About Me

Name: Glen Albrethsen
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Aftermath of Tsunami Tuesday

Random thoughts:

Senator John McCain won where he was expected, and with the exception of Missouri and possibly Oklahoma, did not win where it was a toss up or where he was not expected to win.

Governor Mike Huckabee won entirely in the south (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia) and nowhere else. He was second in Oklahoma and Missouri.

Governor Mitt Romney won his home state of Massachusetts, Minnesota and all of the Mountain West. He was within four points of the eventual winner in Georgia and four percent in Missouri. He lost California in such a way that he did not pick up very many delegates.

Most sources are conceding McCain is the nominee for the Republican party. It would be very difficult, given the number of delegates left, and how McCain is likely to do, for Romney, or for that matter, Huckabee, to win now.

Either of the latter would have to virtually win all of the delegates from here on out to win the nomination outright. The likelihood of that happening, barring some meltdown (and we're talking major meltdown) of John McCain, is nil.  Not as impossible, but still unlikely, is the chance that Romney, by staying in the race, could get enough delegates to keep McCain from winning the nomination outright, and keeping Huckabee from gaining enough delegates that he and McCain could pull another West Virginia at the Republican National Convention by brokering a deal through delegate sharing.

The question is, will Romney go on? It sure sounded like he would in his speech to supporters last night. And there's less doubt that Huckabee will continue. That despite the fact that his campaign, which has been running on vapors from the very beginning, must be running on air now. As he said, it's definitely the greenest of the campaigns.

I haven't crunched any numbers to know just what it would take to win or block--someone probably has--but it's evident that aside from a majority of conservatives, who know McCain is not conservative, but have nevertheless been splitting their votes between Romney and Huckabee, that those who have been voting for McCain are moderate and more liberal leaning.

A lot is being said now about what the Republican party rank and file should do from this point forward. Many, mostly not conservatives, are calling for all Republicans to rally around the presumptive nominee, McCain. Others, mostly conservatives, are sticking to their guns and are threatening not to vote for McCain by either voting Democrat or for no one. Those who say "Rally around McCain" are mainly doing it for the good of the party. Those who are saying "No way I'll vote for McCain" are doing so, mainly out of differences with McCain's non-conservative stances on a host of different things.

So, where to go from here?

A lot will have to do with what Romney decides to do. He is the only one, from here on out, that can stop McCain. Huckabee proved last night that outside the Bible Belt and Iowa, he does poorly. Even were Romney to leave and Huckabee to stay, it is not likely that he would defeat McCain in the states that are remaining. My guess is if Romney quits, so does Huckabee. He might stay in for another week, but what possible reasons would he have?

Romney is supposed to be huddling around his advisers, to determine what the game plan is from here on out, and he's supposed to be polishing up his speech for CPAC tomorrow. Odds are, he'll stick around. He's got most of talk radio on his side, and he has been winning more of the conservative vote.

I know what I'm going to do, and I'll lay it out in the next blog.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney and the Anti-McCain Rally

Uh...

After more than a month of making my case for Mitt Romney over John McCain as the Republican nominee, this is probably going to sound kind of weird, but let's not get too hasty here.

All of this anti-McCain sentiment is fine and all--based on substance, merit and record--but it does set up Romney in the unenviable position of managing expectations. That's if the movement taking place now in California, Georgia and elsewhere is enough to keep him in serious contention after tomorrow.

I've written in a previous post that there's no reason to vote for Romney other than because you think he's the best candidate out there. He might not have been your first choice, but now that your candidate is not in the race, he's looking like the best of who's left.

While you can argue that it's the same--vote for Romney for Romney, or vote for Romney against McCain--I'd say it is, except for the expectation game. There's enough to live up to as it is, without setting the bar so incredibly high that no one, including an overachiever extraordinaire like Romney, could ever measure up. He'll try his best, let me assure you, but good grief, we could use some reality here.

As it is, the odds are not in his favor (something which he seems to excel at, anyway), but in an election, a lot is out of your hands. I guess I'm among the minority of voters who just connects with the guy. While he's not been the most perfect campaigner, and doesn't always say the right things, and finds himself being hunted down by the Youtube police every time he says something, and lacks the ability to pull off a joke like Mike Huckabee, I just like what he's done. Business, Olympics, and governor.

He's just tireless. The guy just has a hard time stopping. He's got to be doing something. Things he was able to accomplish in Massachusetts are amazing--even if they don't measure up to the rest of the country. Taxachusetts doesn't come by the nickname lightly. And, I would contend, that part of the problem Massachusetts has before and after Mitt Romney has less to do with him as it has to do with a) an incredibly liberal legislature and b) the social/communist atmosphere they bring to the state.

If it were not a requirement that the president be the front man, Romney would be the president you never see or hear from, because he'd be too busy getting things done. I'm betting there's plenty to do without getting Congress involved, and he'd be good at taking things to the American people and working that way. Ronald Reagan did it. Worked out well for him. Since it would take some incredible shifting towards Romney in the general election for him to have any kind of mandate, and given how close the last two presidential elections have been, unless conservatives really rock the vote, there's not likely to be a clear mandate.

And while we don't need to change our principles to play nice with the liberals, we don't need to go out of our way to tick them off, either. That'll happen on its own. Better to have decorum and civility on our end, rather than endless infighting as well as partisan bickering.

Someone needs to come up with a Contract for America II--some kind of agenda that can rally the troops. When you're sent to a do a job with a clear criteria ahead of you, it's easier to get the people behind you. It becomes more of a cause than just rallying around a candidate who the majority only feel is the best alternative to another.

Romney's tried to tell people what he would do once he was in office, but because he's picked a very long list of things, people aren't buying it, or believing it's possible. Given what Congress has done since the Democrats took over, it's no wonder, but that's not Romney's fault.

So, I'm not trying to dial down expectations or anything,  and I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from voting for Romney, regardless of their reasoning, but let's be real. The president of the United States is not superman, and he does not operate in a vacuum.

Take Romney for who he is--the most complete conservative still in the race--and let the other chips fall where they may.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How about voting for Romney because he's the best?

While I suppose I should welcome the help of all the "anyone but McCain" folks, as well as those who call on Mike Huckabee to quit because he can't win, I guess I feel compelled to make even a better reason to vote for Mitt Romney.

He's the best candidate.

Have you watched the debates? Has anyone articulated even the most complicated of issues as comprehensively, yet concisely as Romney has?

Look, McCain and Huckabee, along with Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and even Ron Paul, have all had great sound bite moments. So what? Do we really want to nominate a candidate based on that? I understand that's how it works, but good grief, how many times have we been right based on sound bites? Once.

The rest of the time, we've spent the four years ruing our decision.

Romney's not Ronald Reagan. Was Reagan what he became before he was thrust into the crucible of the presidency? Of course not. Was he infallible after that? No. But he is fondly looked upon for what he was able to accomplish, and the fact that he is still vilified by the left only underscores his greatness.

We've had colorful characters as presidents for decades. Romney might not be as colorful, but come on folks, are we voting for a president, or are we voting for American Idol?

I know I'm dull and boring, but I find Romney to have plenty of wit, when called upon. I also find him to have a master command of the issues, and the proper weight and care for the issues.

Do I trust him on every last thing? I think that would be impossible. I guarantee there's things I disagree with him on, and also guarantee that there would be something I would disagree on with any other conservative. That's just the way it is.

Romney's right on the economy. Only Giuliani came close and he's no longer an option.

Romney's right on the war on terror. McCain may have greater claim to such things because of his military background and his years in the Senate, but Republicans generally feel George W. Bush kept us secure against further terrorist attacks, the management of war in Iraq notwithstanding. Bush had considerably less military experience than McCain, and so have others.

Romney's right on social issues. This is the place Romney has had the greatest hurdle, convincing others that his views are deeper than a campaign conversion. I've read it and watched all that's been made available, and have come to my own conclusions about whether or not he can be trusted.

I don't think a liberal governor, given the opportunity, vetoes bills that would expand abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research. Romney doesn't believe that government should get involved in social issues. Does that mean he's for abortion? No, that just means government should not be involved in the decision. For other things, we find that to be incredibly conservative, but when it comes to issues on life, it's considered liberal. Well, in truth, there should not be a constitutional amendment banning or mandating abortion, either way. If states choose to take up the issue, fine. Then it can be battled on that front. Governor Romney now supports overturning Roe v. Wade, because he's had practical experience against it.

Romney knows first hand about progressive judges taking the law in their own hands. He has been dinged for not being more vigilant before and not doing more after judges in Massachusett's ruled that based on the state's own constitution, same sex marriage must be law. In my mind, he did as much as he could to undo it, and the liberal legislature wouldn't have it.

So, he knows the importance of having judges who will not read into the Constitution that which does not exist in it. No one else has that experience, including Huckabee.

Romney has stated, including just recently, that he supports the rights of homosexuals, but does not support same sex marriage. In this case, he does support an amendment to the US Constitution banning same sex marriage, because it would affect how we look at things like taxes and benefits of all kinds that are currently afforded to married couples. How that would read and how that might affect the ability for states to make their own decisions would have to be looked at. The federal government should not preempt the sovereignty of the states. As it is, most states have either their own bans in place, or have voted against giving such designation to same sex marriage.

Supporting the rights of homosexuals to live as they would, without discrimination based on sexual orientation is different then giving the same status as current married couples. It shows compassion while not condoning their behavior or detracting from the meaning of traditional marriage.

Most of us don't have to publicly disclose where we stand on such things. I think many of us, however, would consider it extreme to fire someone simply because they are homosexual, or keep them from getting a job because of it, or think it was anything less than a tragedy that they were murdered because of their sexual orientation, even if we do believe homosexual behavior is a sin.

Unfortunately, these are the times we live in. We find ourselves dealing with this things. And while we have to be sure that a few won't make decisions for all of us, the fight against abortion and homosexuality really won't be won on the federal level. It will be fought in our own homes and in our neighborhoods and in our communities. If we can stop any kind of governmental meddling, we've done what we can do on that level.

Romney is not a perfect candidate. Can't think of a single candidate who has ever aligned completely with my own desires. That includes Reagan. Still, Romney brings a lot to the table, and in my mind, brings more than any other candidate. The field has narrowed, and I believe there's a clear choice now. That choice is Romney.

So vote for Romney, and don't feel guilty in the process.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Deep Cover McCain

Disclaimer: The following is strictly fictional. While based on some historical facts, I do not claim it to be true at all. I have not stumbled upon any inside information. It is just my attempt to make some sense of John McCain. I do not mean to offend anyone, and do not suggest that such a conversation would have taken place.

Fall, 1994.

Ronald Reagan, former president and beloved leader of the conservative movement calls Reagan Revolution foot soldier John McCain to the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara, California for a secret meeting that only he, McCain and Reagan's wife, Nancy, know about.

"Johnny," Reagan says, after an embrace and some pleasantries, "I've been diagnosed with Alzheimer's."

McCain, visibly shaken, is about to say something, but Reagan cuts him off.  "It's okay, Johnny. I didn't call you hear to worry about me. I called you because I'm worried about the country."

In November, 1992, President Bill Clinton was elected. He took office in January of 1993, and by this time, a passel of left-wing policies have been trucked out, including the failing Hillary care debacle. Fortunately, by this time, the monstrous health care reform package has gone down to defeat.

"You're telling me," McCain mutters under his breath.

"Everything we fought for, everything we stood for," Reagan says, shaking his head, "Gone in a matter of a few years."

"I'm sorry, sir," McCain says, his eyes glistening, "We've been trying. We've got high hopes Newt's idea will bring us back. He and some others have got this Contract with America thing worked out. They're going to present it here soon, and..."

"Johnny, listen to me," Reagan says, placing a firm hand on McCain's shoulder, "We're going to need more than that, I'm afraid. I want you to run for President of the United States."

"What? Me?" McCain stammers, "I can't do that. What about the Keating Five?"

"Yes, Johnny, I know," Reagan says, "It was a mistake. You've learned from it, haven't you?"

"Yes, sir," McCain says.

"I'm not talking about the next election, anyway. Maybe 2000. Give people time to forget about Keating. Besides, Dole will want to take another crack at things, and you don't need to get in his way."

"No, sir," McCain says.

"Between you and me, even with a Republican Congress, Clinton's still going to get re-elected," Reagan says, "He's too much of a snake oil salesman. Lie through his teeth so much everyone starts to believe him."

"It's amazing, sir," McCain agrees.

"I'm going to be making an announcement about my condition soon, Johnny," Reagan says, "I wanted to get together with you and flesh out a plan before I started to lose my faculties completely."

"What plan?"

"How to win back the White House and establish conservatism forever."

"That's a tall order, sir," McCain says, "As you said, we weren't able to keep it going very long. How do you suggest we accomplish that?"

"The Republican party needs a bigger tent," Reagan says, "There's always been a moderate wing to it, and we've done a good job of creating a coalition of conservatives, but we need someway of convincing more people to come our way. That means liberals."

"What?" McCain exclaims, "Liberals? You're kidding, right, sir?"

"No, Johnny, I'm not," Reagan says. "This country has been leaning left for some time, and I'm afraid eight years of a course correction to the right wasn't enough. She continued to list to the left, even while I was in office. If we don't do something to get her hard right, and stay that way, government will completely control the lives of the American people, and we'll fall to Socialism and Communism as sure as the Soviets and Chinese did."

"But sir," McCain says, scratching his head, "how will bringing liberals into the Republican party help steer the country to the right at all, let alone permanently?"

Reagan smiles, that big infectious grin that makes his eyes twinkle. The whole room seems to brighten around him.

"Johnny-boy," he says, "You're going to beat the liberals at their own game."

"I don't follow you, sir."

"You need to start working with the liberals, Johnny, gain their trust. We've got a growing number of Independents, too--you need to get them to vote for you."

A look of worry crosses McCain's face. Has the Alzheimer's already struck his beloved mentor? "Are you alright, sir?"

"I haven't lost it, yet," Reagan says, smile evaporating. It's immediately replaced by his stern stare. "Try to keep up, boy."

"Yes, sir."

"You need to win over the liberals. You need to help sponsor or write some liberal legislation."

"Liberal legislation?"

"Yes. You might want to start with campaign finance reform. That will help people forget your Keating Five mistake."

"Yes, sir."

"And then, you might want to look at illegal immigration. Boy, do I regret signing that bill..."

"Yes, sir."

"And no doubt those environmental wackos will still be around. Try something to do with that, too."

"But, I..." McCain starts to protest.

"John," Reagan says firmly, "I'm counting on you to win them over. It's the only way we can save this country. Save it with conservatism."

"You want me to seem liberal, build relationships with people like, like Kennedy..." McCain's voice trails off as his eyes widen at the thought. "And then what?"

"You'll then be able to do the opposite of what I did. Win the White House from the outside in," Reagan says. "Start with the moderates, the Independents and all the liberals you can snag in the primaries, and then work to the right."

"I thought primaries were hard right, and then tack towards the center?"

"Yes, but the only way to destroy the liberal movement forever is to bring them into the party, get you elected, and then, hard right turn."

"You mean, if the liberals support me, and I become president, and then start pounding them with conservatism, and it starts working and the country is better for it, then all people everywhere will want to abandon their liberal tendencies forever?"

The smile returns to Reagan's face as he nods.

"That's quite a mission, sir."

"Yes, it is," Reagan says.

"I've already been working with John Kerry," McCain said.

"Yes, you have."

"And that upstart Feingold might be interested in helping with that campaign finance bill."

"That's the spirit."

"Who amongst the conservatives should I tell about this, "McCain says, "So they'll know what's going on?"

"No one," Reagan says. "No one can know."

"But, if I don't bring someone on board, they'll go after me..."

"Precisely."

"And...the liberals will love me even more," McCain exclaims, as the light goes off in his brain, "because all true conservatives will hate me!"

Reagan nods again.

"That's brilliant, sir."

Reagan shrugs. "You can do it, Johnny. I trust you."

McCain whistles, and starts to rub the back of his neck. "Rush is going to excoriate me."

"We can only hope," Reagan says, "We're going to need talk radio here, because you'll need to convince the liberal media, too."

"But aren't you afraid that this will divide the Republican party?" McCain says, "Us conservatives are a pretty principled people. My fellow conservatives won't stand for this."

"Well, rely on you war record, Johnny. That's always helped you in the past," Reagan offers.

"Yes, sir."

"Besides, conservatives first, my dear boy," Reagan says, "Republicans second. If the party has to split to save the country, so be it."

"Yes, sir," McCain says nodding. The full weight of Reagan's request starts to hit him. For a moment, he wonders if he's up to the task. Reagan, apparently sensing his doubts, squeezes his shoulder again.

"I can count on you to do this?" Reagan asks.

"Yes, sir, you can. I'll do it," McCain says.

"There's no one else I trust more than you, Johnny," Reagan says, "You've earned the trust of this country. I know you will not fail."

"No, sir."

"Well done," Reagan says, "Remember, no matter what, not a word."

"Yes, sir," McCain says.

The two shake hands, and embrace. They say their goodbyes, and McCain leaves.

As I said, this account is completely made up. But I tell you, if McCain isn't truly a liberal, there's not another logical explanation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So fees are taxes?

You know what?

I'm going to start calling anything I pay money for a tax.

Given the fact that a non-broad based governmental fee is also a tax, then surely everything else I pay for is also a tax.

I think I a have case, given the fact that virtually any product I could purchase, from fast food to gasoline, to energy to power my home is embedded with all kinds of fees and taxes. Why? Because all of those taxes and fees assessed to the companies from which I buy these things are passed right on to me, the consumer.

So, let's just drop the formalities. Everything you use money for now is tax.

Anyone who might find that to be at least a slight exaggeration will no doubt be heartened by the fact that calling everything a tax is not my point.

Here it is: fees are more closely like the cost of a product than they are like taxes.

When we interact with a business, say a carpet cleaning service, we pay a fee. Now, if I hire the cleaners, my neighbor next door can rest assured that, unless he hires the cleaner, that he will not be paying for a service he doesn't receive.

Likewise, if he goes to get his car fixed, I won't be called upon to help pay the mechanic, or worse yet, pay an equal amount for nothing.

These fees that government agencies pay are, by and large, revenue that a specific agency will use towards its own operation. There may well be exceptions to that rule, but my understanding is, agencies are given so much from a state budget and then the fees they charge help to round out the expenses.

Mitt Romney was challenged by John McCain at last night's debate about raising taxes in Massachusetts. Romney quickly answered with what they actually did, which was to raise fees. He even went to the pains of describing these fees as ones which were not broad based--such as driver license fees. Even if he hadn't, it wouldn't have mattered. While anyone who wants to operate a motorized vehicle would have to pay, they are still paying for a specific service.

Taxes, on the other hand, including the embedded taxes in the goods and services we buy from for profit companies, don't go to anything specific. None of us know exactly where our dollars are going as far as taxes are concerned, and none of us have any say over where they go or how much is spent on that.

I think that's the biggest issue with taxes. You don't have any idea what it's going to do. And, if you don't see much return on your money in addition, it makes it worse.

Granted, fees from a government service will always be viewed in a different way than fees charged by a private company. Not sure exactly why that is, other than how people feel towards paying taxes. Anyone who might complain about the costs of goods and services paid from companies may be raging against the other side of the same coin--no one likes to spend a lot of money for anything. The fact of the matter is, with exceptions of excess, there are operating expenses and embedded taxes to pay, and a profit to try to eke out.

So, state fees, broad based or not, are not taxes. If you don't seek the service, you don't pay. Taxes, you don't have to seek. Like death, they find you.

There's a big difference. If government ran solely off of fees for service, then we would see really quickly what people valued and what they didn't, and our value system would take on a whole different look in this society of excess and extremes. And we would have less government if fees were the sole source of it.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Putting the Bully in Bully Pulpit

The question of whether or not Mitt Romney is a leader, or simply a manager, as Senator John McCain asserts, came up again last night, along with the single most important foreign policy issue of our time--the definition of "timetables."

The latter I've addressed in a previous blog (see below or go here).

I missed the last ABC debate where McCain and Mike Huckabee and others piled on Mitt Romney, though I did see the worst of it, thanks to Youtube. I mention this, because I didn't get to see what I understand was McCain at his surliest.

In last night's debate, however, the surly McCain was back. I must say, though, based on what I've heard about him, he was still fairly calm.

There were the digs, though. Jobs being lost when Romney was a venture capitalist. McCain going after patriotism while Romney was going after profit. McCain giving Romney a "Just say no" moment (am I attributing this wrong, but wasn't it Nancy Reagan who originally said that? Talk about your irony, with her in the audience and them all in Ronald Reagan's library).

Folks, the discussion shouldn't be whether or not Romney is a leader vs. a manager. The question is, is McCain a leader vs. a bully.

Did you see the New York Times article with their attempt and defining why the Republican candidates all seem to deplore Romney? It said, in a rather funny way, that McCain and his friends were the cool guys that would beat up kids like Romney and his friends during recess.

Okay, so even liberal papers can hit upon the truth now and then, even if they can't come out and say it for what it is (doesn't look good if you also plan to endorse the guy).

McCain is a bully. Maybe he's been principled and a straight talker, but that wasn't working in this campaign. He wasn't beating Romney on substance. Now, with some of the George W. Bush campaign folks behind him, he's resorted to what he lost to back in 2000--distortions and misinterpretations. That in and of itself does not constitute a bully, but "Governor, your answer should have been no," when describing what Romney should have told Good Morning, America back in April regarding timetables, is nothing more and nothing less than being a bully.

I'm telling you, anyone who likes McCain because of this assertiveness and decisiveness, has never been on the other end of it. A leader might correct you, try to point out what's wrong with this and that, but McCain has to get in the extra jab, the extra poke with the fork. He can't just leave it be. He has to get in the last word, and he has to make you know he's superior.

Now, I'm not feeling sorry for Romney. Romney's not been a victim of bullies all his life. No way. And, when this is all said and done, Romney will have his wife, his sons, his millions, and the admiration of many who know him and love him to go back to, and if has to come to this, a pretty intriguing bid for presidency in four years should McCain or Obama/Hillary prove to be what we all seem to be saying they are--the worst of the field.

Personally, I don't want to endure a bully as president for even four years. I don't want to turn on the TV or the radio or go to the internet and find out that McCain has blown up in the face of anyone, let alone a foreign leader or on someone in Congress or in his own party.

Some already think we've had a cowboy in the White House. I don't hold the same hatred for Bush as others do, but at the same time, I can't say I've been happy with quite a few decisions he's made. Regardless of how you feel about Bush, do we now need to have a maverick in the White House? Doesn't it amount to more or less the same thing?

Bullies can be charming, and they can be witty, but at the end of the day, to use an incredibly worn catch phrase, they're still overbearing, sanctimonious and compensating for something they lack. None of those adjectives describe a leader.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Open Letter to Senator John McCain

Dear Senator McCain:

In last night's Republican Presidential debate at the Reagan Library, you claimed that Mitt Romney was for setting a specific date of withdrawal because he used the term "timetable" when talking about private conservations between President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki.

You based that on the fact that, at the time, the term "timetable" was being used by others that meant "set a date."

You told him his answer should have simply been, "No."

I daresay Senator, that such conviction and decisiveness is what well may win you the nomination, if not the presidency.

However, if no, rather than a more thoughtful, detailed explanation is all Romney should have said (which, by the way, he did actually say, in the part of the conversation you have neglected to mention), why then, did you not just say no on z visas, campaign finance reform and cap and trade?

You've mentioned quite a few times now that you represent a border state, and because of that, you know how to secure the border. Yet, Senator, Arizona continues to be one of the most porous states as far as illegal immigration is concerned. Why then, when given the opportunity to, when your name got placed on a bill that was not only liberal in its scope, but not helpful for your own state's battle with illegal immigration, did you NOT know that it would be so resoundingly opposed by the people of this country and utterly defeated? Anyone with the finger on the pulse of illegal immigration, as you claim to have, should have seen that coming.

Why, sir, did you not stand up then and say, "No," instead of backing an amnesty bill that happened to have a $3,000 fee attached to it?

Regarding cap and trade, if you are so aware of how the economy works, from your time on a Senatorial committee, no less (even though you now deny admitting that you needed some help on that particular issue), why are you in favor of legislation that will only hurt the United States economy and its citizens when it comes to energy? Sure, we're innovators and sure we can do lots of things, but don't we already spend enough on energy and gasoline without having more costs added in, which will only be passed on to us?

Why isn't "no" the answer to unilateral cap and trade that will do little, if it's actually true, to reduce global warming because India and China pollute far more than we do? Do you want us to defeat Al Qaida, or Radical Islamic Jihadism, only to have our economy bow even further under a debilitating tax? What happened to being for smaller taxes?

And finally, Senator, you've made a big deal about the money that Romney has spent, money he was able to raise, as well as his own money, as if such spending was despicable. Yet, were you and Senator Russ Feingold not responsible for the current state of affairs as far as campaign finance is concerned? You've been in the US Senate for some 20 years now. You've ran for president once already, and have ran for US Senate four or five times now. You knew full well how money worked in campaigns. Yet, you sponsored the legislation which has changed it.

Why, sir, didn't you just say, "No," to campaign finance reform, only to complain about how Romney is spending his own money to work by your rules?

Here's some straight talk for you, sir. You don't have a comprehensive understanding of everything a president needs to know. You know about military strategies and defense. But, sir, that note, while important, is not the only one you have to hit. You have to also be knowledgeable with how the economy works. You need to be able to be strong on that issue, or there won't be a strong defense. We cannot continue to borrow from China, a nation that does not have our national interests at heart. At some point, we will be in so much debt to them, there won't need to be war. They'll just simply foreclose.

Next time, when it comes to sponsoring more liberal legislation, Senator, why don't you just say, "No."

P.S. Distorting what other people say is not only an attack and is negative, it's not becoming of someone who is known for their straight talk. Defining and contrasting records of two candidates is neither negative or attacking. It's called making the case. If you're not up to having your record compared, then maybe you should just say "no" to continuing your campaign.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This is why they don't like Romney

There's been a lot made about the fact that the other Republican presidential candidates don't like Mitt Romney. Ron Paul might actually sympathize, since he doesn't see to get a lot of affection, either.

When I refer to the candidates, I'm talking mainly about John McCain and Mike Huckabee, and to a lesser degree, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

I believe there is something to the fact that he has ran "negative" ads against them.  I think there is something there between Huckabee and Romney over the latter's money, and to a lesser extent, his assertions of being a Christian when he's LDS.

Between Romney and McCain, it's more Romney stands in his way to the presidency. Giuliani and Thompson are considered his friends, and Huckabee is more of a foil, a conservative vote stealer than he is a threat.

I think there might be something to do with jealously, a feeling that maybe Romney is the odd man out, that he hasn't paid his dues because he hasn't been in government long enough.

However, what I think is the main factor here is, he's not playing by the conventional rules of politics.

Can you imagine anyone of them being Romney's vice president? I can see Fred possibly, because he's the most conservative of the group, and because he would help solidify the conservative base. With the possible exception of Paul, their campaigns have also been the least contentious towards one another.

Romney, everywhere he has gone, has surrounded himself with the most competent people possible. Might not mean there are others who could do the job well, but the ones he has access to that will also buy into a vision and goal.

McCain might make a great Secretary of Defense, but does he truly want to be so demoted?

Giuliani might make a great Attorney General, but with all the baggage he's had, would that actually be wise?

And where, or where, would you actually put Huckabee?

As the outsider, as the guy who's not a part of the establishment, Romney isn't playing the game. He isn't making the deals. So, the others don't like him.

If he were only a smart businessman without scruples, it wouldn't be going like this, I don't think. Some of them might still get mad, based on the deals.

I think Romney has been in a particularly precarious situation all along. He can still try to cut deals, but with Giuliani quitting and supporting McCain now, and Thompson long rumored to do the same, Romney's only recourse, were he to continue in the race, would be to appeal directly to the voters. A preponderance of the voters would have to be for him, as opposed to being dazzled with the endorsements.

I don't know that we're at the point in our history yet. I don't think we've learned our lesson. I had hoped we were, but apparently we haven't learned the lesson of George W. Bush. Apparently, we've moved to the center and we think that squishiness on principles is better. Don't want to run the risk of offending anyone, after all.

We don't need to broaden the party by allowing things that go against principles. We need others to come in because they share our ideals, not the other way around.

Super Tuesday will tell us if conservatives decide to give up and back McCain, or decide to rally around the last viable most conservative candidate now left in the race.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A total overhaul of the Federal government

I do have to admit--I've been fooling myself.

Can't really blame it on anyone else.

I allowed myself to dream that there's hope for all of us.

See, I've read Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House. Even more significant than that, though, no offense to Mr. Hewitt, I've also read Mitt Romney's book, Turnaround.

If you haven't, I think you should. If there were ever a blueprint into how someone thinks, it's that book. The only way you could get to know what makes him tick better is if you were a family member or a close friend.

Turnaround spends most of its pages talking about the 2002 Winter Olympic Games held in Salt Lake City. And it does so in exhaustive detail, because there was a mountain of things to overcome. And not only was that mountain scaled, it was conquered.

I've been dreaming ever since that, given the opportunity, Mitt Romney would do the same thing to the federal government that he did for the Salt Lake games.

I can just imagine him, sitting in the oval office, or some other strategy room, pouring over mounds and mounds of data--going over the entire width and breadth of the Federal government. Okay, maybe he wouldn't have the time to do that, but I can imagine him assembling a team that would do that, and then bring him a still very substantial stack and him pouring over that.

And then, with a grin on his face, start eliminating one duplicitous and wasteful department of the federal government after the other. I imagine this monolithic block, like in Transformers, beginning to fold in on itself, until it shrinks to the point where he could hold it in his hand.

I know this is bizarre, but the thought of the federal government actually shrinking before my eyes puts a wide grin on my face. It's a grin so ear to ear that I look like the Joker. And it just stays and stays and stays.

Because once the federal government is shrunk, and all the wasteful and under performing departments were gone or consolidated, that would mean that the government, for once the government, would be lean and mean and would quit feeding off my back pocket.

I could see him coming up with a way to deal with China, who's not only got us over a barrel because of our tip toeing around their sleeping giant, but are running us over with the barrel over and over again because we're in so much debt to them now. I could see him coming up with a long term tactic that would outsmart them, outwit them, and still have them guessing on how it's happening and not be able to figure out or stop it until it was too late.

I could see him resolving the issue in the Middle East, once and for all. Now, that's probably more outlandish than shrinking the federal government or taking on China, but you know what, I can dream, can't I?

The man has tackled big problems time and time again. Yes, he's had help, but it's been his ability to sift through and quantify data, get to the heart of the issue, which has been key. Given the chance, I know he could do it again.

Perhaps the greatest turnaround now, however, would somehow snapping a victory from the jaws of defeat to get the GOP nomination. If that were to happen, I think my grin would last almost as long as it would with a miniaturized federal government.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where have all the conservatives gone?

It's going to take four years of McCain or a liberal Democrat to wake us up, isn't?

We didn't learn from the Carter years, did we?

No, we didn't.

We had eight years of Ronald Reagan and then we elected George H. W. Bush, who turned out be a tad bit more moderate, but compared to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, well, he's still looking fairly conservative now.

And now, out of party loyalty, over conservative principles, we're seeing the tide head to McCain.

Why?

Simply put, it's his turn.

Among Republicans, President Bush still has a high approval rating. This despite not-so-conservative follies. Since it's called conservative, though, and is, in comparison to liberals, we're redefining conservatism, or we're associating it with hate mongering and demagoguery.

Since when was low taxes and small federal government demagoguery?

Since when was protecting the rights of the unborn, protecting traditional marriage, protecting our first and second amendment rights, hate mongering?

Only if you look at the world through the eyes of a liberal.

I've been advocating for the whittling process. It's happening through voting. Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and now Rudy Giuliani (though it's not yet official) have fallen out, leaving McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and yes, Ron Paul.

Garnering between 3-9% of the vote in most states, Paul's welcome to stay in. His constituency is less Republican and more Libertarian anyway, and it is nice to here some passion regarding small federal government, low taxes and so forth. Personally, I'm in favor of some radical movement when it comes to the federal government. We've been heading down the wrong road for a long time now and I'm wondering, when do we reach the point of no return? Have we already reached it.

Huckabee's persistence though can only be to keep drawing away votes from Romney, plain and simple. He can't expect to play and win in enough of the Super Tuesday states to have a chance at the nomination. He's going to do well in a few of the southern states, those that don't deliberately break for McCain. Huckabee won't have much appeal elsewhere.

He is only sticking around as a hindrance to Romney. Pure and simple. He has no money, he has no organization, other than the evangelical pastor network, and has only come in second once since Iowa. Otherwise, he's been third or fourth.

In contrast, Romney has come in first three times (Michigan, Nevada, Wyoming) and has come in second three times (Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa) and placed in fourth in South Carolina, where he did spend heavily, but also visibly withdrew the week leading up to the election. He might have been able to beat out Thompson for distant third had he stayed, and he might have siphoned some McCain votes, but in my mind, letting Huckabee win another big race would have only muddled the process more, and moved the party even farther away from the control of conservatives than it already is.

Huckabee doesn't have to go beyond Super Tuesday. If a significant number of people vote for him, and he only manages to come in third even, the damage will be done. While this may be a two man race, as long as he is there getting votes, it will only strengthen McCain.

And with Giuliani's expected endorsement of McCain to come with his resignation, well, not sure where that truly leaves Romney.

Unless there's more conservatives out there than I think there is.

Romney spent quite a bit of time trying to re-educate and then emphatically portray himself as the only Republican who would uphold all three coalition partners. Because of some past statements running for US Senate and then for governor, both in Massachusetts, arguably the bluest state in the union, he is mistrusted because he now says he's pro-life, pro-family and pro-gun.

Whereas McCain can desire to pass an amnesty bill, can pass campaign finance reform which actually does the opposite of what it was intended to do, and can vote against the Bush tax cuts twice, but by simply saying DURING the election after it's pounded into him that he has heard what the American people want--sorry, but that is WAY too trusting of a man who has cursed his friend and coddled his enemies, and has moved farther left each time.

I don't care if we do have buyer's remorse (getting Bush instead of McCain in 2000--in hindsight, it may have made more sense, as Bush was not overly conservative and McCain's shift towards the center has happened largely since 2001), McCain is not owed a thing by his party or by me. A debt of gratitude, yes. The presidency based on happenings of 30 years ago, no.

Apparently, though, I'm the minority.

We'll take our four years of Clinton, part II, Obama or McCain to wake up, won't we?


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Florida Republican voters (and beyond) lend me your ear...

There is a lot of goodwill afforded  John McCain.  He is a war hero. He fought for the surge. He has fought relentlessly against pork barrel spending. He has led the charge on many issues.

His war hero status can be attributed largely to being a prisoner of war, where he underwent torture for several years, without giving away information to the enemy.

That was more than 30 years ago.

Now it is 2007. The number one concern among the voters is the economy. Number two is the security of America, or the war on terror. Third is immigration, and fourth, thanks to the surge, is the war in Iraq.

In recent days, McCain has been trying to paint his main rival in Florida, Mitt Romney, as a liberal on the war and on other things.

Why?

Because McCain loses the battle on everything else. Despite what he said at the last GOP debate, by his own admission, he is weakest on the economy. He doesn't like talking about immigration. He doesn't like talking about the fact that he has sponsored some pretty liberal legislation. He doesn't want to confront the conservatives. He wants to win in spite of them. He wants to marginalize and fight with them, because they don't go along with him or agree with him on everything.

The United States needs a leader who can unite, bring people together to do what is right for America.

In my mind, that requires someone who can do so, without adopting liberal policies on many important issues.

McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman.

These are some of the larger and most recent signature pieces of McCain legislation.

Instead of reaching across the aisle to implement conservative values, McCain has moved to the center, if not the center left, to sponsor the three bills I've mentioned.

If you are not happy with where we are with the economy and government during the George Bush years--remember, Republicans were in charge in both the White House and Congress for a good portion of the Bush Administration. McCain has said more than once, part of his straight talk has been, "We came to change Washington, but Washington changed us."

Does that sound like someone who will uphold conservative values? Does that sound like someone who will fight to end illegal immigration? Does that sound like someone who will put federal economic policy back on a conservative tack?

If such is the case, then I urge you, Florida, to vote for McCain tomorrow. You will get exactly what you pay for. More government, not less, more spending, not less, more regulation, not less, more center to center left polices, not less, more divisiveness and score settling and bickering and fighting, not less.

Why?

Because that is what has happened with McCain in Congress, particularly over the last seven years. Liberals consider him their friend. He's adored by moderates and Independents. Liberal newspapers endorse him. He has not received a plurality of the conservative vote. And despite what Democrat strategists say, he is not the scariest Republican in the general election. He is their second choice, if their nominee cannot win the White House.

He will not be endorsed by the same liberal papers in the general election. He will find a way to tick off conservatives between now and the fall, so that they do not support him.  He will not unite for the good of conservative values, and thus the country. He will unite under what he thinks is right.

Is that the kind of president, conservatives, that you want? Then you might as well vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, because their kind of presidency is most likely what you're going to get.

That means, more of the same ol' Washington we have now.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Leader vs. Manager

Since the rather cordial Republican Debate XIV that took place Thursday, the gloves have come back off during stump speeches and on the airwaves in Florida. Senator John McCain now contends that there is a difference between being a leader, which he claims to be, and a manager, which he asserts his closest rival, Mitt Romney, would be.

He is also claiming that it is more important to have governmental experience on a committee than business experience in order to keep the American economy strong and on track.

Romney fires back that by McCain's own admission, one he denied flatly when asked by Tim Russert from Meet the Press during the debate, that he was not as versed on the economy as he needed to be. This comes from a couple of statements he has made, one a couple of years ago and another very recently, when speaking with bloggers during an online forum.

Romney also questions whether or not someone who only has government experience, like McCain, is the right one to be a steward of the economy, and continues the mantra that "Washington is broken" and only an outsider, like himself, and others like him, can fix it. Those who have been in Washington so long no longer can because they are part of the problem, not the solution.

If I thought McCain would be the kind of leader I would like, someone who would adhere to basic principles while reaching across the aisle, I might be more inclined to vote for him. Instead, what I see is someone who can be very principled, as well as very vindicative. Someone who feels he is right, regardless of the circumstances.

In many ways, that's what we've had with George Bush and Dick Cheney the last eight year. And while I have to believe things would have been worse under an Al Gore or John Kerry presidency, I can't say that I'm all that thrilled with the direction this country is going in.

More government, more federal regulations and control, more bickering and gridlock, is not what I think we need.

If I thought McCain's admiration among the Independents and some of the more moderate and even liberal Democrats were Reaganesque in nature, stemming from a respect of his mostly conservative ideals, rather than joy in the fact that he has been willing to shift their direction on many issues, rather than cause them to shift his way, and rankle the Republican party rank and file in the process, mainly the conservatives among them, I could see myself voting for him.

Maybe a President McCain would be different than a Senator McCain. Actually, I have little doubt that such would be the case. I just don't think he'd be the kind of leader I want. I think he would move to the center on too many issues--global warming, immigration, free speech, judges, etc. I think he would end up alienating more than uniting, castigating more than building consensus, especially if his temper flew out of check and he continued his "my way or the highway" mentality.

I'm not asking for compromise, but good grief, just because you're at odds with someone over something doesn't mean they're your mortal enemy for eternity. Particularly if the difference in opinion is based on heart felt principles.

What I see in Romney is someone who has the capacity to listen to and work through differing opinions. There have been plenty of times where his own thoughts about things have proven wrong, There have been other times where his gut was right. However, in either case, he has insisted that the evidence be put forth, sifted through, and that solutions, viable, real solutions be reached.

Some might find this to be compromising at it's best. Some might think that means he has no core beliefs or principles. Some relish in the adversarial state that is conservatism vs. liberalism, the us against them, the thrill of victory over the heathen.

Well, if principles are sacrificed in the compromise, then yes, I agree. That is the worst thing, and I think far too many moderates fall into that category. However, there are many other times where a combination of philosophies work the best, even if they are not ideal.

Romney has experience with that. His experience in business, with the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics and four years as a governor in the bluest of the blue states (Massachusetts), qualify him. He has held to principles in the onslaught of opposing opinions and thoughts, and he has worked to a compromise in other situations where core beliefs weren't at stake.

I think Romney is a leader. A CEO is a leader. Being the head of the Olympics is being a leader. Being a governor is being a leader. He has the most combined and varied executive leadership experience of anyone on either side.

No, Romney isn't a war hero.  No, he didn't even serve in the military. Nor did his sons. That didn't stop Bush from defeating McCain in 2000. It didn't stop George H. W. Bush or Bob Dole from losing to Bill Clinton before that. It didn't stop Kerry from losing to Bush in 2004.

A leader needs convictions. A leader needs principles. Especially in those moments of deep crisis, in those darkest of hours. The rest of the time, though, he still needs to set the tone, show forth optimism and a can do attitude.

Not in adversarial way. Not in a vindicative way. In a quiet, confident and firm manner.

Does that describe McCain?

I think not.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are the Democrat strategists telling us their plan?

Here it comes again: John McCain is playing the most electable card.

No, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that. All candidates need to make the case.

As far as McCain is concerned, however, it isn't, "I'm the most electable among those who most share our values," it's "I'm the most electable because I'm willing to tick people off and vote against party and principle whenever I think it's in the best interest of the country, based on what I think is right."

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think voting party is always in the best interest of the country, and I do think voting conviction is a sign of true leadership. However, you do have to be right more than you are wrong. And you do have to listen to your constituency, the American people, somewhere along the line.

Do I have to go through the list of recent McCain meanderings? I think they've been well represented elsewhere. They just need to be weighted against principle vs. political expediency.

My trouble with McCain's assertion is, he's not alone. Sure, there are plenty of Republicans saying the same thing, even a few conservatives among them. I'm worried about that, but the fact they are saying the same thing is not in and of itself problematic. Independents are definitely saying it, and from my own personal experience, there are plenty who do lean right, so that's not too bad. But folks, where the red flags go up like fireworks on the Fourth in my mind is when Democrats are also saying the say thing.

The more I hear from Democrat strategists, and the more they say, oh, we fear John McCain, the more I don't believe it. Why should anyone on the Republican side of the aisle believe them, particularly those who call themselves Democrat strategists?

Folks, there's a reason why these people are who they are. What kind of strategy is it to tell the opposition exactly what they don't want you to do? It might be the ultimate in reverse psychology, tell you, oh, we fear McCain, and then expect that someone among us will go, "Wait a minute, they must think he's the weakest, that's why they're playing it up."

Personally, I think it's more subtle than that.

It's a lesser of evils tactic.

Think of it. If their person can't win, whoever that is, are they going to want someone in the White House they think they can't work with, without compromising liberal principles, something that would actually cause damage to the Democrat party?

Not if these strategists are worth their salt, they won't. If their candidate can't get in, they certainly don't want someone who's going to make the Republican party look favorable, or better yet, who will actually make the conservatives look good.

This isn't a battle between Republican and Democrat anymore. Arguably, it never was. This is a battle of conservative vs. liberal, and the moderates are all waiting to mop up.

If the liberals can get anyone to lean left on anything, it is a victory. If they can make conservativism seem outdated or irrelevant, they win completely.

Let's say McCain is elected. If he does things that anger the conservative base, while pleasing the moderates and not making the liberals look bad, it is a victory for everyone but the conservatives.

If McCain proves to be the worst president on the face of the planet, who's going to be in the White House in 2012? A Democrat, because the Republican party will be even more demoralized than they appear to be now, and the conservatives will have voted against their principles, the only thing that allows us to save face.

McCain is win-win for Democrats. Either he moves people to the center because he works across the aisle without necessarily promoting party or conservative principles, ticking off the conservatives in the process and destroying the Republican party in the process, or he converts conservatives weary of fighting a war of attrition, or he destroys the Republican party because he's a bad president. He either blurs the lines, or he fractures the base completely, or both. The least likely scenario is, he unites the Republican party in a way that is detrimental to the Democrats.

The moderates have long been flying under the radar,watching as conservatives and liberals duke it out and lose credibility among the American electorate. Republicans and Democrats have long been associated as the parties of the conservatives and the liberals. That's not truly the case. While Republicans do have a tendency to lean right and Democrats to lean left, there are plenty who find themselves in the middle looking straight down the center of the road, or weaving left and right, depending on the circumstances.

If conservatives believe that conservativism is the best principle, and if they believe it must be preserved at all costs, over party and over winning the White House, they cannot nominate McCain. Even if he is the most electable.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Border patrol

Let's do a little bit of straight talk about the U.S.-Mexico border, shall we?

While drug running and other illegal activities do draw some undocumented aliens to cross the border, the vast majority come here to work. In many cases, they come here because they've been told by friends or relatives that life here is wonderful, that jobs are plentiful, and that they can make more here in a day than they would in weeks back home, if they can find a job.

That's why the men come here, anyway.

Women, if they come up with their husbands or separately, may also come to work, but there is an additional purpose. If their child is born here, regardless of their own personal status, the child becomes an American citizen. I dare say all border states, if not every state, provides some degree of services for pregnant women, regardless of their resident status, as long as they meet the poverty levels. And they do.

We have become the economic solution for some of our southern neighbors. If they are not official policies of their respective nations, they sure seem to squawk a lot on Spanish television any time someone starts talking tough about border enforcement, or crackdowns on illegal immigration.

There is a great amount of talk about securing the border. I don't know that I'm in favor of a wall or fence. I think the cost to do it is too high, and I think we'll be needing to build a border fence to the north, too, because people who really want to come here--people desperate enough to save up $3,000-$5,000 or more to cross deserts, ford rivers, and trek thousands of miles in some cases without adequate food, drink, sleep or hygienic situations aren't going to be stopped by a wall.

Some have already defied portions of that wall where it exists, by either going over it or under it, or just entering at some other point. It will cost millions of dollars to build that fence, and to set it up with whatever security surveillance equipment, and then more millions to man it.

If we've got to spend money on border security, then we should spend it on border patrol, and put some more people to work.

However, I think we can take care of illegal immigration more effectively, without needing a thousand-plus mile border fence/wall, and by adding some border patrol agents (or maybe not using so many of our National Guard abroad).

The employer verification system.

We need to remember that either out of ignorance or on purpose, American companies are employing illegal immigrants. Right now they can say that they don't know if documents are false or not.

With a verification system in place, something similar to a credit check, an employer could determine whether or not the documents they're being handed are good or not. If they're good, then they can decide to hire them based on skills, experience, etc. If they're not, then they simply tell them their identification isn't valid.

I tell you, though, based on what I know about the Hispanic population, and I think I know as much as anyone who is not Hispanic or here illegally can, as soon as word gets out that the employer verification program is up and running and that employers are required to check to see if their current employees have legal social security numbers and alien verification, people will just start leaving. Most of them will not want to risk it, and they will go back to their country of origin.

I know that it sounds too simple to be true, but the majority are decent, hardworking people, who's offense is being here without following the rules of immigration because they think they can improve their quality of life. Can't fault them for wanting to do that.

At the same time, I don't think they should have the same benefits extended to them as citizens or legal residents. Work and free medical benefits are magnets. That's why they are here. Take away the work, and they will go elsewhere.

If they can scrape enough money up to pay coyotes, they can save up money to get the legal immigration ball rolling. Many of these folks have relatives up here, and some of them have already been doing that. The rest could help out, too, or they could fend for themselves.

That may sound heartless. Personally, I think the countries from where these folks come from have some responsibility in it. Certainly the people themselves should understand that the U.S. is a nation of laws, of order, and that immigration is not simply crossing the border and staying.

Illegal immigration was not as big an issue 40 years ago as it is now. It became an issue later and came to a head in the 1980s and an amnesty bill was passed to take care of those few million undocumented living in the country. There was also provisions for employer verification and a fence in that bill. Well, the people here then were granted legal status, but other than that, the rest is yet to take place. The border fence is still not complete, has been running into legalities over private property rights, and their is no adequate employer verification system.

And guess what, there are at least double, if not triple the number of illegal immigrants here now than there were 20 years ago. Many of them employed, using falsified documents, or being paid under the table, waiting for the next round of amnesty, or betting that an ICE raid won't take place at their place of employment.

Take away the incentives for coming here, and you might not completely end illegal immigration, but you will significantly stop the arterial bleeding. And you will do it for significantly less than a fully secured and manned border fence, and you will put the responsibility on employers and the immigrant workers where it belongs.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who will come out of Florida?

The whittling down of candidates has begun.

True to his word, Fred Thompson, after a disappointing third place finish in South Carolina, has announced he's leaving the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

The rest of us, particularly politicians, should take note.

With Thompson gone, that leaves John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.  Since my last post, Duncan Hunter has indeed dropped out, but Paul still remains.

Huckabee, however, is doing what most of the other candidates have done before him--he appears to be pulling out of Florida so he can regroup and lie in wait in the southern states. With Thompson gone, he is the only southern candidate remaining.

That means that McCain, fresh off a redemptive win in South Carolina, will be going head to head with Romney (who bombarded then eased up in South Carolina to concentrate on Michigan and Nevada) and Giuliani (who has eased up nearly everywhere else to take his stand in Florida). Paul will play, but ardent supporters aside, no one else on either side of the political spectrum is giving him much hope.

Predictions have been a dime a dozen so far, with most of them off. The safe bet is to create scenarios, so here they are.

Giuliani really needs to win Florida. There is a week between Florida's January 29 primary and Super Tuesday on February 5. More than enough time for people in the 20-plus states voting on February 5 to see the results of Florida. The candidates, because of the time frames, will not be able to stump much and will rely more heavily on surrogates, advertising and earned media to get them and their messages out in those states. Where they are well known, their candidacies are expected to do better. Where they are not well known, advertising and earned media will have to suffice.

Giuliani is well known everywhere due to 9/11, but he has had Florida virtually to himself, and his strategy of lying in wait would be proved wrong if he were not able to take a state he has spent so much time and effort in. He will trail significantly whoever the winner is, and would have to carry states he expects to do well in, along with states he doesn't, to try to catch up and then keep up. Yes, places like New York and California would give him the ability to do that, but he still has to carry them. Will voters vote for him, after he hasn't attempted much in six states, and then potentially coming in a distant third in a state where he did? Past Florida, voters in the Super Tuesday primaries will not have the luxury of knowing what has taken place in other primaries voting the same day until it is over.

McCain needs to prove he can win among strictly Republican voters. That really hasn't happened yet. So far, he has been significantly aided by Independents and in some cases, Democrats. If he's able to pull off a win in Florida, then he stands the best chance of all of the candidates of winning the nomination. He has been leading in the national polls of late, too, and making up ground, if not surpassing Giuliani in states the latter is counting on to win.

Romney, despite having more delegates and votes, is considered in second place here. While Romney's not being neglected, McCain is definitely considered the frontrunner which hasn't boded well so far for whoever that spot has been given to. McCain and Romney have both done better with their backs against the wall.

With Thompson out of the race and Huckabee playing elsewhere, Romney does have the greatest chance of picking up not only the economic conservatives, but some of the Evangelical and social conservatives that otherwise might have gone for Huckabee and Thompson. Those voting based on a social conservative stance are not likely to vote for Giuliani. They may decide to vote for McCain, however. If Giuliani and McCain manage to split the majority of defense conservatives, with Romney taking his fair share, then he has the best chance of coming out of Florida with all of the delegates.  If that happens, Romney has the money and the resources to make up ground in the larger states where he is trailing, and at least be in the driver seat, if a majority of delegates still can't be won, at the brokered convention.

Personally, I don't think it's in the best interest of the Republicans, or conservatives, for a brokered convention to happen, despite the wealth of civics lessons it would provide. I think the coalition has to coalesce, and coalesce now, around a candidate. I've laid the groundwork in previous posts for why that should be Romney, as well as why I think it shouldn't be McCain.

It would be an amazing thing after a lack of enthusiasm over any one particular candidate if that were to come to pass. I think it must happen for Republicans to win the White House in November.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive