Thoughts of Aspiring Future Statesmen

EOD Report - Interesting Joe Willson Commentary

2009-09-16T23:10:00.004-04:00

If you're not familiar with Gary Bauer's End of Day Report, go Here and sign up - it's good stuff. Today, EOD had some interesting comments about the Joe Wilson issue, and some especially interesting quotes from Mike Pence:

"Republicans Defend Wilson

Yesterday I urged Republicans in the House of Representatives to stand up and defend Joe Wilson (R-SC) when the vote to discipline him came to the floor. Wilson, not surprisingly, was reprimanded by a 240-to-179 party line vote. (Seven Republicans voted against Wilson, while 12 Democrats voted for him).

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, the current Republican House Conference Chairman and rising star in the GOP, was one of the strongest voices for sanity in the debate. Pence spoke on Wilson’s behalf on the House floor yesterday, telling his colleagues: “The American people want better. The American people want less politics and more jobs. They want Congress to set aside petty partisan politics and come together to take action to get this economy moving again.”

Rep. Pence also noted, “Ironically, because of Joe Wilson’s outburst, we have been engaged in nearly a week-long debate about what’s really in H.R. 3200. In fact, now the American people know there's nothing in the Democrat’s bill in the House that requires an individual to verify their identity or citizenship.”

He closed his statement by saying, “Last Wednesday was not a good day in the House, but today is worse. Today we see politics overwhelming the institution. The American people are tired. So let me say again … I urge my colleagues to vote ‘no’ on this resolution, put attention back on the work that the American people sent us here to perform, and that is to serve the interests of their families and the interests of this Nation with everything we’ve got. I’m with Joe; vote no.”

I want to share these comments because many of you have responded to this report frustrated with the Republicans in Congress for their perceived reluctance to stand up and fight back against the radical Left. The Republican leadership IS fighting back, despite facing a huge Democrat majority and Big Media that is marching in lockstep with the liberal agenda in Washington. I urge you to keep an eye on Mike Pence in the future."

Also, I should give VaSocialConservative a great deal of credit for suggesting I watch Mike Pence in the first place.

[Originally posted at The Joyful One]

The New Progressivism: A Call to Arms

2009-01-24T11:26:00.000-05:00

Well, it's four days into President Obama's administration and (thankfully) there has been no push by his party on abortion. This brings up a topic which I have been pondering all this week, due (among other things) to the inauguration, Martin Luther King Jr Day, and a talk given by Dr. Niel Nielson, President of Covenant College. This topic is that of conservative narrowness.

Abortion has rightfully been compared to slavery by its opponents and so I think it would be good to look at how slavery ended in Britain to see how we should go about defeating abortion. In studying the life of William Wilberforce, I discovered that not only did he focus his energies on ending slavery, but he connected the issue with others such as the war with France, social justice in Britain, and liberal reforms to the government. In short, William Wilberforce was not a single-issue politician as many have made him out to be.

This, then is what we who oppose abortion ought to be doing: connecting our stance against abortion with other issues. What I would like to call for is a comprehensive social agenda that would address, among other things, abortion, social justice, racism, particularly against blacks and hispanics, environmental issues, prison reform, AIDS, and sex trafficking. These are all issues that the Bible speaks to and therefore Christians ought to care about them.

Now, many of my conservative friends will say about, say, social justice, "But that should be up to private charities." That's well and good--but before you say it, put your money where your mouth is. I don't want to hear how unnecessary government involvement is until I see how many deductions you have for charitable causes. It's good and right for the church to have this responsibility, but frankly we've done a poor job of late.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, a new form of conservatism arose under Theodore Roosevelt called progressivism. Progressivism called for social and political reform with solid moral foundations as opposed to the pragmatic populism of politicians like Woodrow Wilson. If we as Christians want to bring our faith into the political arena, we have to bring it to bear on all areas and not just abortion. Is abortion crucial? Absolutely, but until we make it a critical and connected part of a wider set of policies in society like AIDS, sex trafficking, and racism, our pleas for life will go unheard.

In short I am calling for radical conservatism: a new progressive conservatism rooted in faith that God does care about more issues than just abortion and gay marriage. With a new administration, the time is now. It's time for change, yes: change in the right direction.

December 7th, 1941 and the "We will NEVER Forget" Slogan

2008-12-08T13:29:00.002-05:00

[Author's Comment: I wrote this yesterday to post on my personal blog, sorry for the delay.]

Pop Quiz: What happened this day 1941?

Answer: The day all Americans began waiting for VJ day, i.e., the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We were thrown into a war to the west of us, along with the war we were already fighting to the east in Europe.

67 years ago, Americans didn't want yet another war, but they saw how clearly we didn't have a choice. In the Japanese we found an enemy more imminent even that Hitler at the time. Hitler was attacking our allies, while Japan had attacked American soil. We had to fight, even with all the rationing that was already happening, all the hardship, all the death. We entered yet another theatre of war where thousands of our sons, brothers and fathers died in a single battle.

We enjoy the freedom that they died for. We appreciate the families all over America who skimped, saved, and went without in order to allow our troops to have what they needed in order to gain freedom for Europe, and for us... the same freedom we now enjoy. Thanks, to all WWII Veterans, and all Veterans throughout our country's history.

But, what about today? Birdie announced to me what day it was as soon as I got up. Then, I checked email real quick, and found the Rasmussen Reports Daily Update waiting for me. I skimmed their headlines, and found something most disconcerting. "Confidence in War on Terror Declines" read the headline, and my stomach realized I hadn't eaten yet. Read the stats, or just know that only 47% of those polled believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror.

This is blatantly false, for one thing. We continue to turn over more and more sections of Iraq to the Iraqi military forces. Just this single statement implies so many other significant facts. In order to turn it over, we had to:

- Have control over those area's in the first place

- Have quelled things enough in that area that we and the Iraqi forces were comfortable having a less experienced force control them

- Train the Iraqi forces to the point that they could take over

- Build an infrastructure for them to operate in

The list continues. Can you imagine how much it must take to first have an Iraqi military to put in place, and then be able to put them there?

All that, along with the myriad of other things that the Main-Stream Media refuses to tell us, doesn't spell W-I-N-N-I-N-G? We haven't had another terrorist attack on our soil since the war began, that doesn't spell W-I-N-N-I-N-G?

This of course, brings us to the connection I want to make between December 7th, 1941, and December 7th, 2008. In 1941, America was outraged and reeling from having suffered an attack on our own soil. If you can remember, in 2001 we were also reeling from an attack on our soil. Four of them. There might have been more planned.

No American wants war, but we knew, and more importantly, President Bush knew, that if we were to keep our country from suffering another similar attack, we had to take the fight to the terrorists. We did. Congress supported it. President Bush ordered it. We did go to war. Now, because the political winds are so apt to change, it is proclaimed political suicide if a Democrat or Moderate should DARE to support the War on Terror that our brave military men and woman have sacrificed s0 much for. Republicans are war-mongers because we want to keep America, and other free countries, from yet another devastating attack like we had on September 11th, 2001.

In 1941, we didn't forget what Japan had done. We fought. We won. That's how wars are supposed to go: they attack, we protect ourselves, and the attackers don't do it again.

In 2001, it seemed America had covered herself in bumper stickers, window clings and flags with pictures of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and that spot in Pennsylvania, proclaiming, "We will NEVER forget".

America: we have forgotten. It is shameful, wrong, and it brings tears for me to think that the American People could so easily forget such an awful time. I must echo the song by Darryl Worley, "Have you forgotten/how it felt that day/to see your homeland under fire/and her people blown away/have you forgotten when those towers fell...?" We have, and we now need to remember.

There is nothing new under the sun.

2008-11-20T15:49:00.002-05:00

The elections are over, and most people are returning to their normal lives. Except for a few races that are still up in the air, the dust has pretty much settled, and people are generally rejoicing or resigned, but are still going on with life, realizing that the will of the majority must prevail.

But not in California.

Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, passed 52-48 in California. While it was the thirtieth such amendment in the United States, it was the first that overturned a court ruling. The Supreme Court of California had ruled that, unless a Constitutional amendment were to pass, the rights of homosexuals to marry would be considered default. So the voters, on November 4th, chose to define marriage in the traditional sense.

Now, there are open riots in California, vandalism, death threats to pastors, attacks on Christians, massive protests outside Churches and Mormon temples, and racial epithets being hurled at blacks, 69% of whom voted for the amendment.

Seen this before?

It happened, to a lesser extent, in the book of Genesis. Lot was righteous, and lived in Sodom. When he provided shelter for two travelers, the men of Sodom demanded satisfaction, and mobbed the house, threatening violence if they did not get their way. Even when struck blind, the Sodomites continued to try to force their way.

Today, in California, homosexuals are again getting violent because those who are righteous are denying them what they think is rightfully theirs. Where will it lead? Be prepared for a second Roe vs Wade, but this time with the issue of homosexuality instead of abortion.

I would note that historically, a civilization has decayed when sexual perversion became accepted. Sodom was destroyed for the sin of the inhabitants, and only Lot and two of his daughters survived. The tribe of Benjamin was reduced to 600 men, after they accepted homosexuality as normal. The Roman empire became decadent and was overrun by the barbarians when orgies became prevalent, and homosexuality became rampant. This was after the Romans had crushed the Greeks, who had accepted homosexuality.

Many European nations have accepted homosexuality, and they are slowly collapsing before our eyes, facing both economic collapse and subversion from the inside by Arabs. If America accepts homosexuality as normal, how long can we survive?

Sexual perversion and false religions seems to go hand in hand in the Bible. Both are aberrations from what is obviously evident to be right. Both involve a perversion of what was supposed to be a sacred relationship between two people. And both ultimately lead to divine justice being meted out.

When a nation allows stealing, it can still survive, although it cannot be competitive economically. When a nation allows murder, (abortion,) it can survive, although the population will shift to those who do not participate. When a nation allows even fornication, it can survive, though the family structure will be somewhat weakened, because good can be brought out of these situations. (Shotgun weddings.)

But when a nation embraces homosexuality and other forms of total perversion of God's design for natural human relations, decay sets in, and it is only a matter of time before judgment falls upon that nation.

History and the Bible show this to be true. Let us hope that such a fate never befalls America.

Obama: Proof that Reaganism is Not Dead

2008-11-13T00:21:00.001-05:00

With all the "centrists" working to bring the Republican party away from the Conservative values enshrined by President Ronald Reagan, it is easy to start believing that Reaganism is dead.

Want solid proof that it isn't?

Of course you do...

Here it is.... the long awaited proof....

Barack Obama.

Why?

He used Reagan's (i.e. the Conservative) platform.

Don't believe it? Here's a very well thought out article written by Scott Rasmussen, arguing (in my opinion empirically) that Reaganism Is Not Dead. Read the article, and then tell me that we need to appeal to the liberal "centrists".

Dark days ahead

2008-11-07T15:14:00.003-05:00

A democratic majority in the house and senate. A democratic president. Right after an unpopular president.

Sound familiar?

1976. Nixon had been elected in '72. He was relatively well-liked. Though he was not the most conservative choice, he had won reelection easily. Then, after the Watergate scandal and cover-up, he had been forced to resign. His Vice-president served out the term, but the tide had turned against republicans. Huge gains in both houses of congress. A relatively inexperienced Jimmy Carter got elected handily. His socialistic fiscal policies and weak stance on foreign policy crippled America. Iran took great advantage, taking hostages, and not releasing them, as Carter wrung his hands.

Then came Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was an actor-turned-governor. He reformed California. Then he ran for president. He was derided as a light-weight. How could an actor run Washington? But his conservative principals and good speaking abilities rang true with the majority of Americans. People knew a leader when they saw one. And Reagan was a leader.

Reagan was strong. Congress was still controlled by Democrats, but Reagan still got his tax cuts through. He still got the Soviet Union to disarm. He became the greatest president of the 20th century.

Now we are in 1976 all over again. We can prepare to be made fools of on the foreign scene. Don't bet that the 2010 mid-term elections will go our way, unless we get new Republican leadership, like Newt Gingrich. We will have to wait until 2012 for new strength.

During the election season, we saw Sarah Palin brought into the spotlight. Though McCain still lost the election, Palin taught Republicans that conservatism is not dead. If a true conservative is on the top of the ticket in 2012, we will have a good chance of winning the White House.

But it must be a true consistent conservative. In today's atmosphere, a "compassionate conservative" like George Bush can't really cut it. Nor can a moderate like John McCain. Current candidates I am looking at are Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. The two of them on a ticket would energize the base like nothing else.

But what do we do in the next four years? If we just wait, a lot of damage can be done. We need to get active.

First things first: RIGHT NOW, before inauguration day 2009, we need to contact our congressmen repeatedly telling them not even to think about the Fairness doctrine, gun control, wealth redistribution, or other leftist ideas to take away our rights. If we wait a couple of months, it will be too late, the democrats will be going full steam ahead with their agenda.

Secondly: Keep your eyes open. In some states, like Virginia, there will be elections next year. State-wide elections matter too. If you live in or near a state that has elections this year, consider getting involved in grassroots efforts.

If you do not live near a state like that, then watch for elections coming up in your state in 2010. Many Democrats ran unopposed this year. If you see no one stepping up to the plate, try to get someone involved. It does no one any good to allow the other side to go unchecked. Just the presence of opposition makes candidates think twice about their moves.

Lastly, be prepared. You don't know the future. A conservative agenda can be pushed even with the current congress. If you can write letters to the editor and change minds today, you have had an impact on the elections of tomorrow.

Polls vs. Us

2008-10-22T22:32:00.000-04:00

Worried about the polls? Well, before I explain why not to be, here's a quick primer on polling:

Let's say there's a poll of 11 people to see whether the color blue is generally better liked than the color red. If you have 5 people in the room who always like blue better than red, and you have 4 people in the room who always like red better than blue, and 2 people that cant seem to make up their mind, than you have to fudge the numbers to reflect the way those people's tastes are.

It's the same in a political poll. If a higher percentage of voters usually vote democratic, than the numbers must be able to reflect the actual make-up of the American population.

The Problem: Because the numbers do have to be manipulated in this way, and most people don't know how the math is actually done, often a poll can be manipulated by simply changing the demographic numbers that are imputed into the raw data. Also, even if the current demographics are imputed correctly, those are not necessarily the demographics that are actually going to show up to vote.

The Point: Polls are not exactly trustworthy, as they often are based on a person's perception of how the demographics are actually going to be ON ELECTION DAY.

With that said, here's a BIG encouragement that you can change the reality of the demographics on election day:

So, GO VOTE PEOPLE!!! This race is so much closer than you will ever hear in the media. They want you to think that it is all sewn up for Obama... if you believe that, look at this: a bi-partisan poll that is widely accepted in the political realm (not that you'll hear about it anyplace but on Rush Limbaugh). This poll puts us at a one point race in battleground states (they're calling them swing states this year, but anyhow).

Get out, pray for this tight election, and be strong!

Bailing on Our Principles

2008-09-24T15:49:00.001-04:00

Written by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee:

Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.

It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset - that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”

The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.

Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government---which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.

What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?

If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?

Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.

Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.

If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.

2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.

3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries---just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.

Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of blame. Fix it!
This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.

Obama's [Shocking] Views

2008-06-28T11:19:00.001-04:00

I have been concerned about Obama - very concerned. I have also been particularly concerned about the conservative grass-roots and just how enlivened they may get, or more precisely, how enlivened McCain can get them. At this time, though, I am praising God that Obama is the Democratic candidate - he is the ultimate way that I see to get the conservative grass-roots very pumped and ready to vote.

That said, these short videos from [Focus on the Family] CitizenLink's "Turn Signal" news reports will make you want to go vote in November, and get the word out as much as possible until then.

To see other Turn Signal programs, as well as CitizenLink's other online video program, Stoplight, go here - they are great, I highly recomend all of them.

In the midst of a presidential battle

2008-02-19T13:56:00.001-05:00

I heard a great quote from a sports talk guy: "Abraham Lincoln used to celebrate John McCain's birthday."

Happy Presidents' Day!

The McCain Dilemma: Why He'll Win

2008-02-11T16:37:00.001-05:00

Since the race on the Democratic side is still too close to call, I thought I'd continue to comment on McCain and his prospects for the election in November.

First of all, I'm going to come right out and say that I'm a Huckabee supporter. I think he'd be a good president, but the fact of the matter is, he probably won't win in 2008: he's the Republican version of Jimmy Carter in terms of political experience.

On the other hand, McCain has all the experience in national politics that Huckabee doesn't and he would also have a good base among moderates as well as conservatives. He's got the swing voters who don't want Hillary.

Now, earlier someone said that McCain is a liar and little better than Hillary however, consider that he's been consistently pro-life and while he has little problem with embryonic stem-cell research, the practice has become obselete due to new discoveries. Also consider that the practice has never been illegal and the debate is merely over funding (which I believe he opposes).

Fiscally, he's been moderate and his position has always been unclear. While he didn't vote for tax cuts, it is true that they were not paired with spending cuts. Tax cuts are going to be absolutely useless without them, except for increasing the national debt (a fact which Reagan learned all too well).

As for his foreign policy, he's great on things like the war in Iraq and fighting terrorism. Thanks to current media silence on this issue, I think we can be sure that it will go unnoticed since the war is going well and the situation is stabilizing.

In short, McCain, while undoubtedly a maverick, is a much better choice than Hillary or Obama, whose healthcare plans would be disastrous financially.

Now, if Obama were to win the Democratic Nomination, the moderates would go to McCain just because they would be uncomfortable with someone that liberal. On the other hand, if Hillary were to win the nomination, the moderates would still go to McCain (at least a lot would) because she would bring with her Bill and all his baggage.

In short, don't listen to the rabid right when they talk about supporting Hillary over McCain. All that that sentiment does is to marginalize the one who says it. Seriously, McCain would still be a fine choice, especially if Huckabee is his running mate (since that would put Huck on the path to becoming president in his own right).

~Philip

So it draws near

2008-02-09T12:30:00.000-05:00

With "Super Tuesday" out of the way, John Mccain is definitely ahead, and is all but inevitable. Mitt Romney has stopped campaigning, but will remain on the ballot. This basically means he's out. Huckabee is probably not going to make the nomination either, seeing as he does not have even 200 delegates yet. Mccain seems to have it in the bag.

Except for the possibility of a brokered convention. If Mccain fails to secure a MAJORITY of the delegates before the convention, (having more than everyone else won't be enough, you must have more than 50%,) then we will have a brokered convention, where literally anyone who fulfills the requirements for president could be the Republican nominee. This is unlikely but possible. Because Mitt Romney is effectively out of the picture, it is quite possible that Huckabee will pick up some momentum with less competition for conservative votes. Huckabee probably won't get a majority of the delegates either, but he could stop Mccain from waltzing away with the nomination.

But for now, we'll assume Mccain does get the nomination. Some people, for whatever reason, think he is the most winnable Republican candidate. This is absolutely false. I personally know severl Republicans who feel they cannot vote for such a liberal man, and would rather not vote or vote third party than vote for him. I myself would basically be holding my nose while voting for him, voting for the lesser of two evils than a conservative candidate. Why? Let's take a look at some of Mccain's more controversial positions:

Taxes. Mccain has always voted against tax cuts. Every time. Why? He says now that it was because they weren't paired with spending cuts. This is hogwash. At the time, he was using class warfare rhetoric that would make any Democrat proud. And what about spending cuts? He is one of the porkiest Republicans out there. He doesn't want to cut spending. He is lying. He is not a straight talker. And he is bad fiscally. Oh sure, he voted for extending the Bush tax cuts. This was purely political, trying to position himself as more conservative than his record would show.

Moral issues. Mccain voted in favor of government support of embryonic stem cell research. He calls himself pro-life, and it is true that he does not support abortion as such. But he seems to have no problem with killing a baby for spare parts, as it were. I fail to see much difference, and many other conservatives fail to as well.

Back in 2003, he was seriously considering becoming a Democrat. Why? Probably because his positions are closer to those of the Democrats than Republicans. Sure, he talks conservative now, but he is a liberal when it comes to his actual record. He is not to be trusted.

However, he would be far better than Clinton or Obama. Most conservatives would agree with this, but Obama has a good chance of beating Mccain if they are the nominees. Clinton would energize Republicans to get out and vote against her, more than for Mccain. Obama would probably not do the same. He would be able to carry all the states that Kerry did in 2004, and Ohio. This would put him over Mccain in electoral votes. Romney or Huckabee would not suffer such problems. Mccain is the LEAST winnable Republican candidate, and has always been. If he becomes president, mark my words, it will not be because of his positions, but because of the positions of his opponent.

Projections and Speculations for the Republicans

2008-01-31T22:09:00.000-05:00

So it's official, the GOP is down to three major candidates: Mitt Romney in the lead but faltering, John McCain in second and gaining momentum with a consistent Mike Huckabee in third and Ron Paul still maintaining a pretence of running for the GOP. Now, personal opinions aside, the question seems to be "who could best defeat the Democratic candidates?"

At first glance, Mitt Romney would seem like an obvious choice. However, he's not very strong on gun rights, has switched positions twice on homosexual civil unions, and has carefully avoided discussing his beliefs as a Mormon, choosing instead to be generic.

In contrast McCain, while decidedly a "maverick Republican" has been consistent and would have support from moderates who would rather not go to Hillary but haven't liked the Bush administration.

Mike Huckabee, while running a strong campaign, will probably come in third in the national primary due to populist stances and perceptions of being part of the "religious right." On the other hand, his sense of humor and his deliberately not antagonizing his opponents could pay off in him being chosen as a strong Vice Presidential candidate to help balance a maverick like McCain.

In short, I am projecting a McCain nomination (of course, eight years later . . .) with Mike Huckabee as a running mate. So while I'm still shouting "Huckalujah" with Gregory, I think that the conservatives will probably be voting McCain in the election.

Stay tuned for my comparison of Hillary and Obama.

~Philip

Wide Open...

2008-01-15T10:36:00.000-05:00

If you have remotely followed the coverage of the Iowa and New Hampshire elections, you have seen that the 2008 election is wide open. Hillary Clinton is battling Barak Obama for the Democratic nomination, while the Republicans have three candidates who have won a primary/caucus (Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain).

There is no favorite. Clinton has been considered the favorite, but Obama has growing support and looks like a better candidate. In the Republican race, former favorite Rudy Guiliani has not even gotten 10% in the Iowa or New Hampshire elections. The race is so open that there have been few withdrawals, with the exception of Bill Richardson. Despite the struggles of Fred Thompson, he continues on in the race. Despite the struggles of Duncan Hunter, he remains in the race.

I'd like to get your input: When is the right time for a candidate to withdraw? Should they wait until after all the primaries? Should they quit now and stop splitting the party? Should they stop spending when they don't have a chance to win?

A Constitutional Crisis: Why I do not Support Hillary

2008-01-04T16:51:00.000-05:00

I believe that Hillary Clinton should Constitutionally be barred from running for President. I have come to this conclusion not because I dislike her positions (though I do dislike them), not because of her poor moral character, and not because she's a Washington insider. Though these are valid points, none of them are Constitutional issues.

The Constitutional issue with Hillary's bid for the Presidency can be summed up in two words: Bill Clinton. If Hillary were to win the election, the First Gentleman (I will refrain from any snide comments on the title) would be quite powerful as he himself is a former president. People complain about the broad powers given to Dick Cheney during the Bush administration, yet if Hillary were to win, 1) Bill would almost certainly have some power in the administration 2) he would not be impeachable. Bill would be back and this time around, he would not be able to be removed from office.

While the constitution doesn't directly say that a person cannot be president if his or her spouse has been president, I think it's implied. At the time of the Constitution's writing, husbands and wives were treated as one unit and therefore Dolly Madison could not have run for president after the administration of James Madison. That would have been the interpretation then and it should be the interpretation now.

~Philip

The Kickoff...

2008-01-03T10:57:00.000-05:00

Sorry to borrow a football analogy, but today is the kickoff of the political season. The country is waiting to see what the Iowa Caucus will bring. The event symbolizes the start of the political race. There have been debates, but now is decision time for voters. Who will you support?

I was thinking a while ago about what all a voter has to consider. While I will not be able to vote in the 2008 election, I still want to consider the same issues that voters would deal with. I started thinking about important issues and it soon became a laundary list of criterion for a candidate.

So here are several issues that will play big roles in the 2008 presidential election: Iraq War, stance on Iran/North Korea, the war on terror, illegal immigration, the economy, taxes, welfare, and morality issues (abortion, homosexuality, etc).

Now there are different approaches to each issue. Ron Paul would say withdraw from all the foreign issues, while minimizing the government's involvement with domestic issues. Clinton would prioritize the issues in a certain way (withdraw from Iraq, help the poor, taxes near the bottowm). Mitt Romney and Barak Obama would have totally different approaches. John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, and other candidates would approach them differently.

So here's the question: how would you prioritize issues?

I sing Huckelujah too - A Response to Ann Coulter

2007-12-31T15:18:00.000-05:00

Ann Coulter tried to give Mitt Romney a little Christmas present in the days leading up the the Iowa caucus. In a recent article entitled 'Liberals Sing Huckelujah', she criticized former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee for being "about three earmarks away from being Nancy Pelosi" and questioning his conservative credentials. Her accusations against Governor Huckabee range from his stance on immigration to his support of marriage, from his views on education to his use of populist rhetoric.

Unfortunately, it seems as though her zeal to attack Governor Huckabee outpaces her willingness to provide a fair and balanced viewpoint. While some of her arguments accurately represent Mr. Huckabee's views, she fails to ground the majority of the article in evidence or fact.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I personally support Huckabee for the Presidency and I do not exactly like Ann Coulter's style of conservatism; I think she gives conservatives a bad name.)

Let us start with the "grain of truth" in the article. Ms. Coulter correctly reports that Huckabee unfortunately supports a federal ban on smoking in the workplace. I understand his desire to prevent second-hand smoke while you work at your job, but I think federal intervention is a bit too much. In this sense, I have to side with the article's criticism.

Ms. Coulter also correctly represents Huckabee's position on immigration, albeit with a typical Coulter-ekse flare. Huckabee want to secure the border, but he does not think that children who have lived in the US should be denied the opportunity to pursue merit based scholarships because their parents broke the law. I side with Huckabee on this issue, Ann Coulter does not. Ms. Coulter argues that to protect our culture we should not accept immigrants (legal or illegal) while Huckabee wants to crack down on illegal immigration while at the same time provide more opportunities for legal immigration to happen. While I believe Huckabee's position would be better policy it really comes down to what you, as a voter, believe.

Other than those two issues, however, I would argue that Ms. Coulter makes a flock of unsupported assertions.

First, Ms. Coulter attacks Huckabee as supporting sodomy and Lawrence v. Texas. I think this is a completely bogus claim. Huckabee is a much stronger supporter of marriage than anyone else in the race (save perhaps Alan Keyes). If you look at Huckabee's record and platform, he has an amazing legacy of protecting marriage in Arkansas; passing a Constitutional amendment. He made a mistaken comment on a live radio program and that comment (which he readily admits was a mistake) was singled out and attacked. Huckabee's whole political career shows a strong pro-family, pro-marriage record. Politicians make mistakes. I am just happy when they are willing to admit it and do not try to redefine what they say or "saw" to cover up their mistake. (As a side note: I also think it is interesting that she attacks Huckabee on this issue because Ms. Coulter supports Mitt Romney who supported keeping civil unions and homosexual marriage in Massachusetts.)

Second, Ms. Coulter attacks Mr. Huckabee on school choice. This also is an overwhelmingly unsupported statement, her "evidence" is that he was endorsed by New Hampshire NEA. She fails to mention that he was also endorsed by HSLDA PAC. Just because he was endorsed by the NEA does not mean he is against school choice. In Arkansas he helped homeschoolers and private schools by loosening restrictions and protecting their right to school choice. At the same time, he improved public schools too. One of the reasons he got the NEA endorsement was that he was the only Republican to seek it. That doesn't mean that he is for everything the NEA is for, but it shows he took the time and effort to show that he is dedicated to improve education for everyone and willing to put aside differences to seek common goals. To me that shows true leadership and is not something that should be ridiculed...but again, these are just my thoughts. Ms. Coulter takes a different opinion, and it is for you to decide for yourself.

Third, she attacks him on saying that he likes music and supports more music in education. Personally, I think this is a non-argument and Ms. Coulter is just trying to find more dirt to throw. First, Huckabee does not support federal intervention in the school system. He supports using the bully pulpit to encourage states to make their own reforms. Just because Huckabee supports music in education doesn't make him a liberal, and it doesn't mean he wants to turn the whole nation into Michael Jacksons. If his support of music is the deal breaker for you as a voter, so be it, but this is the kind of argument that I would generally ignore in my competitive debate rounds because it really has not impact.

Finally, Ms. Coulter throws in one last dig at the end of her article claiming that Huckabee supports "big government and higher taxes." This is completely untrue. First, on taxes, he has signed the "no new taxes" pledge, he is campaigning on reducing taxes and the size of government, he also supports the fair tax and an abolishment of the income tax. If you look at his record as governor, even though taxes increased while he was governor you have to look at the whole context of the period after 9/11 and hurricane Katrina. Government spending everywhere went up :-/ It is to Huckabee's credit that Arkansas's tax burden increased at half the rate of the national average and that even with a Democratic legislature he passed the largest broad based tax cut in Arkansas history.

As far as big government, I understand how she might believe that, but it really is not true. A lot of people listen to Huckabee and say that he is for big government. He talks about helping the poor and unemployed, and how he is a "Main Street" Republican and not a "Wall Street" Republican. These populist comments admittedly sound like a things a big government liberal would say. But I personally believe that these are issues that small government conservatives should be addressing too. The poor and unemployed aren't just Democratic issues. The difference between conservative and liberal is how we deal with these problems. Not a recognition of the problems themselves. Huckabee's rhetoric and justifications for change are the same as many big government supporters, but his plan and policies are decidedly promoting a limited government. He wants to privatize Social Security and put individuals in charge of their health care. He wants to stop government intervention in public school curriculum and support people's choice to go to a private or home school. He wants to help the poor and unemployed not by handing them government benefits but by freeing the economy to give them opportunities. It is all about policy. He can (and should) have the same goals as liberals to reduce poverty, but it is his method that counts and in that he is decidedly in support of smaller and limited government.

--------------------§--------------------

Ann Coulter does have some legitimate concerns, and there are no perfect candidates. But there is a difference between expressing legitimate concerns and spreading misinformation. I do not agree with Ms. Coulter's views on all issues and I do not agree with Governor Huckabee's views on all issues. But it is important for Ms. Coulter, as well as myself, to represent those views accurately and fairly. If you disagree with Huckabee's stances, that is fine, and it is what makes America a great nation. I for one am singing "Huckelujah" for a conservative Christian candidate that supports life, marriage, lower taxes, personal freedom, school choice and vertical politics. I hope you consider joining the chorus and supporting Mike Huckabee for President of the United States.

Ruins, Rome, and a Reason to Study History

2007-12-21T21:25:00.000-05:00

As I indicated in my bio, I am an avid history buff. Recently, due to a Latin course and some other influences, I've been studying a lot of Roman history, particularly regarding the late Republic. When studying this subject, two great quotes come to mind:

First: "Those who do not study their history are doomed to repeat it." ~Lord Acton

Second: "All right, then. How does dictatorship begin? I mean, apart from the fact that we can be pretty certain that it evolves out of democracy." ~Socrates, in Plato's De Republica

I think you can tell from this where I'm going to go. Rome had a revolution like ours, went through rapid expansion, and a civil war during which the executive branches gained almost absolute power. The lesson is that in order to prevent tyranny, liberties must be guarded.

I think that in many ways America is going the same route as Rome. There is extreme factionalism with little middle ground (except for libertarianism, which I will address in another post) which could very well split the country on party lines. The result? Anarchy and dictatorship most likely, with Fascism, either of the right or of the left, being the end result.

Yes friends, fascism: the political philosophy of utilitarian expediency. It is the principle that one should do what is necessary rather than what is right. It is the political philosophy not only of Mussolini and Hitler, but of Stalin and Mao. It is the idea that might is right and morals serve only as a barrier for the weak.

The character of Jadis in C. S. Lewis's The Magician's Nephew expresses that, "The weight of the world is on our shoulders. We must be freed from all rules. Ours is a high and lonely destiny."

We as Americans ought to guard our liberties and watch for signs of dictatorship and point them out to those who will listen. We must be careful that the balance between liberty and security is not tilted in favor of security.

We as Christians ought to thank God for our liberties and pray for His guidance in our country.

Philip

By Way of Introduction

2007-12-21T21:07:00.000-05:00

Well now that you've listened to us a little bit I'm going to introduce our current bloggers for this site or rather, they will introduce themselves by editing the post or (if they can't) by sending me their bio. I will refer to them by first name only for privacy's sake and will update when other join the team.

First off there's me: I'm Philip. I am a high school student who has been blogging for a year and a half over at Faith_And_Philosophy and has enjoyed every minute of it. I am a philosopher at heart who is interested in politics as it relates to philosophy as well as the relation between politics and religion. I am also an avid history buff and debater, having done (and watched: more on the watching side, actually) policy debate for two years and am currently doing Lincoln-Douglass debate. Politically, I'm a self-avowed conservo-libero-distribu-tarian. I probably lean distributist more than anything. If you wonder what that means, I'll explain it eventually. Suffice it to say that it's neither conservative nor liberal nor liberatrian.

the.joyful.one: the.joyful.one

I am Christian, raised and cherished by two wonderful parents who were unlucky enough to have a daughter who likes to write. Their luck ran even lower when God led them to homeschool that daughter, causing her to be more driven and willing to say what she believes than she probably would have been otherwise. Then, these two wonderful people lost all hope of sanity when the introduced her to politics via Rush Limbaugh, http://www.roskamforcongress.com/main.cfm">Peter Roskam and general discussions at the dinner table. Then, they put her in a position to fall in love with campaigning through some opportunities with Generation Joshua, and that, as as they say, was that.

Along the way, I have acquired a great enthusiasm for music performance, worldview studies, and writing fiction as well as opinion/analysis. I was involved with NCFCA debate for one year (the Medical Malpractice year, for those debaters interested), which I enjoyed. Beyond this, I am a high creative, who doesn't recognize that the box exists, let alone that I am supposed to be in it!

Although I am unsure just what God wants me to do in the future with my interest in politics, becoming a... Statesgal? States... a politician is something I am considering, though being involved in campaigns is what I'm leaning towards right now.

My political views will, I think, be most evident through my writing, but for the moment I'll say that I am a hard core Conservative reminiscent of Reagan.

Daniel: I'm a high-school student who has interests in sports, politics, and debate. While I like a good political discussion, I often also like to put in a little humor and maybe a Chuck Norris joke or two. How do I describe my political views? That's a good question. Independent is probably the best way. On moral issues I'm conservative, but on taxes I'm more liberal than most of my friends would like. I'm not a fan of many conservatives today, though I'm not in the Ron Paul mode. I also enjoy hearing your take on illegal immigration, which is the NCFCA debate topic this year. This is my first year, though I've had a little experience doing speech. I think I'm more interested in evaluating the political views of others than bashing you with mine, so I'd love to see comments on my posts...

Gregory: This is Gregory. Gregory says 'hi.' Gregory is very glad to see you here. :-) Gregory does not normally talk in the third person nor does he often write like he is composing a first grade reading book. Regardless, Gregory enjoys simplicity, class, and elegance. He strives to be a gentleman, but recognizes it as a lifelong pursuit that will never really be attained on this earth. As of this post Gregory is a senior in high school. An avid reader of history and political thought, Gregory loves doing competitive debate. Currently he debates in the National Christian Forensics Communication Association, a speech and debate league for home educated high school students. Gregory's favorite books are historical biographies and science-fiction. Gregory believes his fundamental life purpose is to serve and glorify our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Barbarossa89: This is the first time I've ever been a part of a political blog like this. I think it's a great idea, and I'm thankful that I was invited on board to help. I find it very difficult to talk about me, not about the upcoming election season. I am somewhat of a political animal, and I read at least an hour of news every day. I am a Christian conservative, (as are we all,) and I think it is very important for Christians to be involved in politics. We are to be in the world, wielding positive influence in the public square. We are not to hide our light under a bushel, but we are to be a shining city on a hill. I believe that politics are not the ultimate answer, but they are one method we have to make a difference in our world. We should at the very least vote every November. Other than politics, my interest include (among other things) Church, friends, AWANA, music, (all kinds except rap,) gardening, video and computer games, (especially Age of Empires 2,) and economics. (Although some would say that's close to politics.)

So, team members, post your bios on this post.

Philip

What about winnability?

2007-12-20T15:48:00.000-05:00

Ability to win must be considered in the general elections.

What defines winnability? Several things. Experience, experience type, likeability, charisma, and issues. Issues may be important, yes, but they are only one part of it. Let us take a look at each of these.

Experience: A candidate should have at least four years of experience working somewhere in government. Whether this is an elected position, or a high-ranking military position, or even part of a cabinet, working in the government prior to being nominated is important to voters. You don't want Mr. Watts, the hardware store owner, running.

Experience type: Who wins elections?

Presidents running for re-election. They know how to be president, they have been president for four years, and they usually have a record already.

Vice-presidents. They have been right there in the midst of things, and have at least second-hand experience on the job. They know how things are run, and what needs doing.

Governors. They have executive experience on a state level, and know how to interact with a legislature. While most governors will not have foreign policy experience, they will know a lot about how to run a government.

Generals. They have demonstrated leadership capabilities, and know how to lead a nation. They have good minds, and are good strategizers. Although, we have not had a general as a president since the '50s.

Senators. No, not very winnable, the last time a senator won the election was when JFK did. It was a close race, there is evidence that cheating was involved, and he was running against another senator. However, if we get two senators running against each other, one will have to be president. Not very winnable, though.

Likeability: If a candidate glowers at the audience, or speaks sharply, people will really take that to heart on election day. Soundbites are powerful, and if you have one of a candidate who gets angry, flip-flops, says mean things, or anything of the sort, he can lose thousands of voters.

Charisma is the enthusiasm needed to inspire voters to get up and do stuff. If you can move people, you can get elected.

Issues, I place last, because they are actually not always the most important. They should be, but issues often fall behind, or a disagreement with one candidate's position on some issues may cloud better judgment and cause a voter to vote third party.

What issues are important to voters?

War. Things are going well in Iraq, and winning is fairly imminent. We'll probably be out of there by 2010 at the latest. However, if democrats can convince people that things are going badly over there, this could be an issue for them.

Economy. The economy is booming, but you won't hear much of that. You'll hear about slight recessions, the stock market coming off of a high, or (mostly,) gas going up. If democrats can convince people that the economy is doing poorly under a Republican, they may vote democratic.

Taxes. People like to pay fewer taxes. People don't seem to mind taxing others, though. Democrats play on this by promising to tax "the rich" and then putting upper-middle class into that category, and expanding downward from there. Mike Huckabee supports the FairTax, which would get rid of the income tax and replace it with a sales tax. This tax system has been attacked more than perhaps any other tax idea. The lies are rampant. "It will hurt the poor!" (A lie.) "Prices will go up!" (Another lie.) "It's being perpetrated by a cult/scientology/weirdos!" (Yet another lie, and don't shoot the messenger, criticize the message.) "Government revenue will fall!" (No, it will in all probability go up.) "It will help the rich!" (Yes, and everyone else too.) "Government won't be able to encourage or discourage behavior with taxes anymore!" YES! That's a good thing. Taxes should be for revenue, not to control behavior.

The FairTax is an excellent idea, and any attacks in evidence come under one of four categories:

Uninformed/misinformed.
People who like government control.
Misunderstanding what it means.
Fear of a sales tax AND an income tax.

The FairTax would also repeal the 16th amendment, and so there would be no more income taxes. More income, everything is the same price as before, and the government gets the same revenue. Everyone should be happy!

Illegal immigration. This is probably the highest debated issue, and for good reason. The next president could make or break the issue. Do you want amnesty? Any penalties for breaking the law? Border security? Enforcement of laws on the books? Paths to legal residency for those already here? People have all sorts of views, and candidates who are weak (like Mccain, Giuliani, and Huckabee,) are coming under a lot of fire for their more liberal views on these issues. These three have all switched to tougher talking since the campaign started, but the records are there. Do you trust that they really have changed their tunes? Or does the record decide all?

The last issues are "morality" issues. Abortion. Homosexuality. Drug use.

These may be important to a personal life, but I ask you: When is the last time that a president's moral issues really meant a lot? I can think of one instance. President Bush supported a ban to partial-birth abortion. Other than that, not too much.

Merry Christmas! ..er, um, vote for me

2007-12-19T22:17:00.000-05:00

Christmas season is upon us! ...but the January 3rd Iowa caucus is also right upon its heels. Never has the election season lasted so long or started so early (well, unless you count the election of 1828 where Jackson pretty much started campaigning after the 1824 election).

Beginning in January, the Republican and Democratic parties start to choose a nominee. By February 5th, more than half the states will have voted on the candidates and we'll likely see a winner emerge from the Democratic party.

On the Republican side, things might not come out so clearly. With five viable "front runner" candidates, it is a very distinct possibility that the GOP may come out of primary season without a winner and the remaining candidates will fight it out at the Minneapolis convention in September 2008.

The next few weeks will be vital in determining whether the GOP unites around a single candidate or battles it out until the last two months before election day. As we enter the last few weeks before the primaries begin, five candidates start the final lap for the Republican nomination.

The Candidates - A Summary

(Disclaimer: I support Mike Huckabee for President. I've tried to make this summary as neutral as possible, but I am sure a little bias has probably crept in. So read it with a grain of salt and I'd encourage you to research for yourself.)

Rudy Guiliani

Mr. Guiliani has consistently led national polls. He started off the election cycle with large name recognition due to his role as "America's Mayor" during the September 11th attacks.

Guiliani's campaign strategy has been to let the other candidates fight out for the early states and come back by a good showing in Florida and nationwide on February 5th (Tsunami Tuesday). Guiliani was hoping that the early states (Iowa, New Hampsire, Michigan, and South Carolina) would be split between the other candidates. With the rise of Mitt Romney in the early states, (and the later rise of Mike Huckabee) Guiliani has been forced to amend his original strategy and campaign in the early states. If a clear frontrunner came come to challenge Guiliani before the Florida primaries, that candidate will probably have enough momentum to beat Guiliani. Guiliani's best hope is that the early state's divide their support and no frontrunner emerges to challenge him.

On the issues, Guiliani is a strong fiscal conservative but has angered many of the social conservative base with his pro-choice, and pro-homosexual marriage views. Additionally, his personal problems (use of state money, his multiple divorces, and charges against high ranking individuals of his mayoral administration in New York City) have plagued his campaign. Guiliani hopes to convince the social conservatives of the Republican party to support him because of his limited government stance, his promise to appoint strict constructionist judges, and his claim that he has the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner.

Mike Huckabee

Governor Mike Huckabee from Arkansas is the dark horse of this campaign year. Starting from humble beginnings, Huckabee was arguably the only candidate to break out of the second tier.

The Huckabee campaign has been challenged by a lack of funds and a lack of organization throughout the campaign season. Huckabee has literally had to grow his national presence from scratch. But it seems to be working for him. Starting in late October, Huckabee has experienced a boom in the polls and garnered national recognition. His surge continues today where he is leading Romney in many of the early states and matching or leading Guiliani in national polls. All this with limited funds and organization, in Iowa, Huckabee has spent less than $400k while Romney has spent more than $7m, yet Huckabee is leading Romney by a substantial margin. In a sense, he has the best of both worlds; lead in early states, and national popularity.

Much of this success is attributed to voter's disaffection for the "Republican establishment" candidates and Huckabee's willingness to reach out to the individual voters. Huckabee is an excellent communicator who has shined in the debates and on the campaign trail. His warm and affable personality has presented for many voters a real authenticity and integrity that is rarely perceived in politicians.

With success in the polls, however, Huckabee has been on the receiving end of many attacks recently. He is attacked on his lack of foreign policy experience, his overt Christianity and background as a Baptist preacher, his acceptance of many gifts while Governor of Arkansas, and his ability to win against a Democratic opponent. The Republican party leaders have by and large turned against Huckabee and are trying to reverse his surge in the polls.

Huckabee has incredible support from the social conservative base. He is very strongly pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-family. He is for school choice, supports homeschooling, but also did much to improve the public schools in Arkansas. Many conservatives, however, are worried about his fiscal record and rhetoric. Huckabee talks about the poor and unemployed in the country, the environment, and the health crisis in America, topics that are usually brought up by Democrats. Huckabee, however, says that they are Republican issues as well, and that the difference between Democrat and Republican is on how to solve the problems.

John McCain

John McCain is perhaps the most influential Senator in the past twenty years. As the oldest candidate running for President, McCain has more political experience than any other candidate.

McCain started out his campaign very strong and was running a close second the Rudy Guiliani. Throughout the year, however, with the rise of Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, McCain has been gradually declining in the polls. Only recently has he experienced a resurgence, and just in time too! McCain has a small, chance of winning the nomination. It requires him to win New Hampshire and do well in the early states to challenge Guiliani. New Hampshire will probably be the critical make-or-break for McCain.

Despite his reputation as a moderate, McCain has a strong conservative record. He supports the surge in Iraq and staying in Iraq to get the job done. He is for tax reductions and reduced government spending. He actually voted against the Bush tax cuts because there was no requirement to reduce government spending, because he considered cutting taxes without cutting spending to be fiscally irresponsible. McCain has received a lot of criticism for his stance on immigration and his sponsorship of campaign finance reform. Additionally, he has angered many social conservatives by arguing that abortion and homosexual marriage should be dealt with on a state level and by opposing George W. Bush (the "Christian candidate") in the 2000 election. McCain also stands apart from the majority of the Republican candidates by condemning waterboarding and by his vehement opposition to torture. That said, McCain is probably the most fiscally conservative candidate and lines up with the majority of the Republican candidates on social issues.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, has until recently had a dominant lead in the early state polls. He has a reputation for getting things done and is one of the most polished and poised of the Presidential candidates.

Mitt Romney for most of the year held a double-digit lead in states like Iowa and New Hampshire. In November, Governor Mike Huckabee caught up and in some cases passed Romney's polling numbers and the two are now locked in a close race for the early primary states. Romney has incredible personal wealth and campaign funds as well as a strong organizational presence. If he can win the early states, he has a strong chance of beating Guiliani. If he loses to underfunded Mike Huckabee, however, his candidacy is likely over.

Mitt Romney was originally seen as the alternative to Rudy Guiliani and as such social conservatives flocked to him. Now, the social conservative vote has largely moved to Mike Huckabee and Romney has hit a snag. Voters seem to be wary of Romney because of his recent conversion on abortion, homosexual marriage, embryonic stem cell research, gun rights, minimum wage, and immigration. While Romney's stances now line up with the majority of the Republican base, many voters are concerned about the political convenience of these conversions and are worried that he may be a John Kerry-ekse "flip-flopper." Additionally, Romney is a Mormon and many in the mainstream media believe that he is suffering from discrimination against Mormons by the Christian right. The Romney campaign's biggest problem right now is that voters do not see Romney as authentic.

Romney has only won one election (his Governor ship in Massachusetts) and his inexperience on the campaign trail shows. His campaign is very predictable and direct. Whoever challenges his lead in the polls, he attacks. Whatever the public sees are his faults he not-so-subtly works to change his image. Interestingly it is often the most experienced and practiced politicians that don't seem to be "politicians" because they are so good at it. The people that seem to be wrapped up in political maneuvering have often done the least politicking and are thus not as experienced at putting on a show. :shurg:

Regardless, Romney has a strong stance that most conservatives whole-heartedly support. Romney's challenge will be to show voters that he is trustworthy and authentic. If he can do that, he has a very good shot at winning the nomination.

Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson was to be the savior of the Republican party. Many who were unimpressed with Guiliani's social liberalism, McCain's reputation as a moderate, and Romney's inauthenticity were hoping that Fred Thompson would enter the race and rescue the party.

Fred Thompson was supposed to unite the social and fiscal conservatives and be the next Reagan. Unfortunately things did not work out so well for the former Tennessee Senator. Before and shortly after Thompson entered the race, he was polling nationally a close second to Rudy Guiliani. After his announcement to enter the race, however, many people were surprised by the lack of energy and activity in the Thompson campaign. People called him "lazy" and "laconic." His lackluster campaign simply failed to inspire or meet the expectations of many supporters. Overall, Thompson's poll numbers have been going down since soon after he started his campaign.

Thompson is not finished yet though. He is trying to make a recovery in Iowa and South Carolina and seems to be moderately succeeding. He needs Romney or Huckabee to stumble but with all the negative media that both candidates have been getting, their fall is a distinct possibility and Thompson is ready to step up to the plate. He is still polling well nationally and needs only to have a success in Iowa to re-ignite his campaign. If he loses both Iowa and South Carolinia, however, it is unlikely that he will be the GOP nominee.

Thompson has been campaigning on his stance on Federalism. He supports limited government, gun rights, and fiscal responsibility. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and give the abortion issue back to the states. Like Mitt Romney, Thompson's main criticisms have been against himself personally rather than against his stances. If Thompson can overcome his perceived apathy, he can be a real force in the campaign.

Ron Paul (Honorable Mention)

I add Ron Paul as an honorable mention because although he is not doing well in national polls he has by far the largest internet presence and and a large grassroots funding campaign.

Ron Paul has raised more than $4m online in a single day breaking the GOP record. What puzzles many analysts is how Paul can get so many donations and still do so poorly (about 5%) in the national polls. Some argue that Paul is attracting the libertarian vote and gaining all their support (and funds) while the normal conservative support is being split among the other candidates. Many Paul supporters, however, argue that the national polls are mistaken and do not provide an accurate representation. Many of Ron Paul's supporters are young people or students who do not have land line phones and are thus bypassed by normal pollsters. Anecdotal evidence also points to tremendous grassroots support for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been an anomaly. He has all the signs of having huge support except poll numbers and media recognition. Is this just a small group of very dedicated supporters? Or is there really a national movement for Ron Paul? We can only find out Ron Paul's true support on caucus day.

Ron Paul is perhaps the most controversial Republican candidate. He is running on a campaign of returning to the bounds of the Constitution. He was against the war in Iraq and favors removing troops immediately. He also believes that the Federal government has no right to get involved in the abortion or homosexual marriage issues. He also believes that we should abolish the IRS, CIA, FBI, and numerous other government bureaucracies. He believes in free trade and argues that we should return to the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul is a dream candidate for those who believe in limited government, yet many question just how drastically Ron Paul seeks to limit the government and whether it would be wise to take it to the extent the Congressman Paul does.

--------------------~~§~~--------------------

So that is my summary of the Republican race so far. I have tried to be as fair and balanced as I can, reporting just the facts. I am sure that my objectivity is not perfect and I welcome my fellow writers and readers to correct me.

Next time I will write a bit on why I support Mike Huckabee for President. Until next time, this is Gregory writing for Future Statesmen.

Have a Merry Christmas!

Index of Posts

2007-12-19T17:44:00.000-05:00

Introduction and Announcements

Welcome to Future Statesmen (Dec 19, 2007)

By Way of Introduction (Dec 21, 2007)

Articles by Author

Benjamin

What about winnability? (Dec 20, 2007)
So it draws near (February 9, 2008)

Daniel

The Kickoff... (January 3, 2008)
Wide Open... (January 15, 2008)

Gregory

Merry Christmas! ..er, um, vote for me (Dec 19, 2007)

I sing Huckelujah too - A Response to Ann Coulter (December 31, 2007)

Philip

Ruins, Rome, and a Reason to Study History (Dec 21, 2007)

A Constitutional Crisis: Why I do not Support Hillary (January 4, 2008)
Projections and Speculations for Republicans (January 31, 2008)
The McCain Dilemma: Why He'll Win (February 11, 2008)

Articles by Series

(No Series Yet)

Welcome to Future Statesmen!

2007-12-19T15:46:00.000-05:00

First and foremost, the writers of Future Statesmen welcome you to futurestatesmen.blogspot.com!

Have you ever looked around at the young men and women of today and thought that they are going to be the leaders of society? How about the future politicians who directly impact the government? It's hard to think of this being the case, but the truth is that the teenagers and young adults of today will be the leaders of tomorrow.

The founders of Future Statesmen believe that there should be a voice for these future leaders. What does the next generation think about welfare, the war, and about the energy crises? We felt that there should be a place where young men and women are able to answer and debate the issues that our government is dealing with.

Our goal is for the Future Statesmen and leaders of our country to think and reason about the issues that they themselves will be dealing with in the future.

A little bit about ourselves: the founders of this website are teenagers themselves who feel it is necessary to be able to talk about the issues today. We vary in our opinions, yet feel that it is important that we can discuss the issues.

We feel that your opinions are just as valuable as ours. We would love to see comments, see what you feel is important about each issue. We want to know what the next generation of scholars and politicians are thinking.

With the 2008 presidential election coming quickly, there is a lot of buzz about politics and the issues with our government. We feel it is important that our future leaders are kept up to date on the issues. At the same time, we need to understand more about the different candidates that are pressing to become the next leader of the United States. We will dive into both topics as the year goes on.

Again, welcome to Future Statesmen!

Daniel, for the rest of the Future Statesmen team