Good Money After Bad

So, Romney is planning to stay in a race where he is increasingly unpopular. He has not been able to purchase the hearts of voters with his multitudinous millions, but his ambition to be president, seemingly based on his mistaken opinion that he truly deserves the nomination - despite his vacillating positions on key issues, is a lust that cannot be satisfied. Romney now bitterly lashes against those who disagree with him, and with each offended word a little more of his plastic facade flakes from his "perfect" exterior to reveal a spoiled rich man who is used to getting his own way by purchasing what he wants.

Here is an article demonstrating Romney beginning his angry fight of blame for his lack of success. First he blamed Huckabee; now he snubs President Bush. Who is next? Maybe FOX news for acknowledging Huckabee's success on Super Tuesday, and the Media for ending the Huckabee Blackout.

Romney Vows to Fight to Convention, Makes Swipe at Bush

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 10:48 PM

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney spoke late Tuesday night to supporters in Boston, saying it's time to send the politicians home from Washington and put the people back in charge. With results showing Sen. John McCain sweeping Northeastern states with the exception of Massachusetts, Romney said results in the West had not come in fully. But he made clear that whatever the final results of Tuesday's elections, he planned to fight for the nomination all the way to the GOP convention. Romney said he was fighting to keep America great in the image of great presidents citing Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Teddy Roosevelt. He omitted President George W. Bush. According to press reports, President Bush has expressed displeasure privately over Romney's positions on Iraq and immigration. © 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

My Sentiments Exactly!

There is a fine article The Catholic Online site that echoes what I'm feeling and adds to my prior posting about feeling disenfranchised.

The Shaking of the Republican Party

This election is shaking the Republican Party and forcing it to reexamine its first principles. It may mark the beginning of a new coalition for life, family, freedom and solidarity.

Feeling Disenfranchised

I will not pretend to be able to read into the future and tell you which of the presidential candidates will be left standing to proceed toward the nomination of their parties or if there will be brokered conventions. I am only expressing my personal opinion in this article.

People talk a lot about Reagan's "three legged stool" and how they represent the different sectors of conservative voters - the fiscal conservatives, the security conservatives and the social conservatives. They rave about how Reagan brought those three groups together, and he did well at that because he was able to effectively communicate with all conservatives and with those called the "Reagan Democrats". It was what the Republican Party needed at the time.

The Republican party is again fractured and somehow needs to be brought together. George W. Bush has not left us with an 'heir-apparent", and the fractured sections of the conservative base have again become evident. This makes for an exciting, if frustrating, selection process as we try to determine the Republican nominee. Our current choices are a very socially liberal candidate who is strong on national security, a one-term governor and business man who seems to be buying the election and is only recently 'conservative', a successful multi-term conservative governor who communicates well, but is branded as a liberal because of his compassion for the poor and because he had to raise some taxes to benefit the people of his state, and an anti-war Libertarian who should have run as a Libertarian, but decided he had a better chance running as a Republican.

Additionally, those in the media whom we deemed trustworthy are fully supporting Republican candidates who either hold firmly to liberal positions or who are recent converts to conservatism with no evidence to back up their new positions. One candidate, whose companies own part of a popular "fair and balanced" television station, is being foisted on us by that station. The one candidate who is most conservative is sidelined and ignored in the mainstream media. The most liberal of the Republican candidates, the one who has done the most to denigrate his Republican credentials, is seen as the 'front runner."

The irony in our current scenario is that the current 'front runner' does not adhere to the Republican party platform, led a revolt of Senators against the President, collaborated with the Democrats to limit our free speech and give amnesty to illegal immigrants, and was even courted by Democrats to be a vice presidential candidate. The one pushed by the 'fair and balanced' media outlet promised to be even more liberal than his democratic opponent when he ran as governor, and made gay marriage and legalized abortion (only $50) available during his term as governor.

All of these candidates need the large block of social conservatives to successfully gain the Republican nomination. This block, branded as the "evangelicals" consist of social conservatives who believe in traditional values. Republican candidates try to court this large group of voters and are often successful because of promises made to them - promises that usually do not come to fruition.

This leads me to the point of this rambling article. As a social conservative, I feel disenfranchised by my own political party. The party has certain political platforms that are supposed to define and unify those who agree with them, but the majority of candidates being foisted upon us do not adhere to the platform (probably out of fear of losing elections). This causes the Republican party to appear as if it does not have significant differences from the opposing party, and demonstrates a lack of integrity. As mentioned before, these candidates aggressively court the 'evangelical' vote, only to disappoint those very voters by supporting issues that they consider socially liberal. Could it be that evangelicals are being used by the Republican Party the same way Blacks and Hispanics are used by the Democratic Party? It's something to think about! And maybe it's time to determinedly pursue an alternative to the current two party system, and organize a third party.


Feb. 3, 2008
Quick update: To those on the Ron Paul Information site - I am not LouDobbs!!!
Radiant Times is a humble music teacher in New Mexico.

Romney's Record

Romney invites us to look at his record to prove his conservatism. I accept the challenge and find him to be rather liberal. It seems his 'conversion' to conservatism is an act of political expediency.

Here is an article presenting the research done by MassResistance. It documents the positions Romney has taken before and during his governance of Massachusetts.

Will voters, especially those who consider themselves reasonably conservative please do some comparison shopping of the candidates? Mike Huckabee is really the only true conservative out there.

Romney

Romney's been a bit of a bully lately in Iowa and I think it will bite him in the rear before long. I have become disenchanted with Romney's tactics now and will not consider supporting him should Huckabee not get the nomination.

This might not be a bad site to look over.

Romney Buys a Lot of Debt

I was very surprised to find out that in Mitt Romney's attempt to purchase the presidency, he has amassed an incredible amount of debt - $17,350,000 to be exact.

Check here to see the numbers.

Huckabee is rising; Guilian and Romney are Waning

Today's Rasmussen polls are evidence of Huckabee's rise.

Poll Results:

Rudy Giuliani: 22%

Mike Huckabee: 17%

John McCain: 14%

Fred Thompson: 14%

Mitt Romney: 11%

Huckabee on Immigration

Huckabee does not sound like a softie on immigration as Thompson purports.

The Cream Always Rises to the Top

Mike Huckabee continues to rise in Iowa.

Huckabee ties for third in Rasmussen poll

Congratulatons Mike!

You are beating Romney in the Rasmussen poll today, October 29, 2005!

Huckabee 13% Romney 12%

Republican Party Degeneration?

When I look at the field of presidential candidates on the Republican side, I wonder whose side they are running for. The 'front runner', Rudy Guiliani, has social views that line up with the Democrat front runner, Hillary Clinton. He's not a real conservative. Fred Thompson, seen as the 'great hope' for conservatives, doesn't seem to know how to run a campaign, nor what work to do in order to gain popularity. We wonder if he would be able to debate Clinton. Romney seems to have changed his mind about critical issues when convenient to do so.....like being "pro-choice" until deciding to run for President.

Is the Republican party so diluted that locally a person cannot clearly distinguish the party of a candidate by looking at their stand on issues alone? Why do we have to go to our party headquarters to find out who the candidates are? Are the candidates afraid to make their position clear?

The lack of clarity of position is evidenced by Republican dissatisfaction with the current slate of leading presidential candidates. I happened upon a poll in the sidebar of a random blog today. Here are the results:

Who is your favorite Republican Presidential Candidate?

• None of the above. I want a real Conservative! (38%, 279 Votes)
• Fred Thompson (28%, 207 Votes)
• Rudy Giuliani (16%, 116 Votes)
• Mitt Romney (8%, 59 Votes)
• Newt Gingrich (8%, 57 Votes)
• John McCain (2%, 17 Votes)

Total Voters: 735

There are so few Republican candidates that really exemplify what "conservative" means. The only one that talks the talk and has real world experience that will transfer to the role of President is Mike Huckabee. He would be a natural choice to lead the nation because of his successful experience as governor of Arkansas, and because he is a true conservative. I hope his hard work in Iowa and New Hampshire bears fruit, and that Republicans will not dismiss him as unelectable.

Presidential Quiz

This was a fun way to waste a little time. Try this quiz and let me know what your results were.

Here are my results:

1.		Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
		2.	Fred Thompson (63%) Information link
		3.	Mitt Romney (62%) Information link
		4.	Tom Tancredo (62%) Information link
		5.	Duncan Hunter (61%) Information link
		6.	John McCain (61%) Information link
		7.	Jim Gilmore (61%) Information link
		8.	Chuck Hagel (58%) Information link
		9.	Newt Gingrich (58%) Information link
		10.	Sam Brownback (57%) Information link
		11.	Tommy Thompson (55%) Information link
		12.	Mike Huckabee (52%) Information link
		13.	Ron Paul (50%) Information link
		14.	Rudolph Giuliani (48%) Information link
		15.	Kent McManigal (36%) Information link
		16.	Christopher Dodd (35%) Information link
		17.	Al Gore (34%) Information link
		18.	Michael Bloomberg (34%) Information link
		19.	John Edwards (31%) Information link
		20.	Bill Richardson (31%) Information link
		21.	Hillary Clinton (28%) Information link
		22.	Wesley Clark (24%) Information link
		23.	Joseph Biden (23%) Information link
		24.	Barack Obama (20%) Information link
		25.	Dennis Kucinich (18%) Information link
		26.	Alan Augustson (18%) Information link
		27.	Mike Gravel (17%) Information link
		28.	Elaine Brown (10%) Information link

When Democrats run as Republicans and Republicans run as Democrats

What would really be political news?

Something most are trying to ignore. Democrats are running on Republican issues to gain votes, and Republicans are running on Democrat issues to gain votes. This causes fusion of the moderates of both political parties, and not a little confusion.

Take the election last November. The Democrats who were successful in taking Republican seats ran on predominately conservative issues - cut taxes, strong on defense, pro-business, and one or two were actually anti-abortion. While Republicans were running on conventional democratic issues - socialized medicine, pro-government entitlements, the raising of the minimum wage and anti-war positions.

Here are two articles from the midterm election season before the election that discuss this:

In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right

Republicans Running As Democrats

Who did this benefit? Well, the Democrats, for sure! And it says a lot about Americans in general. Average Americans are neither far right or far left in their political views. They usually vote for someone who is similar to them and who makes them feel safe. They want someone in elected office who is fair and reasonable and able to meet their personal needs.

Now, who in this presidential race is leaning in which direction? Let's look at the major contenders for the 2008 Presidential race:

On the Republican Side: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani

On the Democrat Side: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson

The rest, discounting the possibility of a dark horse candidate, are small potatoes and will probably be eliminated in the primaries - not because they are bad candidates, but simply because they don't have the money or the political organization behind them.

Let's examine the candidate list more closely based on prior political history.

John McCain, who tags himself as a conservative, is, in fact, politically a Democrat. So much so that John Kerry DID ask him to be his vice-presidential running mate during Kerry's failed bid for the presidency. The likely reason McCain turned Kerry down was not that he was not interested, but that he wanted to run for the presidency himself. His pro-tax and spend attitude, and deliberate votes against the Bush tax cuts (while flip-floppingly voting to extend them) speak for themselves.

Mitt Romney was pro-abortion before he was anti-abortion. What is more confusing is his stance for or against gay marriage. This has him at odds with conservative groups all across the country. How else would a Republican be elected as Governor of Massachusetts! Goodness!!!!
Note, the art of flip-flopping has been honed to perfection in that state!

Rudy Guiliani never saw a tax he didn't like, but we should forgive him since he is from New York and can't help it . He is openly pro-choice and very liberal. Despite his left leaning views, he will probably become the Republican nominee and will probably be elected because we like to choose a president to keep us safe, and Guilani has proven himself as a leader in post-9/11 New York. The man is gifted and articulate in speech craft and is a likable human being. (unlike a nameless former presidential candidate that had a "plan" but no answers!)

Now it's time to skewer the Democratic hopefuls.

Hillary Clinton leaned conservatively in several issues but recently has been leaning more to the left to appease the radical elements of her party. She carefully researched and voted for the Iraq war before she decided to change her mind to please the Cindy Sheehan branch of her party. In the early days of her Senate career, she voted very conservatively on immigration.
If she wants the conservative vote, she is going to have to become even more centrist. (Or start praying in a Baptist Church - no, she just has to be seen praying in a Baptist church.)


Barak Obama - Well, what's to say about him? He's good looking and well spoken. If you are a Democrat, you really should vote for this guy. Not only does he totally toe the social-democrat line, but if he gets in office he will change the United States into a leftist socialist utopia that Hugo Chavez would stand up and salute.

John Edwards is the pretty boy in the bunch. Nice teeth, too. Why is he even running? He could not even carry his own state (then again, neither could Gore). And his repetitive "Two Americas" stump campaign is true - His American ,which is super wealthy,......and the rest of us wage slaves. His only advantage is that he holds the keys of the "plan" of the nameless failed presidential candidate!

Then there's Bill Richardson. He is the only Democratic governor that actually cut taxes. He did this for the people of New Mexico before he decided to run for President because he knew it would be best for his state. He was right. Economically, New Mexico is a pro business and pro growth state, and jobs abound here. He's been pro education, the roads are superior, he has used justice and common sense in the Immigration situation, and would have been a tremendous asset if Bush had not been so stubborn concerning a reliable and compassionate guest worker program. Although he will allow abortion to continue as the established law of the land, there is an aggressive pro abstinence program in New Mexico, and funding so women who choose to keep their babies can have reasonable options.

Richardson is very eloquent, and I believe he would decimate Hillary Clinton in open debate based on his personal integrity, experience and character alone. He is the true moderate of all the candidates, and is more conservative than the top Republican contenders for the office of president. He only lacks the money and the political machinery to have a fair contest against Hilary Clinton. This is a David and Goliath story - the Clinton machine being the Goliath. Richardson can win if he can get his message out. Good thing he has name recognition. Many Christian Conservatives, given a choice between left leaning Republicans Guiliani or Romney vs. right leaning Democrat Richardson, would discover, with chagrin, themselves voting Democrat.

We look forward to the upcoming political contest. What we want is a good man or woman to be President, and the American people would like (not that we are going to get) someone that is honest and effective as a leader.


Here is a Blog that will tell you more about this man. Better than I can tell you, any day.

Americans for Richardson

People should take a careful look at Bill Richardson as the next President of the United States because he is the very best Democrat running as a stealth Republican that we have ever seen.