Conservatives Need To Get Back To Reagan Basics

Over the past week, there has been a constant parade of political “experts” through the news networks to propose their recommendations to the Republican Party to renew the party. The suggestions have all had a familiar ring to them. The “intellectual” opinion is that the Republicans need to jettison their conservative values and ideals. They believe that conservatism is the reason behind McCain’s defeat and the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. They completely disregard any of the other competing forces weighing on the minds of the voters in the past 2 elections.

It will come as no surprise, but I do not agree with the self-proclaimed experts. I believe that the major problem within the Republican Party is not that they are too conservative, but rather that they have neglected their responsibility in educating the voters on what they believe. Of course, then they have to actually govern as conservatives.

It is not enough to say that as a political party we believe in smaller government. The average voter does not care what that we are for a smaller government unless we explain what a smaller government means and why we believe it is the right choice. Some of my Christian friends have asked how I could be a conservative and a Christian at the same time. They believe that my conservative position on the role of government is in contradiction to Biblical teaching to take care of the poor. I believe that as a Christian we should take care of the poor and downtrodden, but I do not believe that it is the government’s responsibility. I believe that the community at large is better at dealing with those in their own communities. Local churches give more food and aid to the homeless and the poor in their communities than the government could ever dream of helping. The sheer size of the bureaucracy of government makes it inefficient in helping the poor. Jesus did teach that we should help the poor, but I have never read in my Bible that as long as we pay our taxes than our responsibility to the poor is done.

We cannot simply say that we are pro-life and expect that the voters will simply accept it and be with us. The age-old axiom, “you are preaching to the choir” holds a lot of truth in this case. Claiming to be the Pro-life party will bring pro-life voters to you, but it does nothing to educate those who may not have a strong position either way. We need to explain why we are pro-life. We need to explain that the procedure known as partial-birth abortion is a horrific and completely unnecessary procedure. I do not know of any medical condition that would require a pre-term baby to be vaginally delivered to the point of leaving the baby partially in the birth canal, and then piercing the live baby’s skull to suck the infant’s brain out to kill the baby. If an expecting mother is in such a bad physical state that she will not survive a normal delivery, how is she protected by inducing labor only to partially deliver the baby as normal before killing it? We need to explain why we are against government funding for abortion and the readily available abortion on demand for any reason. We do not believe inconvenience is a feasible reason for ending a human life.

Campaigning on lower taxes is great, but it needs to be taken to the next level. We need to explain why we believe lower taxes for everyone is the best option for our economy and for our government. We need to educate the American public about taxes. We need to change the debate from a class envy debate to a debate over taxes themselves. Obama was elected claiming that 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut, but the problem is that roughly 40% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. We need to educate the public about who actually pays taxes and how much they do pay. The top 1% of income earners pays roughly 40% of taxes. We need stop sitting back and letting the Democrats spin a tax cut for all tax payers into an unfair tax cut for the rich. We need to educate the public why an across the board 2% rate cute for someone making $1 million is still a 2% rate cut. It is the same 2% cut that someone making $40,000.

The Republican Party does not need to move away from conservative values and ideals. We need to take a page out of the Reagan notebook and do what Reagan did. Ronald Reagan was known as the “Great Communicator” because of his ability to explain his conservative policies to the American public. We need to get back to taking our case directly to the people. This election has shown the media’s affinity for liberal ideals and candidates. We need to sidestep the mainstream media and take our message to the public.

carnival of political punditry - August 12, 2007

Welcome to the August 12, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry.

Troy Stouffer presents Expert Analysis Or Egomania? posted at I'm A Pundit Too, saying, "Each and every time you turn on the local, network, or cable news the “experts” are pontificating over their particular area of expertise. They make predictions about everything under the sun from global warming and the current political campaigns, to the economy and the stock market. The amusing aspect of this nightly “expert” analysis is that a few months or years down the road, the experts are all shocked at the outcome. The shocking aspect is that the same news producers continue to trot out the same shocked experts to provide the “expert” analysis on the topic of the day."




Sammy Benoit presents YID With LID: Democrats Suck up To Daily Kos Hate Site posted at YID With LID.




Chris Moreau presents The Politics Hour posted at ChrisMoreau.com, saying, "I've had it with the left and the right..."

I personally enjoy reading people's gripes about Republicans and Democrats.
If you are sick of it all, this is a good one for you. I don't condone everything Moreau says, but he has a point.




Charles H. Green presents We've All Caught the Detroit Disease posted at Trust Matters, saying, "As the US car industry continues its inexorable decline it's worth looking at why and asking if the rest of the country is also exhibiting the symptoms of the "Detroit Disease"."

This is a good one if you enjoy discussing economics as much as I do. If you don't enjoy it, read this anyways, you may learn something.




Alvaro Fernandez presents Training the Aging Workforce posted at SharpBrains: Your Window into the Brain Fitness Revolution, saying, "In the debate about social security and health care, we are often forgetting this important demographic trend and how to turn it in our favor."




Jack Le Moine presents Another Nutty Lawsuit posted at Jack Le Moine's Blog




Jack Le Moine presents Yet ANOTHER Big Bucks Lawsuit posted at Jack Le Moine's Blog




Madeleine Begun Kane presents Bush Growls; Dems Kowtow (Limerick and Poll) posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.

I think I'm going to have a chat about this one in the discussion forum this week.




Jeremy Hitchcock presents Fruit of the War Crimes posted at WTTF: Welcome to the Future, saying, "A nation united... against underpants."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political punditry, blog carnival.

carnival of political punditry - July 22, 2007

Welcome to the July 22, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry.

Wenchypoo presents Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket.

Wenchypoo presents Invasion of the Pod People, Round 2 (L-O-N-G) posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket, saying, ""I see Pod People...they're EVERYWHERE...and they don't even know they're being used!""

Sammy Benoit presents There Was Never a Terrorist Threat, The Check is in the Mail, John Edwards is right about bumper stickers and other great lies. posted at YID With LID.

Sammy Benoit presents Democrats Want a Don't Ask-Don't Tell Terror Policy posted at YID With LID.

Tracee Sioux presents Unrealistic Expectations of Perfection posted at So Sioux Me, saying, "Why can't people apply the same "good enough" role model standards to the female candidate as they do the male candidate? Is it the unrealistic expectations of perfection that keep Conservative women from being on Hillary's team?"

Troy Stouffer presents Equal Opportunity Politics? posted at I'm A Pundit Too, saying, "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?"

Cade Krueger presents Building Your Home Business In A Difficult Political Climate posted at Write To Right.

Ashok presents Rethink.: Greatness and Individualism in Tocqueville posted at Rethink., saying, "Reflection on where the problem with our emphasis on individualism lies: does it make us too proud in some cases? Or is it prone to a fear so deep we don't even realize we are fearful?"

Adam Pieniazek presents Best Political Candidate Ever: None of the Above posted at Adam Pieniazek, saying, "A post about an initiative in Massachusetts to list "None of the Above" as an option on election ballots. If NOTA wins, a new election is triggered with new candidates."

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Yet Another Filibuster Song Parody (The Full-a-Bluster Song) posted at Mad Kane's Humor Blog.

DWSUWF presents Fixing Fairness - A modest technology solution. posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall, saying, "Certainly there is a fairness problem with broadcasters, but if we look at this problem objectively, we see it cannot be solved by dealing with the broadcasters alone. The bigger problem resides in the listeners, watchers, and readers"

Jack Yoest presents The Dreamer Goes To Peru...Without Her Mao Bag. posted at Reasoned Audacity, saying, "I asked the woman why she wanted to work for us.

"The Terrorists are trying to kill me."

I knew this was not to be an ordinary job interview.

Charmaine and I were hiring..."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political punditry, blog carnival.

carnival of political punditry - July 8, 2007

Welcome to the July 8, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry.

When you get a moment, please check out my new home page: http://thenewpundit.com/

Jack Yoest presents Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell Reports: How Liberals Think in War posted at Reasoned Audacity, saying, "The only time a manager should shout or bark out an order demanding instant obedience is if the building is on fire: an emergency. Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell had a few minutes to make a decision and decided to take a vote. It wasn't an emergency, just yet.

"It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lamebrained decision I ever made in my life," Luttrell writes. "I must have been out of my mind. I had actually cast a vote which I knew could sign our death warrant. I'd turned into a (expletive) liberal, a half-assed, no-logic nitwit, all heart, no brain, and the judgment of a jack rabbit.

Marcus Luttrell tells his story in Lone Survivor and is reported in A war hero from Huntsville rues a decision made in Afghanistan

Sammy Benoit presents Homeland Insecurity posted at YID With LID. A Democrat House Committee secretly ordered the removal of all references to the "Global War On Terror," nonchalantly claiming it wasn't political. Who are they fooling? The Military Times reported that Erin Conaton, a staffer on Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton's House Armed Services Committee, banished the term "Global War On Terror" from the 2008 defense bill, in a Mar. 27 memo to Democrats.

Ashok presents Is Democracy Feasible? (Reflections on the Gettysburg Address) posted at Rethink.Democracy is feasible, but it requires beatitude. Otherwise, it is worse than worthless: it is merely prelude to anarchy. It is truly tragic that awareness of the need for beatitude should come at the expense of so much blood.

Lucynda Riley presents This is why my son is Homeschooled posted at Quietly Into the Night.

Charles Modiano presents History's Hit Job on Thomas Paine posted at CLEAN OUR HOUSE! - Killing the Bigotry in all of US. Thomas Paine was ahead of his time, and this fact gives us iconic options that few know exist. If saddled with the choice of “men of their times” versus “men of our times”, shouldn’t it be a no-brainer who gets the historical love? Shouldn’t our history books make it self-evident that all white men in white wigs were not created equal? Unfortunately, I never did learn anything about Thomas Paine “the abolitionist” or “women’s rights activist” in school.

Wenchypoo presents Who Needs Universal Health Care? posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket. People like Michael Moore, that's who! Did you know he was a third-generation unemployed union auto worker, not to mention a heart attack waiting to happen (have you seen him lately?).

Kathryn Lang presents Division Will Destroy the United States posted at The Peculiar Club. I am all for compassion. I am all for understanding. I am all for celebrating uniqueness. The counterbalance must be that first and foremost we stand united. “United we stand.” Diversity is great – division will destroy.

D presents 43 Famous people who should run for President posted at The Hiller Report, saying, "An amusing list of famous people and things who should run for President in '08. Includes 43 pictures."

Anna - On The Ponderosa presents LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL posted at On The Ponderosa.

Don presents Ron Paul - Who Is Ron Paul And What Is He Smoking? : DirtFromTexas.Com posted at DirtFromTexas.Com, saying, "While others who think they know this Texas Congressman run to jump on his bandwagon, I show people some of the things that Ron Paul does, not says. I happen to live in the district next to his and I get a first hand view of the double talking "see what I say, not what I do" actions."

Kilroy_60 presents George W. Bush and Dick Cheney Are A National Disgrace For America posted at Fear And Loathing - The Gonzo Papers.

Steven Silvers presents WakeUpWalMart defections might mean union-backed activist groups have done all they can do. posted at Scatterbox at stevensilvers.com, saying, "Departing leaders of a prominent political-style anti-Wal-Mart group perhaps think they’ll accomplish more through a well-coiffed multimillionaire populist presidential candidate."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political punditry, blog carnival.

carnival of political punditry - July 1, 2007

Welcome to the July 1, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry. I am incredibly tired at the moment, but I promised myself that I would comment on some of the submissions this week.

Hakim Abdullah presents An Islamic View of Suicide Bombing posted at Hakim Abdullah.

Hakim has contributed to this carnival in the past. I read this article and two thoughts come up: We need more Muslims to share this view. We need those who do share this view to be more vocal.

Tracee Sioux presents Who Doesn’t Have a Crush on Barack Obama? posted at Blog Fabulous, saying, "The Latin sex-pot with the dity about having a crush on Barack Obama certainly isn't going to hurt his campaign."

I can honestly say that I do not have a crush on Obama. This brings up an intersting point. Bill Clinton was seen as hot by a lot of women. In 2004, John Edwards was the hot Vice President candidate. And now we have Obama. I wonder how democrats make their decisions.

Tracee Sioux presents Global Gag Rule is Anti-Girl posted at So Sioux Me, saying, "The Global Gag Rule and limitations on the distribution of contraception is blatantly anti-girl and anti-woman."

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Suffering From Bloomberg-Envy ... Or Just an Idiotic Egomaniac? posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.

Ashok presents Question: Should Political Science Exist? Why? posted at Rethink..

An interesting piece on why we feel the need for debate.

Matt presents Two federal agencies on power grab - why Republicans are like sneaky little kids posted at The Displaced Republican, saying, "I used to think the Republican Party stood for small government. I recently figured it out that when it comes to the big/small government debate, they're actually worse than the Dems...they're like sneaky little kids."

Matt gives one of many good examples for this argument. Republicans need to start acting like Conservatives again.

Wenchypoo presents In Honor of High Milk Prices posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket, saying, "There's nothing more political than farm subsidies that are no longer working thanks to ethanol!"

Big Government at its best. Subsidies for bad ideas.

Sammy Benoit presents Jumping off the Bush Bandwagon? No Bush Jumped off Mine posted at YID With LID.

Did George Bush forget who voted for him in 2004?

Mark25 presents Management vs. Politics posted at HotStrategies.com.

Kyle presents Cheney Inspires Me posted at Nascent Notions, saying, "Cheney Invents his own Branch of government and I follow suite"

Kyle presents Immigration: The Devil's Name is Amnesty posted at Nascent Notions.

Why debate an issue when you can accuse someone of being a racist instead?

Hell's Handmaiden presents More Firepower? Less Crime? hell's handmaiden posted at Hell's Handmaiden.

I don't think the Handmaiden likes guns. This argument will go on forever I think.

Jack Yoest presents Lurita Alexis Doan, GSA Chief: Capitalism Meets Politics posted at Reasoned Audacity, saying, "When a person of note is covered by the media in Your Nation's Capital, three questions are asked by the victim:
1) Is there a picture?
2) Is it above the fold?
3) Is the story running on the weekend?"

It's pretty simple. If Representative Waxman is accusing someone of something, there is a witchhunt in progress.

Charles H. Green presents Trust, Politics and US Health Care Policy posted at Trust Matters, saying, "A Harvard Business School prof uses the standard tools of business analysis to indict US health care - a system that serves neither business nor the public, yet seems impossible to fix so it works for either."

Charles discusses the book "Who Killed Health Care?"

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political punditry, blog carnival.

Quote of the Day and Some Thoughts About Shamnesty

"At this point, the people supporting this bill might as well be supporting putting crack in elementary school vending machines because quite frankly, it probably couldn't do much more damage to their political careers than this bill." John Hawkins -- rightwingnews.com

John lists a group of polls on his site this morning once again demonstrating a vile hatred of the Senate's Immigration Bill. But it is not only by Hawkins, nor just by conservatives, but also by liberals.

A Democracy Corps poll shows that democrats are evenly split over the issue. Voters said that they were more likely to support the bill if it tightened border security and stopped illegal aliens from getting government benefits. SFGate.com has info on that poll. Rasmussen polls show that only 20% of American voters support the bill, while almost 70% want an approach that focuses "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration."

This has got to be the strangest paradox in political history. If you look at most polls, you will find that the splits are partisan. Example, look at a poll regarding George Bush and the economy. About 40% of voters give him high marks on the economy. If you break in down by party, 77% of Republicans give him high marks while only 10% of Democrats agree. On this issue those who would normally support a Republican president praise him, while those who would not support a Republican president do not.

Immigration is a different animal. This bill, and the president who is pushing it, is opposed by the left and the right. On this issue, the President gets high marks from 24% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats.

But despite this uniform opposition from the left and the right, the Senate and the President are on television daily explaining to us that they are pushing this reform because that's what American voters want them to do. And there was much confusion in the land.

Look, I'm not one to trust polls because I know that they can be skewed by biased pollsters. I also know that 90% of the people responding to these polls have done not one bit of research into the subject matter. But this is more overwhelming than most. There is no support for Immigration Reform, but we have morons in DC who swear to us that it has vast support and that it is absolutely necessary. How is this even possible? Have Bush and Cheney stopped watching Fox News?

Completely left out of the debate in DC is the fact that there is no support for this bill. Completely left out of why there is no support for this bill is the fact that Congress was not given permission to create new laws in an effort to cover up the fact that it refused to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades.

Take a look at what Hawkins has to say. If I keep typing, I'm going to get angry and punch my monitor.

carnival of political punditry - June 24, 2007

Welcome to the June 24, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry.

J.C. Wilmore presents The legacy of "Macaca" is alive and well posted at The Richmond Democrat.

Madeleine Begun Kane presents An Arresting Affair posted at Mad Kane's Humor Blog.

Sammy Benoit presents Jimmy Carter's Legacy -Islamic Iran posted at YID With LID.

Tracee Sioux presents Shut Up John Mayer, Stop Waiting On the World to Change posted at So Sioux Me, saying, "Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is a valid and legitimate reason. An argument advocating voting down the genderlines in 2008 to open the potential for all girls in America."

Michael presents Congress Approval All Time Low and Third Parties posted at The Common Virtue.

Hakim Abdullah presents Is Islam Compatible with Democracy? posted at Hakim Abdullah.

Avant News presents Sam Brownback Pregnancy May Put Squeeze On Presidential Bid posted at Avant News.

Lucynda Riley presents And our governemnt wonders why we don't trust them posted at Quietly Into the Night.

Sammy Benoit presents Why We Fight -->A Message for the Democrats posted at YID With LID.

Jon Swift presents Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Ann Althouse* posted at Jon Swift, saying, "Let's subject Ann Althouse's blog to Freudian analysis, since it seems only fair after she put Hillary's new campaign video on the couch."

Madeleine Begun Kane presents The GOP's In For A Rudy Awakening posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.

vjack presents Ideology Over Competence Revisited: Bush's Nominee for Surgeon General posted at Atheist Revolution.

Lucynda Riley presents This is shocking!!! posted at Quietly Into the Night.

nishant presents North Korea gets 25 million bucks, and a meeting with US envoy posted at OMG Teh World!, saying, "A post with speculation on the whole North Korea dispute."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political punditry, blog carnival.

carnival of political punditry - June 17, 2007

Welcome to the June 17, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry.

This is an interesting carnival. We begin with some jabs at the President and the GOP in general with few articles about the Iraq war in the mix. We then move on to some opinions about the current economy. Staying on course with current events, we move on to the Immigration debate. One blogger gives his feelings on JFK. In a bit of contrast, one blogger tells us why we need laws, while another tells that laws do nothing but destroy. In a strong finish, we try to figure out how our planet survives with so many physical poisons, and with so many social poisons, then we end up with some Mitt Romney humor.

Only Three Notes presents How to become an American President? posted at Only Three Notes, saying, "This is Arnab, the antichrist again. This would be my second post in this blog. I have found quite a few followers but looking for more. I am specifically looking for an american president to be my follower. This post of mine is going to outline how to become an American president."

Madeleine Begun Kane presents GOP Piety Song Parody (Sing to Billy Joel?s Honesty) posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.

DWSUWF presents End Game: The face of "Victory in Iraq" posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall, saying, "The good news is that we have entered the "End Game" of our military involvement in Iraq. The bad news is that the man making the smart moves on the chessboard is Moqtada al-Sadr, likely future leader of Iraq, and the face of "Victory in Iraq" as defined by United States policy."

Hell's Handmaiden presents Churchill had "Never Surrender" hell's handmaiden posted at Hell's Handmaiden.

Wenchypoo presents Recession or Depression? Either Way, the Sky is Falling on Someone Unprepared posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket.

David Hayes presents Misguided Reform: The Problem of the Guest Worker posted at Frozen Toothpaste.

Tim Abbott presents Don't Fence Me In posted at Walking the Berkshires.

David Mills presents John F. Kennedy speaks posted at Undercover Black Man, saying, "A neat little dose of aural history..."

Mike Netherland presents Rule of Law posted at Mike's Nether Land, saying, "A recent post regarding one aspect of the illegal immigration issue. Thanks for hosting!"

zenofeller presents The Real Deal. posted at zenofeller.com.

Wenchypoo presents If Only There Were Fewer People… posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket.

Rick Sincere presents The Outing of Tyler Whitney posted at Rick Sincere News and Thoughts.

E.P. Wintergreen presents Romney Secures Key Endorsement from the Mentally Ill posted at Absolutely Serious, saying, "this is satirical in nature."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political punditry, blog carnival.

Maybe We Should Draft This Guy

As all of my loyal readers are aware (both of you), I recently awarded Jim DeMint "Coolest Person In Congress At The Moment." This is a very prestigious award in certain ranks. It just happens that those ranks are very secretive, so chances are you have never heard of them.

I did a little investigation, which means I looked at Senator DeMint's website. I discovered that his push to stop shamnesty isn't the only thing that makes this man a patriot and a great American who should be placed upon a pedestal and have his praises sung to him. Ok, maybe I'm a little overboard.

Senator DeMint also supports a version of the Consumption Tax, or Fair Tax. He calls it the "8.5% Tax Reform Plan." The specifics are on his website. Here are the highlights:

Replace all individual federal income taxes with a flat 8.5% national retail sales tax on new goods and services.

Provide a universal rebate to all Americans so that the poor are not taxed on basic consumption. The rebate is applied through the reduction in payroll taxes.

Replace all corporate income taxes with a flat 8.5% business transfer tax.

He claims that this is revenue neutral. This is a matter of debate. The estimates for a needed consumption tax rate have been between 23% and 35% to ensure that the federal revenues continue to rise to pay for all of the very necessary earmarks for Congressional pet projects that mean nothing to the average taxpayer. However, the argument remains that if we had such bold tax reform, it would increase economical investment in the U.S. to such an extent that tax revenues could possibly increase substantially. Companies and individuals would no longer spend untold billions on tax preparations and the prices of goods and services would decrease. Fewer jobs would be sent overseas. This may or may not be tax neutral, the problem is that we just don't know until we try it. It is all economical theory. Of course, if you added this bold reform to spending reform, it increases your chances of tax neutrality.

Because this is so debatable an issue, we will instead stick to the 45,000 page long IRS tax code that no one understands and which currently allows an estimated 400 billion dollars in tax cheats each year. That is an interesting estimate because if the IRS were collecting it, there would be no federal deficit at the moment. I just thought I would mention that part.

Senator DeMint seems to have a strong position on two very important issues, borders and taxes. This is why I would like to see him have more of a leadership roll in the Republican Party in D.C. right now. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing this guy as a Presidential candidate. I like his stance on both of these very important issues, and he demonstrated an ability last week to play the political game when it was necessary to help stall the horrible shamnesty bill, I mean the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill. No, I mean shamnesty. He was able to gain enough support from a handful of Republicans and Democrats to force a vote the stalled the bill. He will now be judged on his ability to finish killing this thing. If he can get it done, it would certainly help him gain popularity with the American public.

Of course there are already ten men running for the GOP nomination. The two most liberal are the front runners because they are popular. Senator DeMint is not popular like McCain and Giuliani, and he isn't an actor. If he jumped into the race, he would lose. And we would probably lose too because he would be focusing on his campaign and his help in defeating shamnesty would be missed.

I do have a compromise however. Maybe DeMint should be Fred Thompson's running mate.

carnival of political punditry - June 10, 2007

Welcome to the June 10, 2007 edition of carnival of political punditry. I don't hide the fact that my blog is a conservative blog. I write conservative opinions and so does the other writer, Troy.

I decided to do a wide open blog carnival, allowing opinions from the left and the write. After a good look, I almost feel like I need to put in a "Opinions do not reflect" disclaimer.

The submissions are all here, I didn't turn away anything that was submitted. I will be doing this each week and I will continue to post so long as the submissions do not push too far. There is one that is off topic, and this is the only time it will be allowed.

Some of this is funny, some of it is cause for concern, and some of it is very informative. I don't agree with it all, but here it is.

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Bloody Hell, It?ll Be Bloody! posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.

Wenchypoo presents Rattling the Political Chain of Command posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket.

Avant News presents George W. Bush to Replace Will Shortz as NYT Crossword Puzzle Editor posted at Avant News.

Sammy Benoit presents Democratic Party Political Correctness Will Get US Killed posted at YID With LID.

Michael Boldin presents Understanding the Constitution and War Powers: Can the Congress end War? posted at Populist Party of America.

Grey Swan presents Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and how to prevent it. posted at Grey Swan, saying, "Brief Blog about the importance of being able threaten your enemies."

Steve Faber presents - The Latest Government Proposal to Waste Your Money, Cost You Money, Invade Your Privacy, and (sadly) More posted at DebtBlog.

Jon Swift presents Scooter Libby's Halloween posted at Jon Swift, saying, "It is an image I will not soon forget: Scooter Libby in a remote military installation scaring children."

vjack presents Democratic Candidates Trade Rationality for Votes posted at Atheist Revolution.

Phantom Pulpit presents - Phantom Daily Blog - Dr. Death goes free posted at Phantom Pulpit.

CapeTownDissentator presents Bill O'Reilly: Ecce Homo, an SOB Who Thinks He's a BFD posted at The Dissentators.

Jack Yoest presents Lurita Alexis Doan: Good Management Meets Bad Politics posted at Reasoned Audacity, saying, "A good female manager leading the GSA is bringing out the worst in Congressman Henry Waxman.

Waxman is conducting hearings investigating the General Services Agency head, Lurita Alexis Doan. The Democratic Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is accusing Doan of sweetheart deals (that never happened), of lack of competence (voiced by ‘reassigned’ personnel), and of violations of the Hatch Act. The accusation of Hatch Act violations is the most serious."

Charles H. Green presents How Marketing Can Destroy Sales Trust posted at Trust Matters, saying, "It was Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, who gave Republicans this advice for dealing with the press: "Never answer the question they ask; only answer the question you want to talk about." If politicians want people to start trusting them, they have to get past this Vietnam-era Republican talking points mindset."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political punditry
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political punditry, blog carnival.

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.

Only 26% Favor Immigration Bill

New survey shows U.S. voters passionate about enforcement. So will law makers listen to us?

read more digg story

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

Two Petitions to Prevent Tax Increases -- Will the Ron Paul Supporters digg this one?

Regardless of which candidate you are rooting for, you should get on board for this one.

While scanning the ever expanding internet, I ran across two different petitions demanding the Democratic controlled Congress refrain from raising taxes. These are focused on extending the Bush tax cuts that helped our country get out of the Recession of 2000 and have helped spur millions of new jobs and new businesses since 2003. The other is to urge congress to refrain from adding new excise taxes.

Go to Americans for Tax Reform for the petition to extend tax cuts.

And to Citizens Against Government Waste for the petition against excise taxes.

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.

Ken Calvert and the War Against Earmarks

There is a difference between the shady land deals of Harry Reid and the shady land deals of Ken Calvert. The difference is that conservatives are fighting Calvert. Erick Erickson, editor in chief of redstate.com is calling upon conservatives to have Calvert removed from the Appropriations Committee.
"The House Republican Leadership just does not get it and they will not take us seriously until we flex our muscle against them. We must fight the House GOP and we must fight today. Today, I declare war on the Republican Leadership of the United States House of Representatives. We must scalp one member. That member's name is Ken Calvert," Erick declares on his redstate blog. Michelle Malkin has done a good job of covering this story.

Erick is encouraging members of his blog to flood their lawmakers with phone calls every day compiling a list of those who vote for Calvert. He is currently claiming that many Republicans on the Hill support his efforts.

By now you are wondering what this is all about. Well, remember that wide spread story that was front page news for all those months about Harry Reid buying land, and then selling it years later for a massive profit AFTER securing federal earmarks that may have helped the property value? You remember that don't you? Cunningham is in prison for pretty much the same thing. It was all over, no wait; it actually wasn't all over the place. No one really heard much about it. Oh well. The point is that it happened and nothing was done about it. The other point is that this is what Calvert is being accused of doing, and it really looks as though he is guilty. I don't know that what he did was technically wrong, but it doesn't look good and it brings up a bigger point that I will get to in a minute.

In September 2006, Calvert was named one of the "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" in a report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. He was given this award for his use of earmarks for personal gain. Calvert claims that the earmarks were all used for his district, but the land deals he has engaged in have all been in or near his district. This looks suspicious whether he is guilty or not. A list of his deals can be found at answers.com.

I don't know if he has done anything illegal or technically unethical. But I don't like the way it looks and I don't like the answers he has given. I think that Erickson is doing all Republicans a favor by bringing this out in the open and I hope that Calvert is replaced in the next election. Now if Calvert were a democrat who was caught with a hundred grand in his freezer and the FBI had people admitting to bribing him, that would be one thing. But the republicans are getting tired of their representatives taking advantage of tax dollars.

And that brings us to the root cause of this evil – earmarks. In the last SOTU address, President Bush spoke out against earmarks, calling on Congress to cut them in half. "In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of the earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and the Senate; they're dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk.
You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice.
So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session."

Does anyone see a problem with federal tax dollars being spent in this manner? Earmarks are treated as law, yet there is no vote. And this is what Calvert has done. He dropped millions of your dollars into land in his district. He then made personal profits selling the land.

If earmarks receive no vote whatsoever, how are we to trust Congress to use them wisely? Short answer, we can't trust them. Earmarks are the face of much corruption in D.C. The lobbyist drops ten grand into the politician’s campaign; the politician returns the favor with earmarks that benefit the lobbyist. Can you say Jack Abramoff? And beyond lobbyists, we see that politicians are using earmarks to raise the value of their own properties.

The President was almost right to ask for earmarks to be cut in half. He was almost right to have the OMB set up a database of all earmarks for us to see. He would have been completely right to tell Congress to cut earmarks off all together. The absolute best we can expect from them is the constant appearance of impropriety.

This is one more thing that gives Congress too much power, corrupting power. And to use Erickson's line, we must flex our muscle against them. "If they refuse to hear that change is needed, we will wipe them out and replace them with new blood that recognizes that a corrupt party rejected by the voters will not be embraced again by the voters until the corruption is purged."

Illegal Immigration And Terrorism

On Monday, six men were arrested by Federal officers for plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey and slaughter as many soldiers as possible. Law enforcement was tipped off in January of last year when the men took a videotape of themselves in training for a Jihadist attack to a local Circuit City to have it transferred onto a DVD. The store employee notified the police who in turn notified the FBI. The men were then put under surveillance and watched until the arrest early this week.

Three of the six men were in the United States illegally. Two of the men had permanent residency status, and the final man was a citizen. Agron Abdullahu was brought to the U.S. as a refugee from Kosovo in 1999. In just 8 years Abdullahu has gone from refugee that was saved from certain death in his homeland, to Jihad seeking terrorist.

What should be a wake up call to all members of Congress, and the administration, is that three of these terrorists have no record of legal entry into our country. The illegal immigration debate has taken a new turn and can no longer be ignored. Yes, there are millions of illegal immigrants in our country that have come here to work and live peaceful lives. There are others that have come to wreak havoc and kill as many of us as they possibly can.

There are an increasing number of “sanctuary” cities throughout our country, where illegal immigrants are not reported by law enforcement for traffic violations and other minor offenses. In some states the Governors and legislatures have passed or are considering laws that allow illegal immigrants to obtain legal drivers licenses. Maryland has even gone as far to grant illegal immigrants residency status for university admission. These “safe havens” for illegal immigrants do not just attract the peaceful, hard working people; they undoubtedly attract those like the six arrested Monday.

I find it appalling that “well-intentioned” politicians overlook the overwhelming threat against our country in order to placate to a voting block of people. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. This is a homeland security issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have their fair share of the blame on this issue. Both sides love the rhetoric of protecting the masses from the terrorists, but neither side has done nearly enough on illegal immigration.

Will this be a wakeup call for Congress and the administration to do more to protect our borders? Will the proponents of open borders continue to preach to us tolerance and multiculturalism? We have laws concerning immigration and they need to be enforced. We need to force our local and state governments to enforce immigration laws. We need to hold our Congressman and the administration responsible for not protecting our borders properly. The administration needs to know that the American people want the illegal immigration criminals punished instead of the border patrol agents guarding our borders.

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.