How New And Fresh Is Obama?

The supporters of Senator Barack Obama continuously tout their candidate as a new type of candidate, a man that is positioned above the fray of the political process. A political genius filled with new and exciting ideas to “change” our country. Obama is indeed a new and fresh face in politics. He served 7 years in the Illinois state legislature before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. He served just 2 years in the Senate before declaring his candidacy for the office of President. He has relied on his gifted oratory skills to deliver speeches that have inspired a cult-like following. It will come as no surprise that I do not share the same lofty opinion of the junior Senator from Illinois.

First of all, let’s look at a few of the proposals from the Obama campaign. He has offered up his plans for socialized medicine, faith-based initiatives, windfall profits tax on the “big oil” companies, raise taxes on the “rich”, and bring home our troops from Iraq as soon as he is sworn into office to name but a few. None of these ideas are new or fresh. Hillary Clinton first proposed the nationalized health care plan nearly 15 years ago. President Bush was vilified for even considering a faith-based initiative, but Obama’s supporters are preparing for his canonization. Windfall profits tax is a nice throwback to President Jimmy Carter’s days of malaise. Raising the taxes of the “rich” has been the liberal battle cry for decades. Every single Democratic candidate for President, except for Joe Biden, promised to bring home the troops from Iraq on January 21 of 2009.

Senator Obama has been a staunch advocate for public financing of political campaigns since he burst on to the political scene. Now that he has developed a taste for the millions of dollars of private financing, he has decided that public financing is fine for everyone else, just not for him. His weak assertions that the “Republican machine” is poised to unleash their attacks on him and he desperately needs the money to fight the smears have shown that he is nothing more than a typical politician. He will do and say anything that he feels will get him elected.

Over the course of the past few months, several high profile Obama supporters have called into question Senator John McCain’s war record and his heroism. The most recent being General Wesley Clark stating that McCain’s war experience did nothing to enhance his qualifications for the Presidency. I suppose that the General could have had a change of heart over the past 4 years. In 2004 he was praising John Kerry’s war record and touting it as a chief qualification for the office of President. Obama is careful to distance himself enough from the comments to appear shocked at such remarks, but yet never fully repudiating the comments or those making these assertions. Again, this aspect of his campaign is nothing new or fresh. The Clintons perfected this tactic back in the 90’s.

Senator Obama is a very gifted speaker when he is delivering a stump speech. He is obviously a very intelligent man and has surrounded himself with some very politically savvy advisors. Unfortunately the list of his qualifications stops there. Even General Clark made the same assertion, although I doubt he realized it, when he said that Obama is running on his communication skills and not a story about getting shot down in Vietnam. Obama and McCain have very different ideas about what America is and should be. Even their ideas about patriotism are vastly different. McCain believes patriotism is putting your country first, while Obama believes patriotism is that faith we have in each other as Americans. It is quite amusing that for the past 10 years the news media has built up McCain as a maverick and a new type of politician because of his willingness to go against his party’s wishes. Now Obama comes on the scene touting the same ideas that have been brought to the table countless times and he is portrayed as a messianic figure here to save us all with his brand new way of thinking. It doesn’t matter if Chris Matthews has a tingling sensation running up his leg while Obama speaks, he is and always will be just another liberal politician.

Most Electable or Most Qualified

Will Conservatives nominate a candidate who can beat the Democratic nominee? Or will we nominate the best person for the job, who ends up letting Hillary into the White House.

I'm not going to go deep into who is the best person for the job, because I just don't know right now. But I do have some theories as to who will do what against whomever. Who can beat the current Democratic front runners? Thompson, Rudy, Mitt, McCain, Ron Paul?

Let's first take a look at Rasmussen. They have not only the primary races, but have also put together some head-to-head polls, pitting certain Republicans against certain Democrats.

First we will look at Ron Paul. He pretty much loses big against Hillary and against Obama, which of course is due to some big media, corporate empire conspiracy. I'm certain that Alex Jones has all the answers at his web site where you can also find out that 9-11 was an inside job and the V-Tech killings were a CIA brain washing experiment. He gets less that 35% against both candidates.

McCain is neck and neck with Hillary, only 2 percentage points separating them. Hillary and Obama are both well ahead of Mitt, 51% to 40%. McCain could give the Democrats a run, but in the end I think he loses, and there is no way he is going to get the nod after the immigration foul up. Mitt is popular, but not that popular.

Fred Thompson still has not announced, yet he is only 3 points shy of Hillary right now. Would making it official give him a boost? Will waiting it out just a bit longer help or hinder? I have no freaking clue. He is the politician, which means he has a bit more experience at getting elected, so I'll let him figure that out. I think that if he did get the nod, he would slap Hillary or Obama silly at every debate. Not only does he have a commanding voice, but he knows the words to use.

Giuliani is the only guy beating Hillary right now in the head-to-head. This is considered a strange thing given the fact that the right doesn't like his stance on, well, every single social issue. He is great on certain issues such as crime and national defense. Not so good on things like abortion. I think that if he assures conservatives that he will install good judges, he can get around that issue to some extent, but abortion is one of the biggest issues he is fighting. He is also not trusted by conservatives when it comes to gay issues. I personally don't get half of that, but us conservatives are very religious and this is a big deal. On the other side, Democrats are against gay marriage also, so what is the real effect.

Rudy is running very high mostly because he is America's Mayor. He is now being criticized for missteps after 9-11. But he did display a great deal of courage and leadership. He misspoke about how much time he spent at ground zero, but he was there getting dirty and doing his job.

So let's break this down. Hillary Clinton is going to be the democratic nominee. I have no doubts at all. She is polling well ahead of Obama and Edwards. She has been forgiven by most of the anti-war left for her vote, and many have forgotten half of the things that she has said and done that would make most people exclude her altogether. That is one advantage of being a Democrat, the fact that most things are only wrong if done by a Republican. If you call it a right wing conspiracy or tell everyone that Bush tricked you, you are forgiven. Carl Rove immediately stepped up attacks against her when he resigned, attacks that may continue for a while. He does this knowing that he is hated by the left because he got Bush elected and he is a demon who eats puppies and helped design the Halliburton Hurricane machine that killed all the poor black people after Katrina. What I'm trying to say is that Rove's words against Hillary give her strength with Democratic voters. Interestingly Dick Morris says that the best thing that can happen to the Republicans is a Hillary ticket because Republicans would go vote just to defeat her. Is this what Rove is thinking? Would those same people vote to defeat her if they had to vote for Giuliani to do so? Again, his stance on abortion kills him with a lot of voters.

Giuliani has appeal from both sides. There are liberals out there who support the war effort and like a guy like Rudy who has left leanings. There are conservatives who forgive his stance on abortion, and will vote for him to ensure the defeat of Hillary. Rudy could actually win New York, and if he is given the support of The Governator, may actually pick up California. California is a stretch, but the right tactics could get it done. You have to not only consider how many votes will be gained, but how many will be lost by an issue. The anti-war crowd is angry that they haven't gotten their way yet, and may be no-shows. This gives Rudy another advantage in California.

This is also going to come down to how things go in Iraq. Contrary to MSM belief, things are much better than they were BP (before Petraeus). He has lifted the morale of the troops and has turned many of the Iraqi insurgents against Al-Qaeda. They are starting to realize that they will be allowed to get into the politics once they agree to act like politicians. Even many who have opposed the war for years are agreeing that the current strategy is working. Attacks are decreasing and Iraqi forces are getting trained so that they can take over security. This is bad news for Democrats, but Hillary is good enough to take all the credit for the successes.

Another issue is the economy. Lack of regulations on the sub-prime markets has turned our economy on its head. Many will blame Bush for this despite the fact that this was done by the marketplace and there was nothing any president could have done. Hillary is adding a bail-out to her platform, which would have catastrophic ramifications down the road. If the government bails out everyone who is about to lose a house, we will have problems. But people don't think about long term issues when they are in trouble now. What is needed is controlled actions by the Federal Reserve, then Congress needs to put some regulations in place regarding the sale of Adjustable Rate Mortgages. This is what needs to be done, but as long as she is talking about a bail out, she will get support. However, this is going to be mostly cleared up by Election Day, so it won't help her as much as she may think.

I think that if Giuliani gets the nod to run against Hillary, his choice as VP is going to be vital. I know that he likes McCain, but Conservatives don't. Rudy already has the abortion issue against him, he cannot add the issue of John "Immigration Reform" McCain. This will cost him support with from the left and the right. Polls claim that the majority of Americans were against the bill, and that they want a secure border. Rudy may do well to look at the second place candidate, Fred Thompson. Fred could give him more of the Conservative base, especially in the south. This also gives him someone who economists may like. Fred is a tax reform type of guy who believes in business. This is of course assuming Rudy wins the nod instead of Fred, but I'm going with how it looks at the moment. Things may very well swing when he makes it official.

On another note, I don't like the fact that this is how I may be forced to make my decision. I don't think I really want any of the candidates to win. I disagree with all of them on too many issues, but God help us if Hillary or Obama were given the power to surrender to Iran, create socialized medicine, raise taxes on businesses and then for some damned reason, bomb Pakistan.

Equal Opportunity Politics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Romney Gain Points by Announcing His Running Mate Now?

Oh the little things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

2008 Primary GOP Straw Poll

Run Fred Run, But Will Newt Run With You?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GOP—a party in distress

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

read more digg story

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

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

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

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

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

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.