More Debate

This week, Fox News Channel hosted a debate of the Republican Presidential hopefulls. This one was, by far, the liveliest and most interesting debate so far.

I'd like to thank Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney for confirming my opinions of them in my last post. They are not viable options, and if one of them gets the nod, God help us!

John McCain came across as (most surprisingly, alive) strong, intelligent, committed, and very solid in his opinions and positions. His performance at this debate has got to bump him up a little, but likely not enough to pull out a victory.

Ron Paul proved that there is indeed a fine line between genius and insanity. He is a very smart guy who has a much better grasp of some of the issues than some of the others. Unfortunately, it seems that he is also certifiably insane. Of course, one thing I will say for him is that I could cast a vote for him and still be able to sleep at night... but he's not going to win, so it's really a moot point.

Mike Huckabee showed a lot of energy, and also performed very well. I can see him as a very viable option, but not a likely victor... then again, you never know.

Fred Thompson was quick, smart, a little funny, and most importantly, fully awake for the entire debate. If he will hit the campaign trail hard, and stay prepared for any questions, and keep up the kind of performances that he gave at this debate, he very well may have a good shot at the nomination.

For anyone who is all about watching the polls, and wonders why I don't reference the poll standings here, it's simply this, I don't pay them much mind as they often prove to be utterly meaningless, especially this far in advance of an election.

Top Tier

Today I wanted to take a minute and give my personal assessment of the current top tier Republican Presidential Candidates. (These opinions are subject to changes/updates as time goes by.)

Rudy Giuliani: Here is a man that always looks back at what he did as mayor of New York City, and is always telling people to look at his record, so let's look at it. He is Pro-Choice, favoring Abortion on demand, and even fought hard against a ban on partial-birth abortions, a most barbaric "procedure" as well as a most despicable position. So, while he talks about trying to help people to have less abortions, his record tells us something quite different. He is also very pro gun control. You can read more about that in an earlier post titled "Which Way Rudy?" While he is fiscally Conservative, to an extent, it just isn't enough. I had said before that I would not vote for him in the Primary, but might consider it in the general election, but I have changed my mind. If Rudy does win the Republican Primary and becomes the nominee, I'm not voting GOP this time around.

Mitt Romney: I'm not even going to comment on his Religion. I'm not claiming it isn't important, there's just plenty of other stuff to focus on without it. The fact is that Romney is just another Liberal Republican, somewhere to the left of Rudy, who can't figure out where he actually stands on any issue. Actually, he doesn't seem to stand anywhere, he will just tell you whatever he thinks will get you to vote for him. This is called "pandering" and is not something you wish to see in a leader. I can't really tell you about his real stances, because the guy flip-flops so bad he makes John Kerry seem utterly stable. I would have to say, not even an option.

John McCain: I'm only commenting on McCain because the press won't let go, and hasn't admitted that he's done for yet. The guy has no chance at all. He was on shaky ground with mainstream Republicans over Campaign finance reform (which made the whole problem of only the rich being able to run for President even worse than it had been before) and then he went and sided with the open borders Democrats on immigration. He's not even a contender, which is good, since he's not an option either.

Fred Thompson: I kinda like Fred Thompson. He sounds good when he talks. He says the right things, and for the most part, has taken the correct stand on many issues over the long term. He is a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) which, justifiably, makes a lot of, more informed, conservatives nervous, and will not help his chances at all. Fred's biggest problem right now stems from the fact that he has been running a lazy campaign. He looked like he might be nodding off a few times during the last debate, and so far, hasn't shown much energy. Fred could still pull this out, but he has to step it up a notch (or ten) and really show people that he's serious. He has to show us some energy, and he has to always show that he is prepared to answer tough questions on the spur of the moment. I would say that he is a potential option, but we need more from him. If he continues to be lazy, and not having ready answers when asked a question, he'll be nothing more than a footnote... if that.

Mike Huckabee: This guy is just kinda nibbling at the underside of being a top tier candidate, but he is gaining favor with some Christians and social conservatives, so he deserves mention here. Like Thompson, Huckabee holds good positions on a lot of issues, but has said some things that make grass roots GOPers kind of nervous. He's another potential option, but bears close watching to see if he really is for real or not.

I would love to get some comments on this, to see if you agree or disagree with my assessment, or just have something to add.

Lunacy

The way that some on the left talk about "Radical Christians," one would expect to see buses full of heavily armed Christian militants trolling the cities and neighborhoods, aggressively enforcing their morality on everyone. In fact, if, as some have said, "Radical Christianity" is as dangerous as Radical Islam, then, in a country where 80% of the population considers themselves to be Christians, things such as Abortion clinics, strip clubs, Las Vegas, and, let's face it, movie studios (especially Porno ones) could not exist.

In fact, while there have been some who have killed Abortion doctors, and bombed Abortion clinics, and killed gay people in the name of Christianity, these are indeed a fringe element, and are regularly condemned by mainstream Christians. Unlike most Muslims who refuse to take a stand against even the most heinous examples of Muslim terrorism, including the murder of innocent Children, Christians express disgust when some Church members protest military funerals, because, despite the fact that these protests are non-violent, they are disgusting.

Things have gotten so bad, in fact, that most Christians just sit back and sigh when they are attacked. Take what happened in San Fransisco a couple of weeks ago, where two gay militants, dressed very flamboyantly as "nuns" had themselves videotaped receiving communion at a Catholic Church, just to show their disdain for the stance that Catholics have taken against gay marriage.

While these militant gay organizations have every right to have their own opinions, and even to protest other groups who are opposed to them, they really don't have the right to disrupt a service, in a Church, where people are engaged in Religious activities, even if they disagree with what that Religion puts forth.

What is worse is that fact that the Catholic Church has said nothing. Not even standing up for their own rights to worship freely without fear of attack, and by neglecting to do so, they are inviting this kind of attack, not only on themselves, but also on Catholic and Protestant Churches across our Nation. And if history has taught us anything, it is this: If left unchallenged, this kind of attack will not only be repeated, but will escalate, very likely to violence over the course of time.

So let's not bury our heads in the sand, and say that we are safe in this Country, and that our Religious freedoms cannot be taken away, for, as with many other things, if happens gradually enough, eventually it is gone, and you never even saw it coming.

Politicians

I saw a press conference today with President Bush. A lot of it was him talking about how terrorism is still a threat to the USA, and I don't argue with that. In fact, I wasn't paying super close attention to that part of the proceedings. However, when they got to the question and answer part, there was something that really made me perk up.

The President had been talking about working together with Congress, and a reporter asked him if, since he wanted to work closer with Congress, it's really a good idea to put out "Veto threats". In other words, if he should be telling Congress that he will Veto certain bills if they don't meet certain standards. A fairly valid question.

President Bush responded that he needs to be part of the process, and he needs to let them know that he has certain standards for the bills that he will sign into law. To this point, a perfectly valid response. Too bad he didn't stop there. He said that he would not approve of over the top spending, and that he had told Congress the same thing when the Republicans were in charge... "and they listened."

In other words, he said that when the Republicans were in control of Congress, they didn't overspend our money! I almost fell over. I mean, it's nothing new to hear a politician lie, but to hear it so blatantly, and so outrageously, is beyond even what we normally expect.

One would think that the fact that the Democrats won control of Congress in the last election, primarily due to the fact that the Republicans were spending tax dollars like a bunch of drunken sailors after an extended at sea deployment, should have clued him in that we are aware of the fact that they were not fiscally responsible. Perhaps he thinks we are as stupid as the media does, which told us that the GOP lost so many seats because of people wanting to get out of Iraq, but really, most of the American people know better.

Mr. President, if you can't be honest, please, at least show us enough respect to craft a believable lie.

Vomitting Crow

In a recent post, which I titled "Eating Crow?" I talked about how it seemed that Florida Governor Charlie Crist seemed to finally be doing something good for the people of Florida, and that I might have to take back some of the things that I had said about him. However, while it might be true that he has done, and is trying to do a couple of good things, that doesn't make him immune from scrutiny.

Crist is what many grass roots Conservative Republicans call a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He was elected Governor on Jeb Bush's coat tails, and has been a huge disappointment to real Republicans all over Florida. He is working harder than any Democrat to restore the voting rights of convicted felons, who primarily vote Democrat, so, whose side is he on again? And there are a great many other areas where he falls short.

There is also the fact that Governor Bush had the ability to inspire confidence, not that he was perfect, but he was an effective leader, far more so than his brother. Take the Hurricanes of 2004 as an example. When you saw Governor Bush walking through a devastated area, or when he was on TV talking about a coming storm, it was comforting just to see him there. He was a commanding and comforting presence. By contrast, shortly after Governor Crist took office he was surveying an area of the state hard hit by some tornadoes, and all you could think seeing him there was, "Hey, somebody get that little weasel out of the way, some important person might need to get through!"

On top of this there has been talk in some circles of Crist as a possibility for the bottom of the 2008 Presidential ticket. Of course, the people who are looking for that are also looking to have Rudy on the top of said ticket. Hopefully neither will happen, but that is a topic for another post.

Real Torture

Former President Jimmy Carter, arguably the worst President in the history of the USA, and, without question, the worst President of the 20th century, went on CNN this week for the express purpose of bashing President Bush, and telling everyone how we should handle all the most pressing issues of our day. Of course, the advice he's giving is little more than a rehash of his own failed policies, from his own failed Presidency, but that doesn't even slow him down a little bit. As sad as it is that this doddering old idiot (you can say that now that he's old, before he was just an idiot) thinks that people actually care what he has to say, but sadder still is the fact that some Liberals really do. I guess this just goes to prove, when you are a liberal, your performance and record don't matter at all, just as long as you spew the correct propaganda.

Now, I'm not writing this in defense of President Bush, far from it, he has turned his back on Conservatives and stabbed the Republican party in the back so often that it's hardly worth keeping track anymore, not to mention the way he mishandled the Iraq situation and was too bull headed to listen to even loyal Republicans who might have been able to pull his butt from the fire. So President Bush doesn't deserve to be defended by any Conservative, and this isn't about him, it's about Jimmy Carter.

On the subject of torture, Carter said that he knows for a fact that the US tortures terrorism suspects in places like Gitmo, but he didn't say anything about how he knows, or present any evidence to back it up, nor was he questioned about it by Wolf Blitzer of CNN. As was pointed out by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, Carter seems to think that "...anything other than Name, Rank, and Jihad Number is torture." And that's about the size of it. You'll hear in the liberal press all the time that torture is not an effective way of getting information... well thank you Captain Obvious! Does anyone really think that the Pentagon is unaware of this little gem that has been well known for decades? For this reason alone we should know that our government is not involved in torture, they are going to do what works, and since torture doesn't work, they aren't going to do it. It really is that simple.

There is a lot of debate also as to what constitutes torture. Well, I can tell you for sure that things like loud music, sleep deprivation, and making someone think they are going to drown, as unpleasant as those things might be, are not torture. As I said, I know these things are unpleasant, but we do have to get information from these people, and there really isn't a pleasant way of doing that, but that doesn't make these interrogation techniques torture, it's just that they are effective, which means we might win, and the liberals don't like that at all. Of course, if you really want to know what torture is, you can just look to the terrorists themselves, they have entire "how to" manuals on the subject, and, lest someone misunderstand, they aren't after information, they just want people to suffer, and to be better at inflicting pain and suffering.

Maybe we should just make them watch Jimmy Carter interviews over and over again, maybe make them read his book. Now that's some real torture!

Pul-eeze Prize

In case you haven't heard, Al Gore has won a Nobel Peace Prize for being a global warming alarmist. I guess all you have to do to win one of these things is to be a high profile hypocrite, thumping for something embraced by all the socialists of the world.

Let's examine, for a moment, what it is exactly that Al Gore has done to deserve this honor. First there is the fact that he is spreading the word of Global Warming alarmism with all the fervor of a religious extremist that the far left has nothing but revulsion for. Then he strongly urges the adoption of policies to reduce, so-called, greenhouse gas emissions, that would so utterly devastate the economy, and destroy the middle class (i.e. the rich get richer and the middle class becomes the poor) that it hardly lends itself to contemplation. Not to mention the shaky "science" that the alarmist crowd has based their propaganda on in the first place. Many reputable scientists have taken the stance that "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is nothing more than natural cycles of warming and cooling that have been going on since God created the Earth (OK, so they don't all believe in creation, that was me, but the fact that some of these scientists don't believe in creation just proves that they are not taking the "anti" GW position due to any religious affiliation.) And there is plenty of evidence available to anyone to support that supposition, like the over a century worth of newspaper and magazine headlines that flip flop back and forth between "Global Warming" and "Global Cooling." In many of these articles you will find that at different times, since the late 1800's, renowned scientists have been certain that we were headed for an ice age, and then, 20 or 30 years later, we were all going to burn to death, and then, the ice age was back.

Now, let's look at what Al Gore did when he got the news. One would think that someone so obsessed with greenhouse gas emissions, and the release of Carbon dioxide, would have said, "Thank you, but I can't attend because of all the CO2 that would be released if I did," and then crawled back into his solar powered tent. But that is, of course, not what happened. No, Al Gore showed just how seriously he takes the whole thing when he left his Mansion, which uses over 20 times the electricity of the average American home, and hopped aboard a private jet for the flight to Switzerland, proving that, in just a few days, one person can release more CO2 than most entire families can in an entire year, even if they were trying to. Of course, I'm sure if confronted with this truth, Al's response would be something along the lines of explaining how he lives a "carbon neutral" life, and buys "carbon offset credits" when he lives in such flagrant excess.

To address that, let me say, being "carbon neutral" and "carbon offset credits" are a crock! In case anyone thinks that is worded too strongly, let me put it another way, they are a big steaming, stinking, pile of brown stuff, fresh from a cow's behind! I hope that's clear enough. The fact of the matter is that, even if we assume that there is any truth to the "greenhouse gas emissions" nonsense, you have either released the CO2 into the air or you have not. No amount of planting trees is going to make up for cruising all over the planet in a private jet. When it comes to his home energy needs, it is true that a good portion of the electricity comes from "green" energy production, things like wind and solar power, and "clean coal" which Gore will tell you releases no CO2, but, in fact, it simply releases less CO2 than traditional coal burning. However, if we are going to be honest about it, if Gore used less of this "green" electricity, there would be more to go around, and other people would not have to rely as heavily on the non-"green" energy production, so, he's still not doing his part. And let's not kid ourselves, Al Gore doesn't even buy his own offsets, he "works" for a company that does that for him.

The fact of the matter is that Al Gore wants regular folks like you and me to sacrifice everything to "Save the Planet" from the vestiges of "Global Warming." That's right, people like us, who, by the standards of the USA, don't have all that much to begin with, while multi-millionaires like him and his eco-nut buddies can go on living their lives any way they please.

For Dad

Today would have been my dad's 74th birthday, but he's been gone for almost two years now. I'm not sad about this. Oh, don't get me wrong, I miss him terribly. I miss being able to talk to him on the phone, and sometimes, just hearing his voice. I miss how excited he would get over the little things. Well, things that might be little to you or me, but to a man in his 70's, with almost more health problems than you could count, taking 5 or 6 steps, or making dinner for Mom, were things to rejoice in, and to Praise God for, and believe me, he did.

But as much as I miss dad, I'm not sad. You see, I know right where dad is, and I don't mean his grave, because, you see, he's not there. Sure, his body is, and probably enough old wires from the old pacemakers to set off a metal detector, but my dad isn't there. My dad is in Heaven. It's where he lives now.

I know all of this because God blessed me with a Dad and a Mom who cared enough to take me to Church, and to tell me about Jesus. I learned a lot in Churches growing up, but not as much as I learned from asking mom and dad questions, and discussing things with them in order to gain a better understanding.

So, while I can't give dad a birthday present this year, what I can do is reflect on the wonderful gift of God that my dad shared with me.

Primarily Wrong

OK, so, for anyone who's not familiar with the situation, let me give you my layman's perspective on it. The State of Florida has decided to move the date of it's Presidential Primary voting to an earlier date than normal, sometime in late January. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that the earlier primaries tend to carry more weight with the national committees, and at the nominating conventions, than the later ones do. Being that most of the early primaries are in Northern, and not terribly diverse, states, the State of Florida felt that, as one of the more diverse states in the union, Florida's primary should carry a little more clout, and not be lost amidst the clutter of all the later states. To some extent, I guess this makes sense... of a sort.

When I first heard this, I really didn't care, my thought was, tell me when the polls are open and I'll be there, no big deal. Boy was I wrong. I guess, from the reactions of both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) it's a huge deal... at least to them.

I haven't heard for sure if it has been finalized, but the RNC had been talking about taking away half of Florida's delegates at the Republican Convention, while the DNC may be planning to strip all of Florida's democratic delegation, and has barred any Democratic candidate from making any public appearances in Florida for the Primary season, as punishment to Florida for the Primary move (Of course they can still hold private fund raisers in Florida, you know, can't count out the upper crust, just the "nobodies" who actually work for a living).

OK, maybe I'm not as politically astute as I'd like to think, but honestly, why such a big deal? Who cares when the states let the people vote? I honestly don't get it.

Anyway, let's assume for the moment that they are right, and it is a big deal and Florida shouldn't have done it (if you can actually wrap your brain around that nutty position). The regular folks in Florida did not do this. We didn't get a vote. So any punishment taken against the citizens of Florida for this move is punishing the wrong people. They are saying that the people of Florida don't deserve a vote, and don't deserve to have a voice in the primaries at all, just because the State has taken the position that Floridians deserve a louder voice. Personally I don't see why all 50 states don't hold their primaries on the same day, what would be wrong with that?

To be fair, there are Democrats who get this, Florida's US Senator Bill Nelson, along with some other leading Florida dems have filed a lawsuit against the DNC to attempt to force them back from their position, and I hope they succeed. As I said, I'm not sure if the RNC has made a final determination yet, but if they do decide to penalize Florida, I hope that our Republican leaders will have as much backbone as Senator Nelson.

And one final thing. Probably the biggest point I can make about all of this, these Democrats who are basically interviewing with the boss (the American people) for the job of "Leader of the Free World" want us to think that they have what it takes to be the President of the United States, and yet they don't have the backbone to tell the DNC where they can stick it when it comes to public appearances in Florida.

Can you imagine Fred Thompson sheepishly agreeing to stay out of Florida just because the RNC told him to? I didn't think so.

Nonsense

As I was getting ready to leave for work today I heard a Reporter on the news say that Blackwater USA has been accused of using "Cowboy tactics" in Iraq.

So, from this,I guess we can infer that they have been off chasing horse thieves and cattle rustlers, and in general, taking care of Iraqi livestock, when they should have been protecting State Department officials. I can see where this is a problem, after all, it's not what they are being paid for.

OK, so enough sarcasm for now, but honestly, if this company is guilty of wrongdoing, then an investigation will bear that out, and appropriate action can be taken, but why all the nonsense? Why do people have to say things like "Cowboy tactics" instead of just stating their complaints and accusations?

Honestly I haven't paid much attention to the whole thing, and am finding it very hard to get all worked up about, I just wish people would say what they mean instead of always stretching for the soundbite.

Purchase Power

So one of the big political stories today is about how much money the candidates have raised for their campaigns. Generally we are talking many millions of dollars.

What I am talking about today is the sad fact that it takes a lot of money to become President. The idea behind the way our political system is set up is simple, anyone can run for public office, up to and including the Presidency. Unfortunately this is something that no longer holds true.

In order to be able to put in the required travel time, and buy the needed advertising, a candidate has to spend a lot of time raising money. And I mean, a LOT of money. There are two problems with this, the first being the obvious, not everyone can raise the kind of money that they would need in order to run a modern campaign.

The second, and more crucial matter, is one that you have to look a little deeper at. The only people who can give large sums of money to political campaigns are those who have large sums of money to begin with. There are some laws in place to try to keep any one person from giving too much money to any one candidate, but as we all know, there are ways around those things. So, what ends up happening is that one person, or group of persons, gives a lot of money to a candidate, and, once elected, the public official owes favors to those who gave them the money to get elected in the first place, especially if they want more money in order to get re-elected when the times comes. What this does is to put way too much power into the hands of those who have money, because politicians do what is best for their rich friends instead of doing what is best for the country.

Unfortunately you won't hear anything from anyone who hasn't raised millions of dollars for their campaign, but at least be aware, and keep in mind, to really take a close look at all of the options available to you when it comes to voting, and do some research so you can really see what they stand for, and don't be fooled by the flashiest campaign, or the smoothest looking commercials, because all those things will tell you for sure is who has the most money, not who will do the best job for you and your family, and, more importantly, your country.