if someone 'won' the state, it's possible someone else could win more delegates there. Regardless, it looks like it could be a showdown of sorts, with the MSM and 'conventional wisdom' lining up in favor of McCain, and conservative grass roots efforts supporting Romney. Conventional wisdom is often wrong - just ask the Patriots.
It looks like we'll have to wait for the votes to be counted.
There's my two cents.
First, the Democrat side. Things are tightening up as Super Tuesday approaches. Totally losing the air of inevitability and suffering from from a vicious case of the Bills, Hillary Clinton has shown some major cracks in the facade. Barack Obama has closed the gap in national polls over the past week or so by gaining a whopping 11 points. It seems that lots of Democrats (even prominent ones) are uncomfortable with the low-blow attacks and slash-and-burn tactics the Clintons have turned on a fellow Democrat (it's apparently okay to do it to Republicans, though). On the endorsement front, the notorious anti-American propaganda group MoveOn.org has officially endorsed Barack Obama. The real irony here is that MoveOn.org was originally created to encourage people to 'move on' from Bill Clinton's scandals...and now they're opposing his wife! Gratitude is apparently an elusive thing in today's Democrat party!
Now, the Republican side. Michelle Malkin collects a number of stories about Huckabee's record on supporting open borders. Also, Powerline suggests that one of the main differences between Romney and McCain is illustrated by the flap about who supported the surge and when. McCain is accusing Romney of not supporting the surge despite not having any concrete information about it. Instead, Romney waited to take a position until he had a chance to study it. Kind of strange how that's a bad thing, isn't it? Anyway, Powerline suggests that McCain tends to make snap judgments based on slim evidence, and doesn't appear willing to reverse course when proven wrong. Not good.
When questioned about how conservative he is, McCain is on the record as saying that he should be judged by the company he keeps. Michelle Malkin took him at his word and compiled this list of people hanging around with McCain:
Russ Feingold. [campaign finance - attack on 1st Amendment]
Teddy Kennedy. [amnesty for millions of illegal aliens]
Lindsay Grahamnesty. [amnesty for millions of illegal aliens]
Juan "Mexico First/Free Flow" Hernandez. [current campaign adviser]
Jerry "Spanish first" Perenchio. [current campaign adviser]
Geraldo Rivera. [future press secretary appointment...?]
La Raza. [a Hispanic supremacist group who honored McCain]
Charles Keating. [bought off McCain and other Senators]
John Kerry. [McCain approached Kerry about switching parties to run as Kerry's VP in 2004]
The New York Times. [anti-Rep, anti-conservative paper endorses McCain]
Contrast McCain's open-borders campaign staff with that of Romney's new appointment: Kris Kobach is to be Romney's new immigration enforcement adviser. This is outstanding - Kobach is a Kansas City local who is an experienced Constitutional law professor, immigration expert, and head of the Kansas Republican party. But that's not all...Romney has tapped the following excellent conservative talent, too:Teddy Kennedy. [amnesty for millions of illegal aliens]
Lindsay Grahamnesty. [amnesty for millions of illegal aliens]
Juan "Mexico First/Free Flow" Hernandez. [current campaign adviser]
Jerry "Spanish first" Perenchio. [current campaign adviser]
Geraldo Rivera. [future press secretary appointment...?]
La Raza. [a Hispanic supremacist group who honored McCain]
Charles Keating. [bought off McCain and other Senators]
John Kerry. [McCain approached Kerry about switching parties to run as Kerry's VP in 2004]
The New York Times. [anti-Rep, anti-conservative paper endorses McCain]
Today, Governor Mitt Romney announced that Andrew C. McCarthy will be joining his Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts, which is co-chaired by Professor Douglas W. Kmiec, former constitutional legal counsel to President Ronald Reagan, and former Congressman David McIntosh who co-founded the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.
Who's the actual conservative again? Duh.
NumbersUSA reports that McCain laid out his Immigration Plan in radio ads in South Carolina:
1. "Secure the borders."
2. Deport around 2 million illegal aliens who have committed felonies.
3. Treat the other 10-18 million illegal aliens with "compassion" by letting them keep their U.S. residency and their American jobs and eventually become citizens.
McCain never expresses compassion for the 23 million working-age Americans without any college who do not currently have a job -- or the millions more Americans whose real wages have stagnated or declined in recent years because their occupations were flooded by foreign labor.
Although the nation already has nearly 40 million foreign workers and dependents, McCain has repeatedly said that we need to import even more. During the last two years, he has pushed various bills that would double and triple immigration.
Of course, there's no proof to indicate that McCain would actually secure the borders first, and his history indicates exactly the opposite. After that apparent lie, it just continues downhill from there. Illegal immigration is a huge, HUGE problem, and McCain's solutions will only help illegals and terrorists.
Moving on, some have questioned Romney's viability for the long haul after not winning Florida. The question was answered in spades by him sinking millions of dollars of his own money into TV ads in many of the Super Tuesday states. It looks like it worked quickly, because over the weekend Romney won the Maine caucuses easily, with 52% of the vote to McCain's 21% (Paul had 19%, Huckabee 6%). Several national polls show the race between McCain and Romney closing as we come to Super Tuesday. As McCain's liberal stripes and low-blow attacks have come out over the past couple weeks, many prominent conservatives have openly come out in favor of Romney. Mark Levin, one of the biggest (and a former Reagan aide), has a lengthy article explaining why Romney is 2008's only remaining choice for conservatives, calling for the base to rally to Romney before McCain gains too much momentum to be stopped.
On the lighter side of things, watch this fun little video of Romney's son pranking the old man on the campaign trail, posing as Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Of the states in play tomorrow, each of the candidates is leading in several (though Huckabee is less than McCain and Romney), so it's still anyone's ballgame. For example, McCain is leading in more states overall, but Romney is leading in California, which has the most delegates to offer. But, given how wrong some of the polling and predicting has been so far in some of the early primaries, polls are hardly an indicator you can hang your hat on at this point. Plus, some states (like California) award delegates on a precinct-by-precinct basis, so even if someone 'won' the state, it's possible someone else could win more delegates there. Regardless, it looks like it could be a showdown of sorts, with the MSM and 'conventional wisdom' lining up in favor of McCain, and conservative grass roots efforts supporting Romney. Conventional wisdom is often wrong - just ask the Patriots.
It looks like we'll have to wait for the votes to be counted.
There's my two cents.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Link Roundup
Lots of links to start the week:
- I wasn't the only one to notice: no smack in the Dem debate.
- Vice-Presidential speculations.
- Bill Clinton has no legacy, desperate for another shot at White House.
- Mississippi contemplates law prohibiting restaurants from serving fat people.
- Conservatives have done well over past 50 years, facing a crisis point.
- More evidence that global warming is a religion instead of a science.
- Heating oil dealers want a bailout, too!
- Thomas Sowell on the stimulus: gov't should stay out of it.
- The U.N. is worthless in Congo.
- The suicide of reason.
- Liberals and mathematical models.
- Decode your DNA (for a small fee).
Fun & Frivolity: Super Bowl
Here's my totally uninformed and uneducated prediction based purely on the minimal amount of hype to which I've subjected myself:
New England Patriots: 35
New York Giants: 24
Enjoy the game!
***UPDATE***
Final Score:
New York Giants: 17
New England Patriots: 14
[I told you it was a 'totally uninformed and uneducated prediction'...]
:)
New England Patriots: 35
New York Giants: 24
Enjoy the game!
***UPDATE***
Final Score:
New York Giants: 17
New England Patriots: 14
[I told you it was a 'totally uninformed and uneducated prediction'...]
:)
McCain's Record On Amnesty
For those of you intending to vote for John McCain on Tuesday, NumbersUSA posts a summary of his record on illegal immigration and amnesty over the past three years [emphasis mine]:
If you do, I have some land in the Atlantic Ocean that I'd like to sell you!
McCain is simply telling people what they want to hear to pull their votes. He has no intention of keeping these promises, and I would bet a whole lot of money that if McCain does win in November, we'll see a whole new amnesty bill (probably worse than his previous comprehensive one) get pushed on us almost immediately. There was just one thing preventing him from getting all of these things done over the past three years: the Republican base. Republicans are overwhelmingly against McCain's amnesty efforts, and that is just one of the many critical issues on which McCain is actually much more closely aligned with the Democrat party.
This also bothers me because it's pure politicking, and McCain appears to have ditched his reputation for being a straight talker because he's so desperate to win. I have to ask myself, if he's willing to lie to me about amnesty, what else is he lying to me about? Can I trust anything he says now?
Vote Romney on Tuesday.
There's my two cents.
McCAIN: WEAK ON SECURING THE BORDER & ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS
* 2006- Sen. McCain voted against extending the border fence in the Sessions Amendment (2) to H.R. 5441.
* 2006- Sen. McCain voted to prevent the border fence from being built by voting in favor of the Manager’s Amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.
* 2006- Sen. McCain voted to allow illegal aliens to receive Social Security by voting to table the Ensign Amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.
* 2006- Sen. McCain voted against funding additional immigration investigators by voting against the Sessions Amendment (1) to H.R. 5441.
* 2005- Sen. McCain voted against providing funding for additional Border Patrol and ICE agents by voting against the Byrd Amendment to H.R. 1268.
McCAIN: THE AMNESTY KING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENSDo you really think he has suddenly 'heard the message' from the American people? McCain was not just supporting all of these pro-illegal alien and pro-amnesty efforts, he was leading them! With a track record like this, and with several of his current top advisers being total open-borders hacks, can you honestly believe him when he says he's going to secure the borders and drop the amnesty bit?
* 2007 – Sen. McCain was heavily involved in the backroom negotiations of S. 1348 with Sen. Kennedy and Pres. Bush – this was an amnesty (permanent residency & path to citizenship) for more than 10 million illegal aliens.
* 2007 – Sen. McCain cast several votes to protect the amnesty in S. 1639 and to move the amnesty toward a vote.
* 2007- Sen. McCain is a cosponsor of S. 774, the DREAM Act. The bill would grant in-state tuition and amnesty to more than a million illegal aliens under the age of 30.
* 2007- Sen. McCain is a cosponsor of S. 340, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 (AgJOBS). This bill would grant amnesty to millions of illegal agricultural workers.
* 2006- Sen. McCain voted in favor of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. This bill would have awarded amnesty to 10.2 million illegal aliens.
* 2005- Sen. McCain and Sen. Kennedy introduced S.1033, an amnesty for virtually all illegal aliens.
* 2005- Sen. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 239, the AgJOBS amnesty.
* 2003- Sen. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 1645, the AgJOBS amnesty.
* 2003- Sen. McCain was a cosponsor the S. 1461 amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.
If you do, I have some land in the Atlantic Ocean that I'd like to sell you!
McCain is simply telling people what they want to hear to pull their votes. He has no intention of keeping these promises, and I would bet a whole lot of money that if McCain does win in November, we'll see a whole new amnesty bill (probably worse than his previous comprehensive one) get pushed on us almost immediately. There was just one thing preventing him from getting all of these things done over the past three years: the Republican base. Republicans are overwhelmingly against McCain's amnesty efforts, and that is just one of the many critical issues on which McCain is actually much more closely aligned with the Democrat party.
This also bothers me because it's pure politicking, and McCain appears to have ditched his reputation for being a straight talker because he's so desperate to win. I have to ask myself, if he's willing to lie to me about amnesty, what else is he lying to me about? Can I trust anything he says now?
Vote Romney on Tuesday.
There's my two cents.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
More Global Warming Idiocy
Here are a couple more stories that illustrate the absence of logical thinking when it comes to global warming.
Don't you think that a former American President would have the best interests of America at heart? Not so, if we're talking about a recent former Democrat American President! Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have a history of tripping around the world and speaking bad of the current administration and current American policies. The latest anti-American gem from this venerable ex-politician duo comes from Bill Clinton during a stump speech for Hillary:
Thanks for advocating for us, Mr. President.
Sen. Clinton's campaign has a new TV ad that calls her "the person you can depend on to fix the economy and protect our future." Is this how she plans to 'fix' the economy? By deliberately flushing it down the toilet? What kind of a future do we face with a recession or another depression due to oppressive tax burdens and environmental regulations? Not one I'd like to see!
The RNC issued this response:
Moving on, here's an Australian news story about how power bills are likely to double because of the rising costs of greenhouse gas emissions. So here's the situation. Australia buys offsets (which are not proven to actually reduce anything) that they use to reduce their carbon emissions (which don't actually need to be reduced at all). Because of the fad of rich people buying offsets to assuage their guilt rather than actually change their lifestyle, the price of offsets is going up. The result is that Australians will see their power bills double.
What part of this makes sense?
Finally, we have a real scientist talking about the facts of global warming. He's actually pretty entertaining to listen to, so give him at least a few minutes of your time, even if you don't watch the whole thing. He talks numbers and statistics, shredding the entire concept of man-made global warming.
Darn those facts!
There's my two cents.
Don't you think that a former American President would have the best interests of America at heart? Not so, if we're talking about a recent former Democrat American President! Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have a history of tripping around the world and speaking bad of the current administration and current American policies. The latest anti-American gem from this venerable ex-politician duo comes from Bill Clinton during a stump speech for Hillary:
"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."This is just great! Once again, it is obvious that the entire pretext of global warming hype is designed to transfer wealth from one group of people to another. This former American leader is saying that America should deliberately kill its own economy -- and he's saying this right now, when there is fear of a recession -- to combat something that hasn't even been proven (or even been close to proven).
"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.
"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.
Thanks for advocating for us, Mr. President.
Sen. Clinton's campaign has a new TV ad that calls her "the person you can depend on to fix the economy and protect our future." Is this how she plans to 'fix' the economy? By deliberately flushing it down the toilet? What kind of a future do we face with a recession or another depression due to oppressive tax burdens and environmental regulations? Not one I'd like to see!
The RNC issued this response:
“Senator Clinton’s campaign now says we must ‘slow down the economy’ to stop global warming," said Alex Conant, RNC Spokesman. "Clinton needs to come back to Earth. Her ‘tax-it, spend-it, regulate-it’ attitude would really bring the economy crashing down. No amount of special effects will hide Clinton’s liberal record.”Ain't that the truth!
Moving on, here's an Australian news story about how power bills are likely to double because of the rising costs of greenhouse gas emissions. So here's the situation. Australia buys offsets (which are not proven to actually reduce anything) that they use to reduce their carbon emissions (which don't actually need to be reduced at all). Because of the fad of rich people buying offsets to assuage their guilt rather than actually change their lifestyle, the price of offsets is going up. The result is that Australians will see their power bills double.
What part of this makes sense?
Finally, we have a real scientist talking about the facts of global warming. He's actually pretty entertaining to listen to, so give him at least a few minutes of your time, even if you don't watch the whole thing. He talks numbers and statistics, shredding the entire concept of man-made global warming.
Darn those facts!
There's my two cents.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Fun & Frivolity: Cards And Oops
Two fun little items to send you off into your weekend...
First, check out this little video made by Chris Harding about the process of creating Shoebox greeting cards. It's only a couple minutes long, and is worth at least a few smiles. Personally, I think that a great many similarities can be drawn between the process of creating these cards and pretty much any corporate America job process...
Second, this reminds me of the Southwest Airlines commercials with the tag line 'Want to get away?':
I'd say Ms. Cooley won the OOPS prize of the year, wouldn't you?
Have a great weekend!
First, check out this little video made by Chris Harding about the process of creating Shoebox greeting cards. It's only a couple minutes long, and is worth at least a few smiles. Personally, I think that a great many similarities can be drawn between the process of creating these cards and pretty much any corporate America job process...
Second, this reminds me of the Southwest Airlines commercials with the tag line 'Want to get away?':
When Marie Lupe Cooley, 41, of Jacksonville, Fla., saw a help-wanted ad in the newspaper for a position that looked suspiciously like her current job — and with her boss's phone number listed — she assumed she was about to be fired.
So, police say, she went to the architectural office where she works late Sunday night and erased 7 years' worth of drawings and blueprints, estimated to be worth $2.5 million.
"She decided to mess up everything for everybody," Jacksonville Sheriff's Office spokesman Ken Jefferson told reporters. "She just sabotaged the entire business, thinking she was going to get axed."
It didn't take Steven Hutchins, owner of the architectural firm that bears his name, much time to figure out who'd done it — Cooley was the only other person who had full access to the files.
Police arrested Cooley Monday evening and charged her with causing greater than $1,000 damage to computer files, a felony. She was bailed out the following afternoon.
Hutchins told one TV station he'd managed to recover all the files using an expensive data-recovery service.
As for the job, Cooley originally wasn't in danger of losing it. The ad was for Hutchins' wife's company.
The firm told FOXNews.com that Cooley no longer is employed there.
I'd say Ms. Cooley won the OOPS prize of the year, wouldn't you?
Have a great weekend!
Stick A Fork In Me, I'm Done
After simmering on the Republican primary decision for a very long time, it all came together for me in the last 24 hours. I don't know if it was the events in Florida, the recent candidate drop-outs, watching the recent debates, or the news stories flying back and forth (maybe a combination of all of them), but a sense of clarity has emerged, and I realized my mind had made itself up without me consciously knowing it: Mitt Romney is my guy.
[Just for the record, I'm not a blind sheep - I wrote this before posting today's message about conservatives closing ranks against McCain...I have no proof, so you'll just have to take my word for it!]
Let me share my thought process with you. First, let's be real. Huckabee and Ron Paul don't have a realistic chance at winning. Ron Paul has lots of money but negligible support, and Huckabee probably won't get more than 10-15% of the vote next Tuesday. Even if either of them was viable, I couldn't support them. Some of Ron Paul's policies are just this side of insanity, so he's out of the question. Huckabee has plenty of positives, but on several important issues what he says now and what his record shows just don't line up (and the changes are recent, not progressive over time). He's also been relying heavily on identity politics, which is a distinctly liberal tactic used primarily by Democrats. Frankly, that makes my toenails curl backward, and is the final nail in the coffin. So, my decision is between McCain and Romney.
There are several components to my decision. The issues, of course, are the most important thing, but I also think that things like character and experience are extremely important, too. People can change their positions as they go through life -- I've changed my own position on some issues over the past couple years -- but character and experience are permanent. Let's take the issues first. As I see it, the most important issues at this point in time are national security, growing the economy, illegal immigration, judicial nominations, and promoting smaller government. To a lesser extent are abortion/stem cells (I know, I know, but wait until I explain) and global warming.
National Security
McCain seems to have the edge here, but not by as much as you'd think. While he's an undeniable war hero, there are some tarnishes on his shine. He wants to close Gitmo (and doesn't propose a good solution for the terrorists there) and he opposes measures like waterboarding to learn information that could save American lives. He likes to trumpet the fact that he was the only one who supported the surge years ago, but that's not quite true. He was one of the major voices for it, yes, but to say he was the only one is a bit of a stretch. His record is hideously weak on closing the borders, which is a HUGE national security risk. Quite honestly, I don't believe him when he says he will secure the border. He's never shown any sign of willingness to do that, and several of his current top campaign advisers are rabid open-borders fanatics. If he had really 'heard the American people', would he surround himself with people like that?
Romney doesn't really have a record on national security issues that I can determine because he's never really been in a position to have one. I saw one pundit observe that this was usually a good sign in politicians - if they don't know the topic well, they won't speak out until they learn more about it. His current statements and positions are solid, though, and he does have executive experience in Massachusetts dealing with crime, and I haven't heard a single complaint about that experience. It seems logical that protecting a state from crime should translate fairly well into protecting a nation from foreign adversaries. There's a lot of conceptual overlap there.
Growing the Economy
From what I've seen, McCain has a decent history of keeping government smaller. However, he did not support Bush's tax cuts, and has publicly said (on Meet the Press) that he would oppose making those tax cuts permanent (of course, he then pledged in this week's debate that he would support making those tax cuts permanent, but I'll deal with that in a moment). As any informed person would know, tax cuts are a huge stimulant for the economy, and Bush's tax cuts are what pulled us out of the recession after 9/11 and spurred six years of major growth. The fact that McCain opposes such measures is strange to me. McCain is also on record as saying things like business experience isn't necessary for effective governing and Wall Street (meaning successful, wealthy Americans) needs to be punished. These are not economic warm fuzzies.
Romney, on the other hand, has a history of success in both business and government. He understands the economics of job creation and streamlining efficiencies and has proved his ability to make smart business decisions through his track record. Listening to economic points in the last debate, it was a no-brainer that Romney knows far, far more about the economy than McCain, and I have no doubt that he would make smart decisions about our economy. He supports tax cuts, the end of the death tax, and entitlement reform (he illustrated in the last debate that the entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are on pace to take up almost 3/4 of the national budget in the near future!). These are huge, huge, huge items on the economic horizon, and the next President will have to be able to deal with them. I believe Romney can.
Illegal Immigration
Everyone knows McCain's an open-borders hack that tried to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He's said he would do it again, too. He's always been soft on border security, he's always been soft on illegal immigration, and he currently employs open-borders fanatics as some of his top advisers. There is no question that McCain would be every bit as bad as either Clinton or Obama on this, maybe worse.
Romney, on the other hand, has no such history. His plan calls for the registering of all illegals, and immediately deporting all those who are recently arrived (this raises the question of how we determine how long they've been here, though, which I think is darn near impossible). For those who've put down some roots, he advocates a certain period of time (a few months, perhaps) to close up their affairs, sell their house, etc. before they will be required to leave. They'd have to get in line behind everyone else already waiting to come back in. He also favors securing the borders, which is an absolute must for any serious immigration reform. It's not a perfect plan, but one I could live with. It's infinitely better than McCain's history and position.
Judicial Nominations
I believe judicial nominations are absolutely critical to the proper functioning of our country. I've blogged about this many times in the past, but there is something wrong with a single activist judge overruling the vast majority (sometimes as much as 70%) of the American people on important issues like defining marriage, military maneuvers off our coasts, and property rights. Judges should never -- EVER! -- re-write the law to match their own agenda. If they want to do that, they need to run for Congress. Their responsibility is to interpret the law as it already exists. Originalist judges (who stick to the original interpretation of the Constitution rather than looking at it as a living, evolving document) do just that. McCain has expressed concerns over Samuel Alito, a brilliant originalist judge appointed by Bush to the Supreme Court. While he might make some good nominations if he were President, I have doubts that McCain will come through in spades like Bush has. Another problem here is that McCain led the Gang of 14, a group of Senators that essentially roadblocked judicial nominations unless the nominees' personal beliefs met with their approval. That's abusing his position in the Senate, in my opinion. Add to that the McCain-Feingold Act, which was a direct assault on the 1st Amendment, preventing free speech against incumbent politicians close to elections.
Romney supported Roberts and Alito, and has pledged to make nominations similar to them if he were President. Done deal.
Smaller Government
I don't think anyone would disagree that Washington has critical problems. They are hopelessly out of touch with the American people, and they are very much led around by lobbyists. McCain has done a fair job of limiting the spread of the government, but he is a career politician. To my knowledge, he's never had a job outside of politics. He's not from the world you and I live in. He's an insider, accepted by the left-wing media and liberals alike. Is the friend of my enemy my friend? Or is the friend of my enemy my enemy?
Romney, in an extreme contrast, is an outsider. He has stellar business and governing credentials, but is not tainted by Washington politics. His own wealth has allowed him to remain largely un-indebted to lobbyist groups while campaigning. He will provide a set of new eyes on things, and hopefully begin the process of cleaning that place up. He'll face a severe uphill battle, of course, but there is no question in my mind that he would provide a better representative for the American people in the alternate universe that is Washington, D.C.
Abortion/Stem Cells
To my knowledge, both McCain and Romney oppose abortion and stem cell research (although McCain would allow research done on existing stem cell lines, much like Bush did). Romney ran for governor in Massachusetts as pro-abortion, but he got complaints about acting pro-life from those same abortion groups, so I'd say that that combined with his Mormon background are a pretty solid footing. It's a wash. And, keep in mind that the President really doesn't have a lot to do with the abortion debate. He can advocate, of course, but he doesn't set the policy. The only real power the President has to affect this issue is by his judicial nominations, and a strict originalist judge should support pushing the abortion debate back to the states, where it belongs. See my previous blog about that for more details.
Global Warming
McCain is firmly on the hyped-up bandwagon for global warming hysteria. In the debate earlier this week, he put it this way: if he's wrong about global warming, the worst that can happen is that we improve emissions, reduce greenhouse gases, etc., and that's all good stuff; if he's right about it, global warming legislation could save the world (McCain is a named sponsor of a major bill currently under consideration). You'll be shocked to know I think that's a really stupid way of looking at it. For starters, every piece of global warming legislation ever devised has hammered at economic and free market growth, some more than others. The whole idea of global warming is anti-capitalist and anti-business, usually targeting America specifically. McCain's position on this is not only damaging to the country, but it is the ultimate CYA, and he even admits it. McCain also opposes drilling for oil in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), which is one very simple way we can begin reducing our dependence on foreign oil. If you have concerns about drilling in ANWR, don't: it's a wasteland where NASA sometimes tests out equipment intended for use on the moon, and the proposed drilling site is a mere few hundred acres (out of thousands and thousands of acres out there).
As far as I can tell, Romney doesn't buy the global warming hype. He doesn't appear given to knee-jerk legislation to satisfy environmentalist wackos, and I believe his business sense will help keep him steady on this important issue.
So, those are the issues. What about experience? McCain has lots of experience in Washington. To me, this is a bad thing, so it's an automatic edge for Romney, who has no shortage on executive leadership experience himself. Character? Do you trust a man with a legendary temper to run the country safely? McCain has cussed out his fellow Republicans on more than one occasion. I know he's a war hero, but that doesn't mean he and his positions are exempt from any and all questioning. Michael Reagan (the son of Ronald Reagan) has it pegged:
McCain's integrity has completely fallen off the map. He's descended into thinly veiled slurs against Romney (casually accusing him of laying off employees) and telling outright lies (accusing Romney of supporting timetables for withdrawal in Iraq), among other things. I have to say that Romney has greatly impressed me with his steadfast refusal to attack McCain in kind, instead attacking McCain's positions, policies, and record. At the same time, Romney is not afraid to defend himself strongly while keeping things professional. That combination of self-restraint and internal fire speaks volumes to me about Romney's character, and that's the kind of person I want leading the country. I'm not at all concerned that he is a Mormon - we've had deists, Christians, Catholics, and who knows what else in the Oval Office over the years, and we're still a Christian nation. As long as the President has a healthy respect for the Constitution, my religious faith and yours will be protected. We're electing a President, not a spiritual leader.
So, this is why I've thrown my lot in with Romney. There is no doubt that McCain will be a Diet Democrat, and whether it's him or Clinton or Obama in the Oval Office, the country will hit hard times due to their stupid and self-destructive liberal policies. I believe that if we are to have any chance at a sane President who will keep America on a track for prosperity and freedom, and any chance at salvaging conservative values in America, Romney is the only choice left to us right now.
There's my two cents.
[Just for the record, I'm not a blind sheep - I wrote this before posting today's message about conservatives closing ranks against McCain...I have no proof, so you'll just have to take my word for it!]
Let me share my thought process with you. First, let's be real. Huckabee and Ron Paul don't have a realistic chance at winning. Ron Paul has lots of money but negligible support, and Huckabee probably won't get more than 10-15% of the vote next Tuesday. Even if either of them was viable, I couldn't support them. Some of Ron Paul's policies are just this side of insanity, so he's out of the question. Huckabee has plenty of positives, but on several important issues what he says now and what his record shows just don't line up (and the changes are recent, not progressive over time). He's also been relying heavily on identity politics, which is a distinctly liberal tactic used primarily by Democrats. Frankly, that makes my toenails curl backward, and is the final nail in the coffin. So, my decision is between McCain and Romney.
There are several components to my decision. The issues, of course, are the most important thing, but I also think that things like character and experience are extremely important, too. People can change their positions as they go through life -- I've changed my own position on some issues over the past couple years -- but character and experience are permanent. Let's take the issues first. As I see it, the most important issues at this point in time are national security, growing the economy, illegal immigration, judicial nominations, and promoting smaller government. To a lesser extent are abortion/stem cells (I know, I know, but wait until I explain) and global warming.
National Security
McCain seems to have the edge here, but not by as much as you'd think. While he's an undeniable war hero, there are some tarnishes on his shine. He wants to close Gitmo (and doesn't propose a good solution for the terrorists there) and he opposes measures like waterboarding to learn information that could save American lives. He likes to trumpet the fact that he was the only one who supported the surge years ago, but that's not quite true. He was one of the major voices for it, yes, but to say he was the only one is a bit of a stretch. His record is hideously weak on closing the borders, which is a HUGE national security risk. Quite honestly, I don't believe him when he says he will secure the border. He's never shown any sign of willingness to do that, and several of his current top campaign advisers are rabid open-borders fanatics. If he had really 'heard the American people', would he surround himself with people like that?
Romney doesn't really have a record on national security issues that I can determine because he's never really been in a position to have one. I saw one pundit observe that this was usually a good sign in politicians - if they don't know the topic well, they won't speak out until they learn more about it. His current statements and positions are solid, though, and he does have executive experience in Massachusetts dealing with crime, and I haven't heard a single complaint about that experience. It seems logical that protecting a state from crime should translate fairly well into protecting a nation from foreign adversaries. There's a lot of conceptual overlap there.
Growing the Economy
From what I've seen, McCain has a decent history of keeping government smaller. However, he did not support Bush's tax cuts, and has publicly said (on Meet the Press) that he would oppose making those tax cuts permanent (of course, he then pledged in this week's debate that he would support making those tax cuts permanent, but I'll deal with that in a moment). As any informed person would know, tax cuts are a huge stimulant for the economy, and Bush's tax cuts are what pulled us out of the recession after 9/11 and spurred six years of major growth. The fact that McCain opposes such measures is strange to me. McCain is also on record as saying things like business experience isn't necessary for effective governing and Wall Street (meaning successful, wealthy Americans) needs to be punished. These are not economic warm fuzzies.
Romney, on the other hand, has a history of success in both business and government. He understands the economics of job creation and streamlining efficiencies and has proved his ability to make smart business decisions through his track record. Listening to economic points in the last debate, it was a no-brainer that Romney knows far, far more about the economy than McCain, and I have no doubt that he would make smart decisions about our economy. He supports tax cuts, the end of the death tax, and entitlement reform (he illustrated in the last debate that the entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are on pace to take up almost 3/4 of the national budget in the near future!). These are huge, huge, huge items on the economic horizon, and the next President will have to be able to deal with them. I believe Romney can.
Illegal Immigration
Everyone knows McCain's an open-borders hack that tried to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He's said he would do it again, too. He's always been soft on border security, he's always been soft on illegal immigration, and he currently employs open-borders fanatics as some of his top advisers. There is no question that McCain would be every bit as bad as either Clinton or Obama on this, maybe worse.
Romney, on the other hand, has no such history. His plan calls for the registering of all illegals, and immediately deporting all those who are recently arrived (this raises the question of how we determine how long they've been here, though, which I think is darn near impossible). For those who've put down some roots, he advocates a certain period of time (a few months, perhaps) to close up their affairs, sell their house, etc. before they will be required to leave. They'd have to get in line behind everyone else already waiting to come back in. He also favors securing the borders, which is an absolute must for any serious immigration reform. It's not a perfect plan, but one I could live with. It's infinitely better than McCain's history and position.
Judicial Nominations
I believe judicial nominations are absolutely critical to the proper functioning of our country. I've blogged about this many times in the past, but there is something wrong with a single activist judge overruling the vast majority (sometimes as much as 70%) of the American people on important issues like defining marriage, military maneuvers off our coasts, and property rights. Judges should never -- EVER! -- re-write the law to match their own agenda. If they want to do that, they need to run for Congress. Their responsibility is to interpret the law as it already exists. Originalist judges (who stick to the original interpretation of the Constitution rather than looking at it as a living, evolving document) do just that. McCain has expressed concerns over Samuel Alito, a brilliant originalist judge appointed by Bush to the Supreme Court. While he might make some good nominations if he were President, I have doubts that McCain will come through in spades like Bush has. Another problem here is that McCain led the Gang of 14, a group of Senators that essentially roadblocked judicial nominations unless the nominees' personal beliefs met with their approval. That's abusing his position in the Senate, in my opinion. Add to that the McCain-Feingold Act, which was a direct assault on the 1st Amendment, preventing free speech against incumbent politicians close to elections.
Romney supported Roberts and Alito, and has pledged to make nominations similar to them if he were President. Done deal.
Smaller Government
I don't think anyone would disagree that Washington has critical problems. They are hopelessly out of touch with the American people, and they are very much led around by lobbyists. McCain has done a fair job of limiting the spread of the government, but he is a career politician. To my knowledge, he's never had a job outside of politics. He's not from the world you and I live in. He's an insider, accepted by the left-wing media and liberals alike. Is the friend of my enemy my friend? Or is the friend of my enemy my enemy?
Romney, in an extreme contrast, is an outsider. He has stellar business and governing credentials, but is not tainted by Washington politics. His own wealth has allowed him to remain largely un-indebted to lobbyist groups while campaigning. He will provide a set of new eyes on things, and hopefully begin the process of cleaning that place up. He'll face a severe uphill battle, of course, but there is no question in my mind that he would provide a better representative for the American people in the alternate universe that is Washington, D.C.
Abortion/Stem Cells
To my knowledge, both McCain and Romney oppose abortion and stem cell research (although McCain would allow research done on existing stem cell lines, much like Bush did). Romney ran for governor in Massachusetts as pro-abortion, but he got complaints about acting pro-life from those same abortion groups, so I'd say that that combined with his Mormon background are a pretty solid footing. It's a wash. And, keep in mind that the President really doesn't have a lot to do with the abortion debate. He can advocate, of course, but he doesn't set the policy. The only real power the President has to affect this issue is by his judicial nominations, and a strict originalist judge should support pushing the abortion debate back to the states, where it belongs. See my previous blog about that for more details.
Global Warming
McCain is firmly on the hyped-up bandwagon for global warming hysteria. In the debate earlier this week, he put it this way: if he's wrong about global warming, the worst that can happen is that we improve emissions, reduce greenhouse gases, etc., and that's all good stuff; if he's right about it, global warming legislation could save the world (McCain is a named sponsor of a major bill currently under consideration). You'll be shocked to know I think that's a really stupid way of looking at it. For starters, every piece of global warming legislation ever devised has hammered at economic and free market growth, some more than others. The whole idea of global warming is anti-capitalist and anti-business, usually targeting America specifically. McCain's position on this is not only damaging to the country, but it is the ultimate CYA, and he even admits it. McCain also opposes drilling for oil in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), which is one very simple way we can begin reducing our dependence on foreign oil. If you have concerns about drilling in ANWR, don't: it's a wasteland where NASA sometimes tests out equipment intended for use on the moon, and the proposed drilling site is a mere few hundred acres (out of thousands and thousands of acres out there).
As far as I can tell, Romney doesn't buy the global warming hype. He doesn't appear given to knee-jerk legislation to satisfy environmentalist wackos, and I believe his business sense will help keep him steady on this important issue.
So, those are the issues. What about experience? McCain has lots of experience in Washington. To me, this is a bad thing, so it's an automatic edge for Romney, who has no shortage on executive leadership experience himself. Character? Do you trust a man with a legendary temper to run the country safely? McCain has cussed out his fellow Republicans on more than one occasion. I know he's a war hero, but that doesn't mean he and his positions are exempt from any and all questioning. Michael Reagan (the son of Ronald Reagan) has it pegged:
I don't like the way he treats people. You get the impression that he thinks everybody is beneath him. He seems to be saying, "I was a war hero, and you had damn well better treat me as your superior."
He has contempt for conservatives who he thinks can be duped into thinking he's one of them, despite [his] blatantly anti-conservative actions.
McCain's integrity has completely fallen off the map. He's descended into thinly veiled slurs against Romney (casually accusing him of laying off employees) and telling outright lies (accusing Romney of supporting timetables for withdrawal in Iraq), among other things. I have to say that Romney has greatly impressed me with his steadfast refusal to attack McCain in kind, instead attacking McCain's positions, policies, and record. At the same time, Romney is not afraid to defend himself strongly while keeping things professional. That combination of self-restraint and internal fire speaks volumes to me about Romney's character, and that's the kind of person I want leading the country. I'm not at all concerned that he is a Mormon - we've had deists, Christians, Catholics, and who knows what else in the Oval Office over the years, and we're still a Christian nation. As long as the President has a healthy respect for the Constitution, my religious faith and yours will be protected. We're electing a President, not a spiritual leader.
So, this is why I've thrown my lot in with Romney. There is no doubt that McCain will be a Diet Democrat, and whether it's him or Clinton or Obama in the Oval Office, the country will hit hard times due to their stupid and self-destructive liberal policies. I believe that if we are to have any chance at a sane President who will keep America on a track for prosperity and freedom, and any chance at salvaging conservative values in America, Romney is the only choice left to us right now.
There's my two cents.
Closing Ranks Against McCain
Though the media would have you believe otherwise, many prominent conservatives are closing ranks against McCain, in support of Romney.
What it comes down to is that Republicans now have a clear cut choice: it's either McCain or Romney. The facts and the records speak for themselves, and they are no longer hidden or murky. McCain will vastly accelerate the leftward slide that the GOP has been experiencing for several years, whereas Romney will go a long way toward righting it. Don't kid yourself that a vote for Huckabee or Paul is actually a vote for Huckabee or Paul. The reality is that any vote that isn't for Romney (including a withheld vote) is actually a vote in favor of McCain.
There's my two cents.
- Hugh Hewitt has long been a Romney supporter, but he also reports on a big-time conservative endorsement from former Senator Rick Santorum and calls on other big name former politicians to do the same.
- Michael Reagan slams McCain for being so far from his father's legacy.
- Anne Coulter pledges to endorse Hillary Clinton (and campaign for her) if McCain wins the GOP nomination.
- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin have all sliced and diced McCain's supposed conservative positions on any number of issues.
- Even Democrats admit that McCain came within a hair's breath of changing parties back in 2001.
What it comes down to is that Republicans now have a clear cut choice: it's either McCain or Romney. The facts and the records speak for themselves, and they are no longer hidden or murky. McCain will vastly accelerate the leftward slide that the GOP has been experiencing for several years, whereas Romney will go a long way toward righting it. Don't kid yourself that a vote for Huckabee or Paul is actually a vote for Huckabee or Paul. The reality is that any vote that isn't for Romney (including a withheld vote) is actually a vote in favor of McCain.
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)