The Unreported Good News in Iraq

Read this article today at Commentary Magazine by way of Instapundit. The glaring lack of exposure of the significant positive developments in Iraq by our MSM is a perfect example of their obvious left-leaning political bias. They are happy to report deaths of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, but when the Surge works and the most violent regions of Iraq are stabilizing? Headlines are chalk full of stories about Don Imus, real estate, etc...

Personally, I am interested in strategic news that actually impacts my family and my country, and a stable Iraq that is no longer a haven for terrorists fit that.

Here are some key excerpts from the article. It is worth reading in it's entirety:

[t]he US military is to hand over security control of the former Sunni insurgent bastion of Anbar province to Iraqi forces in the next 10 days, a US military spokesman announced on Monday . . . Anbar would be the tenth of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be handed back to Iraqi forces by the US-led coalition amid a push to transfer security control of the entire country back to Baghdad. Anbar province in western Iraq, the country’s largest, was the epicentre of a brutal Sunni Arab-led fight against the US military after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. In the early years of the insurgency, US forces fought raging battles in the province, especially in the capital Ramadi and the nearby city of Fallujah.

The security environment in Iraq continues to improve, with all major violence indicators reduced between 40 to 80% from pre-surge levels. Total security incidents have fallen to their lowest level in over four years.

Overall, the communal struggle for power and resources is becoming less violent. Many Iraqis are now settling their differences through debate and the political process rather than open conflict. Other factors that have contributed to a reduction in violence include the revitalization of sectors of the Iraqi economy and local reconciliation measures.

It goes on and on, but the picture is clear. The left is not only not concerned about Iraq, they are petrified of success because it would validate a Bush policy that they have disagreed with from the start, and put the Democratic party in a bad light in an election year.

Is the Smart Money on Hillary as McCain's VP?

While the prospect of having Hillary anywhere near the White House frightens me to no end, would it be a good choice for John McCain to ask her to run alongside him as his V.P.? Understand that I am only speaking in terms of political expediency here; if it were up to me, neither of them would be running the free world. But reality is what it is, and this election year is not ideal for a principled Christian conservative like me. Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily makes a compelling argument here.

If you consider what Hillary accomplished in the popular vote, and just how divided Democratic voters apparently are over Obama and Mrs. Clinton, it makes sense for McCain to go after those people who deep down really want to vote for Hillary. Wouldn't a McCain/Hillary ticket guarantee the bigger states won by her, including California and New York?

Also consider just how alike all 3 of them are in terms of legislative record:

They aren't that far apart politically. In fact, McCain, Obama and Hillary have co-sponsored 86 pieces of legislation in the U.S. Senate since 2005. They agree on the border. They agree on amnesty. They agree on global warming. They agree on more than they disagree.

Actually, this makes pairing Hillary with either Obama or McCain somewhat logical, does it not? Maybe Hillary really is unstoppable politically.

Of course, McCain making Hillary his running mate would go nowhere in winning over the conservative base. But hasn't he already proven, by virtue of the fact that he got the GOP nomination, that he really doesn't need the far right to win the White House?

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide

This was welcome news from ProtectMarriage.com.

"Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union 'between a man and a woman.'"

This initiative actually started before 4 California Supreme Court justices decided to speak for special interests and legislate from the bench instead of interpreting existing laws as they are appointed to do.

Californians have already made their will known in 2000 when they voted 61% to keep marriage defined as "between one man and one woman", and they have not changed their minds, apparently.

“'The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,' said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. 'We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election...'"

By amending the State Constitution, and I am confident this initiative will pass, we will go a long way to protect this institution that is so utterly important to the survival of our society. This is not a trivial thing at all; Redefining marriage has been tried before in other countries with negative results.

It is also naive to think that this amendment would mean the end of this battle, as those who wish to define marriage for themselves and their personal interests will not stop here. The special interests who want to destroy marriage have proven themselves to be powerful and influential and they will not rest. Nor should those of us in this country who love marriage and want to keep it as it is.

Remember, if you live in a state other then California and are concerned about this issue, stay alert and be informed about this as it is only a matter of time before a similar decision goes before YOUR state.

McCain Welcomes Obama With Fresh Criticism

Not surprisingly, Barack Obama claimed the nomination of his party this evening, and he did it with his usual flair. No doubt the man is eloquent and able to whip any crowd into a frenzy, but I still have NO EARTHLY IDEA what he would do as President, besides raise our taxes and "do lunch" with the likes of Ahmadinejad.

What was the response of the "Presumptive Nominee" to the GOP, John McCain?

He went on the attack immediately, which is exactly what he needs to do to compensate for the lack of enthusiasm conservatives have for his campaign. It would be foolish of McCain to think he can out speak his opponent; he must go after Obama's record (what there is of it) and anything in Barack's past that can undermine the confidence people have in him to lead on important issues like the war in Iraq.

A couple excerpts from McCain's response to the Illinois Senator clinching the nomination:

"Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General (David) Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse,"

McCain has already set the direction of the debate to Iraq, and Obama's intention to pull troops out immediately if elected. He simultaneously highlights the fact that HE has actually been on the ground there and spoken to those who have the best view of what is happening, the troops; while pointsing out how Obama hasn't even set foot in Iraq. McCain's war record is already well known so there really is no comparison between the 2 candidates on this issue, unless you are a big fan of the "Cut and Run" strategerie...

"They've seen me put our country before any president _ before any party _ before any special interest _ before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always."

McCain has embraced his own "imperfections" as a Senator and a Presidential candidate, which may just muzzle those who were planning on pointing out just how imperfect his voting record has been as Senator as seen through the eyes of staunch conservatives. I believe this to be a good move, not to mention his lack of apology for being historically bi-partisan. This paints him as the guy you may not agree with on every issue, but at the end of the day, you can trust him and he sticks to his guns. It also impresses independents.

Good start for McCain by coming out strong and not letting Obama catch his breathe before the next fight begins. The question is, can he beat Obama in the fall, after being out spent and out-gunned in the charisma department?

Michael Yon

In my travels on the Web, I came across an article by Michael Yon, a correspondent who has been spending a good amount of time alongside our troops in Iraq. He offers a very frank portrayal of the war that is truly from the perspective of the soldiers on the ground.

He is far from naive about what is going on over there, and he seems not to be beholden to any political bias, so his perspective is particularly interesting to me.

My main complaint about the "news" that is made available about Iraq and just in general, is that there is always a political motive driving the person or company presenting it. The end result is not really "news" at all, but a subjective view of what is going on based on what the presenter wants you to think or feel about a topic.

This is frustrating to me and I imagine any person who simply wants to know what is really happening. When I am approached and asked what my opinion is on the situation in Iraq, I have to answer truthfully that I do not have enough good information to form a strong opinion. At the end of the day, I am left to doubt the completeness and accuracy of the information I have access to.

Michael Yon seems to me to be genuinely interested in informing, in an un-bias fashion, those who have ears to hear what is happening. I respect that and when he gets flack from the MSM because he doesn't toe the line like the rest of them he responds in an honest and truthful way, without resorting to the kinds of petty attacks he is subject to.

So if you haven't been to his website, have a look at his pictures and articles which show the human side of the war in Iraq, whether the human is your enemy or your friend.

McCain Flopping On Gay Marriage?

The Republican Presidential hopeful was seen on The Ellen Degeneres show earlier today discussing the issue of gay marriage with the openly lesbian host. Here is a key quote which I think sums up his stance on the issue:

I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman, and I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue; and I along with many, many others wish you every happiness.

This was in response to Ellen's oft-used comparison between the obstacles homosexuals have encountered trying to gain special rights for their community to that of the Civil Rights struggles of blacks and the fight women went though for their right to vote.

Some conservatives will try to characterize McCain as weak on marriage, mostly based on his refusal to support a Gay Marriage Ban a few years ago in the Senate. They will mischaracterize his motive as anti-traditional marriage, but all he was doing was trying to preserve individual state's rights to decide the issue for themselves without federal "nosing".

I have definite concerns about McCain; his stance on the environment is frightening and in spite of his recent tough talk about immigration, he is definitely weak an that issue, but I am not worried about him on the marriage issue.

I suppose only time will tell if whether or not my confidence is misplaced.

The "Apathetic Party" Could Help Destroy Marriage

With all of the speculation that conservative voters may not make it to the polls in November, it is difficult to stay motivated and get charged up about exercising my right to vote. I can surely understand the frustration of not believing any candidate really represents your view of the world. It seems like every one of them has their issues, and certainly none are a "perfect match". I also think the message needs to be sent to the GOP that if they don't make some changes, they will not have a party. And maybe sitting out would be one way to get that point across.

With the recent decision by the California Supreme Court making any ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, my perspective changed quite a bit and I find myself feeling a sense of duty and purpose to get to polls in November no matter what.

Now that these 4 activist judges in California have ruled this way, it opens the door for other states to follow suit. Nationally, the California legislature has historically taken the role of setting an example for other state legislatures, especially in family court rulings. This means we need to act fast to reverse this extreme decision that does not reflect the will of the majority or the family values of most American's.

The only way to reverse this decision is to get an initiative on the ballot so the voters can make an amendment to the California Constitution to protect the definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman". Efforts are already under way to accomplish this, and it looks likely that there will be an opportunity to vote this coming election on a measure to protect this institution that is foundational to ANY society.

This also means that those conservative voters who are looking to punish the GOP by staying home on election day will also miss an extremely important opportunity to have their voice heard on this issue! On top of that, liberal voters who are more motivated (at least so far) could get out the vote and decide the future of marriage for all of us. We cannot sit back in our armchairs and watch this happen!

Remember, there are 2 types of sin:

1. Commission - intentional, where you know it is wrong, but do it anyway.
2. Omission - where you know what is right, but fail to act

If you are not a resident of California, and you think this doesn't, or couldn't impact your state and your family, don't be fooled! It is only a matter of time before citizens of your state who are interested in redefining marriage take their case to the Supreme Court as well (if they haven't already), and your state justices would have an easier time making a similar decision about gay marriage because California has already laid the track.

See ProtectMarriage.com for more details on the Marriage Protection Act, and do your part to protect marriage before it is too late!

California Supreme Court Forces Homosexual Marriage on California

I get regular emails from Capitol Resource Institute and the latest news regarding Homosexual Marriage in California is truly disturbing.

In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled today that homosexual marriage bans are unconstitutional.

This is a clear case of judicial activism at it's worst, as California voters were already given the opportunity to have their voices heard on this issue in the year 2000 when Proposition 22 was put on the ballot. At that time, voters decided by overwhelming mandate that they believed the definition of marriage in California should be limited to include one man and one woman.

The California Supreme Court basically ignored that, and decided the fate of our state according to their own political agenda and the political agenda of the homosexual community.

I have stated this before on this blog, but it bears repeating: changing the definition of marriage to "whatever" is not just a cute way for the homosexual community to "express their love", as much as they would like you to think that; it has more to do with legitimizing their perverted lifestyle. If it was only a matter of having the same legal rights as married couples in terms of estate, insurance, housing, etc, they already have those things by way of common law marriage and legal partnership.

On the significantly more dangerous side, you have historical evidence that shows what happens to a society when you take something foundational like marriage and family and re-define it into obscurity; the society crumbles because marriage becomes less necessary and the family institution weakens. Those behind the political homosexual agenda are well aware of this, and the affect that having "2 mommies" or "2 daddies" has on children. But they choose to ignore the statistics and the mountain of evidence because of their extreme politically charged beliefs.

On top of all that, it goes against everything our country was built on to allow a minority voice such as the homosexual political machine to speak for the majority of people in this country who believe homosexuals should have equal civil rights, but that marriage is a privilege that should be exclusive to one man and one woman.

It is crystal clear to me, but people in this country, and apparently our judicial representatives, have given in and bought the lie that the homosexual agenda is pushing.

Will It Be Huckabee for V.P.?

This compliments of Rightpundits, which speculates McCain may go with Mike Huckabee for his #2.

This will go absolutely nowhere to win over Conservatives as most were going with Mitt when given the choice between Romney and Huckabee. One interesting question is, would it bring evangelicals to McCain? I believe Mike's Baptist preacher background helped him get by when his record was clearly lacking in terms of true conservative values. As a Christian myself, I see this as a classic case of "pulling the wool" and a "Huckster" V.P. only increases my displeasure for the McCain ticket.

Of course, like the article states, given the choice between Obama and these 2 clowns, what choice do conservatives have really?

I have never liked desperation...

The Bible, Politics, and Barbecue

As we close in on summer, my thoughts turn to outside cooking. I'm sure some of you will be firing up your meat burning instrument of choice as well.

I decided to start a separate blog titled, The Bible, Politics, and BBQ documenting my experiences with barbecuing and grilling; recipes and methods that work well (and some not so well), personal favorite recipes and maybe a good story or 2 about some of the people I have met searching for all things barbecue.

If this sounds interesting, or if you are a barbecue enthusiast and want to, "talk shop" please stop by.

GOP Needs to Use Foresight to Win in November

Read an interesting article on Politico by way of Right Pundit (check the roll) warning of impending doom for the GOP in November if they don't run strong campaigns and get some funding.

...in a closed-door session at the Capitol, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told members that the NRCC doesn’t have enough cash to “save them” in November if they don’t raise enough money or run strong campaigns themselves.

While it is a delight to watch the chaos in the Democratic nomination race, and the inevitable defeat of Hillary, the GOP doesn't have the cash or the excitement to beat the Democrats in the general election. The "presumptive Republican nominee" isn't exactly a riveting figure that can bring the party together and we need to be concerned about handing Congressional seats to the Democrats as well.

I have been of the opinion all along that McCain would stand a better chance in November against Hillary than Obama, based mostly on the excitement Obama is able to generate while having no real message. Whether that emotional high lasts, resulting in any real loyalty months from now is yet to be seen.

McCain Presidency Would See No Change in Immigration Policies

Caught this article on Newsmax which, to me, hints at his soft stance on illegal (that's right, I said it) immigration. Right along with all U.S. Presidents of our recent history, Democrat or Republican (even the beloved Ronald Reagan), John McCain will forge ahead toward a more "Global Economy". One thing you cannot have if you want to compete in a global economy is pesky borders between countries. After all, that just slows things down and is downright unfriendly; even racist according to some.

Regardless of how the American people feel about illegal immigration, no matter how many promises are made, or strong statements about "sealing the border", we will continue to see our borders become more and more porous and the tide of illegal immigrants will continue to pour across.

I do not like making that prediction, trust me, but I think the writing has been on the wall for a while and it is infuriating that the will of the people can be selectively ignored in this way.

Hillary is Looking Out for #1

I am a big fan of Dick Morris' commentary. I think his years in politics, particularly his involvement in the "Clinton Political Machine", makes him very savvy and I find that he is on point alot of the time. In this article, he does a good job explaining why it is that Hillary continues to run in spite of the numbers speaking so loudly against the possibility of her getting the nomination.

You could call it dogged determination, and I think that is accurate to a degree, but in light of how cunning we know her and her husband to be you have to consider an ulterior motive. Here is a key quote from the article:

When does fighting for the nomination in 2008 end and seeking to sabotoge Obama’s chances in November to keep her options alive for 2012 begin?

Her performance against Obama is exactly what I had hoped for, but I have also been operating under the assumption that if she lost really badly in her bid for the Democratic nomination she would give up any hope for the presidency and find contentment in being the Senator from New York. Sigh... could I have been more naive?

I absolutely believe that she understands that, aside from pulling a good number of Super Delegates to her side, she is toast. She also knows that this is not only unlikely, but it wouldn't win her alot of favor with her base in November. So I totally agree with Morris that she is purposely undermining Obama's bid in November because she would rather go against McCain in 2012 than Obama.

I couldn't care less if the Democratic party implodes on itself; I think a shake up might do both parties some good and might even scare them out of their apparent complacency, but hopefully the Dems will see that Hillary's tenacity has alot less to do with party loyalty and a sincere desire to represent the people than a motive of seeking power and self promotion. If she really cared about the country and her party, she would bow out gracefully and throw her support behind the likely nominee.

NOT likely though...

Global Warming or Cooling? Either Way, It's OUR Fault!

Good article here which echos my thoughts on the insanity that is "Climate Change".

The author points out how the term has changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" since statistics recently uncovered the fact that some parts of the earth are actually cooling.

I would never make the point that we don't need to be good stewards and not use resources wisely, nor would I disagree with the mountain of evidence proving the earth is changing temperature. Where they lose me is their lack of proof that humans are actually causing that temperature fluctuation.

Evangelical Christians are also losing their minds over this issue based on the Biblical teachiing of stewardship. Me thinks they take it to far, and the conservative leadership refusing to take a stance against it doesn't help matters. I call your attention to the "Green" commercials being aired featuring the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich as well as Pat Roberts and Al Sharpton "teaming up" to send the message that the Climate Change farce is a non-partisan issue.

Pretty pathetic, "We never agree an ANYTHING, but we can agree on THIS."

The Pope is a Globalist

Not surprisingly, the Pope has come out against undermining the United Nations. He uses words that should scare those who value our national sovereignty, like, "human family", "international community", etc.

He also speaks of minorities who choose to act without a consensus, jeopardizing the "necessary unilateral consensus" he believes is necessary to cure the world's ills. Of course, the "minority" is the U.S., and the "act" is the war in Iraq.

The liberal-minded pontiff is of the opinion that "every diplomatic avenue" be explored and that nations should give attention to "even the faintest sign of dialogue" before choosing to act.

In other words, be spineless and let them play us. Try to imagine a world where we actually respectfully listen to the demands of terrorist nations and give careful thought before acting.

I don't think so.

She's Having a Baby

I have been watching politics alot lately (albeit less than a month ago) and really don't have anything to say on the subject because recent events haven't been that noteworthy...

I did think it would be worth taking a few minutes to make a clarification regarding the Oregon woman who recently became pregnant. I know, this in and of itself doesn't sound very interesting. But everyone is "shocked" and intrigued because it so happens the woman looks like a man for all intents and purposes, due to therapy to change her gender.

Thomas Beattie has undergone therapy to change her gender so that she and her lesbian lover could get married in Hawaii, a state that does not sanction same-sex marriage (now THAT'S what I call a loophole). It is also noted that Thomas (that is her legal name, so I will use it, sigh...) went without her therapy once the couple decided to have a child so that she could ovulate again. She decided to keep her uterus because she believes it is neither a man's or woman's desire to have children, but a "human desire". Speaking for myself, I love kids to pieces but I have seen the birth of both of my children and no part of me has since thought, "I would LOVE to try that just once!"

I believe it is innate in a WOMAN to have the desire to bear children. This can easily be demonstrated by my wife's burning desire to have more kids, despite the fact that both of our children came into the world not without some difficulty on her part. While any negative events around her pregnancy are burned permanently on my memory, she seems to have a decidedly more selective recollection of those events.

So, two things about Thomas present no surprise to me at all:

1. She wants to have children.
2, She is able to become pregnant and take a child to term.

Why? Because SHE IS A FEMALE, PEOPLE!!

Now, the hyper-politically correct who read this will no doubt have a problem with me not being "diverse" enough in my thinking or violating the rights of this person for, "just wanting to be who they are darn it!" So if a person who happens to be born a certain gender decides they are the opposite gender, rather than referring them to a good counselor, we "respect" their decision and try our best to "support" their transition.

Alot of sarcasm here, but to be serious, I believe it is not a small thing to blur the lines between genders. In fact, I believe it is downright dangerous. Find a society that tried it and survived. It doesn't make us "tolerant" or "progressive" to accept the lie that there is no difference between men and women, it makes us fools.

It is ironic that men and women are delighted by the apparent differences between genders, and agree that it is exactly those differences that help us to complement one another in a relationship, while at the same time are not only unwilling to speak against such a twisted situation as the woman in Oregon has placed herself and her child in, but sanction it; all in the name of letting bygones be bygones, tolerance, diversity, etc. These words, which should be meaningful and good, now cause me to bury my face in my hands to protect against what comes next.

What is hilarious is articles like this that consistently refer to "Thomas" as "he/him". So sadly (but not surprisingly) the media has bought the story hook line and sinker that, while Thomas was born a woman, she is now a "he" and not only is to be treated as such but we should all be amazed at the "man" who is now with child! In case you weren't positive that Oprah was a complete loon, she had Thomas on her show and is quoted as saying the situation was, "a new definition of what diversity means for everybody". Excuse me "The Oprah" but, as adept as I may be at self-delusion from time to time, Thomas Beattie isn't allowed to define my thinking on any subject, including what it means to be "diverse" or "tolerant". Nor are you. I believe diversity that occurs naturally in society, such as cultural and racial, is great and the world would be alot less interesting without it and learning to accept others with cultural differences is a healthy thing.

In the end, Thomas Beattie and the woman who decided to marry her are emotionally broken people who need compassion and mercy. This does not mean everything they do is "okay"; when did everyone become 3 year old children and since when has society decided to become the enabling grand-parent who is afraid to refuse them anything?

It is frightening how morally relativistic we have become as a society, and I dare say it will not be without it's consequences. Nothing is.

The "Lesser of Two Evils" is a Greater Sin

I watched the Iowa GOP debate last night on DVR and was not impressed by any of the candidates who, according to polls, have the best chance of winning the Republican nomination.

After the debate was over, a reporter spoke to a focus group of folks from Iowa who were also responsible for the graph which appeared on the right of the screen throughout most of the debate. The graph was supposed to show, by political "leaning" (in this case "Conservative" vs. "Moderate"), which candidate garnered the most support throughout the debate. When asked, by show of hands, who liked Mitt Romney, 80% of hands went up. When an individual was asked to give a reason why they were impressed with Romney, his response was basically that he "seemed confident" and "presidential".

This was a bit of a surprise for me as I have always seen Romney as the least confident in his answers and he ALWAYS has to respond to other candidates when addressed, even if it is fun.

Example:

When asked a question about taxes, Thompson initially responds that his goal is to be like Romney so he doesn't have to worry about paying taxes. Pretty cute answer, and this is what we know Fred for: being likable and charming above all else. Romney could have left it at that, but felt compelled to respond with something to the effect, "No, I want to be like YOU (Thompson)!" He does this consistently, and I believe unnecessarily. To me, that makes him out to be a little insecure, definitely not confident. He has generally seemed to me to be in a "reactive" mode when it comes to addressing comments made by other candidates. Giving a speech about "Faith" after the media covered Huckabee's comment about the possibility that the Mormon church teaches that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are brothers is a good example. He has to be transparent and have such a degree of integrity that shots like that aren't even taken seriously. That would be "presidential" in my book.

Regarding the implication that Romney, "Seeming presidential" makes him a candidate worth voting for scares me because it is telling me that "John Q Voter" is looking for the man that can look the part more than a person of principle and character (can you say Manchurian Candidate with me?).

There is really no excuse for anyone who intends to cast their vote to not be informed about a candidate aside from what they see during these debates, or what is presented by the media. The availability of information at this point makes it so any person who takes politics seriously and understands the strategic effect on this country and the world can be equipped with the information they need to make an informed and intelligent choice for who they want to represent them as President.

What it really comes down to for me is not how a person comes across on television, although maybe there is something to be said about impressions when dealing diplomatically with the world, but what a person is made of. Are we really going to get to what these men are made of by watching them in this forum? I don't think so. I think if they had more opportunity to go after one another, we would see more of what they are really made of. You know the saying, "You don't know what kind of tea you have until you put it in hot water." Unfortunately, last night's "debate" was less that and more of a question and answer forum. Boring.

I believe the only real way to know what a candidate will do once in office is to look at his life, and if they have been in politics to any degree, their voting record. What they have done throughout their political career by their day to day actions in office will give you a better sense for what kind of leader they will be, regardless of what they are spewing from the podium. It is not highly likely that someone who consistently voted for open borders, or to support the redefinition of marriage throughout their career is suddenly going to turn on a dime now that the presidency is looming.

In all, I would say that the line between Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, have blurred quite a bit; and the GOP candidates reflect that. Predictably, they will appear very conservative while trying to win the Republican nomination, but when someone does succeed and they go against the Democratic nominee, they will suddenly be somewhere in the middle because they know they have to appeal to both the right and the left. This is just disingenuous and it's what makes politics so hard for me to swallow.

So what it comes down to (apparently) is, "Who makes the best politician?" Or the more pathetic, "Who has the best chance of beating Hillary?"

This is an abomination to me as a person who tries to live by principle and keep my conscience clear. Let me give a good example of when I made a decision based on what was politically expedient rather than my conscience, and how it subsequently backfired:

I voted for Arnold as Governor of California both because I thought he was a fiscal conservative, which California desperately needed (and still needs) and I reasoned he had the name recognition to garner enough votes to win. The result is not only has he become just another politician, in spite of his promise that he was just a regular guy and would therefore be more objective and not be influenced by special interests, but socially he is an absolute nightmare! Most recently, signing SB 777, a pro-homosexual agenda propaganda bill that ensures every child in public school will be indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle.

I have had to live with the decision to put that man in office ever since, and have therefore determined I will never vote on anything but conscience from now on.

Rudolph Guiliani is the front-runner in the race for the GOP nomination, not because he is ideal or even a true conservative, but because he has the name recognition and appeal to beat Hillary. Let's have a look at some issues that are generally important to conservatives, and where Rudy stands on them:

Abortion: makes no apology for believing abortion should be legal and publicly funded, but manages to stay in the middle by stating repeatedly that he encouraged adoption as an alternative and cut the number of abortions in New York while presiding as Mayor.

Gun Control: Once again, does not apologize for pushing stricter gun control laws and even suggests it made New York safer as a result.

Embryonic Stem Cell research: All for it.

Redefinition of Marriage: Has historically, in word and deed, supported the "right" of gays and lesbians to be legally married, but more recently taken a somewhat firmer stance on the issue, suggesting the existing civil union laws are sufficient for this purpose.

But, all of that being said, he has been deemed by most Republican voters (notice I didn't say Conservative) as the "lesser of two evils" because if we don't vote someone in who can beat Clinton we put the country in danger of being led by her. So we harden our hearts against the fact that Guiliani is a card carrying liberal in conservative clothing, pull the handle in his favor, and hope for the best? This is a bleak outlook in my opinion and something my conscience cannot bear.

In the end I will be forced by my conscience to vote for a candidate who probably has zero chance of actually getting nominated, much less win the presidency. But, I can live with that.

My Perspective On G.W.

I have been perusing the blogs as is my usual habit, at least a few times a week, and noticed a good number of conservative bloggers making a defense of President Bush. Most assert that, in spite of his failures and what the polls are showing, he will be seen as a successful President by history. I agree that the President has made some key decisions that have absolutely had, and will continue to have, a positive effect for years to come.

Most notably, the tax cuts. Conservatives like myself who cast their vote for George Bush (both terms) expected this, and were delighted when he stuck to his guns despite the nay-sayers who predicted it would be a disaster economically. Indeed, those who doubted him then must eat their words now as the economy continues to flourish.

I am not a huge fan of social anything but as far as I can tell, the Prescription Medicare legislation seems to be doing what was intended. Kudos to the President for once again doing the unpopular thing and coming out on top.

This article describes well exactly what I am talking about and I will admit I needed to read it and be reminded that by and large, the legacy of this current administration will be a positive one once the dust has settled and people regain their objectivity a bit. (I got the link to the article from LMC).

Some folks who are turning their backs on President Bush do so because they believe Iraq is a failure and that the President is just being "stubborn" because he doesn't want to admit defeat. There are of course those who think Iraq was planned long ago and that all the talk about WMD's, Al Queda, etc. was just posturing to get the American people on board. I don't buy the "Bush Lied" scenario, and I number that with the "fruit cake conspiracy" lot. Maybe it is just a matter of opinion and I don't have enough information to make that call, but take it for what it's worth, just please, please, DO NOT ask me, "Then where ARE the WMD's?!" because I have NO IDEA! If that is all you have to say after 8 years, to say your view of the world is myopic is an understatement.

I confess that as of late I have been not so happy with the current administration and have lobbed some negative remarks at G.W., and I will not apologize for that because those comments were not made lightly. I didn't expect George Bush to fail me at any point, I only expected good things from him. I still remember my excitement when he was made President back in 2000, the Clinton era was finally over! The overwhelming mandate that ushered in his second term brought with it, for me, a huge sigh of relief because I thought 4 more years of George Bush as Prez would do the country alot of good, not to mention not realizing my greatest fear of having John Kerry as leader of the free world. I assumed that in his second term, with no pressure of securing a re-election looming, G.W. could really unleash and do some really great, if not popular, things. After all, isn't that what most second term Presidents do? Over all, I am of the opinion that his second term has been a bit lackluster compared to the first, though maybe I just expect too much.

I am not sure what to make of Iraq at this point. I read articles that say we can't even get the government there to hold up their end of the deal (they would rather take a vacation?), and are even opposing us to some extent. I even read that they are reassuring that as soon as we leave, they will be fine without us. Part of me knows that if we just pull out, the void left would be too great to fill and Iraq could be worse off than before, if history serves. The other part of me is thinking, "If the government we are supporting is reluctant to have us there, what on earth are we dying over there for?"

Needless to say, a confusing picture, but anyone should agree that success in Iraq would do alot to change the face of that part of the world, and may even spur more people to put away their fear and pursue free governments in their own countries.

In my next post (and it should appear less than 3 months from now...) I will share specifically why I am disillusioned with G.W. these days, and why his mistakes could outweigh his accomplishments in the "big picture".

Transparent Rudy

This takes the cake. Giuliani apparently is a big fan of Ronald Reagan and even models himself after the beloved Republican President. This was said by Rudy at a political rally recently, according to Newsmax:

"What we’re lacking is strong, aggressive, bold leadership like we had with Ronald Reagan,”

Couldn't agree more, but then he says,

"As far as the things that developed my ideas and thinking, which developed as a much younger man, it was Ronald Reagan.”

Of course you did! I should have guessed by your ultra-conservative stance on issues like abortion, gun control and embryonic stem-cell research! Sheesh, could this guy be posturing for the Conservative votes he will need to get the nomination?

Then he nicely "rides the fence" by issuing this statement shortly after:

"I think President Bush made the single biggest decision of his presidency correctly. He put us on offense against terrorism. I will always admire him for that.”

So, he loves and admires Reagan, loves what President Bush has done with respect to terrorism, but overall disapproves of Bush's leadership style.

Some thought Rudy would be a bit clumsy at the political game, but as it turns out he (or his speech writer) is playing very while by staying right in the middle.

One quick note though Rudy, no one with half a brain is buying you as a conservative, that dog will not hunt.

Conservative Bloggers, Unite!

According to this Newsmax article, Fred Thompson is neck and neck with McCain in the polls with 17% support.

Thanks to Conservatives too afraid to do what is right, Rudy has 27%.