In Cases Like This Everyone Loses

This is really a travesty of the democratic process. It appears that Norm Coleman will be unseated by Al Franken in MN. If you read the article you can go through the laundry list of remarkable partisanship and inconsistencies by the state elections board and the AG Mark Ritchie.

When elections are illegitimate, everyone loses. When the results are so tainted by shady dealings and armies of lawyers, people lose faith in the process. The legitimacy of either candidate comes into serious question and will continue to undermine them as they try and do the job that needs to be done.

It will undoubtedly go to court and will just get more distorted from here.

There really need to be national election standards.

What this election is all about

There is a great post at HumanEvents.com that eloquently and accurately states what this election is all about.

I highly recommend it.

Ouch!

Ouch for Hillary on the election yesterday. Losing WI by 17%, that's gotta hurt. Obama is now 10-0. Hillary has to win something and soon. Ohio and Texas are the next heavy hitters where Clinton still holds a small lead in the polls... but will it last.

So... forget the gloves... here come the brass knuckles.

I love it when the democratic attack machine turns against itself!

McCain vs. Hillary vs. Obama (and a BILLION bucks)

Now this would truly be a crazy senario. But, truly beautiful in my opinion.

The whole thing is outlined here.

This is the short version. Hillary hoses Obama out of the Dem nomination using law suits over MI and FL, and shmoozing superdelegates. Obama jumps out of the Dem party and brings Bloomberg (NY mayor, former RINO, now Independent) onto the ticket along with a BILLION bucks of Bloomberg's own money (don't worry he's loaded).

What would happen then?

It might actually be McCain's best bet.

Hmmmm....

This is the bad news...

Hillary's done. All the crying in the world isn't going to pull her out of this one.

The Obamania (I just made that up:) is going to roll over her like a freight train right down to the wire. He swept the weekend and has all the momentum that she ever hoped for.

The worst part is that he will only excite the Dems. I have been hearing the same STUPID thing from Republicans over and over, "well, I'm not voting for McCain... I might even vote for Obama!"

THAT'S MORONIC!!!

I totally understand people saying, we'll let the Dems ruin the country and it will swing the pendulum back to the conservatives. Which, sounds like a great idea, until you think of the immense and immeasurable DAMAGE that can be done with a Democratically controlled House, Senate and one of the most LIBERAL presidents (if not THE most) in history.

How do you stop Universal Healthcare once you have it? That's one of the biggest and primary things on Hussein's agenda.

Do we go back into Iraq in four years after Al Queda has been using it as a training base for four years when he pulls ALL of the troops out?

Is anybody actually LISTENING to this guy? I understand the Republican party needing a lesson in who they are. And I understand the country needing a lesson in what is good and bad, but how many people have to DIE for a lesson to be learned?

Where would the next terror target be?

What would Hussein do if Iran nuked Israel?

For that matter, what would he do if Iran invaded Iraq? How many millions would die in that one?

What about the government funding of abortions overseas? Something that Bush cut off when he came in. How many babies have to be killed with American tax dollars before we get the point?

For that matter, what if Stevens, Kennedy and Ginsberg all retire or die while he's president and he nominates three of the most liberal, pro-abortion judges the court has ever seen? I'll bet he would be going for younger justices. Just like Bush did. They are life time appointees, so how long would we have to live with abortion on demand in this country? How many MILLIONS have to die for this lesson?

The economy will suffer... I understand that, but that is the least of my concerns. The amount of LIVES LOST is what gives me nightmares... literally.

I'm sorry, I just don't think we can chance learning this one. I'm not a McCain fan, but for goodness sake, we've got to put him in there, if nothing else to avoid the alternatives.

In the meantime we better be finding the true conservatives and putting everything behind them. Get the REAL conservatives in the congress.... NOW!!

The first question of any president... are they a moral person?

Barack Obama (D)
Background: Current U.S. senator from Illinois (2005-2008)
Candidate declares himself: Pro-Choice
NARAL Pro-choice America Ranking: 100%
"Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade."
- 1998 Planned Parenthood surveyAbortion: Wants Roe v Wade UPHELD.
Voted AGAINST the Partial-birth Abortion Ban.
Voted AGAINST the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which requires medical care for aborted fetuses that survive abortion attempts.
CO-SPONSORED “The Freedom of Choice Act” that would have codified Roe v Wade into federal law
Human Life Amendment: AGAINST ratifying a human life amendment
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Voted FOR expanding embryonic stem cell research, Co-sponsored the 2005 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
Anti-life Public Funding: Voted FOR public funding of some abortions

Hillary Clinton (D)
Background: Former First Lady 1992-2000,
U.S. Senator from New York; elected 2000; reelected 2006
Candidate declares herself: Pro-Choice
NARAL Pro-choice America Ranking: 100 %
“Our core beliefs and values can guide us through our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare through the next century.” - Remarks to NARAL Pro-Choice America Rally, 1999
Abortion: Wants Roe v Wade UPHELD.
Voted AGAINST the partial-birth abortion ban.
CO-SPONSORED “The Freedom of Choice Act” that would have codified Roe v Wade into federal law
Human Life Amendment: AGAINST ratifying a human life amendment
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: FOR expanding embryonic stem cell research
Anti-life Public Funding: FOR public funding of some abortions and embryonic stem cell research

John McCain (R)
Background: U.S. Representative from Arizona, 1983-1987
U.S. Senator from Arizona, elected 1986; reelected 1992, 1998, 2004
Candidate declares himself: Pro-Life
NARAL Pro-choice America Ranking: 2%
“I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend to the right-to-life movement. The pro-life movement appeals to the best instincts within each and every one of us.” - Address to the 35th annual March for Life in Washington D.C.
Abortion: Wants Roe v Wade OVERTURNED. Opposed to abortion but believes it should be available in the case of rape or incest.
Voted FOR the Partial-birth Abortion Ban.
Voted FOR parental notification of minors seeking an abortion
Human Life Amendment: FOR a Human Life Amendment, but with exceptions to allow abortion in the case of rape or incest (from a 2006 interview with George Stephanopolous)Embryonic Stem Cell Research: FOR embryonic stem cell research
Anti-life Public Funding: Voted AGAINST public funding of abortions,
Voted FOR funding embryonic stem cell and fetal tissue research

Mitt Romney (R)
Background: Former governor of Massachusetts from 2002-2006
Candidate declares himself: Pro-Life
Candidate described as “anti-choice” by NARAL Pro-Choice America"
I am pro-life . . . the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." - Mitt Romney, Boston Globe, Op-Ed, July 26, 2005
Abortion: Previously declared a pro-choice position prior to 2002. Now wants Roe v Wade OVERTURNED. In December of 2005 he ordered all public and private hospitals in Massachusetts to make emergency contraception, or the “morning-after pill,” available to rape victims
Human Life Amendment: "Would be delighted" to sign a federal ban on all abortions (November 2007 GOP Youtube Debate), previously stated he would not call for a federal ban on abortions.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: AGAINST embryonic stem cell research or human cloning, FOR research using surplus embryos from IVF clinics
Anti-life Public Funding: AGAINST public funding of abortions and VETOED funding of embryonic stem cell research in 2005

Find more info here.

Interesting stuff

Some really interesting stuff happened last night. It did not bode well for Hillary or Mitt (even though he got MY vote :)

An interesting thing on the exit poll demographics though, hispanics broke for Hillary and pretty much bailed her out in CA.

Very interesting.

Where did all those hispanic votes come from? Why didn't they break for Obama like other minorities?

Part Three

Part 3 of 3
Now let’s take a look at Mitt Romney
Social Conservatism:
- The only firm candidate on this subject, that had any reasonable prospect was Huckabee. He hasn’t changed on this issue, ever, as far as I can find. Romney has. Romney campaigned for the governorship of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate. He now says that he is pro-life. The question is, does he mean it and what does it matter. The main things that the next president will do to get rid of, or advance abortion in this country will be in two areas. The first would be rolling back the limitations and funding cuts that Reagan put in place, Bill Clinton rescinded and George Bush put BACK in place. All of the democrats have pledged to do this. The second would be to appoint constructionist judges of the same type as Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas, justices who know the Constitution and the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution and don’t put things into it that simply aren’t there. They don’t pull from international law and they don’t view the Constitution as a living/evolving document. This will be crucial. Romney has pledged to appoint such men. It is worth noting that the next president will probably get to pick two more Supreme Court justices in addition to numerous appellate court justices. If you can remember back (before I was born), once upon a time Ronald Reagan was not only a democrat, but himself changed on the life issue. He changed firmly, decisively and never went back. Do we trust Romney to do the same?

Fiscal Conservative:
- Romney has signed a pledge NOT to raise taxes. He has been highly critical of government spending. He has a long history of running business and running them well. He bailed out the Olympic debacle and turned it around. All good things. I think of all of the candidates he would do the best in this area and the main issue in this election has become the economy. I don’t know that he would make serious progress, but I think he would push us a little further in the right direction.

National Defense Conservative:
- Romney seems to have a firm grasp on the issue of who are enemies are and how they need to be treated. Contrary to what the McCain camp has been saying about him, he has been solidly behind the surge in Iraq and seems to have an aptitude for cleaning up organization messes. He has a firm grasp on the illegal immigration issue and is pushing heavily for border enforcement. All in all, pretty solid.

Over all:
- Romney has a problem with his image and comes across as “too perfect” or even “plastic” and so some people don’t like him. To me that makes about as much sense as voting for McCain because his wife is pretty. The fact is that while he hasn’t been the most consistent candidate over his entire political career, he has governed and he has led and he has done both well. He knows the economy and his stance on most issues is inside the walls of the conservative spectrum. Is he a 100% conservative? No (I would say Reagan was a 95%), but neither is McCain. I would give McCain about an 80% and Romney about a 88%.

When it comes down to the final straw, quite frankly I think that Romney is the better hope for something better. I think he would handle the economy better than Bush has and I think he would be just as tough on AQ, Iran and all of the other bad guys out there that hate America. He's not a Reagan. He doesn't have the charisma, the poise or the presence the RR did.

McCain is lacking in all of these areas as well. He does have a certain charm and roughness, but it's just as likely to tick people off as it is to make them laugh. McCain is a centrist in the truest sense of the word and regularly likes to jab his fellow Reps just for spite.

As you can see, I'm not really thrilled with either of the choices this time around. I have heard and understand the idea that maybe we need a Jimmy Carter so that we can get another RR, but I'm concerned that a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress could do an almost immeasurable amount of damage to our economy, healthcare system and national defense. Obama and Clinton would both take us further down a socialist track. Universal Healthcare will bankrupt this country and destroy a highly functional system. Once you go down that track, it's almost impossible to come back, i.e. Social Security.

Ugh. I think either Romney or McCain can beat Hillary. I'd rather it be Romney, but having Hillary on the ticket would be enough to energize the Rep base to get out to vote against her. Obama is a different deal. He scares me. If it's even possible, he is MORE liberal than Hillary but infinitely more charismatic and magnetic. People aren't looking at his ideas, they are listening to his dribble and watching Oprah fawn all over him. They think he is JFK re-incarnated, but ignore the fact that he is the polar OPPOSITE of almost everything JFK stood for. JFK asked "not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Obama asks, what do you want this country to go bankrupt to give you?

Democrats are following the Saul Alinski playbook. Tell people they are miserable. Give them a target for their misery and then tell them that you will save them. Class envy/warfare at it's worst.

Big News Last Night and Early This Morning

Guiliani and Edwards are out.

This has HUGE implications. It pretty much shores up the nomination for McCain, since at least 70% of Rudy's support will go toward McCain, particularly after his endorsement that will probably come this morning. I would also anticipate some type of position for Rudy. My thoughts here look more and more plausible. Romney needs to act fast or he's done for and it may already be too late.

The EVEN more interesting development was Edwards dropping out this morning. Big surprise since he had indicated he was in for the long haul. I definitely didn't anticipate this until after Super Tuesday. This definitely smells like a deal between him and the Obama camp, who will GREATLY benefit from Edwards pulling out. The rumor mill is talking Attorney General John Edwards... wow that was a frightening thought. Anyway, I would say a vast majority, if not ALL of Edwards support will go to Obama because it is part of the "anti-Hillary" vote. I won't say that this will have Obama winning the nomination. I would bet that Hill-Bill still has a dagger or two they haven't thrown yet, although it will be a surprise when it does come. They've already played the feminist card, the race card, the drug card, the slum lord card, the "present" voting record card... Geesh, what could be left?

This race is definitely going to be one for the history books.

Part Two

Part Two
Reagan made all kinds of excellent points, because he was a very clear, very principled thinker who knew how to win because he knew how to lead. The ideas and principles of conservatism are alive and well today. The reason most Republicans are having a hard time with the current candidates is because none of them are what people have been calling “real conservatives”. However, remember what the Gipper use to say:
- Who is the most conservative person we have that can be elected?
- Someone who agrees with me 70% of the time is my friend not my enemy.

So based on that let’s look at those who are electable.

Unfortunately from what I can see there are only two left that really have a shot and they are McCain and Romney.

So let’s look at McCain:
Social Conservatism:
- Good record for being pro-life. However, he has made several public statements saying that Roe v Wade should not be overturned. This is disturbing at best. His record of “reaching across the aisle” also disturbs me on this one. Quite frankly the main thing that we need from a president on this one is someone who will nominate strict constructionist judges who will uphold the original intent of the constitution. McCain was a leader of the “Gang of 14”. As one of the seven Republicans he negotiated a deal with Democrats. Now, this deal did get us Roberts and Alito, but it left the UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice of filibustering judicial nominees intact. I give him a mixed review on this one, though leaning toward the positive.

Fiscal Conservatism:
- Again, somewhat of a mixed review. He traditionally resists pork and has vowed to veto any bill with pork in it. This is a good first step. He has also said that he will cut spending in the federal government. All sounds good. However he voted against the Bush tax cuts that were desperately needed and backs the global warming movement that could be very dangerous to our economy and is based on emotion rather than scientific fact. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t research alternative fuels. I think that’s a great idea for businesses to do. But it’s not the job of the federal government and restrictive environmental policies are damaging to our economy. He also voted against environmentally friendly development of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, that would help to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Again, a pretty mixed review.

National Defense Conservatism:
- Still a mixed bag, although I have to give McCain a lot of credit on this one. He knows what is at stake in the war on terror and in Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don’t know how his very loose border policy can be good for national defense when terrorists can just march across. He has listened to the people (at least a little) on this one and is saying that he will build a fence and beef up security first. This is a lot better than the failed immigration bill last summer.

Over all:
- McCain is a war hero. He suffered terribly for this country over years. He had the opportunity to come home at one point, but refused to leave without his other brothers in arms and continued to suffer because of his decision including horrible injuries and multiple broken bones. He is a very straight talking person for the most part, despite over two decades in Washington. He will do what he thinks is right, no matter what the implications are. That is the sign of a leader and McCain is definitely a leader. He has supported some bad stuff over the years. McCain-Feingold hid more of the money in politics instead of getting it out. The McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill last summer was a disaster. I’m not sure how great he would be for the Republican Party or the conservative cause. But, I do know he would be better than ANY of the Dems who would all take us further toward secular socialism, bigger government, higher taxes, pro-abortion judges and a destroyed healthcare system.

As Super Tuesday Approaches: Part One of Three

Part One of Three:

People have asked me recently who they should vote for. My answer is, “well, I’m not sure who YOU should vote for, because that’s YOUR decision.”

However, I thought it would be useful to give you my low down and tell you how my thought process works.

First of all, looking at all of the candidates, much to my dismay, Ronald Reagan isn’t running this time. That’s probably obvious to everyone, but the fact is that RR was the head of a movement, the conservative movement. The basis of the movement was and is this:

Social Conservatism:
o Life is sacred. Whether that be the life of a mother of two kids or the life of an unborn child. Whether that be a 90 year old with Alzheimer’s or a baby that is going to be born with a mental handicap. All life is sacred because God made it sacred.
o This country was founded on Christian principles. That doesn’t make it the national religion, but it does mean that it is historically accurate to talk about it.
o The best thing for this country is to maintain the institution of marriage. One man, one woman. That’s the way it was always meant to be. It is not the job of the government to step in and redefine it.

Fiscal Conservatism:
o Lower taxes + lower government spending = Economic prosperity for all
o This is a Federalist system. You can go back and read 85 essays on how the founding fathers interpreted and meant by the constitution. Everyone should read it. The federal government did not create the states, the states created the federal government.
o The government has certain things that it was created to do, most everything else can and should be cut or cut back.

National Defense Conservatism:
o The primary responsibility of the President and the federal government is to protect the people.
o We can negotiate with other countries only when we can negotiate from a position of strength. Basically, we need to be THE military might in the world. We need to know who our friends are and stand by them. We need to know who our enemies are and stand against them.

Now, like I said these are principles of a movement. No one man will follow them perfectly. Even Reagan himself had at least a hand full of mistakes on these principles, but by far followed them better than any other president that we have had.

So what if...

Thoughts were just buzzing around my big giant head and I suddenly had an idea. Don't worry, I didn't hurt myself.

What if Romney calls up Huckabee and asked him to be his running mate? Then they go up in the polls. What if McCain then asked Guiliani to be his running mate? Hmmm... that could be REALLY interesting.... I like it.

Good bye, Fred

After a dissappointing third place finish in SC, Fred has announced that he is out. His mother is ill in Tennessee and, well , he was just never really into it.

Romney is in the lead as far as delegates are concerned. McCain is in the lead as far as polling is concerned.

Florida is going to be a huge deal and based on that, some interesting things could happen. Mitt could call up Huckabee (who after failing to win SC, will start to fade) and ask him if he would be willing to pull out in exchange for a spot on the ticket. McCain could do the same, but I just don't see him doing that. Either way, something has to happen. The whole scenario up to this point has followed pretty close to what Rudy was wanting... right up until he ran out of money. Bummer for him. Right now it is looking like Florida will go to either Romney or McCain.

My two cents is that if nobody cuts a deal and Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Rudy all go into Florida without Fred... Romney is the winner. If you look at all of the candidates the only 90% conservative was Fred (just no passion). The next one pushing conservative values is Romney, even if he hasn't always followed them himself. However, the economy has become issue number one and this is a great issue for Romney. He knows what he is doing and if he can keep the outright PANDERING down to a minimum, he will do well (what was that $20 billion promise to MI all about... come on!) He is also the only one that will still have a positive balance in his bank account after Florida. You can't discount that.

McCain has a good record for limiting spending, but he voted against the tax cuts that bouyed the economy after Clinton. This didn't sit well with conservatives. Neither did McCain-Feingold or the McCain-Kennedy boarder fiasco last summer. Some conservatives will stomach McCain if they have to, but most would just as soon vote against him as for him. He has done well up to this point, but in most of these races independents could vote. Not Florida. Most of them were also a split on who gets the delegates. Not the sunshine state. All or nothing. Republicans only.

Now, if Rudy can finish second that might be enough to hold onto a lead in his home territory of NY/NJ.

Quite frankly this whole thing could come down to the wire! Wow! That's pretty exciting.

I'm hoping for a move by someone to pair up as a team and build a ticket. This could do a lot to change the race, but... we'll see.

On the other side... well, it's just a slug fest. The beauty is that in this fight you don't have to worry about your guy losing. We win with each blow! I'm jumping out of my chair with each shot! BEAUTIFUL!!! And good old Bill is having a HARD time staying in the background. Of course he is having an even harder time staying awake. Barack is taking it too personal. He needs to stay above the pettiness if he wants to maintain his composure.

Ahhh! Democrats beating up democrats. It's a beautiful thing.

No real surprises

Yesterday went pretty much as expected. Check out the results here. The media will be acting shocked all day today that Hillary beat Obama (not very decisively).

The biggest loser last night was Romney (obviously). If this gives McCain enough momentum to beat him in Michigan, where Huckabee and McCain are both coming up in the polls... put a fork in him, Romney will be done. He was very gracious in his speech, that was a class move. The second biggest loser was Thompson. 1100 more people came out to vote for Dennis Kucinich than Thompson. That's gotta hurt. He only got 1/6 the number of votes that Ron Paul got. Thompson is done. He has been banking on South Carolina, which I think will come down to Huckabee (the probable winner depending if he improves his performance in the next debate) and McCain. I expect Thompson to maybe get third. He'll call it quits after that. It would interesting to see who he puts his weight behind, if he actually had any supporters. Sorry Fred-heads.

Like I said, I wasn't surprised to see Hillary win last night. Relieved. But not surprised. I think she is the most un-electable candidate that the Dems have, so this was very good news. :)

So who won and who lost last night?

First of all here are the results.

For the Dems:
- Obama
- Edwards
- Hillary (ouch)

For the Reps:
- Huckabee
- Romney
- Thompson/McCain
- Paul (10% REALLY!?)
- Guiliani

Some quick observations.
- The real winners are #1 the Democrats. This whole thing does not bode well for Republicans because if you look at the number of voters, it's amazingly lop-sided. In many districts the numbers were at least 2 to 1 the number of Dems voting vs. the number of Reps and in some cases a 4 to 1 ratio. No bueno. What this means is that the Democratic base is energized. The Republicans... not.
- #2 winner is Obama. He slammed Hillary pretty good, but this isn't the end. Some people attack their opponents with Romney style shotguns. The Clintons? They use snipers and lots of them. Look for the gloves to come off. I think Hillary will still get the nomination. The real danger is if she kisses and makes up with Obama and asks him to be #2. That would be all kinds of no bueno.
- #3 winner is McCain. I know, he came in third. Well, when you are saying that you are going to cut farm subsidies on corn... you ain't going to win an Iowa caucus. Just isn't going to happen. Fiscal conservatives do like the message however and McCain is gaining momemtum... big time.

And on the flip side?
- #1 Loser? Romney. He's done. His last hope is to get the train back on the track in Michigan, which he should win anyway (his dad was a very popular governor there). Unfortunately the first three races are the only places he has spent money. He was banking on Iowa. McCain will take New Hampshire and get momentum for the rest of the primary. Watch Guiliani and Thompson supporters shift towards McCain. On that note...
- #2 Loser? Guiliani. He finished behind Ron Paul. Ouch. He wasn't doing hardly anything IN Iowa, but still... come on. If he doesn't pick up and win by Florida (1/29) he's done. The only way that it will swing his way then is if the other races get pretty evenly split or Romney somehow rebounds to win MI and NV and SC goes to Huckabee. Then he's got a shot... sort of. Quite frankly his message just doesn't appeal enough to the base social conservatives and he doesn't have the magnetism to inspire the fiscal and national defense conservatives to get out and vote for him over the other guys.
- #3 Loser? The Hair or Edwards as some call him. He's done. Always number two, never number one. The anti-Hillarys in the Dem party have there guy now and his name is Hussein. Edwards is done. His numbers will drop to the low teens pretty quick.

Huckabee? I don't know. The margin was certainly larger than expected. The only Republicans fired up about this thing at all are in his camp. Tough call. This definitely will give him a boost, but can he move it forward? I just don't know. I used to be excited about the guy but I've really kind of soured over the way he has stumbled with stupid comments and an extreme lack of foreign policy know how on handling countries like Iran, which is one of the HAVE to's of a president.

Okay... want a rash prediction? It will come down to Hillary v. McCain. The winner... I think would be McCain. I think the anti-Hillary vote would be enough to rally the Reps but not positive enough for the Dems to rally their base... unless Obama was the VP on the ticket, but I don't know if she or he would do it... who wants a their VP and their husband to get a better response from crowds than they do? I personally think that she would choose Richardson or another Dem governor, which won't help her that much.

That's my 2 cents. We'll know more in the next four weeks.

Exciting stuff... if you're a political geek like me.

Good site... a little biased, but good data

RealClearPolitics.com is the name of the site. I know, it's kind of an oxymoron, but they gather all of the latest poll data as it comes out and they compile it.

Some interesting stuff has happened in the last couple of weeks and even in the last couple of days. John McCain has come out of left field (pun?) to bring himself into a tie with Guilianni and Huckabee. Romney is slipping, but some still give him the best shot at getting the nomination.

In any case... 11 months out from election, this is how the match ups look.

Kind of makes you wonder... is there a difference in taking polls in order to answer the question of who people favor and taking polls in order to influence who people favor.

The other obvious point is that this represents the popular vote, which is not the one that counts. I wonder what the EC numbers look like.

Looking at these polls... I can understand some undecideds suddenly liking our AZ senator. I've personally never been a fan. I agree he is a great guy who has been through a lot. I'm not big on some of the stuff he has DONE. McCain/Feingold is a disaster. Fortunately he got cut off at the knees on immigration reform last summer. As for the rest... well, some of that appears to be developing... we'll see.

I've said it before

Ron Paul is a very interesting guy and has been able to raise some pretty noticeable amounts of money. Not sure what he is going to do with all of it when he loses (can you say Libertarian nominee?).

I LIKE a LOT of his ideas.

But some just scare me.

It's this kind of head in the sand foreign policy that has led to huge blunders in world history.

1. A president has to be moral (commonly called a 'social conservative').
2. A president has to show good judgement in order to be an effective commander-in-chief.

Pretty much everything else is a "should" rather than a "has to"
3. A president should be a fiscal conservative. Wise with money. Lower taxes rates = more revenue to the federal government. Cut the pork. Cuts across the board on spending. Cut entitlements. Pick whole unconstitutional establishments to do away with, the Department of Education would be high on my list. The IRS would be right next to them. FAIR TAX or FLAT TAX.
4. A president should push for smaller government. Less unnecessary regulation. America was built on 'liberty' NOT 'equality'. It's not the government's job to make poor people rich and rich people poor. First, they are not good at it and second, it's completely unconstitutional.
5. A president should preserve the sovereignty of our nation. This comes heavily into play during trade negotiations and border enforcement. We should have FAIR treaties for FAIR trade and they should be ENFORCED. We need a water tight border so that we KNOW who comes in and goes out of our country. Once we have a handle on that then we can discuss what to do with the 12-15 million that are already here illegally. But in my opinion it involves a lot of buses... :)

Gaining ground

Here comes Huckabee!

Good grief

I'm really having a hard time here, for a number of reasons. I've been seriously researching the GOP candidates the last couple of days (it's been a slow week at work, you should see my desk, it's actually clean). I like a lot of what Thompson says, but he's pretty luke warm on almost everything.

From a socially conservative standpoint, Thompson is a more recent and not as ardent proponent of prolife. According to his Meet the Press interview that I watched his change of heart came when he watch the ultrasound of his child. While he is an older man, with older children, the sonagram he is talking about is actually of his newest child who is very young.

Huckabee on the other hand gets great marks on the social conservative platform and more importantly has a general concern and belief in the innate value of human life. As an ordained Baptist minister this is part of his core beliefs, so naturally he comes across much more convincing and articulate about his point.

Because of the MORAL NATURE of the social vs. fiscal conservativism, I've been starting to lean more toward Huckabee. His fiscal conservative reviews (see clubforgrowth website that is under political blogs) really weren't good and with the dollar losing value against almost every other major currency, gold prices skyrocketing and the stock market taking a serious beating this is a serious and legitimate concern. I was REALLY encouraged to listen to this interview in which he states that he would really like to see a fair or consumption tax and explains his balanced budget approach, which on the federal level needs to start with some serious fiscal discipline. And the BEAUTY of the whole interview is that he is VERY easy to listen to and very articulate. He is determined in his views because they are based on solid principles and beliefs and you ACTUALLY BELIEVE the guy when he is talking.

I don't know. Right now I'm thinking I like Huckabee.

Kookie, but not all bad

I have to admit that sometimes Ron Paul and even more so, Ron Paul supporters, come off as well, let's just say less than mentally stable. His foreign policy is isolationism at best, but that doesn't mean that his domestic policy doesn't have some merit. I would definitely do away with the income tax (probably substituting for something else), but I would like to see how low the budget could get by reducing spending alone. This is sorely needed in DC. I'm not sure that we should go back to the gold standard, but I think in general government needs to go on a diet and do some serious shrinking.

I also agree that we should get out of the UN and more importantly get the UN out of here.

In all I like that Ron Paul brings some different elements to the table and that he is not afraid to speak his mind, no matter how kookie he sounds sometimes.