running for u.s. president is NOT supposed to be like running for king (or queen) of the prom!
with the nearly 24/7 "news" coverage of the elections it has occurred to me that many of our fine citizens, nationwide, think this whole race is like reality t.v. that we're just voting whomever we like better TODAY off the island because we think the others left standing will better help US to get what we want.
look, we all want the same things - well most of us want the same things. i had to modify that statement because i know of at least one very liberal mother who believes in no discipline and letting our children "find their own way without boundaries imposed by parental units." uh yeah, and i see how well that's working for her - and our country in general.
things we want our kids to know: working hard matters and it's what helps you get ahead in life. integrity counts and we MUST each take full responsibility for our own actions. the rules (laws) apply equally to everyone. all of the rights delineated in the bill of rights are granted to each of us by god and not by government. in america government is of the people, by the people for the people - it exists at our say so, not the other way around. bigger government doesn't mean better government (in fact the opposite is true). and finally, this is our piece of dirt and it's worth dying for.
we are not electing a mayor of the united states. we are not electing governor of the united states. and aren't appointing a ceo of the united states and we damn sure aren't appointing a motivational speaker for the united states. we are electing a president for the united states.
i'm so sick of watching the infotainment babes (and boobs) discussing "top tier candidates", "do or die states", "frontrunners" and trying to redefine conservatism. that's not what this is all about. who cares if you're a black man. or a woman. or a charismatic former governor. or even a slow-moving, no fire-in-the-belly, sometimes actor and former senator from tennessee. not one of those things has anything, what-so-ever to do with being elected the president of the united states.
i would like to call on all of us, from this moment forward, to stop listening to the talking heads and to start to do some actual comparisons of the persons running for president - not against each other, but against what our founding fathers said about what our government is supposed to be - let's look at what both the constitution and the federalist papers say.
federalism is not some new, republican fad. it is not subject to shifting and changing to fit "who we are as a people". it is the very basis of our republic. it is the process by which the powers of our government are [supposed to be] divided:
the federal government, including the executive branch (i.e. the president), has been granted - by our constitution - the primary responsibility of defending our country and her citizens from (within or without) attack or sedition. additional responsibilities include the regulation of commerce - interstate and foreign, and ensuring the rights of the people by enforcing the constitution. that's pretty much it. in every other matter, the people and the local governments - read that to mean your town and then your state - have primary responsibility.
now, compare the rules of federalism with your candidate and let's see where he stands - i'm ignoring the dems as i am not concerned with them. here, i'll help. human events has given their endorsement to fred thompson. here's what their editors have to say about each of the candidates in how they came to make their decision on whom to back.
We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us -- and for the conservative community -- boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.
To reach that conclusion, we looked closely at the former Tennessee senator and his opponents to judge whether they measure up to conservative standards, and their positions on the top ten issues for conservatives determined in our reader survey. Some come close to meeting those conservative standards, and others clearly do not.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona is a war hero whose personal courage sustained many of the men imprisoned with him in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” We honor him, but he does not honor many conservative principles. His co-authorship of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation last summer ran directly against our principles of American sovereignty and national security. His position has not been ameliorated by his more recent explanations of border-security measures he might support. His opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his support for economy-strangling measures to control “global warming” and his anti-torture legislation (which didn’t make torture illegal, it already was: McCain’s law only made a clear law vague to the point of unenforceability) all cut against the conservative grain. And so did his McCain-Feingold campaign finance law with its stifling of political free speech.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a charming and agreeable gentleman. But his support for the economically disastrous “cap-and-trade” fix for global warming is as bad as Sen. McCain’s position on the issue. The so-called “fair tax” he supports is unworkable. His tax-and-spend policies do not comport with conservative principles, but they do align all too well with Huckabee’s populist rhetoric on the injustice of corporate CEO salaries. His stance on granting special benefits to the children of illegal aliens is also very troubling. On the war, Gov. Huckabee’s understanding of the issues does not impress us. For example, he wants to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and move the detainees there into U.S. prisons, which -- as Sen. Thompson schooled him on in a recent debate -- would result in the grant of constitutional rights to terrorist detainees even though they are enemy combatants. Gov. Huckabee’s grasp of foreign policy does not make us comfortable.
Rep. Ron Paul’s limited-government rhetoric is appealing to many conservatives, but his unyielding isolationism that might have been appropriate for another era is not realistic. He would withdraw from Iraq regardless of the consequences and then pull American forces out of every other country as well. He does not believe, as we do, that America must win the war against the terrorist-sponsoring nations. We find intolerable his repeated statements that we were attacked on 9/11 because we had a presence in the Middle East. That implies that we were, in whole or in part, to blame for the attacks.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani did an admirable job bringing his city through the crisis of 9/11. Even before that terrible day, he did a commendable job cleaning up Gotham. But the mayor’s pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights social views are more liberal than conservative. And his foreign policy views are of considerable concern. His article in Foreign Affairs late last year seemed less conservative than neo-Wilsonian. Giuliani also said in the June 5, 2007, debate, “We need to look at nation-building as part of what we need to teach our military.” No, Mr. Mayor. We don’t.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a closer call. We believe his relatively new pro-life position is a sincere one, but examining his record and listening to his campaign rhetoric indicate to us that he is more a problem-solver than a gut conservative. His “RomneyCare” legislation made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to impose an “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in the state to have health coverage or face significant penalties. And we have concerns about the big-government approach he took as governor, raising state “fees,” according to the Cato Institute, by $500 million and proposing two corporate tax increases totaling close to $400 million a year.
Which brings us back to Sen. Fred Thompson.
We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.
In his Senate years, Mr. Thompson compiled an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 86.1, which is higher than both Sen. John McCain (82.3) and Rep. Ron Paul (82.3). The Club for Growth has praised Thompson as someone who has a strong commitment to limited government, free enterprise and federalist principles.
On the issues that matter most to conservatives, Sen. Thompson’s positions benefit from their clarity. He is solidly pro-life. He said that he was in favor overturning Roe v. Wade because it was “bad law and bad medical science.” As the National Right to Life Committee said in its endorsement of him Nov. 13, 2007, “The majority of this country is opposed to the vast majority of abortions, and Fred Thompson has shown in his consistent pro-life voting record in the U.S. Senate that he is part of the pro-life majority.”
Thompson’s record is solid on voting to preserve gun owners’ rights, cut taxes, reduce government spending and drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has voted consistently against gay marriage. Thompson is by no means perfect. He strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill, did not support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on perjury and more than once voted with the trial lawyers against limitations on liability in defective product and medical malpractice cases.
We like the way Thompson unhesitatingly attacks the liberal ideologues and their activists such as MoveOn.org and the ACLU, and the way he reaches out to those we knew as the Reagan Democrats.
i know it FEELS good to cast your vote for the person promising to "fix" everything. a president (and congress as a matter-of-fact) should not be promising to end poverty, or boost the economy, or to restore hope. neither does the federal government have any authority to provide health care and/or education for all. if the candidate you're supporting plans to make use of their presidential powers (including the appointment of judges) to run our states and to raise our families, they are out of line.
i am for fred. i honestly don't know what i will do if fred doesn't get the nomination. my good friend goat says i should throw behind mitt if fred fails in his bid. but i have some big problems with mitt, as i do with every other person running for the republican nomination.
my issues with mitt aren't his change from democrat to republican or his change of heart in regards to abortion. i know plenty of people who have thought they believed in "the women's right to choose" and when the rubber met the road they couldn't bring themselves to support it. so that "flipflop" doesn't bother me. it does bother me that he now, apparently, supports a federal ban on abortions, this is not something that should be addressed at the federal level as it is a state's rights issue.
no the things that bother me most about mitt are these:
1. his lying about his father having marched with mlk. he says it wasn't lying, that he was speaking figuratively, but that's not how he presented it. and no matter what pretty package you try to put it in now, a lie is a lie. and let's not forget his claim that he was endorsed by the nra when he ran for governor in massachusetts. turns out he wasn't. another figurative speech? come on, mitt, these are things our "first black president" would have done - what is the meaning of "is" anyhow?
2. his healthcare mandate in the state of massachusetts. this is a plan with little to differentiate itself from hillary care. gregg jackson over at human events did a great job in detailing the specifics here. some of the more pertinent information is this:
Romney claims that "we worked to reduce the burdens of regulation." If only this were true. While Romney may have "worked to reduce" regulation, his plan significantly increased government regulation by mandating that every citizen purchase insurance either through their employer, the government, or on their own -- the first time ever that a state has mandated that citizens be forced to purchase a state defined product. The Congressional Budget Office noted that this level of government intervention and regulation was "unprecedented." Businesses with more than 10 employees were forced to provide health insurance or pay a "fee" of up to $295 per employee per year. Even though he vetoed this specific provision of the bill (which was over-ridden by the legislature), Romney still signed the bill. As a result, there are now calls for increasing the "fee" due to fund the growing costs of the subsidized programs.
Romney Care also significantly expanded government bureaucracy establishing at least a dozen new boards, commissions, and miscellaneous institutions. One of the commissions is charged with the responsibility of eliminating "racial and ethnic health disparities."
The former governor's plan did virtually nothing to reduce the burdensome and expensive state mandates that force insurance companies to cover about 40 very costly benefits such as in vitro fertilization and hair prostheses that have significantly increased the cost of insurance coverage.
The subsidies of his plan total over a billion dollars which have not only increased the cost of healthcare in Massachusetts but has made more citizens dependent upon the government for their healthcare in direct contradiction to Romney's assertion that his plan increased individual responsibility.
In a commentary in the Wall Street Journal on February 26, 2007 Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, described Romney Care as "an intensive care package" that only months after it was signed into law was already costing Massachusetts' taxpayers more than $150 million more than the public had been told the plan would cost. Furthermore, average premiums for unsubsidized healthcare coverage increased sharply to $380 per month (Romney had promised $200 average monthly premiums).
this is, btw, the same type of thing he hopes to put into place nationally, mandated by the federal government.
3. his support of illogical, irrational gun control laws demonstrate to me that he is not a pro-freedom, limited government candidate. romney seems to think gun owners should vote for him because he claims to be a hunter himself (which may or may not be true), and he's all about protecting american's right to hunt, etc. unfortunately, the second amendment doesn't guarantee a citizen's right to hunt, or to target shooting, or to antique gun collecting.
gun owners are apparently supposed to just overlook romney's lifelong advocacy for more gun control, his advocacy of renewing the assault weapons ban, and of repealing the tiahrt amendment making it easier for state and city governments to file junk lawsuits against the gun manufacturers.
4. he appointed more liberal activists than constitutional constructionists to the courts while he was governor of massachusetts. and now we're supposed to believe that he will appoint supreme court judges who are somewhere to the right of robert bork? i'm still trying to figure out why, when romney has embraced judicial activism so strongly bork endorsed him. let's not forget that it was romney, in spite of the complete absence of any law or constitutional provision authorizing it, who used his executive power to implement the god-awful goodridge decision and implement gay marriage in massachusetts.
so, for the good of the nation and for the love of god and family, stop watching the race for 2008 as if it were reality t.v. stop worrying who's done what in which state or who's campaign has the most money. or who the talking heads say has a chance to win in november.
we all know that once the nomination is made we're going to have to hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. now is NOT that time. now is the time to not worry about electability, to ignore the polls and pundits and to vote for the best man for the job - regardless of who says what about him.
and remember, that just because a candidate claims to the be reincarnation of reagan, or associates himself with reagan because he worked in his administration, or knew someone else who did, does NOT make him a conservative. even if you think you've already chosen, go back and revisit your guy and be certain that you're choosing your candidate in accordance with the criterion of the u.s. constitution. look at what the candidate says his philosophy for government is, sure, but make certain his history backs up what he says his philosophy is. remember what you mother told you, how "actions speak louder than words" - it's true and there's no getting around it.
it's our country and i know, with all my heart and soul, that we must nominate someone who is humbly willing to serve as our president as a true federalist - read conservative. that is the only chance we will have to beat the dems in november. we cannot beat the democrats by moving towards the left - we can only beat them by going back to our roots and the edicts of our founding fathers. if we don't weed out the "moderates" and "neocons" among our ranks, we will have little different to offer our citizens than a merger between democrats and republicans.