Equal Opportunity Politics?

Race, religion, ethnicity, and gender are all factors that are being put in play by the myriad of presidential candidates. The particular candidates are betting that their gender, or race, or religion, or ethnic background is the ‘X’ factor that will push their candidacy over the top. The majority of the Democratic candidates basically have the same set of core beliefs or positions. The same is true for the Republican candidates. Each campaign is looking for the one thing that sets them apart from the other candidates. Do these “classifications” really matter? Should they?

Will Italian-Americans flock to the polls just to vote for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani? Will veterans turn out in record numbers to vote for former Vietnam prisoner of war John McCain? Does the celebrity status of “Law and Order” actor Fred Thompson have enough power to propel him into the nomination? Will members of the Mormon church have enough sway to allow Mitt Romney become the first Mormon President? Will women vote for Hillary just because she is a woman? Will Hispanics feel compelled to vote for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson? Does Barak Obama have enough support from African-Americans to become the first African-American President?

New York Senator Hillary Clinton is vying to be the first woman President. Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Senator John Edwards, has created headlines this past week by suggesting that Clinton is campaigning more like a man than a woman. It was an obvious attempt to convince women voters that she is not the best choice for President. The Clinton campaign is hoping that women voters will gravitate towards her because of her gender. One thing I don’t understand is that by following that logic, the men will then vote for a male candidate. In my opinion, the campaign strategy is insulting to believe that women voters only look at the gender but men vote on issues.

I believe the idea that African-Americans are going to vote for Barak Obama based on the fact that he is an African-American, or that Hispanics will pull the lever for Bill Richardson because he is Latino is just as insulting. The same holds true for Giuliani’s Italian heritage. Why does anyone believe that a candidate’s ethnicity qualifies or disqualifies them to be President? Isn’t that a bit racist?

On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has fielded questions about his Mormon faith. Aspersions have been made about Romney’s faith and polygamy. First of all, I find it interesting that for all of the polygamy talk, Romney is one of the few Republican candidates that has been married only one time. Secondly, there are many other issues to consider before a candidate’s religion comes into play.

In the workplace, employers are required by law to overlook a person’s race, religion, gender, and many other factors in regards of hiring them for a job. In politics, many candidates are asking us to take a closer look at them because of these same characteristics that we are required to overlook in everyday life. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted an America where all people were judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. I am sure that he would agree that the candidate’s character is more important than their race, religion, or gender. You can make your own decision as to who to vote for in next year’s election, but I hope that your decision is based on more on character and issues than religion, ethnicity, or gender.

Can Romney Gain Points by Announcing His Running Mate Now?

Oh the little things.

I have a written a couple of pieces about Senator Jim DeMint on my blog recently, I have also posted his latest statement about the shamnesty bill that he is trying to kill. I have made no secret that he has recently gained a great deal of support from myself. I thought about trying to draft him into the presidential race and also suggested that he would make a great running mate for Fred Thompson.

But some additional research makes me wonder if another candidate isn't already considering DeMint for the position of Vice President.

I didn't know this until moments ago, but Jim DeMint has endorsed Mitt Romney and in fact is the senior advisor to the Romney for President Exploratory Committee. I have attached the links for the Press Release and the letter of support from Senator DeMint. If DeMint were more popular back in January when he endorsed Romney, this would have probably been bigger news and I probably wouldn't be sitting here saying, "Wow, look at that." But due to the fact that DeMint has just recently gained any real popularity, I am just now seeing this. I am also wondering if a few people wont read this while they are thinking to themselves that they have known this for a long time and that it isn't new news. Well, it's new to me.

"We must elect a President in 2008 who is up to the task, and I need you to encourage Mitt to run. ... As a leader who has spent most of his life in the private sector, Governor Romney will call on America's strength and character to solve problems and secure our future."

I am not sure what to think of Romney or DeMint to be honest. They are both on the radar just very recently, so their politics is only known by those who have done the research. I have been considering supporting Romney in the primaries, even over the prospect of Fred Thompson. And now that I see support from Senator DeMint, who had done a great job preventing the shamnesty bill from going to a vote, Romney has gained points in my view.

If Romney were to give indication that Senator DeMint was his choice for a running mate, he would shoot up the ladder. I may be wrong, but I think that DeMint was mentioned as a possibility when Romney was name dropping a few weeks back. And if the Senator is able to defeat shamnesty, they would gain favor in the ranks of conservatives who are against this bill. Much of the political landscape is going to be shaped by what happens to this bill and what action is taken for border security. Conservatives are split over this issue by those who want to support the GOP at all costs and those who are more concerned about policy that party. The candidate who can mend this split has the best shot at becoming the next President of the United States.

2008 Primary GOP Straw Poll

Who Will Be Fred Thompson’s VP?

Now that Thompson has wrapped up the GOP nomination, the question on everyone's mind is who he will pick to be his running mate. I know we are still months away from the primaries. I am also aware that Fred hasn't actually announced his bid. But let's be honest, he is going to run and he is going to win. He is the most popular Republican in the race, despite the fact he isn't officially in the race.

The Presidential race is more about popularity than politics. Why do you think the two current front-runners are also the most liberal? Rudy and McCain are popular because of their past. The other candidates don't have the same history. Romney is doing well because he knows marketing, or someone on his team knows marketing. But the rest of the candidates, despite their conservative values, have very low poll numbers. Just don't tell the Ron Paul "truthers" that I said that. Internet polls that allow you to vote 100 times don't count, ok.

Fred is popular, mostly because of his time on the television, which interestingly enough started when he played himself. This led to some great movie rolls, and of course his current roll as a conservative prosecutor. All of this has increased his popularity amongst conservatives and has made him a favorite with conservative pundits and blogs. Some trivia for you, part of his inspiration to run was Dick Wolf, the guy who put together the many Law and Order shows.

So, again, now that he has this thing wrapped up, who will he pick as his running mate? We have seen in the past where the candidate picks a former foe from the primaries. There is some speculation that Fred will pick one of the current candidates. Steve Elliott of grassfire.org is expecting a younger governor, thinking that two senators won't play well in the fight against Barack O'Clinton. This is a very good point, especially given the recent record for senators against governors in the presidential race.

I won't speculate myself, but I will tell you what to look for. Look for polls, transformed into pairing people up with running mates. An example: Would you vote for Hillary/Obama or Thompson/Romney or Thompson/Tancredo?

Fred is running because fictional polls that included himself and Newt put the both of them well above other candidates. Fred played this so that he would know whether or not to actually run. He wanted to be certain that the people were tired of the front-running RINOs. And we are tired of them. Fred will find out who makes the best ticket, and he will start this process very soon.

I'm not sure that he can win it all right now. Republicans are very angry, mostly about amnesty, I mean "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"; I mean amnesty. I don't know if this can be saved, but with his popularity, maybe he is the guy who can do it. The pick for VP will play a very important factor here. The democrats will do the same, we could even see another Clinton/Gore ticket believe it or not. My guess is that it will be Clinton/Obama.

Don't screw it up Fred, the country can't afford it right now.

Hillary Announces Her Intent To Turn America Into A Communist Nation

Not only did Hillary Clinton announce that she plans on turning our capitalist system into a communist system, she lied her backside off while doing so.

I’ll go over the highlights. She claimed that family incomes have decreased $1,300 in the past 6 years. New jobs pay on average 21% less than the jobs that have been lost. There has been a 4% increase in the percentage of workers falling below the poverty line. She claims that all of this is due to tax cuts for the rich and other bad economic policies.

The reality is that wages across the board have gone up. It isn’t that her math is wrong, it is that she is manipulating it. The left is making a deal over the rich/poor gap. The top earners have increased their pay at a higher rate than the lower earners. They use this to claim that lower wages have gone down. This isn’t true. All wages have gone up. And private business ownership has also gone up also, 3.7% a year since 2000 compared to about 2.3% from 1991 - 1999. Guess what Hillary, these business owners have caused that gap to increase.

She brought up Social Security and health care. “That's why they want to privatize Social Security and let individuals bear the risks. It's why their answer to the health care crisis is limited to creating health savings account, which allows the healthiest people to get the best deal, with little concern if the sickest get worse.”

This is the woman who applauded the fact that Congress prevented Bush from implementing the Social Security plan that Bill Clinton suggested in 1998, interesting. Although if you really think about it, she applauded the fact that the democrats prevented reform, and the fact that they actually refused to offer any alternatives, but that is a long story that would take a few pages itself. Claiming that the health care answer is limited to health savings accounts makes me wonder if Hillary pays attention when she votes down a measure to allow small business owners to join together in an effort to get group discounts on employee health insurance.

She hammered Bush for his “unfair” corporate tax breaks. “First, I'm going to work to level the playing field and reduce the special breaks for big corporations.”
And let’s see what she said about shipping jobs overseas. “Second, let's once and for all get rid of the incentives for American companies to ship jobs and profits overseas. It is one thing for the marketplace to encourage overseas investment. It's another for our own tax code to do so.”

What this lawyer who apparently never took an economics class failed to mention is the opinion of many economists regarding the best way to bring most of those jobs back to the USA. That would be the elimination of all corporate taxes. Corporations spend hundreds of billions each year not only paying taxes, but paying people to pay those taxes. If you cut them out of the picture, you reduce costs. Those costs get invested back into the corporations in the way of higher wages, increased employment, and lower costs for the good and services they provide. In other words, pay increases and your grocery bill decreases. Then all you need to do to help save the U.S. automobile industry is get rid of corrupt unions.

She hammered Bush for budget deficits. She failed to mention that the deficit is under the 40 year average compared to GDP, which is the way economists measure it. She also failed to mention that much of that money is going to fight wars against terrorist regimes that her husband refused to fight himself. Oh yeah, she also didn’t mention how much is going to increase her favorite liberal causes like Medicare.

“It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we're all in it together’ society.
Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.”

I’m sure that is exactly what Chavez said just before he sent those tanks to the television stations.

“We need to open up CEO compensation to public scrutiny and public challenge and ensure that boards of directors are independent when determining CEO pay. And we need to update our regulations to confront the emerging problems in our sub-prime and private equity markets.”

Sounds like Chavez again, maybe before he took over the oil companies and chased out most of the people in his country who have college degrees.

Free markets need to be free, not bogged down by government controls. What our economy needs is less intrusion by lawyers who get elected. Doesn’t it frighten anyone besides myself that we have so many lawyers in Washington, and so few economists? I’m tired of lawyers making economic policies and trying so hard to tell companies how much they need to pay their people.

Now I would take a moment to look up the transcript for Obama’s recent speeches, but that man is so blatantly stupid that reading them makes me cry. So I’ll leave you all to go find them yourselves. But please, try to get past the hype.

Run Fred Run, But Will Newt Run With You?

Newt Gingrich recently told Diane Sawyer that there was a great possibility that he would run for president. He said sometime last year that he would run if he felt that there was no other strong candidate in the GOP. He seemed to infer that he would run if he thought there was no one strong enough to stop Hillary. Well, there is someone strong enough to beat her; the problem that that someone is Barack Obama.

Newt has been setting himself up for a run for quite some time. He has been very active in politics. You can read his articles at Human Events. He is pretty regular on FoxNews. He has been very active in working for health care reform and has even given testimony in front of Congress on changes that could be made to lower costs for the poorest of Americans without raising taxes. His book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" is great. If he were able to implement everything in that book while wisely conducting the War on Terror, he would easily go down as one of the greats. He would have to get everything past Congress of course. He is very vocal regarding immigration and the need to secure the border, a hot topic issue with conservatives, and with many liberals also.

So, the problem is this thing with an ex-wife. His past indiscretions are seen as a huge roadblock. Conservatives see it as a betrayal of core values, and liberals see him as a hypocrite for going after Clinton. Granted, Newt didn't commit perjury, so the liberals have little to stand on. But they are convinced that Clinton did nothing wrong, and they won't let facts get in the way of their agenda. Conservatives take issue with Newt because some are concerned that one who cheats on his wife will cheat on his country.

All this aside, Newt is a potential candidate who has been neck and neck with another undeclared potential candidate. Fred Thompson and Newt have both been running 3rd and 4th in the GOP presidential candidate polls despite the fact that they have not declared. Fred is seen by many as the "Reagan" candidate, but probably because they have both been in movies. Fred has quite a bit of support from people who like his attitude, even if they don't know a lot about where he stands and what he would accomplish. He did a great job of making Michael Moore look like a buffoon and has had much to say about things like taxes, security, and immigration. All of this added to his popularity means that he could probably beat Hillary if she ran with Obama as her running mate in the showdown.

So this begs the question, does Newt step aside if Fred declares, say June 12 on the Tonight Show? If Fred runs, many think he will win. The thought is that he fills the gaps left by the current field, and he doesn't have the Newt baggage. Newt wants to run, he wants to be the President of the United States. He wants to prevent another Clinton administration, but he wants to be in the White House for more than that. He has great ideas and can do some good for the country. But can he beat Fred? If Fred keeps this popularity running, and announces soon, he may be unstoppable.

There are issues with the current field. Rudy, the current front runner, won't tell us his real thoughts on abortion. He has the best leadership, but won't get the religious voters. McCain hasn't figured out that conservatives are opposed to amnesty. Romney could be the come-from-behind-to-win guy, and if he wins the primaries, has the potential to steal votes from the democratic candidates. But many don't trust him on abortion, and Baptists think Mormonism is a cult. The other candidates just aren't popular enough. Some of them have good messages, they simply haven't expressed them the way American's like to hear them expressed.

Beating the democrats may be more necessary now than ever before. The Democratic Party has no idea that we are at war. The Republican Party has sold out on too many issues and looks more corrupt every day. There are terrorists looking to sneak nukes across wide open borders. The Republican sell-out handed Congress to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha. It could hand the White House to Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Our country cannot afford to let this happen. We are at war regardless of our inability to accept it and a democratic President will back down in the War on Terror.

This leaves a great opportunity for someone who is very popular, and very conservative, to jump in and take the primaries. Newt and Fred are both waiting for conservatives to get tired of the flip-flops and bad answers in the debates. But I don’t think that Newt can beat Fred, and I think Newt knows it. If Fred announces, Newt may wait it out to see what happens and possibly run the next time around.

I do have an alternative though. What do you think of Thompson/Gingrich 2008?

The GOP—a party in distress

The Party of Reagan withered under the “kinder, gentler” administration of Bush(41), consequently suffering further indignity under two “era of big government is over” Clinton terms, only to be further disenfranchised by Bush(43)’s “compassionate conservatism” domestic spending policies.

read more digg story

Can Ron Paul Win a 'Scientific' Poll, or Just the Online Polls?

Much has been said online, places like digg and prisonplanet, that Ron Paul is destroying the other candidates in the polls. Interestingly, he only seems to be winning the online polls.

LGF has the story about Prisonplanet's piece claiming that there is no way to fake online polling because they register your IP address. Really guys? This is from one of the websites that claims Bush orchestrated 9-11. Bush managed to cover up 9-11, but Ron Paul supporters can't download one of the thousands of IP programs that allow you to use one of the many proxy servers that are connected to hide your IP address? I'm not buying it kids. Now, I'm only guessing here about those proxy programs of course, I don't have one on my computer. Well, not at the moment. And if you ask me if I have ever had one, I will plead the 5th, being a strict Constitutionalist and all.

Real Clear Politics has run the numbers, and it shows Giuliani to be on top of the polls right now. This is from a combination of a large number of telephone polls from different organizations. If Ron Paul is the clear winner in both debates, why is he only at about 1% in the polls right now? And before you start on the conspiracy theories, allow me to give you one of my own. The conspiracy lies with those who support Ron Paul. You are going online and voting multiple times for him, and if need be, using easy access to proxy servers to hide your IP address. Either my theory is right, or none of you people own telephones. I will be the first to say that I am not a big fan of poll numbers, but how do you explain the huge discrepancy? The best number I have seen yet for Ron Paul in any non-online poll is 3%.

I know that you have a theory to retort. I know you will spout off that Ron Paul is being left out of the polls on purpose, or some other nonsense. But here's the deal. Conspiracy theories are not going to get Ron Paul into the White House. Conspiracy theories aren't going to help our country. Conspiracy theories just make the rest of us think that you are all nuts. I happen to agree with Paul on many things regarding using the Constitution as the litmus test. I love the Constitution and spent 5 years under oath to defend it. I would still pick up a gun to defend it if need be. I absolutely love the fact that lobbyists stay far and away from Paul's office, knowing that he will shoot them down. We need more of that attitude in D.C. I disagree with his stance on isolationism because we exist in a day and age where technology keeps us too tightly knit. But that is a completely different piece that I am not getting into at the moment. The issue I am bringing up here is that people see through this internet escapade. Those who don’t see through it are the ones who don't use the internet that much, so they only see the media polls. This means Ron Paul gets nowhere near the White House. This means you are all wasting your time promoting yet another ridiculous conspiracy that needs to be put down. Do something constructive like supporting border security.

Did Romney win the Debate of Stupid Questions? -- The Sequel

According to Drudge, Romney took it with 37% of the vote followed by Giuliani with 20%.

Pollster.com gives it to The Mayor with 30% followed by McCain with 17%.

Prisonplanet.com says that Ron Paul had 47% of the vote on MSNBC's poll. I can't find an active link to the MSNBC poll, but yahoo has a US Newswire story with Paul taking 43% of the MSNBC vote.

Interestingly, FoxNews says that McCain won. But the article claiming this was written by Dick Morris. Morris runs vote.com. Vote.com shows the winner to be Ron Paul with 30% followed by Romney with 29%. McCain took only 7%.

With the exception of pollster, these are all online polls, so no one knows how many people voted multiple times. Pollster's survey was limited to California adults, so the fact that the more liberal candidate won probably doesn't reflect the entire country.

More strict Constitutional conservatives now know the name Ron Paul. More conservatives got to compare Giuliani and McCain to Romney. So my question is how long before Romney and Paul are the frontrunners in a field that is currently led by a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate lax on border security? Paul answered a number of questions by saying that something was or was not authorized by the Constitution. He did it so many times that it almost seemed monotonous. But few conservatives will argue with his logic. Romney had some good answers, and I thought his explanation of his abortion views made sense. He said he has always been against it, but believed that it was a choice. After debating the issue, he believes the federal government should pass it to the states. He stood tall and looked good, which won him a lot of points. He looked like a President.

Of course, everyone is still asking about Fred and Newt. If they enter the field, do some of the others drop out? Could Fred and Newt take the frontrunner spots? People like them. Fred is mostly marketing, and Newt has that skeleton out of the closet thing. But people see a lot of comparisons in Fred and Reagan, and not just the acting thing. Newt is probably the smartest of them all when it comes to actually fixing problem. His book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America is about as good as it gets. If they enter, it changes everything. They may not win, but they certainly make the race more interesting.

What Do The Candidates Really Believe?

As we watch the political season heat up earlier each election cycle, we are treated to the video and audio clips of the candidates making speeches in a variety of locations, before a variety of audiences. One aspect of every speech seems to be the same, no matter where the speech takes place or who it is in front of. Most candidates seem to not only adjust their views, but, in some cases, even their accents.

On March 4 of this year, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both made appearances at churches in Selma, Al. to commemorate the 42nd anniversary of the march for voting rights that led to “Bloody Sunday”. In our politically charged world, we have come to expect politicians to show up at any event to exploit the occasion for their political benefit. Hillary Clinton adopted a southern drawl in her speech that sounded like a bad comedy skit. Barack Obama also adopted a new “dialect” in his speech patterns that gave the impression of a fiery African-American evangelical preacher. Clinton also adopted her “accent” during a speech before Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network on April 20. I realize that she lived in Arkansas for about 20 years, but why would she only speak with southern accent in front of African-American audiences? Why does Obama need to change his speaking style when before African-Americans?

Politicians routinely appear in churches throughout the country to speak to the congregations before elections. You are almost guaranteed to hear the candidates quoting from the Bible as though they just read the scripture that morning during their devotions. I have no doubt that some of these politicians may actually be sincere, but too many times it is all too clear that a speech writer added the scriptural references to try to appeal to the congregation.

John Edwards constantly points out the two Americas that he sees today. Pointing out that there are two distinct classes in our country, the “haves” and the “have nots”. This is almost laughable when you see the pictures of his 28,000 square foot house, complete with an indoor pool, basketball and squash courts. Edwards has every right to have a house this large, but it seems a bit hypocritical. Edward’s wife was quoted as saying their neighbor’s property was “slummy”. That is an odd way to describe a neighbor who definitely would not be considered a member of the “haves”.

Rudy Giulani has emerged as the front runner in many polls for the Republican nomination. He has taken some criticism for his views on abortion and gun control while mayor of New York City. His reaction to the criticism has been to try to explain away his stands on these issues. If he believes in gun control than stand up and say you do and why you support it. Explain to us your reasons for your views on abortion. He is not the only candidate on either side to use this tactic to try to curry favor with the voters, but he is a good example. Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic candidate with whom I disagree on almost every issue, stands behind every view and decision. I believe he is wrong about everything, but I have to respect that he has the courage of his convictions. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign uttered the now famous statement, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.” This one statement epitomizes what most politicians will say or do to win your vote.

Politicians will say or do whatever their audience wants to hear or see, just to get their approval. In every campaign there are instances where a candidate will directly contradict themselves from an earlier speech. The campaign staff will scramble to come up with a “logical” explanation of what their candidate actually meant to say, and we all nod our heads in agreement. Why do we accept politicians that talk out of both sides of their mouths just to get votes? It is a forgone conclusion that a politician will promise you the world, but will never, ever deliver; but yet the voting public sheepishly follows along and hopes that this time it will be different.

I believe it is time we demand more of our candidates. We must realize that their will never be the perfect candidate that we agree with on every issue. We are going to disagree on some issues, we deserve an explanation of their view, and then it is up to us to make an informed decision. We should be calling the candidates on their obvious attempts of patronization. I believe we deserve candidates that have the courage of their convictions, who are willing to take a stand and accept the consequences or rewards for that stand. It is up to everyone of us on both sides of the political spectrum to hold the politicians accountable for the views and opinions.