Dear GOP: When Will You Fight THIS Fight?

Over the last several years with the Republican Party, it's constantly been, "We're going to cave on THIS particular issue, (just this one time) and then we're REALLY going to fight NEXT TIME!"

Unfortunately for America, the moment Next Time becomes This Time there's some other "just this one time" to excuse not fighting. Washington Republicans cave yet again because they don't want to be blamed for what happens next by the Left's willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media.

It happened in December as the Fiscal Cliff approached. The GOP let President Obama raise taxes for reasons that no math on Earth can explain (although supposedly that $65 Billion was going to solve a $10 Trillion projected ten-year deficit) without extracting real, meaningful spending cuts. That day we were told "just wait until the Debt Ceiling battle!" Now we're at the Debt Ceiling battle and the Republican House has passed a debt limit increase, albeit a short-term one, that doesn't require cuts.

Friends, I want to be optimistic. I truly do. I want to believe that come May the Republican House will refuse to pass a budget without meaningful cuts. I'd also like to believe that someday I'll make $10 Million a year and live in a mansion.  But I live here in the Real World and what I shake my Magic 8-Ball I see this:

I think I speak for a whole lot of conservatives when I say there won't be a whole lot of chances left for the Republican Party.  Frankly, this could be their last one. It's time to do something real. The spending our nation has continued is flat out unsustainable. That's a fact. Furthermore, there is no evidence from history to show that Obama's Keynesian spending  will all of a sudden begin to work, especially since it hasn't worked yet. (Don't let liberals tell you about the New Deal bringing us out of the Great Depression. That was accomplished only by the outbreak of World War II and government spending as a CONSUMER not as an investor.)

It's time to get your act together, GOP. Now. Not next time.

Why I Can Live With Romney

Now that Mitt Romney has locked up the Republican nomination, it’s time to explain why I can live with Mitt Romney.  I’ve been saying through this entire campaign that I can live with Romney. Here’s why:

-          In 2008, Mitt Romney was the “Conservative Alternative” to John McCain. As a matter of fact, in 2008, I voted for Mitt Romney in the New York State Primary.  (At the time my choices were John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.)  I cast that vote because I believed Romney was the most conservative candidate available.  This time, there were even more conservative candidates, so I supported one of those. That doesn’t make Mitt a liberal. It just makes him less conservative. 

Do not confuse “less conservative” for liberal, my friends. Romney is by a large margin more conservative than John McCain in 2008, Bob Dole in 1996, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992, and Gerald Ford in 1976, and quite possibly George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.  That my friends is a dramatic shift to the right by the GOP to have Mitt Romney as the “Establishment Candidate.”

-          Mitt Romney is a businessman.  He has run multiple businesses including pulling many proverbial cars out of ditches.  This nation needs a Mr. Fix-It for this economy.  A man who is a business turn-around specialist is a good choice. Romney has the business sense to turn this nation around.

-          Romney has a perception problem. I addressed it above.  People think he’s a “moderate.” People think he’s not as conservative. Most Tea Partiers I speak to in person and online think Mitt is another John McCain.  There is a concern that Mitt won’t be able to ignite the necessary passion under conservatives to get them to fight for him.  Not to get Tea Partiers and other conservatives to VOTE for him…the Republican nominee WILL get the conservative vote…but to get Tea Partiers and conservatives to FIGHT for him.  He needs us to get deeply in his corner to volunteer, to knock on doors, to persuade our friends and neighbors to back him.  I hear you all asking yourselves “OK Chris, what the heck is the point?”

Here it is, friends: Mitt is going to have to choose a very conservative running mate. A Bobby Jindall, a Rand Paul, a Paul Ryan, a Nikki Haley, or a (genuine shivers of excitement) Marco Rubio.  That running mate is going to be the heir apparent in 2020.  Quite possibly the incumbent Vice President and the mighty conservative voice we’ve all been hoping for. Yes, a little bit later, but still that conservative we want and need.  Even if Mitt is a stopgap for a period of time, it’ll be a stopgap with a defined conclusion.

-          Mitt Romney will cut taxes.  Governor Romney has promised a 10% tax cut for absolutely all tax brackets across the board.  Not just certain groups of taxpayers, but every single one of us.  Not a piddling little 2% cut in payroll taxes.  10% of our income taxes.  If you’re in the 35% bracket, you’ll pay 25%.  If you’re in the 25% bracket, you’ll be at 15%. If you’re in the 15% bracket, you’re down to 5%. If you’re in the 10% bracket, you’re no longer required to pay taxes.

To an American family with an income of $50,000, that means you’re now going to have an extra $100 plus in your pocket every month.  Not the $10 or so you’re getting from a payroll tax holiday. Another $100 in an American family’s pocket is a big deal.  It means the ability to go out to dinner or buy more new clothes. It means the ability to buy more wants.  That means a lot. 

To a small business owner who makes $250,000 per year and is a sole proprietorship filing their business taxes personally it means a whole lot more.  A 10% cut in taxes means $62,500.  Do you know what that is?  A manager and one full-time employee and one part-time employee.  Or two full time employees if that owner chooses to continue to run the business themselves. What if ten thousand small businesses in America have that?  That means twenty thousand jobs.  And you know what? It means more than that, because there are more than ten thousand small businesses in America.  There are nearly 25 million of them, most of whom are sole proprietorships.  That will make a huge difference in hiring.

-          Mitt Romney is not Barack Obama. Ultimately, we need Somebody Else in 2012.  I, and so many other conservatives, believe a second Obama term would be disastrous for this country.  Without the check of another election, President Obama will brazenly ignore the Constitution and the best interests of this nation even more than he has already.  He’s already promised Russia to compromise our security once he’s re-elected. He also would likely get one to three Supreme Court appointees and dozens of other lower court justices.  He would be able to put a hugely liberal judiciary in place to legislate from the bench.

I can live with Romney, my friends.  I think you will find you can too. It’s time we get behind Romney, because ultimately we must defeat Obama.

Letter Bag: A Time for Realism

It's that time again, friends, to open up the Biblical Conservatism Letter Bag (Yay! Letter bag!)  Today we have a drive-by post from someone who apparently created a Blogger account just to comment!

To set the stage, the post in question was last week's Santorum's Out, Now What?.  One of the very type of people I called out in that post (in this case, a DelusiNewt) left this comment:

YOU ARE AS DELUSIONAL AS YOU CLAIM OTHERS (DelusiNewts) TO BE. Yet,...ONLY the time will help me to help you understand what I mean by that...

I'm sure you're thinking what I was thinking: There must be another comment, some kind of point...some kind of well worded argument...something. Two days later, nothing.  Of course, you need a name before I write your response, so I'm going to call you Balrog.

Dear Balrog:

Yes...I'm the one who is delusional. The definition of delusional is a person who DOESN'T believe that Newt can somehow win 90% of the remaining primary delegates to miraculously defeat Romney.  Delusional also apparently means not believing the irrational, viceral trouncing of Romney as just as liberal as Obama.  I especially really appreciated your thorough and well thought out arguments to prove your point.

In opposite land.

Look, Balrog, I know we've all been kicked a few times by the GOP when it comes to "establishment candidates."  I too lived through Bob Dole and John McCain. Here's the thing, Balrog: I actually look at each candidate and don't presume they're absolutely McCain or Dole because the Establishment backs them.

The reality which our friend Balrog ignores is that the Tea Party already has begun to push the Republican Party to the right. The simple fact that Mittens was the Establishment Candidate this time proves it.

Balrog may have forgotten, but I haven't: in 2008 Romney was the Conservative Alternative candidate.  Because he was significantly more conservative than John McCain. In 2012, we had people that were even more conservative than Mitt, but that doesn't change the fact that THIS establishment candidate is farther to the right that at least three of the last four (if not all four) "establishment candidates."

So no, Balrog, I'm not being delusional. I would've preferred Newt too. I endorsed him, remember? But I also recognize that Priority One is defeating Obama. If that means settling for less conservative (but not socialist) then so be it. That's being realistic.  Still dogmatically insisting Newt can win is the delusional position.

Say hi to E. Honda for me!

-Chris

Reactions to the CNN-South Carolina Debate

Last night, the final four Republican Presidential candidates met in South Carolina before the South Carolina primaries on Saturday.  CNN made the decision to kick off the debate by addressing the newest smear on former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.  Newt took it as an attack, and I can see that being the case…but it more seemed to me as CNN giving Newt the chance to clear the air and move on.  (I have minimal faith in CNN to be fair, but it did come across from John King just clearing the air and giving Newt a chance to respond).  Either way, I want to give kudos to Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Ron Paul for refusing to engage in that attack.  Senator Santorum spoke about Christian forgiveness and how we are all fallen people, Mitt Romney refused to discuss it, and Ron Paul talked about Media Bias.  Kudos to all three of those men for living within the boundaries of both Ronald Reagan’s 11^th Commandment and good taste.  Furthermore, CNN did not do what it’s other counterparts in the Drive-By Media has done in debates…they were actually pretty fair and balanced. 

Now, let’s take the time to play a game of Buy, Hold, Sell and Sell All:

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

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Hold):   

Newt started off talking about why he was going on the attack against Mittens.  He did just an ok job at first explaining why he was making those attacks.  I didn’t like that Newt at first seemed like he was admitting to playing spoiler and not trying to win the nomination.

And then Newt turned back into Newt.  When he said regarding the length one can receive unemployment benefits, Newt said (accurately) that 99 weeks is an associate degree.  I also loved when Newt explained conservatism thusly: “Saying to someone I’ll help you IF you’re willing to help yourself is good, and we think unconditional efforts by the best Food Stamp President in American history to maximize dependency is terrible for the future of this country.”  Bingo.  That’s the Newt Gingrich I endorsed!  Conservatism is not about telling people they can starve, but it’s also not about just giving people benefits forever.  Welfare and unemployment are meant to be an insurance…a just in case situation. 

I have car insurance.  I pay my premiums hoping that I’ll never have to use it again.  I’ve had to use that insurance a few years ago when I was in a bad accident, including receiving short-term disability coverage when I was out of work.  (This insurance was private insurance that I paid for, not government insurance, by the way.)  However, as soon as I was able I went looking for a new job because I was physically unable to perform the job I had at the time.  I went to work as soon as I could.  I didn’t milk it for every penny so I could not work.

Another place where Newt nailed it was this: “I’d like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue and not raise revenue to meet the government.  He also had a great point to Juan Williams’ attack on Speaker Gingrich’s point on letting kids work to help clean their schools.  His story that his daughter worked cleaning their church at 13 and was pleased to do that job and learn that when you work you get paid.  It’s a great point. 

When I was younger I was taught that work pays.  As I child I created a few “businesses” making crafts and things which I sold and even enlisted neighborhood kids to help me sell those items, splitting the sale with them. Many times my father gave me the opportunity to work for a few hours with him at his office sorting papers and other odd jobs in exchange for some money.  My mother once paid me to clean the living room carpet rather than paying a professional.  I was a babysitter for a while as well.  When I was 14 my father gave me a job for 5 hours per week doing data entry for his company.  When I was 16 I got a part-time job and have worked ever since. 

Jobs are good for kids.  They have to be responsibly regulated.  When we talk about kids doing janitorial work at their school, that should mean things like sweeping and mopping, not doing maintenance on the boiler.  But it’s a good policy.

Best Newt moment of the night: “I know among the politically correct you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable,” to Juan Williams.

This debate was exactly what I meant when I said that the debates could give Speaker Gingrich a boost.  Let’s see if it pans out, but I do believe you could see Newt win South Carolina and reinvigorate his campaign, especially if he has this strong of a debate on Thursday night.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Newt said: A 15% Flat Tax.*

First of all, Newt hit the cover off the ball with his response to the “open marriage” accusations from his ex-wife.  The reality is exes can say false things because divorce can be a painful thing.  But he answered it perfectly. He shut down this so fast it should give the Drive-By Media whiplash.  The Media will try their best to pin this story, but it simply is a distraction and Newt is going to give the Drive-Bys the kind of smackdown they deserve and that most conservatives fail to give.  He got a standing ovation from the live audience for his response.  It was absolutely the best response to such attacks I have seen in now 19 years and nine national elections of paying close attention. 

Beyond that, Newt had another very good debate.  His moments were excellent.  He really showed himself to be the Newt that I endorsed three weeks ago.  I would love to see him debate Obama, and I believe he will mop the floor with the Bamster in 2012 if he’s our nominee.  Don’t buy into the “unelectable” line, friends.  The same type of pundits said Reagan was unelectable.  Conservatism wins, and Newt will win if he’s the nominee. 

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):        

Let’s be honest with ourselves as to why Congressman Paul is in this race. He wants to get his policies onto the eventual Republican platform.  Provided he realizes that his foreign policy doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in July of being part of the GOP platform, I would LOVE to have Congressman Paul’s policies in our ticket.  I want Ron Paul’s economic policies to become part of the platform.  Make no mistake about it: The Tea Party has pushed the GOP to the right, and people like Ron Paul deserve a share of the credit for that.

In the debate, however, Ron Paul did his usual out of touch with the GOP foreign policy statements.  Again, this is why he won’t be the nominee.  The audience booed him in many places, then others cheered his desire to end wars.  It’s a great example of the Ron Paul phenomenon: 75% of the room boo his foreign policies, 25% cheer.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Congressman Paul said: We should have the lowest tax we’ve ever had and up until 1913 it was 0%, what’s so bad about that? (Note: This would require reinstituting widespread tariffs, but hey, sounds good to me!)

Hey…Ron Paul was at this debate!  I kid, but Congressman Paul was somewhat to the side of the three way battles that happened between Gingrich, Santorum and Romney, and sometimes he contributed some really great points.  Like his statement about the cost of a Made in China product vs. a Made in America product.  (I’ve noted before that a Made in America iPod, for example, would cost over $1000, and that’s for a 2 GB one.)  It was an excellent metaphor for the Paul campaign.  He’s here to promote ideas.  I think Congressman Paul knows that he’s not going to be the nominee, but he’s in this to rack up as many delegates as he can to force his ideas onto the platform, and provided they are the economic policies I want Ron Paul ideas on the platform. 

Side note: I never realized Dr. Paul practiced medicine as an OBG/YN…in my mind’s eye I saw him as a family practice doctor…and honestly (and yes, I know this is silly, I don’t hold any credence to this thought)…it’s just a weird thought to wrap my head around. 

Mitt Romney– Buy (Buy):   

I want to go on record as saying I do not buy into the attacks on Bain Capital being levied against Mitt and I think they are bad for the country.  I think it was good that Speaker Gingrich retracted and instructed his Super PAC to back down from this attack. 

Mitt was under fire tonight.  He did a pretty decent job responding to the attacks.  I find it interesting that Mitt was absent in a lot of places in the debate.  He was steady and strong, and as I’ve said before I can live with Mitt, but I want better.  I do think Mitt had a weak debate.  I do not believe he scored as many points as he could have.  Mitt was Presidential in the debate.  His best moment was when he talked about the difference between himself and President Obama (and also Ron Paul) in foreign policy.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Mitt said:  I’d like to get it down to 25%.

Mitt kicked off this debate talking about capitalism.  He reminded me again why, if I can’t have my preferred candidate, I can live with Mittens. He did an excellent job of articulating the difference between conservatism and what President Obama believes.  We believe that it’s good to take risk with money and make a profit.  We believe it’s good for those who take risks to make a profit, because that profit goes into purchasing goods and services and often gets reinvested into that company and that means jobs either way.  Capitalism and investment are good things.  Business is what create jobs, not government. 

Mitt said something last night that I’ve been waiting for him to say: “I’m not going to apologize for being successful.”  Amen!  Mitt should not apologize for succeeding.  He is a man who has worked hard, taken risks, and succeeded, and he should be proud of it.

Rick Santorum - Hold (Buy):

Senator Santorum was steady tonight.  He had a couple good moments, but he was otherwise kind of tepid.  I do love that Senator Santorum stands up for marriage and for strengthening the American family.  His statement from the Brookings Institute Study that people who do 3 things have a 98% chance to avoid poverty: Those things are 1 – Work 2 - Graduate from High School 3 – Get married before you have children.  Aside from the fact that “people who work are less likely to be in poverty” is a DUH statement, it’s a great point.  The traditional path for life is one that leads people to be functioning, self-sufficient members of society. 

I’m coming back to my belief that Santorum is more likely to be Vice President than President.  (Again, if the Vice Presidential nominee comes out of the field of candidates, I believe it’ll be either Senator Santorum or Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann).  But I don’t think he gained any points tonight.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Santorum said: My plan has two rates, 10% and 28% which was the highest rate under Ronald Reagan.

Santorum gave Mittens a smack on Romneycare and really nailed it.  He also went after Newt on the topic.  I felt the punch landed with Mittens and hit the gloves on Newt. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, in boxing when a boxer blocks an incoming punch from his opponent.  Newt blocked it.)  When Newt responded, I watched the split screen between Newt and Santorum, and Santorum had a look of “oh darn he handled that” when Newt responded. 

Overall, Senator Santorum had a strong debate. He was good.  He came across as strong and solid, and believe me I would be fine with a President Santorum.  I did like Senator Santorum’s response to the tax release question: “I do my own taxes and I’m not at home.  They’re on my computer.  When I get home you’ll get them.”

I’ve commented that Governor Romney sounds Presidential.  Senator Santorum sounds like a great #2.  He sounds like a Vice President.  I do like the idea of Rick Santorum as Vice President.  He’d be a good strategic move because he can bring in Pennsylvania.  The only better Vice Presidential options I can think of are Michelle Bachmann (who can truly bag the Tea Party vote), Herman Cain (if he’s not so damaged after the baloney smear scandal) and…legitimate shivers of excitement…Senator Marco Rubio.  If I get my wish and Newt Gingrich is the nominee, a Vice Presidential nominee like Santorum would be a good balance.  If Mittens is the guy, we’ll need someone like Bachmann. 

One final note on Senator Santorum.  I realized something last night: Of all the candidates remaining, I do believe I LIKE Rick Santorum as a person the best.  He does seem like a genuinely kind, good hearted Christian man, the type of person who I’d love to have as my next door neighbor.  In a different time (like following a transformational President who got this country going strong again) he’d be a good President. 

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

Tomorrow is the South Carolina Primary, and last night’s debate made one thing clear…the primary is going to be CLOSE.  My gut says that Newt could win, and will at the very least come in a strong second place.  This race isn’t over, not by a long shot.  There’s a lot to happen.  But at the end of the day I want to say without a doubt that I will take any one of these four men remaining over Barack Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday (yes, even Ron Paul).  Every one of these candidates would be a far better President than the one we have now. 

Debate Winner: Rick Santorum

Reactions to the Fox News-South Carolina Debate

Last night, the five remaining Republican candidates met for a debate in South Carolina.  It was good to see the candidates play a home game for a change, debating on Fox News.  If it was up to me, of course, Fox would get basically all the debates rather than subjecting ourselves to the gotcha game from the Drive-By Media.  (Then again, we did have Juan Williams playing the gotcha game.)  The format was different also because we’re down to five candidates, as opposed to the nine we had on the stage at one point.  The fewer candidates allowed for longer responses by candidates so we could get a better view of each candidate.

One final note:  In the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to remind everyone that, as the editor of Biblical Conservatism, I have endorsed Newt Gingrich. 

So let’s play a round of everyone’s favorite debate analysis game, Buy, Hold, Sell or Sell All.  As always, my reaction to the candidate's LAST debate performance (or in this case performances, from the two back to back New Hampshire Debates last week) are in italics above.

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

Newt Gingrich – Buy (Hold):   

It’s been a tough few weeks for Newt.  He lost his frontrunner status in the polls and finished a disappointing fourth place in the Iowa Caucuses.  He made a mistake in trying to stay positive instead of responding to Mitt Romney’s attack machine. 

Saturday:  Newt did a good job of going after the attacks on him.  He took it to Ron Paul early on his attacks and I feel he did a fine job of refuting those attacks.  Newt is great in debates.  Unfortunately for Newt, this debate spread out the speech time oddly (why in Heaven’s name did Jon Huntsman get more time than Gingrich, based on their poll numbers, for example).  Yet I do believe he is going to rebound because of these debates. 

Newt stated my personal view on marriage fairly well by saying that we can create another vehicle for homosexual couples to join in some sort of legal union without attempting to forcibly change the definition of marriage to shoehorn in couples that do not fit that definition.  I also cheered when Newt slammed the Drive-By Media for their double standard against Christians and the bigotry against people of faith.

Newt also nailed it on the issue of Iraq and Iran, specifically by saying get rid the Iranian influence and Iraq will be fine.

Sunday: Newt did what he really needed to do by going after Romney and his other competitors.  I felt like he didn’t get his fair share of time from the moderators (big shock coming from NBC), especially given the amount of time they gave Jon Huntsman even though Huntsman has a fraction of Newt’s support nationally. When he did talk, he showed the sort of fight that I believe will cause Newt to rebound.  I hope he does, because I still believe Newt has the strength and the conservative record to be able to install a true, Reagan conservative who will pass a flat tax, a Balanced Budget Amendment and truly make this nation a country that is the Shining City on a Hill. 

Newt started off talking about why he was going on the attack against Mittens.  He did just an ok job at first explaining why he was making those attacks.  I didn’t like that Newt at first seemed like he was admitting to playing spoiler and not trying to win the nomination.

And then Newt turned back into Newt.  When he said regarding the length one can receive unemployment benefits, Newt said (accurately) that 99 weeks is an associate degree.  I also loved when Newt explained conservatism thusly: “Saying to someone I’ll help you IF you’re willing to help yourself is good, and we think unconditional efforts by the best Food Stamp President in American history to maximize dependency is terrible for the future of this country.”  Bingo.  That’s the Newt Gingrich I endorsed!  Conservatism is not about telling people they can starve, but it’s also not about just giving people benefits forever.  Welfare and unemployment are meant to be an insurance…a just in case situation. 

I have car insurance.  I pay my premiums hoping that I’ll never have to use it again.  I’ve had to use that insurance a few years ago when I was in a bad accident, including receiving short-term disability coverage when I was out of work.  (This insurance was private insurance that I paid for, not government insurance, by the way.)  However, as soon as I was able I went looking for a new job because I was physically unable to perform the job I had at the time.  I went to work as soon as I could.  I didn’t milk it for every penny so I could not work.

Another place where Newt nailed it was this: “I’d like to see us reduce government to meet the revenue and not raise revenue to meet the government.  He also had a great point to Juan Williams’ attack on Speaker Gingrich’s point on letting kids work to help clean their schools.  His story that his daughter worked cleaning their church at 13 and was pleased to do that job and learn that when you work you get paid.  It’s a great point. 

When I was younger I was taught that work pays.  As I child I created a few “businesses” making crafts and things which I sold and even enlisted neighborhood kids to help me sell those items, splitting the sale with them. Many times my father gave me the opportunity to work for a few hours with him at his office sorting papers and other odd jobs in exchange for some money.  My mother once paid me to clean the living room carpet rather than paying a professional.  I was a babysitter for a while as well.  When I was 14 my father gave me a job for 5 hours per week doing data entry for his company.  When I was 16 I got a part-time job and have worked ever since. 

Jobs are good for kids.  They have to be responsibly regulated.  When we talk about kids doing janitorial work at their school, that should mean things like sweeping and mopping, not doing maintenance on the boiler.  But it’s a good policy.

Best Newt moment of the night: “I know among the politically correct you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable,” to Juan Williams.

This debate was exactly what I meant when I said that the debates could give Speaker Gingrich a boost.  Let’s see if it pans out, but I do believe you could see Newt win South Carolina and reinvigorate his campaign, especially if he has this strong of a debate on Thursday night.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Newt said: A 15% Flat Tax.*

Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):         

Paul finished third in Iowa, which, as I said last week, is a disappointment for him.  Caucuses will be Paul’s best bet, and if the best he can do is third in a Caucus state he’s simply not going to win the nomination.  His beliefs on foreign policy I believe have lost him any chance, which is too bad because his economic policies are perfect.

Saturday:  Congressman Paul did a lot of sputtering and rambling.  I respect the Congressman but in many places he was scatterbrained.  More importantly, the Congressman’s foreign policy mentality is simply out of line with the conservative base of the Republican Party and that will stop him from being the nominee.  In addition, I would like to make a note about something Congressman Paul has continued to say:  the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were “undeclared” only in technicality.  Both wars were undertook with legal resolutions from Congress.  Whether or not the official document was a “declaration of war” in the most technical facets it is false to say that Congress was denied their proper role in going to war. 

Sunday:  Paul didn’t do as much sputtering but he didn’t come across as positive and someone who can succeed.  As Senator Santorum stated, Congressman Paul has minimal record of actually passing major legislation in his career.  I simply don’t expect Congressman Paul to do better than third or maybe squeak a second place finish or two in one or two states, which means he’s not going to be the nominee.  He’s got his supporters but the rest of us remain wary of him, and even more wary than mainline conservatives are of Mittens…which is saying something. 

Let’s be honest with ourselves as to why Congressman Paul is in this race. He wants to get his policies onto the eventual Republican platform.  Provided he realizes that his foreign policy doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in July of being part of the GOP platform, I would LOVE to have Congressman Paul’s policies in our ticket.  I want Ron Paul’s economic policies to become part of the platform.  Make no mistake about it: The Tea Party has pushed the GOP to the right, and people like Ron Paul deserve a share of the credit for that.

In the debate, however, Ron Paul did his usual out of touch with the GOP foreign policy statements.  Again, this is why he won’t be the nominee.  The audience booed him in many places, then others cheered his desire to end wars.  It’s a great example of the Ron Paul phenomenon: 75% of the room boo his foreign policies, 25% cheer.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Congressman Paul said: We should have the lowest tax we’ve ever had and up until 1913 it was 0%, what’s so bad about that? (Note: This would require reinstituting widespread tariffs, but hey, sounds good to me!)

Rick Perry – Hold (Sell All):             

Perry finished a disappointing fifth in Iowa.  I expect him to stay in the race for a bit because he’s got the money to do it, but barring a miracle I don’t think he’s got a shot. 

Saturday:  The moments when Perry spoke were strong, but he’s off the radar.  I believe he’s got a better chance to be the Republican Presidential nominee NEXT TIME.  Note – NEXT TIME (which by the way will be 2020, because I am very sure we will win the Presidency in 2012).  He said great things but, unless he does very well in South Carolina I don’t think he’s going anywhere. 

Sunday:  Perry showed glimmers of why he just might make a splash in South Carolina and get back into things.  I still don’t think there’s quite enough time but maybe.  And again I do think there’s a good possibility for Perry to be a great candidate in 2020 if he still wants it.  There’s also a possibility that come 2020 Perry’s chance will be gone because the great up and comers like Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Nicky Haley will be ready to step onto the nation stage.

Perry had a strong debate.  Judging by the reactions he received last night, I can see a chance for Rick Perry to forge a comeback.  It’ll be hard, don’t get me wrong.  But Perry really effectively communicated conservatism last night.  I wish Perry had gotten this strong back in August when he got into the race, because I do believe he was one of if not the most conservative candidate in the race. 

I’m rating Perry as Hold for now for one reason:  South Carolina is a home game for Perry, and in a home game occasionally you get a surprising upset.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Perry said: A 20% Flat Tax*

Mitt Romney– Buy (Buy):     

Mittens would be a Dwight Eisenhower type President.  He’s a nice guy, he’d be steady and solid and he’d be fairly conservative, but right now we have an opportunity to be better than that.  We can get absolute conservatism, we need to take that opportunity to nominate someone who can fire up the electorate about conservatism, and I don’t think Mitt’s the one to do it.  He’ll win if he’s the nominee (as will Gingrich, as will Bachmann, as will Foghorn Leghorn (R) if they face Obama).  However, I don’t think Romney will be the transformational conservative, like Ronald Reagan.  He’ll be a good nominee, we can have a great nominee.

Saturday: Mitt won the Iowa Caucuses, barely, when he was previously expected to not do well at all.  There’s a lot of consolidation of the Republican vote behind him because we’ve begun to believe the line that Mitt has the best chance to beat Obama.  As I’ve said before, Foghorn Leghorn (R) will beat Barack Obama.  The big test for Mitt is can he get above 30% of the vote. 

On Saturday, Mitt was calm, comfortable in his skin and, dare I say it, Presidential.  That is his strong suit.  Mitt doesn’t have a lot of charisma.  What he does have his a steady, confident leader quality.  I recently made the comparison between Romney and Dwight Eisenhower.  Mitt reminds me of speeches I’ve seen and heard from Ike in the 1950s and what I know about the Eisenhower Administration.  Here’s where I continue to be unsure of Romney:  A guy like Mitt might be the perfect President in a booming economy like the 50s…a nice guy who will be a gentle leader in good times.  We aren’t in good times right now. 

Mitt channeled Newt Gingrich when responding to Snuffleupagus on the whole birth control issue.  It was a stupid question and I was thrilled to see Mitt to tell him to shut up on it.  On marriage, Mitt said something that made me cheer regarding homosexual couples forming long term relationships: “It doesn’t mean you have to call it ‘marriage.’ ”  On a final note, Mitt got passionate (for him) when he got on the topic of what makes America great. 

Ultimately, Mitt showed me why, if I can’t have my preferred candidate, why I find Mitt at least palatable.  Some of my fellow bloggers and fellow Tea Partiers argue this point.  Some think Mitt is no better than Obama.  Romney is infinitely better than Obama.  We have better choices, but Mitt isn’t the worst.

Sunday:  Mitt was back on his heels.  Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum especially were hitting him hard early on.  One thing I’ve noticed about Mitt is that he starts to get frustrated in a manner that’s reminiscent of Lou Pinella arguing against a clearly incorrect call from an umpire.  He didn’t kick dirt, but he gets this look of “I can’t believe you’re bringing THAT up” whenever he’s asked about his questionable conservative record.  Where Mitt gets it right is when he continues to hammer the reality that government is not the solution of the problem. 

I want to go on record as saying I do not buy into the attacks on Bain Capital being levied against Mitt and I think they are bad for the country.  I think it was good that Speaker Gingrich retracted and instructed his Super PAC to back down from this attack. 

Mitt was under fire tonight.  He did a pretty decent job responding to the attacks.  I find it interesting that Mitt was absent in a lot of places in the debate.  He was steady and strong, and as I’ve said before I can live with Mitt, but I want better.  I do think Mitt had a weak debate.  I do not believe he scored as many points as he could have.  Mitt was Presidential in the debate.  His best moment was when he talked about the difference between himself and President Obama (and also Ron Paul) in foreign policy.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Mitt said:  I’d like to get it down to 25%.

Rick Santorum - Buy (Buy):

Saturday:  Senator Santorum, welcome to the club of candidates that I was wrong about.  I’d like to introduce you to our other members: Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.  I had written him off.  I still don’t know if Santorum’s success will stick, however, because retail politics don’t work nationally and won’t be possible leading up to days like Super Tuesday. 

I have issues with Santorum’s definition of conservatism.  Or, at the least, I believe Santorum is doing a poor job so far of communicating conservatism.  I do agree with him that there are certain things government should be spending on.  These things include provision for a common defense (which includes both military and police) as well as, on the local level, such public works as roads, water mains, etc.  I do not believe Ron Paul is perfectly accurate when he calls Santorum a “big government” guy.  I think the problem is that Santorum has not yet figured out how to communicate that point.  I think Santorum is also incorrect when he says “I’m not a libertarian, I’m a conservative” because it creates a poor definition of conservatism.  As a general rule the places where genuine libertarians and genuine conservatives differ is social issues and not the issues of what things government should do.  We generally agree with the topics government ought to do. 

Now I confess I need to do my homework on Santorum.  I have considered him a candidate without a prayer.  What I genuinely need to know is if Santorum’s issue is failure to communicate conservatism or failure to be conservative.  I will give him huge credit for calling out Romney when he even mentioned “middle class” because I agree with Senator Santorum: the Republican Party is not about class.  We are about people.  All people.

Sunday: Senator Santorum did a good job of handling the gotcha questions against him and also getting after Mittens.  He’s answered well and the Senator seems comfortable in his skin.  He had great moments and really didn’t have bad moments.  He did still seem a little too safe in his answers.  As I said above, I need to do some research into the Santorum plan, and I feel like I owe both you my regular readers and frankly myself a study on the Santorum plan.  So look for a “Here Comes Rick Santorum” post in the coming week and we can discuss that further.

Senator Santorum was steady tonight.  He had a couple good moments, but he was otherwise kind of tepid.  I do love that Senator Santorum stands up for marriage and for strengthening the American family.  His statement from the Brookings Institute Study that people who do 3 things have a 98% chance to avoid poverty: Those things are 1 – Work 2 - Graduate from High School 3 – Get married before you have children.  Aside from the fact that “people who work are less likely to be in poverty” is a DUH statement, it’s a great point.  The traditional path for life is one that leads people to be functioning, self-sufficient members of society. 

I’m coming back to my belief that Santorum is more likely to be Vice President than President.  (Again, if the Vice Presidential nominee comes out of the field of candidates, I believe it’ll be either Senator Santorum or Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann).  But I don’t think he gained any points tonight.

When asked what the highest tax rate people should be asked to pay Santorum said: My plan has two rates, 10% and 28% which was the highest rate under Ronald Reagan.

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

Debate Winners:  Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry

This debate was very interesting.  Mitt Romney was just ok, Santorum was just ok, Ron Paul was his usual crazy self, and Newt and Rick Perry were truly excellent.  I liked that the conservatives rose to the top.  We’ve got another debate on Thursday before the South Carolina primary on Saturday.  One statement though: This race isn’t over, yet.  Mitt Romney is not our nominee, yet.  Newt could still make a run, and if Perry can pull off an upset then he could make a run too.  Game on. 

*Rick Perry’s 20% Flat Tax provides more deductions and a higher standard deduction that Newt Gingrich’s 15% Flat Tax plan, so it actually would mean less taxes for the average American.

Before the New Hampshire Primaries

Today is the day of the nation’s first Primary in New Hampshire.  I think everyone, including me, will be surprised if Mitt Romney doesn’t win this thing.  It’s definitely Mittens’ primary to lose.  That being said, it’s very interesting to see how everyone else will break out.  Jon Huntsman, my perpetual humorous whipping boy for being a joke of a candidate, has thrown all his chips into New Hampshire.  He hasn’t polled higher than third and even then it’s a far third.  Ron Paul is going to get pretty much what he’s going to get everywhere, 15-20% or so.  He’s got his supporters and that’s going to be it. 

Which brings us to my candidate, Newt Gingrich.  Newt is finally going after Mittens, but I don’t think he’s got enough time to make a difference in New Hampshire.  South Carolina is a different story.  I do think there’s a good chance to topple Mitt there.  (Implied in that statement of course is the phrase “I hope.”)  Newt needs to rebound hard, if not in New Hampshire than in South Carolina. 

Finally, there’s Rick Santorum.  Most recent polls show him in either third or fourth place in New Hampshire.  I do believe this may be par for the course for Senator Santorum.  It took retail politics to do as well as he did in Iowa, and I do not think his Iowa momentum will keep going.  I think Gingrich’s finally getting off the bench to respond to Romney’s attacks and to deal with Romney’s shortcomings are going to take back some of Santorum’s “Not Romney” support.

New Hampshire matters because it’s the first Primary, but again let’s again remember that only 12 delegates will be decided tomorrow, and that proportionally distributed. Based on the most recent New Hampshire polls, given proportional distribution, you can expect Romney to gain 4-5 delegates, Ron Paul to gain 2-3 delegates, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum to each gain 1-2 delegates, and Rick Perry to gain one or none.  Bottom line, New Hampshire won’t mean that much, no matter who wins. 

Today is New Hampshire.  We’ll know more tonight.  Please remember I’ll wait until Thursday to give full New Hampshire analysis in order to give a well thought out response.  In the mean time, remember what the great Yogi Berra said: “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.”

Mitt Romney Shows the Tea Party's Power

Wait...what?  That must be a typo, Chris.  You must mean "Mitt Romney Shows the Tea Party's LACK of Power" right?  No, I mean Mittens shows the Tea Party's power.

Rewind back four years.  The Republican establishment was doing their darndest to cram John McCain down our throats because it was his turn.  As today, there was a "conservative alternative" candidate.  Do you remember his name?  Give up?  It was Mitt Romney.

For the record, I'm not saying that Romney is a hardcore conservative.  He isn't.  He's more of a Rockefeller Republican.  That being said, he's a whole lot more conservative than John McCain, or Bob Dole, or George H.W. Bush or any other "it's their turn" candidates that we've endured as Republicans.  That doesn't mean I'm backing Romney.  I've endorsed Newt Gingrich as a blogger and I stand by that endorsement. I do believe Newt is far more conservative than Mitt. 

But let's consider the GOP of 2008.  Romney was pushed aside in favor of McCain, a part of the Good Old Boys Club of the GOP, largely because Mitt was too darn conservative for their tastes.  He wasn't a Washington insider, he was a businessman with four years of politics on his resume.  I'm not ashamed to say that in 2008 I cast my primary vote for Mitt Romney because he was the most conservative choice available when my state's primary arrived.

Do you think the establishment candidate in 2012 would be Mitt Romney if the 2010 Tea Party revolution hadn't happened?  No way.  It'd probably be someone like the joke of jokes candidate, Jon Huntsman. Today the moderate (which remember is a relative term) Establishment Candidate is the guy who was the conservative alternative four years ago.  Why?  Because the Tea Party has moved the GOP to the right.  Not far enough, by a mile, mind you, but still, to the right.

The Drive-By Media is going to tell you the Tea Party is dead.  They're wrong.  The Tea Party is alive and well.  Mitt Romney being the "establishment candidate" for the GOP proves it.

Reactions to the 2012 Iowa Caucuses

Tuesday night the first votes were cast in the 2012 Republican Primary campaign.  There were some happy surprises, some sad surprises, Michelle Bachmann's campaign ended and Rick Perry's campaign is on the ropes.

Before I continue to break down the individual campaign performances, I'd like to address a silly Drive-By Media talking point:  The results in Iowa ARE NOT good for Obama.  Obama was not the biggest winner.  The more conservative and Republican ideals are discussed and debated in the public arena the worse it will be for Obama. The more attention paid to the miserable failures of policies that Obama has put into place the worse it is for Obama.

Now to respond to the four top candidates, starting with the winner, Mitt Romney. 

Governor Romney won, just barely.  By just barely I mean he won by eight votes.  Some would consider this a big win for Mitt, since he barely tried in Iowa and still won.  On the other hand, Mitt got precisely the same vote percentage as last time, 25%.  Usually candidates who are returning for their second run do better in Iowa.  Mitt still can't crack 30%.  Iowa was not a big win for Romney.  It was a disappointment.

The big winner in Iowa was the, just barely, second place candidate, Rick Santorum. Santorum played the "retail politics" strategy by going to all 99 counties in Iowa to take his case directly to the people.  The question that will remain is whether or not Santorum can do the same thing in New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and Florida and so on.  What this win will do for Santorum is give him a boost in fundraising and a boost in camera time in the two debates that are happening this weekend prior to the New Hampshire Primary on January 10th.

Now to Ron Paul.  I'm sure I'm going to upset at least one person with my comments here, but Paul had a disappointing performance. He was predicted by many to win the Iowa Caucuses, especially noting that Paul and his organization would do better in Caucuses than Primaries based on the structure of a caucus as well as noting that individuals can change their party affiliation at the door of their caucus.  So to only come in 3rd place in the most well known caucuses in the election with the most time available to campaign.  Agree or disagree with him, I believe Paul lost support because of his views on Iran and other foreign policy issues.  He is still out of line with the mainline Republican party and mainline conservatism. 

Finally, we come to my candidate, Newt Gingrich.  Mitt Romney's onslaught finally dinged up Newt.  He dropped to fourth place. As I noted yesterday, I believe there was another reason why Newt dropped: There wasn't a debate for nearly three weeks leading up to the Iowa Caucuses.  This will not be the case in New Hampshire and South Carolina, since there will be two debates EACH in the respective week before New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.  This is going to serve to remind voters why they liked Newt in the first place.

One final note: One must remember that the Iowa Caucus delegates are distributed proportionally to each candidates' vote total.  There were 28 delegates decided yesterday (out of over 1700 total).  The delegate tally now is 6 each for Romney, Santorum and Paul, 4 for Gingrich and 3 for Perry.  Michelle Bachmann also received 3 but has dropped out of the race.  New Hampshire, which is coming up in six days, has only 12 delegates available.  South Carolina provides 25 proportionally distributed delegates and Florida 50 proportionally distributed delegates.

Based on the most recent polls of New Hampshire (which based on proportional distribution will give Romney approx 5.28 delegates, Ron Paul 2.26 delegates, Gingrich 1.5 delegates and Santorum .5 delegates); South Carolina (which based on proportional distribution will give Newt 9.25 delegates, Romney 5.25 delegates, Paul 2.18 delegates and Santorum .7 delegates); and Florida (which based on proportional distribution will give Newt 17.5 delegates, Romney 14 delegates, Ron Paul 3.25 delegates and Santorum .75 delegates); we can predict as it sits now that by the end of January the race will look like this:

Gingrich - 32.25 delegates

Romney - 30.53 delegates

Paul - 13.69 delegates

Santorum - 7.95 delegates

To be clear, there are so many factors that can adjust these totals.  (For one, nobody can gain a fraction of a delegate...this was just me figuring out a direct proportion of delegates based on current polling numbers.)  With Michelle Bachmann leaving the race, one can expect either Gingrich, Santorum or Perry to pick up her support.  If Perry drops out, either Gingrich or Santorum will likely gain his supporters.  Also, it's likely that Santorum will gain support after his Iowa win.  But my point stands: we're talking about just over 1.5% of the delegates that will voting at the Republican Convention in August that have been distributed after Iowa.  The delegate total is a separate of 3 delegates between the top candidate and hte last place candidate.  New Hampshire will only (proportionally) distribute 12 more candidates.  Nothing is decided.  Not even close.

Best of Biblical Conservatism: Civility & Compromise: Only Expected When Democrats Out of Power

This week, since I'm on my annual Christmas vacation, I've been posting "The Best of Biblical Conservatism" with selections from 2011's ten most popular posts. Today's was originally published on February 1, 2011.
Being civil. Getting along. Working together. These are the new catchphrases on the American horizon, pushed along by the Democrat Party and their willing accomplices in the Lamestream Media. Yet these terms did not exist when Democrats were in control of the White House and both houses of Congress.

As usual, once Democrats aren't in power, it's time to get along and compromise, it's time to be civil. But when they are in power, we're told that "elections have consequences, and I won." Or how about this lack of civility, directed at Sarah Palin, "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." Or how about, "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." All three of these quotes are from Barrack Obama before or shortly after his election to the White House. (1)

I don't believe I'm alone in noticing that when the Republicans are in power, Democrats want to "compromise" and "get along," but when Democrats are in power they say "we won and we're instituting our policies." The reality of this situation is that Democrats want to get their way no matter what happens. They want to either get half of what they want or all of what they want at all times. Even when Republicans control both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, they want Republicans to give them something. I for one am sick and tired of it.

I'm far from the first person to make the comparison between these situations and the old Peanuts cartoons (2):

Boy, this one really NAILS what the Democrats (Lucy) keeps doing to the Republicans (Charlie Brown). I'm not making a statement on a cartoon's politics, just extending the analogy. But the GOP keeps thinking that if they just compromise enough with Democrats when we're in power, they will extend the same to us when they are in power. (Pssst: Ain't gonna happen.) See, for all my discrepancies with Liberals, they do understand one thing about politics: IT'S A COMPETITON. A competition of ideas! Now it is the same Liberals who lie to us and tell us they want to "get along" while stabbing us in the front whenever they need to do so to win an election. They will slander Republicans by trying to blame a Conservative for a shooting performed by a non-political madman, compare Republicans to Hitler and the Nazis, then cry foul when Republicans legitimately call Obama a Socialist.

Why, oh why do Conservatives and Republicans continue to play this game? I think it often has far more to do with what well-meaning Liberals who we know in our own lives think than anything. I have several Liberal friends and at least one person who I considered to be one of my mentors growing up (my childhood pastor) who fit this bill. These individuals do not compare Republicans to Nazis. They actually behave civilly. But since they get their news from CNN or MSNBC, they get the edited version of rhetoric where they don't hear Democrats slandering Republicans while hearing edited quotes from Republicans which are cut down to seem as bad as possible and Democrats are edited to sound as good as possible.

So to these well-meaning Liberals, Democrats seem soft and cuddly while Republicans are made to seem as cuddly as a porcupine in a snow bank. These individuals often are blissfully unaware of the results of Liberal policies, preferring to instead look at the good intentions. When a Conservative friend tries to tell them what's really going on, they claim incivility, quote a bumper sticker slogan (they likely keep 6-12 on the back of their Prius for easy access), and blast Republicans as evil. It's not hard to know why...they are sheltered in a Liberal cocoon of imaginary niceness and rainbows. Meanwhile, you as a Conservative, armed with facts and logic, are left frustrated and concerned that this friend will think less of you. So you agree with the "we need to work together and compromise" rhetoric and back off on your values.

The dirty little secret is that this compromise stuff is a bunch of baloney. Democrats only want Republicans to compromise when the GOP is in power, while wanting to ram through their agenda when Democrats are in power. The result is that Democrats get 50-100% of their agenda passed and Republicans get 0-50% of their agenda passed. The best the GOP gets is equal to the worst Democrats get. Liberal college professors like using phrases like "chill effect on free speech" directed at Conservatives, but it seems to me that the only chill effect I've ever noticed is CHILLING CONSERVATIVES! Whether it is through political correctness or "getting along," our values are silenced while Liberals maintain their right to say and do whatever the heck they want with zero restrictions.

Rush Limbaugh (3) has often blamed this issue on elected Conservatives wanting to be accepted within the Beltway. While I agree with Maha Rushie to a degree on this, I believe the issue is even more insidious than Beltway politics. It is extended to us, the regular Joe Six-Pack Conservative, through well-meaning, gentle and friendly Liberals who we count amongst our friends. (Once again, these average Liberals are usually unaware that they are being manipulated by the media. They are good people with good hearts.) It's the puppet masters in Washington who are manipulating the good intentions of these Liberals to help defeat Conservatism.

The time has come for Conservatives to tell these "civility and compromise" types to go pound sand. Politics is a competition...a competition of ideas! I'm fine with respect, and quite frankly I believe that Conservatives HAVE FULFILLED THIS EXPECTATION. We fight for ideas. We do not need to apologize or change our tone. To say that Conservatives attacking Liberal ideals is uncivil is akin to saying "The Steelers have a stronger running game than the Packers" in regards to Sunday's Super Bowl is uncivil. It's not. It's an honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses.

So where is the line? Here it is: Conservatives calling Obama "a socialist," which is accurate based upon Obama's policies is reasonable. According to Obama's books, one of his primary goals is to redistribute the wealth. That is what socialism is. Calling George W. Bush "Hitler" is baseless name calling. The difference? Obama's policies are legitimately in line with Socialism. Modern, European Socialism to be exact. (Not to be confused with 30's and 40's National Socialism. More on that shortly.)

Liberals calling George W. Bush a Nazi is unreasonable. George W. Bush's policies were not in line with the National Socialist (Nazi) Party and most certainly did not include such policies as social purity. Bush did not take over massive parts of the private sector like Hitler did. Bush did not invade nations to expand his country's territory. (Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded, yes, but rule of those nations has been handed over to the people of those nations. They are not territories of the United States. HUGE DIFFERENCE.) For the record, even though Obama IS legitimately a socialist and the official name of the Nazi Party is "National Socialist," Barrack Obama's policies are also not in line with Hitler's Nazi Socialism. In other words, Barrack Obama IS NOT a Nazi either.

I challenge you to come up with even a tithe of the uncivil rhetoric which is perpetrated by Democrats coming out of the mouths of MAINSTREAM Republicans. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's 10 %.) David Duke does not count. People in elected office. Oh, and put it in context please. You won't be able to. Radio host Sean Hannity (4) has continued to ask Liberals who call him to name EVEN ONE example and they have yet to be able to give such an example. (I won't claim you can't find one or two examples, but can you find 10% as many as you can find from Democrats? Doubtful.) Conservatives are not uncivil. Elected Liberals are uncivil (note...ELECTED).

Compromise? Liberal policies damage America economically and morally. How do you compromise with poison in your dinner? If someone wants you to put one gram of arsenic into your dinner, do you say "I'll compromise and put half a gram into my dinner?" NO! You fight consuming poison! History has proven that Liberal economic policy is poisonous to the economy. If you believe that abortion is murdering an unborn child, how can you "compromise" and say it's ok to murder that unborn child if it is in the first trimester? Reason and morality would say that if that unborn child is human, its life must be protected. Period. No compromise on protecting life.

So what the heck is the answer? Simple. Politics needs to follow the example of sports. COMPETE. Let our ideas and your ideas stand on their merits between the judges of this competiton: the American people. The point system? Votes.

It does require that the Liberals play fair. You Liberals will have to actually present your REAL goals and policies. I'm sure it will work well...ask Walter Mondale how well promising to raise taxes does in front of the electorate. But hey, if you ACTUALLY get elected on your ideals, Democrats, you could govern on those policies and NOT lose 70 seats in an election between the House and Senate.

Or are you afraid of a fair (political) fight?

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

(1) Barrack Obama Quotes - www.allgreatquotes.com
(2) "Peanuts" by Charles Schulz
(3) The Rush H. Limbaugh Show Homepage
(4) Sean Hannity - The Sean Hannity Show Homepage