Alternative Minimum Tax Hike?

Shortly after the mid term elections last year the newly elected Democratic leadership promised the American taxpayers to “fix” the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a little known tax that was created almost 40 years ago to force 150 or so wealthy families to pay taxes. These families had not broken any law by not paying taxes, they simply used the tax code to avoid paying any income taxes. The AMT has grown over the 3 plus decades that it has been in existence to include over 3.8 million taxpayers in 2006. The major flaw with the AMT is that it does not take into account inflation or any tax cuts that have been implemented over the years.

I know what many are thinking right now. “This tax does not affect me. I am not in the top 1% or even the top 10% of wage earners.” The sad news is that within the next 3 years at least 26 million more taxpayers will be paying the AMT. The AMT does not take the place of your existing tax rate, it is an additional tax on top of your income tax. Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, show that nearly every family with a total income of $100,000 will be paying $2000 more in taxes next year. Worse yet, many families with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will see a $1000 increase in taxes.

Some Senate Democrats have proposed a plan that would eliminate the AMT but raise taxes on those with more than $500,000 in income. Many politicians up for reelection next year are afraid to back such a plan, because of being seen as proponents of tax increases. Another plan is to simply postpone the effect of the AMT for 2 years, conveniently after the next election, and then work on tax increases to offset any loss of tax revenue from the AMT. Why does the government always expect the taxpayers to do with less money, but never even consider that they should do with less money?

Let’s not forget that the Republicans were in control of Congress for 12 years and failed to do anything about the AMT. They also failed to act on making Bush’s tax cuts, which by the way have caused an increase in tax revenues over the past 6 years. Whatever happened to Republicans being the party of tax cuts and fiscal responsibility? I am not saying the Democrats have been any better about spending since they have been in power. The political promises of last election season that earmark spending would be transparent, has yet to be accomplished. Both political parties have been severely lacking when it comes to tightening the purse strings in Washington. Isn’t any wonder why congressional approval ratings are at historic lows?

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.

OBEY LOST - TAXPAYERS WON!

For Immediate Release June 15, 2007
Contact: Leslie K. Paige 202-467-5334
Alexa Moutevelis 202-467-5318

Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today claimed victory in a fight for earmark transparency in the House. After a wave of protest from across the political spectrum, Democrats finally backed down from plans to keep taxpayers in the dark about tens of billions of dollars in congressionally-earmarked spending items until the bills were in the House-Senate conference. Earmarks will now be included in appropriations bills and subject to debate and amendment.

"Democrats promised real earmark reform, but then took the first opportunity they could to find a loophole and get back to pork-barrel business as usual," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. "The American people are sick and tired of the bait and switch from Congress, especially when it comes to their tax dollars."

In May, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) announced plans to keep earmarks secret until closed-door conference committee meetings between the House and Senate to reconcile spending bills, which typically take place in September. Rep. Obey planned to report the bills out of committee "earmark free," but intended to include funding increases in order to have the extra money to pay for earmarks that would be inserted later. The Chairman announced that he and his staff would vet these earmarks themselves to determine their suitability for funding in the final bill, making them "judge and jury" for billions of dollars in such projects.

While Rep. Obey promised the earmark lists would finally be made available for viewing in August, before the conference committees, the resulting conference reports themselves are not subject to amendment, leaving no opportunity to challenge or strike any individual pork project.

Chairman Obey's scheme flouted the spirit of new House rules, which call for earmarks to be provided in appropriations bills and which would allow them to be challenged on the floor of the House. Republicans, and particularly Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a stalwart opponent of the recent earmark bonanzas, took a stand and protested Obey's plan by bringing House proceedings to a grinding halt. Democrats also felt the heat from the media, their constituents, bloggers, and taxpayer watchdog groups like CAGW. The outrage, which showed no sign of abatement, along with the Republicans' commitment to throwing up endless procedural roadblocks, finally forced the House Democratic leadership to agree to list earmarks with the bills.

"Chairman Obey wanted to stay behind closed doors and play 'God' with earmarks, but the taxpayers won this battle for transparency and accountability," concluded Schatz.

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government.

White Racists For the Left

Protest Warrior.com

Message to the GOP -- We Are Not Democrats

This is one reason why my voter card has an "I" for "Independent"
by The New Pundit

To quote John Hawkins, "The GOP seems to be under the impression that conservatives have a duty to support their policies and decisions in office. This is exactly backwards and is the sort of thinking you'd expect from Feudal lords, not from American politicians. Conservatives put these Republicans into office to represent our views and the reason they're not getting a lot of support from the base is because they're doing a very poor job of showing us that they're listening and responding to what we want them to do."

It seems that the Republicans in Congress have mistaken us. They seem to believe that we are in fact Democrats. I can understand the kind of thinking that Hawkins describes above in the circles of people like Pelosi and Reid, but not in the circles of people like McCain and Graham. Let's take a good look at the thought process of the average Democrat. I'll give some examples.

Many Democrats are of the belief that Clinton was the greatest president ever. Ask them why and they spout off things about the economy and that our country was at peace with the rest of the world. They of course don't talk about the fact that Clinton was handed an economy that was already booming, and gave it to Bush Jr. on the brink of recession. They also fail to discuss the fact that Clinton sent out more force deployments than any president since WW2, most of which were abject failures. They also gloss over the fact that much of the strife today took hold while he was in office and was in fact made worse because of the failures of his deployments. That isn't peace.

Democrats believe that Carter was a great president. They forget that he installed the current government in Iran. They forget about the horrible economy that he made worse.

There are numerous examples of democrats holding up their own, while shouting in protest when the other side actually agrees with them. Clinton was the one who suggested putting Social Security funds into the stock market. Clinton was the one who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. When Bush tries to move both of these forward, he is called an oil loving Hitler by the same people who applauded Clinton.

There are many other examples I could give, (Sandy Berger, William Jefferson) but I want to get to the point. Democrats have a history of doing exactly as they are told. They rarely hold their politicians accountable for their actions, such as a homosexual relationship with an underage page. We have all come to expect this.

But for some reason, it seems that Republicans believe that their supporters are just that, supporters. Hawkins nails them down pretty well. They are under the impression that we are here to give them a rubber stamp. There is no better example than in the current debate over immigration.

Conservatives have been screaming about the problem at the southern border for a long time. As this issue has cost taxpayers more and more, we have become more and more vocal about our displeasure. Illegal aliens, despite the lie about them doing jobs Americans won't do, are a net loss to our economy. As the number of illegal aliens increases, so increases the unemployment rate and the crime rate within the black community as the illegal aliens take jobs from that community by accepting lower wages. And now we know that they are bringing terrorists with them. We now know that Hugo Chavez is aligned with Iran to bring down the U.S. We know that Al-Qaeda has set up training camps in South American countries to send people through the border. Our voices have become louder and louder as we have more and more reasons to show concern.

Given all of this, how does D.C. decide to handle the lack of law enforcement at our borders? They decide to make new laws. Legislation for legislation's sake. They decided that we need "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Not only did Republicans jump on board this bandwagon, but it is in fact the Republican President who has led the charge.

I'm going to be frank here. Let me clear my throat. Every single person in Congress who is showing any support whatsoever for the half dead immigration bill that Ted Kennedy and his cohorts put together is in blatant violation of the United States Constitution and needs to be impeached. It is that simple.

Here is my message to the Republicans in Congress. We are not Democrats. We do not support you when you do not support us. When you lie and cheat, we hold you accountable. Apparently you didn't figure this out last year when you made Nancy Pelosi 2nd in line to the President. I know that the Democrats had to lie and cheat to take the majority, but you allowed it to happen when you acted like them. You acted like the Democratic Party and then expected conservative voters to act like Democratic voters. I don't know how it is that you didn't realize how badly you pissed us off. You pissed us off then and you are pissing us off now. STOP PISSING US OFF!!!!! Is this clear yet? If it is not clear yet, we are going to have a Democratic majority for a long while. We are also going to have a Democratic president in a couple of years. Most of the people I know can't afford the taxes and jacked up health care that this will surely bring.

If this does not stop, the Democrats will take over. The really bad news is that when they take over, they will take these same problems and make them worse. That is what they are good at. And the Republican Party politicians will have only themselves to blame.

We are not Democrats.

The Culture of Corruption Strikes Again

Washington, Jun 5

After shutting down the House Ethics Committee investigation of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) all year, today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) finally appointed 10 members to serve as part of the Democrats’ ethics “pool” – more than five months after she promised to lead the most “open and ethical” Congress in history.

Following are 10 facts everyone should know about how House Democratic leaders have dragged their feet on the Jefferson matter and shut down the Ethics Committee investigation that was underway under the Republican-led, 109th Congress:

1) During the Republican-led Congress last year, the Ethics Committee announced the formation of an investigative subcommittee to examine the Jefferson matter.

2) At the end of the 109th Congress, the Jefferson inquiry expired, and action was delayed for more than five months by the new Democratic majority in the 110th Congress.

3) House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was READY in January to appoint his 10 members to the ethics pool so the Jefferson investigation could continue.

4) As a courtesy, Leader Boehner waited on Speaker Pelosi to name her members so that both pools of members could be announced at the same time.

5) In February, the House Democratic Caucus unanimously approved Jefferson’s selection to the Homeland Security Committee, which would have given him access to highly sensitive top secret information.

6) The months of January, February, March, and April passed with no appointments from Pelosi – only stalling the ethics process and the Jefferson investigation.

7) On May 1, after waiting some four months for Speaker Pelosi to name her ethics pool members, Leader Boehner officially made his 10 appointments and they were printed in the Congressional Record.

8) Those 10 GOP appointments include Reps. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ander Crenshaw (R-FL), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Phil English (R-PA), Tom Latham (R-IA), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Sue Myrick (R-NC), Mike Simpson (R-ID), and Greg Walden (R-OR).

9) Because Speaker Pelosi refused to name her members for more than five months -- per clause 5(a)(4)(A) of House Rule X, and per Rule 19 of the House Ethics Committee -- the Ethics Committee failed to re-establish an investigative subcommittee to review this matter further.

10) Leader Boehner’s privileged resolution requires the Ethics Committee to do its work and requires a resolution in a timely manner.

Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have spent the past five months breaking nearly every pledge they’ve made to the American people – from ethics reform, to earmark reform, to fiscal responsibility, to fairness in operation of the House to any number of other hollow promises.

The American people have a right to ask. When will the Democrats live up to their promises?

And what does Nancy Pelosi have to say about all of this?

September 28, 2005“The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people.”

June 05, 2007
“The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious. While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power.

Thanks to GOPbloggers for the info.

"War on Terror? Why That's Just Crazy Talk," John 'The Next President of the United States' Edwards

Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists. Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan Bush had used to justify everything...

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?

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.

Sold to the Highest Bidder!! Mexico

In case you haven't yet seen it, here are some links to the all new United States of Mexico.

Here is Malkin with some links and commentary from National Review and NumbersUSA. "It's here: The Bush-Kennedy amnestyReport: Potential cost = $2.5 trillionUpdated with GOP reax"

Brietbart gives some of the details of the sale.

Senator DeMint calls it what it is. "But the little we do know about the bill is troubling. According to reports, the bill contains a new 'Z Visa' that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."

And here is Mitt, who won some points from me today. "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S. Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."

Rep. Steve King: "Each one of these Senators should wear a scarlet letter 'A' for amnesty." Thank you Mr. King.

I also found a good post at digg from poster ritad. Does anyone see the irony that we lost 2 pretty good Kennedy boys, now we are left with fat old windbag brother Teddy, who along with El president Bush, and the rest of the scum bags on both the left and the right have just sold our country down the river by voting to reward bad behavior by illegal immigrants with amnesty. We will now for all intents and purposes be a one party country as the stupid Republicans cannot see the fact that all these new illegal citizens will most assuredly vote democratic, and since they will be the majority now, shows the republicans have just effectively shot their own balls off and don't even realize it, oh well if they are that stupendously ignorant, they don't deserve to have a party anyway. I have one question for anyone out here who might be able to answer it, why in the world do we feel we owe amnesty to people invading our country, disrespecting our laws and our sovereignty, the way they are doing? I am sorry, I just don't get it and will never will, if the house reps, are unable to squelch this bill, our country is doomed. Gone our beautiful country, trashed as Mexico is, wonder when there are not enough original Americans left to pay for welfare, food stamps, medicaid and whatever other entitlements these people feel they should be entitled to, what will they do then? Will they "migrate" on up to Canada? God, we could be so lucky! Our, we might just join Iraq, and have our own little civil war, due to the fact that most of our American citizens are strongly against this amnesty!

And let us not forget who it is we are letting into our country.
U.S. soccer team faces chants of 'Osama'
Illegal Immigration And Terrorism

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.

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.