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.

Huckisms

What a beautiful inspiring slide show!

Well chosen pictures with meaningful quotes by Mike Huckabee. I hope you enjoy them.

Huckisms

Thompson in the bag for McCain?

Does Thompson have ANY chance of being a President? No.

A Vice President or cabinet officer of high rank? Yes, with McCain's help. Thompson is the sort of lackluster person who will not outshine McCain. Face it, people go to sleep listening to him talk. Thompson makes Gerald Ford look exciting!

Thompson can be a hero to McCain if he can take enough financial and electoral support from Huckabee to put Huckabee in second place all the time.

Fred Thomson the "Fix" is on! Why did he, all of a sudden, get energized in South Carolina? He had no chance of getting the 1st, 2nd or 3rd slot, but was able to peel off enough votes that McCain, one of the many liberals on the Republican side, was able to barely beat Huckabee (who is a true conservative, by the way).

The question I have for McCain is this: Do you intend to offer Fred Thompson a job should you become the party's nominee? No other explaination is plausible. Now that Thompson has flown home to Mother, maybe he can sit back and wait for his reward should McCain become the nominee.

Is Huckabee like Carter? NO WAY!

I get so frustrated when Mike Huckabee is portrayed as some kind of 'liberal'. In truth, Huckabee is truly conservative and is exactly the type of leader the Republican Party is looking for.

Here are links to some great articles which talk about Huckabee's conservative positions:

Mike Huckabee Is A "Real" Conservative

Huckabee: Another Carter? How Stupid Can It Get!


Now, if only the electorate would look at facts instead of being spoonfed by the media.......

Article about Romney worth consideration

It's been interesting to follow what has been written about the candidates in this political race for the White House. The fortunes and hopes of each candidate have risen and fallen according to the truth about their positions, the authenticity of their words and the revelations of their backgrounds. Take McCain, for instance. His very liberal positions are coming to light and are eating away at his credibility as a "conservative."

Romney, too, is having a hard time getting away from the truth about his past - supporting gay marriage, raising all those "fees" (by mandate rather than by election) and increasing the financial burden on the people of his state, and ending his one term as Governor of Massachusetts with a low favorability rating (43%). His reputation as a flip-flopper, while unpleasant, is not entirely undeserved.

Michael Medved wrote an interesting and devastating article about Romney highlighting his Michigan acceptance speech. I will quote the article in full as I am not nearly as eloquent nor as astute at Mr. Medved.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Mitt Claims Victory - as a Democrat!

Posted by: Michael Medved at 2:44 AM

Mitt Romney won a big victory in Tuesday’s Michigan primary, thumping John McCain by the unexpectedly comfortable margin of 39% to 30%. In his victory statement, however, the former Massachusetts governor utterly undermined all those loyal supporters who insist that he’s a “true conservative,” Reagan’s rightful heir, and a solid, loyal Republican.

I’ve watched tape of Romney’s carefully crafted and exuberant speech three times now, and repeatedly reviewed the transcript.

One point comes across inescapably: nearly everything he said last night would have fit comfortably in a Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama victory speech (except for invoking the names of Reagan and, oddly, “George Herbert Walker Bush”). More than 90% of his remarks made Mitt sound like a Democrat – and a demagogic one at that.

Before all you Romniacs out there start shooting off your angry comments about that observation, please read the speech yourself. In fact, I will reproduce it below, in its unedited entirety, but with occasional comments from this observer.

First, I’ll acknowledge that Mitt did a good job of delivering these words, and that this little talk was blessedly brief— tighter and more focused than Huckabee’s victory speech in Iowa, or McCain’s in New Hampshire.

From the first, however, the Mittster sounded a note of arrogant showboating – the kind of ugly and inflated self-important that would help seal his defeat in a general election if he ever won the nomination.

Tonight marks the beginning of a comeback – a comeback for America! (Applause and Cheering)

Does Romney honestly maintain such a messianic view of himself that he suggests that his first inconclusive primary victory (with less than 40% of the vote) signifies the beginning of “a comeback for America”?

You know, only a week ago, a win looked like it was impossible, but then got out and tald America what they needed to hear.

You said we would fight for every job. You said that we would fight to get health care for all Americans. You said we’d fight to secure our border. You said we’d fight for us to be able to get lower taxes for middle-income Americans and Michigan heard and Michigan voted tonight. Congratulations. (Applause).

Please read over the paragraph above. Try to find one word that would make Clinton, Obama, or even John Edwards uncomfortable if they delivered it. Don’t say that they’re against a “fight to secure our border.” All Democrats – and all Republicans – want border security, and say so. The emphasis on fighting for jobs and to “get health care for all Americans” is vintage John Edwards. So is the promise to get lower taxes for “middle income Americans.” Republicans want radical simplification (flat tax or fair tax, anyone?) and lower rates for everyone, including lower corporate rates. Democrats make a point—as Romney does, repeatedly – that the tax cuts he wants are only for “middle income Americans.” A true conservative? Did you ever hear Reagan talk that way?

Tonight proves that you can’t tell an American that there’s something they just can’t do, because Americans can do whatever they set their hearts on.

And tonight is a victory of optimism over Washington-style pessimism. Now, tonight, we are celebrating here in Michigan. I’ve got to tell you that. Guess what they’re doing in Washington. They’re worrying, because they realize, the lobbyists and the politicians realize, that America now understands that Washington is broken. And we’re going to do something about it.

This new Romney theme (Romney 4.0, as his political personality continues to evolve and mutate) is “Washington is Broken.” Doesn’t that come very, very close to the Democratic theme that won them both houses of Congress in 2006? Don’t those words fit more comfortably with a liberal candidate than a Republican —especially after eight years of a (mostly) heroic Republican president, and six years of combined GOP rule in the White House and Congress?. As Romney continues, he harps on the theme “Washington is broken” and he promises to fix it – to make government work more efficiently, not cut it back. Reagan made clear that “government is the problem, not the solution.” To Romney, the solution is still government – a more effective government, not a smaller one. With his new emphasis on “competence, not ideology” he sounds like another doomed Taxachusetts governor who ran for president: Michael Dukakis.

You see, America understands that Washington has promised that they’d secure our borders, but they haven’t. Washington told us that they would live by high ethical standards, but the haven’t. Washington told us that they’d fix Social Security, but they haven’t.

Washington told us that they’d get us better health care and better education, but they haven’t.

All right, people, let’s stop right there. “Washington told us that they’d get us better health care and better education”??!!! Since when do conservatives believe it’s Washington’s job to “get us” any kind of health care and education? What happened to federalism, and the authority of the states? What sort of conservative candidate sees it as a failure of the federal government that it failed to “get us better health care and education.” Democrats talk about health care as a “right” but I thought conservatives wanted the feds less involved in medical care and local schools. Has Romney gone from channeling Tom Tancredo to channeling John Edwards in less than a week?

Washington told us they’d get us a tax break for the middle income Americans—but they haven’t!

This is a flat out lie – and again, a direct steal from Democratic attacks on President Bush. The President and the GOP Congress lowered taxes dramatically for middle income Americans – in both 2001 and 2003. It’s Dems who’ve promulgated the stinking lie that Bush provided only “tax cuts for the rich.” Now Romney, seeking the nomination of the President’s party, recycles that wretched lie in classically liberal terms. Bush lowered the bottom income tax rate more substantially than any other rate—dropping it from 15% to 10% , a cut of a full third. Did anyone tell President Bush that Mitt Romney now joins Democrats in denying that the tax cuts ever helped the middle class?

Washington told us that they’d cut back on the earmarks and the pork-barrel spending, but they haven’t. And Washington told us that they’d reduce our depenmdence on foreign oil, but they haven’t.

Anything at all in this carefully selected laundry list to make Democrats squirm? Or just one more liberal attack on the Bush administration?

And who’s going to get the job done?

Audience: We are! (Applause).

You guys, it was not very far from right here that Ann and I and our family behind us began our campaign at the Henry Ford Museum of Innovation. And at that Museum of Innovation, we said that we were going to take innovation and change to Washington, recognizing that there’s no way that an insider in Washington is going to turn Washington inside-out, but we’re going to do that.

Okay, the paragraph above would fit better with Obama than with Clinton, since Obama is running as the ultimate “outsider” with a similarly vacuous emphasis on “change.” Who’s more credible as an outsider, by the way, former community organizer and African-American poor boy Obama, or corporate honcho, globalist businessman and son-of-a-governor Mitt?

American voters said that knowing how America works is more important than knowing how Washington works.

That’s a good line – credit where credit is due. Easily the most effective line of Mitt’s speech.

And what we’re going to see in the next few days is Democrats saying that they’re the party of change. You’re going to hear Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards saying that they’re the party of change.

Is he claiming, insanely, that he originated the demand for “change” and the Democrats are stealing it from him? Is he honestly unaware that Obama’s been beating that drum for more than a year?

And I think that they would bring change to America, just not the kind that we want. You see, I think they take their inspiration from the Europe of old, big government, big brother, big taxes. They fundamentally in their hearts believe that America is great because we have a great government; and we do have a great government. But that’s not what makes us the best nation, the strongest nation, the greatest nation on earth. What makes us such a great nation is the American people.

Platitudes, but at least this one paragraph sounds vaguely conservative. Finally.

I take my inspiration from Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush who took their inspiration from the Amrican people.

Is he trying to diss the President by mentioning his father, but not the current President Bush? What is the deal here? Most conservatives don’t see the controversial one-term Presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush as particularly inspiring. Why does Romney see it in those terms, and somehow comparable to Reagan’s revolution?

They took their inspiration from hardworking American people, people who believed in opportunity, who loved education, God-fearing people, people who also loved their families, people deeply patriotic. It is that characteristic of the American people that makes us the most powerful nation on earth.

Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush…

Here we go again.

… said we are a great and good people. It’s exactly what we are. It’s why we will always be the most powerful nation on earth.

Now, you heard right here in Michigan our campaign. We said we were going to strengthen our military with additional troops and better equipment and better care for our veterans when they come home.

All Democrats always emphasize this.

We also said that we’re going to strengthen our families.

How, Mitt? Hillary Clinton makes precisely the same promise.

We said we’re going to strengthen the economy. I will never accept defeat for any industry here in America!

He’s got to be kidding. No defeat, for any industry? Does that mean no more industries go out of business? How much corporate welfare, how much protectionism, will it take to keep his promise to save every single industry. Don’t conservatives understand that the freedom to succeed in a free market means that you must also have the freedom to fail – without the Nanny state making sure that every single industry wins. Doesn’t Mitt sound a bit like one of those soccer league directors who wants to hand trophies to every single team—even those that lost every game?

I have a couple of questions for you. Is Washington, D.C. broken?

Audience: Yes!

Can it be fixed?

Audience: Yes!

Are we the team that’s going to get the job done?

Audience: Yes!

And I thought it was W., not Mitt, who was the yell-leader in prep school.

All right, let’s take this campaign to South Carolina and Nevada and Florida and all over the country. Let’s take it all the way to the White House! Thank you so much.

All right, I promised you every line, every word of his victory speech, and I delivered. I did so with a sneaky purpose in mind: so that you can pour over his words and his lists and his promises and note the glaring, and sickening, omission.

In the biggest speech of his life so far, after the greatest victory of his political career, Romney made not a single reference to the fact that we are a nation at war. No mention of winning in Iraq, or Afghanistan. No promise to defeat an evil, implacable enemy. No acknowledgment that the next president’s biggest job will be to keep us just as safe as we’ve been under George W. Bush.

Romney made no reference whatever to the most important aspect of the position he seeks: the role of commander-in-chief. The bland promise to “strengthen our military with more troops and better equipment” sounds more like Nancy Pelosi than like McCain or Giuliani (to name two candidate who understand the most consequential issue of our time).

In explaining to the world what his victory means, Romney offered no assurance to pursue the war in Iraq to a victorious conclusion, no determination to pursue the enemy with the relentless ferocity that characterized the best moments of the Bush administration.

Did his pollsters and focus groups tell him that voters don’t care any more about winning the war, or refusing to appease terrorists?

Does Romney agree with conservatives that the struggle in which we’re engaged is an existential conflict that will determine the survival of civilization? If so, there’s only one way to explain his failure to mention that ongoing war (in which John McCain’s son Jimmy, by the way, currently serves with the Marine Corps in Iraq).

While the world waited for the candidate to define the significance of his big electoral triumph, we got an empty speech from an empty suit.

As I noted last night: he’s not running for Commander-in-Chief. He’s going for the job of Panderer-in-Chief and Michigan has moved him closer to his goal.

I apologize for the length of this article, but felt it was important enough to disseminate to my readers. As my gentle, and not so gentle, readers know - I enthusiastically support Mike Huckabee and believe he is the candidate the Republican party is looking for but who which the 'establishment' is trying to avoid. The truth always always comes out, and Huckabee is the real deal.

McCain a Democratic Candidate?

I fully expect massive quantities of vitriol for even considering this topic.

I'm quite concerned that the general population follows media reports in this primary season like lemmings following their leader and hurling themselves over a cliff to their own destruction.

Today's media darling is John McCain. He's taken the forefront in the media's attention, and his poll numbers have gone up proportionally. What this reveals to me is the naiveté and intellectual laziness of a large portion of the Republican populus. McCain's record has been forgotten and all that is heard is what he is saying today. John McCain is one of those senators whom one wonders why they have not switched parties. His positions on domestic issues read like the Democratic playbook.

Can McCain be considered a true conservative? Is he really the candidate to carry the Republican banner? Many say "NO" because of his clearly liberal positions based on his record in the Senate.

McCain had been a fierce opponent of Bush until after the 2004 elections. During that election cycle, McCain had been approached about the possibility of being Kerry's running mate.

Rick Santorum maintains that a McCain presidency would be dangerous for the country. From the article:

“It’s amazing to hear what John McCain is trying to convince the voters he is all about. The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”

Santorum cited the campaign finance reform bill sponsored by McCain, the McCain-Feingold Act, which limits campaign contributions and has been called by some an “incumbent protection act.”

Santorum called the act “an affront to personal freedom and liberty in this country, and what we’ve seen as a result of this misguided attempt to placate the New York Times and to help his stature within that community … is that special interests have absolutely taken over the political process, and individual candidates, unless you’re a billionaire, and parties have very little voice in the process.

“It’s a shame, but he was obviously out front on that.”

The former Senator also criticized McCain for voting against the Bush Tax cuts — he was one of only two Republicans to do so.

“The reduction in [tax] rates and lowering the rates on capital gains and dividends … did so much to get this economy up and going. [But] we would have had a much bigger tax cut if it were not for John McCain.”

Santorum pointed to McCain’s opposition to conservative positions on drug re-importation, federally funded embryonic stem cell research, immigration, the questioning of terror detainees and other issues, and said he has a “big fear” of a McCain presidency.

He asserted it would create a “huge rift” in the Republican Party, and told Levin’s listeners:

“I think he’s been solid in the war on terror … but on domestic policy, he’s very, very dangerous for Republicans.

“There’s nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives.”

I hope my readers will take time to really examine McCain's record. At this point in the primary season, poll show that either McCain or Huckabee could win against a Democratic Candidate. As my readers know, I support Huckabee's effective and proven leadership.

For all the politics junkies

Here is a good site for you to track the elections this year. Enjoy.

Election Projection 2008 Edition

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.

I guess Fred is done!

Well, stick a fork in him! Fred has done everything but bow out of the presidential race. Are we surprised? Not really, for Fred Thompson has not approached this campaign as anything but a walk on a path in a lovely Southern Plantation - he's not worked for the role of being President. Here is the article about what he said today:

Thompson says he's interested in serving, not running for president

WILLIAM THEOBALD • GANNETT NEWS SERVICE • December 29, 2007

Burlington, Ia. -- Fred Thompson said today he does not much like the modern form of presidential campaigning and that he "will not be devastated" if he doesn't win the election.

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president," Thompson said, but rather he feels called to serve his country.

"I don't know if you have a desire to be president," Burlington attorney Todd Chelf told Thompson during a question-and-answer session raising an issue that has dogged his campaign.

"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson responded. "I'm offering myself up."

Given the volatile state of the world, the actor and former Tennessee senator said he was not "sure it is a good thing if a president has too much fire in his belly."

"I'm only consumed by a few things and politics is not one of them," he said.

Chelf said after the event that it was "almost refreshing to hear that approach."

"I think there is a passion there," he said. "I think its sort of a Southern gentleman passion."

Thompson also had stops scheduled today in Washington, Williamsburg, Montezuma, and Newton.

I have no doubts that Fred is a nice guy with good traditional southern values who got lucky enough to get name recognition from being a TV star. But I also have no doubt that he is not presidential material. Maybe he will get an acting role as a president some day, and he'll do a great job of that!


12-30-07 UPDATE

I'm being bashed by Fred Heads. They've linked me to one of their blog sites (which I won't show here) Whatever! Their candidate, nice guy that he is, is being denigrated by the actions of his followers. I wish Thompson had been more aggressive as a campaigner, for I once was a Thompson supporter and turned away from him because of his 'walk in the park' method of campaigning. I really don't think he has the energy or drive to hold the highest public office in our nation.

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.

My two cents on Limbaugh's seemingly thin skin.

Recently, Rush Limbaugh had a caller on his show who declared that he only listened to the "Washington,DC/New York" chattering class. This caller chose to remain anonymous and stated that he was a Huckabee supporter. For some reason, Mr. Limbaugh became offended by the comments of the caller and has been lambasting Huckabee.

My opinion is this - Mr. Limbaugh, you have been a bastion of strength and have almost singlehandedly galvanized the conservative movement for years. You are well appreciated by conservatives everywhere in this great country - no matter who they support. Are you going to get bent out of shape over an anonymous caller. You know as well as anyone that the caller could have been a plant from another campaign. Please save your energy for the things you can verify and not the idle anonymous chatterers.

A Merry and Blessed Christmas to All

I wish joy and happiness to all my readers!

God bless you all this Christmas!

Radiant Times and the Kringle Lizards, Roughy and Feisty

Will Conservatives return to Thompson????

Will Conservatives return to Thompson? The author of Land of Da Free
seems to think so. I have my doubts, though.

Fred Thompson has campaigned like a man who assumed the Republican nomination was his. Now he realizes that his nearly arrogant, sloth-like trot onto the Republican campaign field was a mistake and is only now realizing that his campaign is in danger.

I do not fault Fred on the issues. He is reasonably solid as a 'social conservative'. I just don't believe he has governing experience, and I don't believe he would have the physical stamina to tolerate the demands of the Presidency. Sadly, he comes across as Gerald Ford or Bob Dole on barbiturates - lackluster and boring. (no insult intended to these fine men...just imagine them on the barbies) When Republicans tried Dole, a man much like Thompson, WE LOST. BADLY.

Fumbling his way through the political montage, Thompson seems to be a candidate whose ambition has kicked in too late. He doesn't meet with the public, he only talks to a select few, and the press has little access to him. That attitude shows in his dropping poll numbers, and is also one reason why I am supporting Mike Huckabee. Ultimately we have to select the candidate whom we feel will compete best against Obama or Hillary...... and that ain't Thompson.

What more can I say about Fred Thompson???? He's a good actor and should go where we can like him as rising Hollywood star instead of a falling political meteorite.

Never Thought I'd See the Day

About three and a half weeks ago, our glorious lemon colored Australian Bearded Dragon, Roughy, got away from us. We grieved over that silly lizard like a dog owner over a lost dog, and assumed he had gotten out of the house and had become a 'scooby snack' for one of our local cats.

But yesterday he emerged from his hiding place and I found him on the living room floor. He must have found a cool place to burmate for a few weeks. Needless to say, there was MUCH rejoicing in the Radiant Times household, and my dear husband is spending plenty of time coddling his 18 inch long lizard.

New Blog in Town

Radiant Times is now affiliated with the LC 4 Huckabee group. Visit the blog HERE!

To the Troglodyte Headhunters of Sudan

I've renamed the Lizard of Doom. Ibn Abu Al Beardie is now called Mohammed - a common name!



Let the Ululation commence!

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%

Low Carb living

We decided to dramatically change our lifestyle and way of eating last October. Our weight had been creeping up to the point that shopping for clothing became difficult. With our medical histories - diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol - we made the choice to cut back on carbohydrates and live a low carb lifestyle.

Since we are not exercising as regularly as we should, our weight loss is not dramatic, but both of us have dropped ten pounds to this point (even surviving Thanksgiving). The diet is not odious, and we have flexibility with our food choices. So many have gone this road before us so there are many, many recipes to try to keep the diet interesting. I'm pleased to know there are even recipes for 'bread substitutes' available for those who are reducing their carbohydrate intake.

Our favorite recipe book is "500 Low-Carb Recipes" compile by Dana Carpender.

We know we've made a long term lifestyle change and look forward to continued benefit over the next few months.

Huckabee on Immigration

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