irishmex_rebel's Xanga

Romney Bows Out, RIP Romney 08

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:52:44 GMT

I have to say I didn't see it coming. I expected Romney, with his deep pockets, to fight on as Ron Paul will. The fact that he accepts the necessity of party unity, in the face of a Clinton or the Most Liberal Senator of 2007, in the face of possible economic crisis and in the face of a war on America, requires some respect. The fact that he doesn't continue to divide the party also garners some respect.

If Romney only had conservative credentials to back his talk, he would have made a great candidate. But he does not. Hopefully he can acquire some in the future.

NPR.org, February 7, 2008 · Mitt Romney announced he was suspending his presidential campaign on Thursday, a move that all but cedes the Republican nomination to rival John McCain.Romney — a former Massachusetts governor who spent $35 million of his own money in pursuit of the White House, as well as millions more that he raised from others — told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., that dropping out was for the good of the party, which needs to unite for the general election.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or (Barack) Obama would win," he said. "And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

On Thursday, he gave his rival a qualified endorsement."I disagree with Sen. McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating al-Qaida and terror," he said.

~IM_R

Why McCain Blows

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:47:45 GMT

Ok. Lay it on me. Why is McCain not prerferable (overall) to those who are running?

--Huckabee?

--Romney?

--Paul?

Line on up, I'll take you one at a time.

~IM_R

John McCain v. Romney Debate

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:54:32 GMT

There has been a lot of talk back and forth on the McCain-Romney clash. Some conservatives are jumping up and down with glee that McCain didn't smoke Romney. But once again they are missing a lot. Some points to mention.

-This debate was pointless. Nothing new was said and the most contentious point was something that both of them now agree on. (That gem had to be pointed out by Ron Paul).

-This debate is entirely overshadowed by the recent endorsements going McCain's way (Arnold and Rudy) and the coming Tuesday, not to mention the SuperBowl.

-Paul did make one really good remark that I think will harm Romney's camp a bit. Romney had just waxed eloquent on his economic experience and ability to turn this economy around (dubious at best). Then soon after Ron Paul comes out with this brilliant quote,

"The Constitution is very clear that the president is commander in chief of the military, but the president is not the commander in chief of the economy or of the people. The president is not supposed to manage and run the economy. The people are supposed to do this. The government is supposed to give them sound money, low taxes, less regulation. The people are supposed to run it. But here, we're assuming that the president is supposed to run the economy."

-Anyone who knows anything about Romney will be shocked by his claims that McCain is the one who is being negative and attacking him, that McCain is "not a conservative". Some chutzpah that takes. Big words coming from someone who described themselves as "independent" during the Reagan years, vowed not to "return to Reagan/Bush", vowed to protect abortion rights, talked big on gun control and so on. It was astonishing that no one picked up on it.

Once again a pointless debate that said little and will have little effect. I was disappointed by everyone, except Ron Paul, who I clearly don't support.

Is John McCain a Conservative?...Florida thinks so.

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:19:42 GMT

JOHN MCCAIN WINS FLORIDA PRIMARY

This is major for a few different reasons.

1. It is a closed Republican primary which has been an issue for a while now. Many pundits did not believe that McCain would win a closed Republican primary, seeing that the earlier ones in South Carolina and New Hampshire, the indepdents and crossovers gave him an edge over Romney and Huckabee. This proves them wrong.

2. FLA has 40% of the pre-Super Tuesday vote. It has 114, winner-take-all delegates, adding to McCain's previous 36, making him the leader for delegates going into Super Tuesday.

3. McCain wins the majority of the vote concerning,

-The Economy (major shock to me)
-Women
-Latinos (no shock there)
-The War in Iraq (another no brainer)
-Moderates (ibid)

4. Giuliani's poor performance. With 72% of the precincts reporting, Mayor Giuliani only had 15% of the vote after two weeks of campaigning. It's been rumored that he will drop out (odds are) and back McCain, bringing more voters into McCain's camp.

5. Simple Momentum. Going into Super Tuesday, with Romney climbing into polls McCain needs momentum to keep his good lead (6%-9%) going.

This is the question being asked by many Republicans as it appears to be a McCain-Romney race. While many conseratives are reluctant to support Romney, who's economic record is dismal, stances on social issues change often and who has no military experience, they are somehow convinced that McCain is no conservative and thus must back Romney. However this is simply false. I frankly don't know where it comes from. While Americans, conservatives especially, recognize that he is an Amerian hero, has extensive foreign policy and military experience, has immense legislative experience and is probably the most electable Republican, they somehow fear that he is "not really one of them." They are wrong. I will go over the three main, overlapping, coalitions that make up the conservative movement in America.

Social Conservativism

In America social conservatism's main issues consist of a hard position on crime, traditional values, a limited government approach to education, and Second Amendment rights.

John McCain's strong position on criminals, calling for tougher punishments against those who threaten society, earned him a low 29% rating from the liberal group CURE[1], who call criminals "errants" as if they only accidentially erred against society. He voted for the 2004 Crime Bill which would mandate longer prison terms for serious violent crimes committed with firearms and various drug offenses[2]. He supports the use of the death penalty for serious violent crimes and supports mandatory prison terms for narcotics violations[3].

On the issue of the sanctity of life, John McCain was rated 0% by the pro-abortion group NARAL[4] and hasone of the strongest pro-life records of anyone in the Senate. In 1984, before it was politically convenient for him, McCain voted for H.AMDT.942, the Siljander Amendment, to H.R.5490[5], all of them pro-life measures in the Senate. The last one, H.R.5490 would define an infant as an unborn child, a human being from the moment of conception, thus qualifying them for 14th Amendment protections of their lives. McCain is also against birth control and sex education which includes a vote of no on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptives[6].

Some try to cite his opposition for the Defense of Marriage Act as proof that he is not a social conservative and is for the "homosexual agenda." However this lacks context. He voted against it for reasons of state's rights, which is a limited government conservative approach to issues. He did however support the Arizona intiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman[7], defending the traditional definition of marriage.

He received a conservative rating from the liberal NEA union, showing his opposition to the liberal, entenched teacher's union that is harming the education of our children[8]. John McCain voted yes on school vouchers in DC, yes on education savings accounts, yes on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules, and voted to slim down the size of the federal education behemoth[9]. He also supports including the Theory of Intelligent Design being taught in public schools. In 2005 he told the Arizona Daily Star that "all points of view" should be taught to students, allowing for more academic freedom and disussion of ideas in school[10].

Some have tried to cite his support for reasonable gun laws as evidence that he opposes the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Unlike Romney or Giuiliani, he has the Second Amendment as a specific issue on his campaign site[11] and he voted against the Federal Weapons Assault Ban and efforts to renew it, along with the Brady Bill, which would have restricted our Constitutional rights as Americans. He said in a speech before the NRA, that he would uphold our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms[12].

To charge that John McCain isn't a social conservative, despite a twenty year long, proud, consistent socially conservative record, lacks any basis in reality.

Economic Conservatism

One of the long held Republican, conservative beliefs is the ideal of economic liberty, one that John McCain has upheld since the beginning.

John McCain has never voted for an increase in tax rates in 25 years in Congress—never – and clearly and consistently supports cutting and simplifying taxes[13]. He supported private Social Security Accounts, allowing us more freedom in our SS options[14].

Some have tried to black McCain's record by citing his opposition to the Bush tax cuts (2001, 2003) and his refusal to sign the "No New Taxes" pledge put out by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. However what they fail to realize is that his main reason for opposing those cuts was a failure to back it up with conservative spending policies[15]. What some fail to realize is that in 2006, he supported those cuts, in addition to his incessant campaigning against big government spending[16].

Even Greg Norquist of the ATR has admitted that John McCain has backed up Norquist's pledge with his consistent record[17]. Unlike Huckabee and Romney, signers of the pledge, he is not a new ally in the fight against oppressive taxes from our federal government.

Unlike his rival Huckabee, who increased the size of state government by 20%, McCain has been the strongest, and sometimes the only conservative fighting against rampant pork barrel spending[18].

John McCain also opposes socialized healthcare that would bankrupt the country, cause more taxation, would restrict our economic liberty and would fail dismally, instead supports cutting the taxes of working Americans[19]. He supports free market, conservative solutions to the American health care crisis, allowing more competition[20]. McCain stood for lowering taxes on business (the second highest in the world, lower than Europe even) by 15%. He also supports new rules that would require a supramajority to tax hard working American people.

He also received a full, astonishing 100% from the Cato Institute, a foundation for protecting economic liberty, on the issue of free trade[22]. John McCain said at a Republican debate in 2007, "Free trade should be the continuing principle that guides this nation's economy."[23]

Once again the critics are wrong. John McCain is a friend of the American business owner, the American taxpayer, the American consumer, the economic conservative and above all, the American people.

Foreign Policy/National Security Conservatism

Here is where the Romneys and the Huckabees of the party cannot simply compete. It is common knowledge that John McCain's major strength, among everything else, is his military experience and foreign policy knowledge. He served his country during the Cuban Missle Crisis, on hazard duty. He served his country by leading men on bombing raids against North Vietnamese Communists, over 20 times. He served as a POW, being tortured and held in solitary confinement. He led the Navy's largest attack squadron, turning a mediocre unit into an impressive, well-oiled unit. He has served on the MIA/POW affairs, dealt with American relations with Viet Nam, Russia, Iran, Israel, and Pakistan. He co-authored the bill that led to the 9-11 Commission and the Transportation Security Administration, protecting Americans. He stood up to the destructive policies of Rumsfeld, and stood for the surge and General Petreaus when Republicans in the Congress looked the other way. No one can question his credentials when it comes to this arena. Even the anti-McCain people admit that.

Yet despite the consensus, some will try. They cite his opposition to the use of waterboarding and torture as some kind of twisted evidence of his disloyalty to the security of America. What they forget is that waterboarding was a war crime that Japanese war criminals were tried and convicted for after the Second World War[24].

Torture itself has been long noted as an unreliable way to gather information, which harms America's security and does not help it[25][26].

Once again the critics have been proven wrong. John McCain is exactly what the Republicans and this country needs when it comes to the dangerous and confusing world of geo-political affairs. If you want to keep America safe, don't vote for a former businessman or preacher. While they are respectable professions and while Romney and Huckabee seem like nice guys, like the old British saying goes, "Nice men don't win wars." Vote for someone with military experience and who has fought before. Not for someone who needs on the job training.

So as we conclude, we can see that McCain is the complete conservative candidate, not the "liberal" one. McCain scored a lifetime rating of 83% from the American Conservative Union, who rated Fred Thompson 86%, and no one questioned Thompson's conservative credentials. He's been a life-long Republican, campaigning only for Republican candidates, except Joe Lieberman's bid for the Senate as an Indpendent, which weakned the Democrats hold on Congress. While some of his attackers talk of leaving the party, essentially aiding the election of Hillary Clinton (like it did in 1992), John McCain has stuck to this party.

John McCain represents the essence of the Reagan Coalition, this is why he is supported by those who helped Ron build it. People like Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, George Schultz, General Al Haig, Dan Coats and many others. Not to mention Dr. Henry Kissinger, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Joe Lieberman, Charles Schwab, and over 100 retired admirals and generals.

This is the year to vote for consistent and experienced conservatism. Unlike John McCain, his critics are none of these things.

Sources

1: CURE's ratings. http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=20&go.x=11&go.y=12

2. Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR03355:@@@L&summ2=m&

3. VoteSmart.org. http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=53270623

4. NARAL's ratings. http://www.ontheissues.org/

5. House Amendment 942. http://www.nchla.org/keyvoteabt.asp?vote=307

6. On-The-Issues. http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

7. Arizona Republic. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0826initiatives26.html

8. NEA's ratings. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

9. On-The-Issues. http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

10. Arizona Daily Star. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/90069

11. On the Issues: Protecting Second Amendment Rights. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm

12. NRA. http://www.nraila.org/Multimedia/MMPlayer_Set.aspx?ID=83

13. Michael Medved. http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/817ee854-0a2e-4a71-bb6e-38e1b2b48388

14. NY Times.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04EFDA1F3BF932A25752C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

15. NBC's "Meet The Press," 4/11/04

16. Donald Limbro, "GOP 'darlings' slow to sign tax-cut pledge", Washington Times, February 22, 2007

17. Michael Medved. http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/817ee854-0a2e-4a71-bb6e-38e1b2b48388

18. Howard Kurtz, "McCain, Rising Up Against 'Spartacus'", Washington Post, May 13, 2002.

19. Washington Post. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/10/post_132.html

20. MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21243223/

21. Michael Medved.

22. John McCain on Free Trade. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Free_Trade.htm

23. Ibid.

24. St. Petersburg Times. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/235/

25. Brigadier General David R. Irvine. http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/

26. Boise State University. http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9901/9901.pdf

Thompson Dropped, McCain Smeared, and Republican Pragmatism

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:08:04 GMT

Thompson Dropped

As you have have heard by now that Republican presidential candidate Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) has dropped out of the race.

I'm actually a little bummed out because if McCain lost, that is who I would have supported. However I'm curious to see if he comes a VP candidate, especially if McCain wins. Unfortunately he has yet to make any kind of endorsement.

Ok I have yet to get to Catholicism but I will devote a full non-political post to it.

McCain Smeared by Idiots

Ok I see many people smearing McCain calling him a liberal, and claiming that they will not vote, or vote third party if he wins the nomination. However this frankly amazes me. So I foudn this great article that clears things up.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Six Big Lies About John McCain

Posted by: Michael Medved at 12:23 PM

LIE #1: John McCain isn’t a loyal Republican.

TRUTH: McCain has been a stalwart Reagan Republican since he first entered politics in 1981.

He has never backed Democratic candidates for president or lesser posts – other than supporting his friend Joe Lieberman in his Independent campaign for US Senate in 2006. Over the years, he has campaigned tirelessly for Republican office-holders in every corner of the country – including vigorous campaigning that helped win elections for his former rival George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. McCain has earned a lifetime rating of 83 for his Senate voting record from the American Conservative Union; his friend, Fred Thompson, won a very similar lifetime rating of 86 and appropriately dubbed himself “a consistent conservative.” While some of McCain’s harshest critics regularly talk of abandoning the GOP for some third party option (and some did so to back Pat Buchanan’s embarrassing run in 2000), McCain has never abandoned his party. On three crucial items in the Bush agenda – taking the offensive against terrorists, cutting wasteful government spending, and comprehensive immigration reform – no member of Congress has provided more loyal or significant support for the President of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party.

----------------------------------------------------------

LIE #2: McCain represents a betrayal and rejection of the Reagan coalition.

TRUTH: McCain is a consistent, passionate Reagan Republican who, like the greatest president of recent years, is unabashedly pro-life, pro-second amendment rights, pro-military, pro-peace through strength, pro-small government, pro-spending cuts, and pro-tax cuts.

Many leaders of the Reagan Revolution – Jack Kemp, Senator Phil Gramm, Senator Dan Coats, General Alexander Haig, George Shultz and many more – proudly back Senator McCain. The conservative Senators who know McCain best – John Kyl, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott – support his presidential campaign after working with him in the Senate for years and seeing his commitment to Reaganism. During the six years he served in Congress under President Reagan, McCain supported the administration as one of its most effective “foot soldiers.” Unlike many of his critics, McCain echoes the Reagan approach – not the Buchanan approach – to free trade and immigration reform.

--------------------------------------------------------------

LIE #3: John McCain organized “The Gang of Fourteen” to Block the Confirmation of Conservative Judges.

TRUTH: John McCain organized “The Gang of Fourteen” to win- not to block -the Confirmation of Conservative Judges, and his efforts succeeded in the Senate.

This group of seven Republicans and Seven Democrats (representing a full 14% of the US Senate, obviously) ultimately broke the logjam that had delayed confirmation of some of the most conservative nominees of President Bush. Because of McCain’s leadership, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito won Supreme Court confirmation without filibuster from the Democrats. He also secured the previously blocked confirmations of Appellate Judges William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Brett Kavanaugh, previously filibustered by Democrats. At the same time, McCain and his “gang” managed to protect the right to filibuster – an important tool with obvious value now that Republicans find themselves in the minority. McCain has never opposed a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court; unlike some of his prominent fellow Republicans, he actively supported the nomination of Judge Robert Bork. His disagreement with Senate Republican leader Bill Frist on the “Gang of Fourteen” issues involved questions of tactics, not the goal of securing a judiciary that honors the principles of strict construction.

-------------------------------------------------

LIE #4: John McCain supports higher taxes.

TRUTH: John McCain has never voted for an increase in tax rates in 25 years in Congress—never – and clearly and consistently supports cutting and simplifying taxes.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform has acknowledged that even though McCain refuses to take the “no new taxes” pledge he has kept that pledge with his voting record, throughout his service in the Senate and the House. Yes, he did vote against Bush tax cuts – but did so because no cuts in spending accompanied the cuts in taxes. Unlike some of his colleagues, he insists that tax cuts and increased revenues won’t be enough to close the deficit – there must be spending cuts as well. It’s increasingly obvious that he’s right: tax cuts without spending cuts won’t shrink the national debt or trim the size of government. He currently supports making all the Bush tax cuts permanent before their schedule expiration in 2010 to allow individuals and businesses to plan their futures without uncertainty. He also backs an immediate cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% (second highest rate in the world) to 20% (one of the lowest in the world) as a means of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. He also backs instituting new rules requiring a super majority – a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress-- rather than simple majorities, to approve any tax increases. This would make it vastly more difficult for future Congresses (even under Democratic control) to take more money from hard-working Americans.

-----------------------------------------------------------

LIE #5: McCain is an advocate of “amnesty” and “open borders.”

TRUTH: As Senior Senator from Arizona, McCain has fought for years to tighten border security, stop illegal immigration, increase workplace enforcement and to resist “amnesty” for those who entered the country without authorization.

McCain’s rival for the nomination, Mitt Romney, unequivocally and rightly acknowledged that his opponent’s position in no way amounts to “amnesty” or “open borders.” In the Fox News debate in South Carolina on January 10, Governor Romney declared: “All of us on this stage agree… that we secure the border, we have the fence, and we have enough Border Patrol agents to secure the border; and that we have an employment verification system of some kind….We all agree that anybody who’s committed a crime should be sent home.”

As Romney pointed then out: “The place of difference between us is what we do with the 12 million people who are here illegally.” Romney’s answer? “Those who are here illegally today would be looked at person by person, given a specific time period by which they arrange their affairs, they stay here during that time period. When that time period is over, they go home…”

Alone among Presidential candidates, McCain has shown the courage to stand up against such simplistic sloganeering. No President will ever succeed in driving out all 12 million illegals – the greatest forced migration in all human history. Illegals represent more than 5% of America’s work force and the cost of firing and, ultimately, deporting for forcing out every one of those people would cripple the economy far worse than any recession. The immigration bills McCain supported (along with President Bush and the Senate Republican leadership of Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott and John Kyl) never granted “amnesty” or automatic citizenship for undocumented aliens. Instead, McCain’s idea of immigration reform always emphasized “earned legalization” and assimilation– not automatic privileges – in an effort to separate the immigrants who wanted to begin playing by the rules and to enter the American mainstream, from those who continued to defy those rules and have no long-term stake in the country. It’s not amnesty to charge $6,000 in fines and payment of back taxes, to require background checks and mastery of English, and to demand registry with the government and acknowledgment of wrong-doing before an immigrant received legal status. Before an illegal could become a citizen, the process required at least nine years (and in most cases fourteen) of cooperation, commitment and patience. Moreover, two crucial elements of last year’s immigration bill received almost no attention: under the bill any immigrant who attempted to enter America illegally after the passage of immigration reform would be apprehended, identified, finger-printed and biometrically recorded, and forever banned from receiving legal status to work or live in the United States. Second, the unfinished (and ultimately unsuccessful) compromise bill included a “trigger provision”: no illegal immigrant would receive legal status until after Congress certified that the border had been effectively secured. McCain emphasizes this provision in his current proposals: insisting we secure the border first, before we make arrangements for future guest workers and give a chance to some (but by no means all) current illegal residents to earn legal status in the U.S.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIE #6: McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform represents a devastating assault on free speech.

TRUTH: McCain-Feingold was a piece of useless, misguided legislation but it’s done no serious damage to the country, the constitution or the conservative pro-life cause. After nearly seven years on the books, robust and impassioned discussion of political issues and candidates is more vibrant and free-wheeling than ever. The pro-life movement (with McCain’s enthusiastic support) has made substantial progress in the last seven years, changing minds and hearts and driving abortion rates to their lowest point in 29 years—unimpeded by McCain-Feingold. More people are involved in donating to candidates and causes than before the legislation, and there’s been an increase in the broadcast of campaign ads and distribution of political materials, not a reduction. Does any American – particularly those in key primary states – honestly believe we now have a shortage of political ads on TV? Those who say that McCain-Feingold took away free speech make no more sense than leftists who claim that the Patriot Act destroyed civil liberties or crushed dissent: their arguments remain utterly disconnected from the real world experience of every American. Hard-hitting, free wheeling debate is alive and well in the land of the free. McCain favored counterweights to lobbyist influence and the corrupting impact of money in politics because he saw that commercial involvement as a powerful force toward corporate welfare and government expansion—betraying the small government ideals he has always embraced.

Of course, this discussion only begins to scratch the surface when it comes to the smears and distortions against Senator McCain from some of his long-standing foes in the Republican establishment. Fortunately, the Senator himself is getting more opportunity to speak directly to the American people, above the heads of the talk radio hosts who are leading the hysterical charge against him.

On the night of his primary victory in South Carolina, for instance, McCain gave a concise, eloquent summary of his conservative philosophy:

“I seek the nomination of our Party,” he said, “because I am as confident today as I was when I first entered public life as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution that the principles of the Republican Party – our confidence in the good sense and resourcefulness of free people – are always in America’s best interests. In war and peace, in good times and challenging ones, we have always known that the first responsibility of government is to keep this country safe from its enemies, and the American people free of a heavy-handed government that spends too much of their money, and tries to do for them what they are better able to do for themselves. We want government to do its job, not your job;; to do it better and to do it with less of your money; to defend our nation’s security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is so dear to us; to respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; to enforce the rule of law that is the first defense of freedom; to keep the promises it makes ot us and not make promises it will not keep. We believe government should do only those things we cannot do individually, and then get out of the way so that the most industrious, ingenious, and enterprising people in the world can do what they have always done: build an even greater country than the one they inherited.”

McCain’s critics have every right to prefer other candidates, or to reject his increasingly powerful bid to unite the party and defeat the Democrats in November.

They are wrong, however, to lie about his policies, his principals, his record and his character. Instead of the endless concentration on distorted reasons to dislike McCain, the complainers should concentrate on the basis for admiring the candidates they do support. The Republican Party would benefit from an open, honest debate about the virtues of the various candidates that make them worthy of support, rather than incessant and self-destructive focus on alleged vices of the front-running candidate that make him worthy of contempt.

Again and again in his 25 years in politics, John McCain has risked his career to provide straight talk to the American people. Those who claim to cherish the integrity of the conservative movement owe it to their party and their country to talk straight about all four of the excellent candidates remaining in this race.

Republican Pragmatism

As I mentioned before I've heard many Republicans claim that if candidate X wins the nomination they will not vote or vote for the Libertarians or the Constitution Party. However is this wise? How can you claim to "stand behind your principles" if you are, in essence, aiding the election of someone who will COMPLETELY stomp on your principles as opposed to someone who does not completely agree with every one of them?

Thoughts?

~IM_R

Dr. Paul and Catholicism

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:48:51 GMT

First the Political,

Why I Am Not Voting for Dr. Paul

While I consider Dr. Paul to be a devout Christian, an intelligent man, an honest statesmen, and a conservative, I harbor many doubts that I think need to be addressed.

1. The Presidency is not about Politics.

"What?" you may say. Rather I mean the Presidency is more than just political philosophy and liberalism v. conservatism v. libertarianism. There is more to it than that. It requires the ability to lead and negogiate and be pragmatic. I do not feel that Dr. Paul has this ability to be pragmatic and compromise.

2. Pragmatism.

While we're on that, he will not be elected as the Republican nominee or the President of the United States. I am a pragmatist and thus will back someone realistically.

3. Certain Policy.

a. Foreign policy. I disagree with his non-interventionist foreign policy. While I agree that America should be less brash and demanding (i.e "speak softly), I do not believe in politically and militarily isolating ourselves from the global community. This is based on a 18th century paradigm that has dramatically changed and is no longer realistic.

b. Monetary Policy. This is far too confusing to get into at the moment. More later.

c. Social Policy.

As a conservative libertarian, while I believe strongly in individual liberty, I believe it must be balanced with respect for social cohesiveness, and thus a respect for the traditions, moral customs and yes religion of the country. Furthermore I believe he takes his anti-big government stance to the point where we would strip the federal government of all power. Abolishing the CIA is not prudent. Lastly I believe, as he does, that abortion is mass murder. Yet he would respond to this with letting states decide this issue of the right of life (the most important of all human rights) thus allowing tacitly, the mass murder to continue.

Thus for these reasons I am not supporting Dr. Ron Paul (with much reluctance) and will be backing Senator and Captain John McCain as the Republican Party's best choice and the best choice for America.

More on Catholicism Later.

~IM_R

Michigan and Religion

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:47:07 GMT

Mitt and Michigan's Economics

Mitt Romney poses himself as the savior of the Michigan economy, which one of the worst in all of America. However he is spinning the facts on this issue. I suggest you read this great article from The American Speculator.

Mitt's Mythical "Mass. Miracle"
By Deroy Murdock

Published 1/14/2008 12:08:08 AM

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12568

One could take Romney seriously as an architect of economic redevelopment if he had displayed such skills as Massachusetts governor. Instead, his reign was a parade of economic stagnation and retreat. He even advocated an SUV-tax increase that would have hammered the very same domestic automotive industry he now says he champions.

* As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.

* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.

* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.

* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.

Combined with his flip-flops on social issues and complete lack of military or legislative experience (one term as governor?) he is not the right choice for America, not the right choice for Michigan.

Religion and Politics

What I find to be interesting is why Huckabee fans think that Huckabee somehow "cornered" the religion market. He campaigns as if he's the only social conservative and only Christian in the race. He's not.

John McCain was born into a devout Anglican family and he himself attends a theologically conservative Baptist church. He supports intelligent design, stood for traditional marriage in Arizona and has one of the strongest pro-life records in the Senate.

Fred Thompson regularly attends the Church of Christ in TN. He has done so since a child being raised by Christian parents. He has had a socially conservative record in Congress.

Dr. Ron Paul has been a devout Baptist Christian, even making a point of refusing to perform abortions on that basis.

Not only this but this posturing has led Huckabee to say incredibly dumb things on the campaign trail.

He accused Fred Thompson of not being pro-life because of certain ratings, only to find that those ratings were because of campaign finance, not abortion.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/198/

He said that there were "plenty" of atheist candidates. There are none.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/12/

He claimed that most of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen. Only one as an active clergyman (Witherspoon) and a few more (out of 56 signers) were former clergyman. But I'll cut him some slack as he may have misspoke.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/137/

My Own Religion: Protholicism?

I find myself very much a doctrinal Protestant, but for some reason I find myself wanting more roots, more tradition, more history. I find this in the beauty of the Roman Catholic Church but I am wary (reluctantly so) for a few reasons,

1. I do not like some doctrine and this obsession with glorifying man (Marian theology, Papal primacy, veneration, free will, paedo-baptism)

2. I have a hard time with some of the religiony aspects of Christianity as it is. It makes me cringe sometimes, and yet I crave it sometimes. (Evangelical Protestantism is desparately lacking in any beautiful traditions)

3. I come from a Protestant family and have a lot of Protestant friends. It would be a little awkward.

Thoughts?

Any attempts to bring this heretic kicking back into the Mother Church?

~IM_R

Things I Thought On

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:22:38 GMT

On the Personal Front

For those of you who are new to the Joe Zone (corny isn't it?), I am a debater who competes in the NCFCA league which is a Christian alternative to public school leagues like the NFL, for those who are home educated. I compete in Lincoln Douglas Value debate* and God has blessed me, for reasons still unknown to me, with some success. Last two years I managed to win the San Diego Classic (the big one at PLNU) and this year God has blessed me again with my last, final win. Someone has told me that I am the first to win it three times in a row. I don't know if that's true, but it's pretty cool to be told it, although I'm still at a loss for words as to why it happened.

Anyways, it's a big three (four?) day tournament in San Diego with a lot of people doing Team Policy, LD, and Speech (at least relative to NCFCA) and it's a great time.

Favorite (Or Favoritely Notorious) Memories

Seeing how amazing people have become (Kate, Ashley, Will, Brandon)
Thinking I was negative because of the timer giving me the wrong signal
Arguing that outsourcing is a good thing
Missing breaks
Seeing IEs
Debating Logan and Holly in the same place as I saw my first finals for LD (with Cody and Travis)
Having an overall good time with debate friends

So now we're ready to get some guys in there and duke it out for Concordia. We'll see though. It is nice to relax for the rest of the debate year. I may do some speech, maybe extempt (Mrs Nagatani keeps on trying to get me to do it).

More from the Political Front

Populists Dominate Elections.

Frankly this scares me. The word populist is, in my opinion, a nice word for demogogue (even though I can't spell it). Two populists get a lot of attention from both sides of the aisle. First is John Edwards, who has essentially cut himself out as the populist candidate from the Democrats, and Mike Huckabee, a Republican from Arkansas. (What is it with Arkansas and screwing us over?)

Some gems from our populist friends (try to tell who said what?)

"When I'm president I'm going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my cabinet: I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009 – in six months – I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."

I believe that's a threat, which he (Edwards or Huckabee) can't make.

"There's a lot of support for a tax at the wholesale level for tobacco, and that's fine with me. I will very happily sign that. Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax. That's acceptable; I'm fine with that. Others have suggested perhaps a sales tax. That's fine. Yet others have suggested a hybrid that would collect some monies from any one or a combination of those various ideas, and if that's the plan that the House and Senate agree upon, then you will have nothing but my profound thanks."

Profound thanks for passing taxes?

If you have been paying attention Edwards make the first claim (threat, which he can't legally do) and Huckabee made the second (when in office). It's sad. I suggest reading George Will's article on populism as found in RealClearPolitics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/populist_campaigns_based_on_de.html

Communitarianism, Individualism, and Alexis de Tocqueville

I'm currently taking Introduction to Political Science at the Ventura College and I have a feeling I'm going to like it, even though my teacher is an Obama fan (I keep a "Counter o' Bama" to see how many times he mentions him) who looks like John Edwards' brother. The big issue in de Tecqueville's book Democracy in America (written in the 1830s) is the clash between American's apparent need to join groups (he calls us "joiners") and our individualism and the possibility of one overtaking the other. I think that in America there is a definite lack of community, though I wouldn't say it's as bad as in Western Europe. The argument goes that if civil society (PTAs, churches, non-governmental community organizations that take care of the community's issues) is lacking, then our democracy suffers and we go into hyperindividualism. I see that problem happening in America but I'm afraid also that people will use the government (i.e organized force) to fix it, which does nothing for the lack of civil society.

Thoughts?

McCain is McSurging

McCain currently is neck-and-neck with Huckabee, the both of whom have officially left Guiliani in third place, evne though they were all neck-and-neck. He currently remains the only Republican candidate to be projected to beat Clinton and tie with Obama. Every other big Republican either loses to Obama and beats Hillary, or loses to both.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

My Continuted Discussion with a Huckafan.

http://weblog.xanga.com/NJHuckabees/636358746/support-governor-huckabee.html?nextdate=last

Great Sites for you guys

www.politifact.com
www.realclearpolitics.com
www.homeschooldebate.com (for NCFCAers)

~IM_R

EDIT: POLITICAL UPDATE:
McCain leads National Polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

McCain leads Michigan, South Carolina http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_republican_primary-237.html
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/SC_GOP_JANUARY_web.pdf

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:08:48 GMT

Big News on the Political Front

Huckabee, Obama wins in Iowa

Obama won the Democratic Iowa caucus and John Edwards made a strong second. Clinton however, came in third. Huckabee, predictably, won Iowa in a state where 60% of Republican voters are Christian evangelicals. Romney made a close second and McCain, third.

McCain, Clinton win New Hampshire.

However Huckabee's charm was lacking in New Hampshire as McCain came to beat New Englander Romney in a state that he won in 2000. Subsequently McCain is now second in the polls, only 2% behind Huckabee and ahead of the original front-runner Guiliani. McCain is also second in South Carolina, third in Michigan and second in Florida. Perhaps with his victory in New Hampshire and some hard core campaigning he'll win those states. If he does, it will be a McCain nomination in essence. I'm hoping he'll come out to southern California (a region that actually voted for Bush, not Gore), seeing that it has the most people. If he does I'll drive out there.

And of course las Clintonistas came out hard for New Hampshire, putting some wind back in her sails and putting the beatdown on Obama, though he won 60% of young Democrat voters. I loved her little crocodile tears that she gave in NH too. Pathetic. But Obama isn't out yet, but now Clinton leads nationally by 7% points.

Democrats Bury Their Head in the Sand

Pretty much the Democratic party, with the exception of John Murtha, Joe Lieberman (supporting McCain) and Zell Miller, the Democratic Party is burying their collective heads in the sand over the Iraq war and the success the American surge has created. Sunni tribes allying themselves with the Shi'ite led Iraqi government. Sunnis coalescing against al Qaeda. Shi'ite militias calling it quits. The insurgency imploding on itself. Al Qaeda being routed in Baghdad. British troops handing Basra over to Iraqis. Iraqis have confidence in their government and security forces. Less American troop deaths and Iraqi civilian casualties. Iraqi Army taking over Iraq. It's a time of cautious optimism, but the Democrats are claiming that it's not happening. Take a look at some headlines,

From the Washington Post,

See No Good
Why do the Democratic candidates refuse to acknowledge progress in Iraq?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008; Page A18

2008 Finds Democrats In State Of Denial
By Michael Gerson

From the New York Post,

YEAR OF WONDERS
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS SPEAKS ABOUT PROGRESS IN IRAQ

From the New Hampshire Union Leader,

Heads in the sand: Shea-Porter, Hodes blind on Iraq
Monday, Dec. 24, 2007

From Slate Magazine,

Remember Iraq?
Why the Democrats aren't ending the war.
By Fred Kaplan

From The London Times,

Iraq - the best story of the year
Against all the odds, an optimistic prediction comes true

From The National Review,

Conventionally Ignorant
The same old simplicities about Iraq.
By Victor Davis Hanson

It's a little shocking and it's a little sad. But it's something that could shape the history of the Middle East and the US, for a long time to come. To abandon victory that's within our grasp, as the Democratic party asks us to do, would be disastrous.

Thoughts?

~IM_R

The American Government Caused 9-11

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:19:02 GMT

Catch your eye?

The claim that has been going around (And I'm not talking about those "9-11 Truth" lunatics) that 9-11 was caused by American foreign policy. More specifically the modern jihad against the United States, the West and Israel is backlash or "blowback" from American foreign policy intervention in the Middle East. This specific claim has been made by politicians [like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)], academia and journalists. It is usually followed up by a claim that if we were to stop involving ourselves in the Middle East, economicall

What do you think about it?

Personally, I do not buy this at all. I do believe that jihadists in the Middle East certainly do not like American foreign policy, but I do not think this started the modern jihadist movement at all. Many people in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America do not like American foreign policy. They may find Americans personally loud and brash. However we do not see any kind of similiar movement existing in these areas.

The use of violence to spread Islam is not new to Islam or the Middle East. It was used against the Byzantines, the Persians, the North Africans and even the Chinese. When jihadists declare jihad, they are referring to a centuries old practice, not something that was the result of American foreign policy. Their intolerance of Jews, Christians and Westerners is an age old issue in the Middle East stemming from the Koran's, and the Hadith's more intolerant sayings.

In addition the modern jihad was formulated by thinkers like Ibn Taymiyya (13th century), Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (16th century) and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab at-Tamimi (18th century). They are not the products of American foreign policy. Their message of returning to the original Islam (akin to the call to return to the Scriptures in the Protestant Reformation) and superiority of Muslims rang true at a time when the Ottoman Emire was dying and most Muslims were under oppressive Arab governments and most Muslims were living in poverty.

Like Hitler's Nazi message, it found a home in the hearts of millions because of the enviroment, one of poverty, political stagnation and oppression. Not mainly because of foreign intervention. Pan-German nationalism, anti-Semitism, fascism, and anti-Communism existed prior to the Versailles treaty and Allied intervention in Germany after the first World War. It was German's economic crisis and the need to blame someone that was the conduit for Nazism. Just as the fall of the Ottoman Empire (which we had little to do with), poverty and the failure of secular Arab nationalism was a conduit to radical Islam and the modern jihad. They say, "Why are we poor? Why have our governments failed? Because we are not Islamic enough. Who stands in the way of Islam? America. The Jews. The Christians. Europe." Do we? No. We give billions in aid to the Middle East and the governments of the West have no ax to grind with Islam. But we are dealing with an irrational philosophy peddled by irrational, bigoted people. Their message needs a scapegoat (sound familiar? Heil?) and the nature of their message (jihad) calls for an aggressive and expansive move on their part.

What some fail to realize is that even if we were to pull completely out of the Middle East entirely (stop exporting American movies, culture, stop supporting Israel, don't comment on Arab matters, don't intervene at all in the ME) this would do nothing to counter the growth of radical Islam or the jihad. If anything it would promote it. What the Middle East would see is the powerful West/USA being forced out of the Middle East by the jihadists. A victory. They would be seen as strong and we would be seen as weak, which would not endear us to anyone, and would make radical Islam's message more powerful. Their goals are far more expansive than to get Americans out of their affairs. They seek nothing less than a restitution of the caliphate and using harsh sharia law to govern it. And lastly they seek to push this way of life on the world. Giving into their unreasonable demands would embolden them just like giving up the Sudatenland to Hitler. They didn't realize, or didn't want to know that Hitler had far more expansive goals and they emboldened him.

As one French commentator said, "The Western democratic system is the only one to blame itself when it is under attack."

~IM_R