Let’s Talk Politics: Spitzer, Clinton and various other topics

Spitzer:

I think it is an awful thing to consider that Spitzer was weighing his options, considering if he would be able to survive. The man should have dropped out right away. He should be ashamed of himself. He is a disgrace to the office and he is a despicable man for dragging his wife out for a press conference.

What I find equally distressing is that we have heard, watched and read things that are questioning whether prostitution is bad or not. For the man or the woman. The man had a wife and three children. It was wrong. For some people, Spitzer pushing for a gay marriage bill would be more legitimate if he wasn’t simultaneously dishonoring his own.

It is a sad statement if the feminist movement has transformed into a movement which defends prostitution. I love the men who frame their support for prostitution or abortion as “a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with a woman.” And women embrace that as part of being a woman, expressing their femininity. When in actuality, it’s at least partially men who want to be able to have sex with anyone and without any consequences.

But I digress…

There is no such thing as privacy for a public official. I believe that the public and the press should stay out of some things, but for Spitzer to call his using a prostitute and breaking the law a private manner is pure folly. Public officials should be held to a higher standard.

Between this and Clinton, I have never been so consumed with disgust at political officials in my party.

Which brings us to…Clinton.

I have a lot to say on her.

1) Electability

Hillary Clinton’s argument is that she wins democratic voters, which are the voters we’ll need in November. And that Obama wins big cities, which Democrats will win anyways.

She also selectively picks out states, and makes the ludicrous claim that a primary victory correlates with general election performance. As I remember, Obama won Maryland, Wisconsin, Virginia, Louisiana, Missouri. All states with primaries, all swing states. See the Clinton’s have done with electability what they have with everything else since February 5. They have thrown the kitchen sink at Obama and at the voters. Throwing whatever crap they could against the wall and seeing if anything will stick.

But you see…here’s the problem…None of her arguments make sense. In the general, Democrats will back Obama. What is not certain is that the independents and Republicans that will back Obama will support Hillary. Actually, it is pretty certain…they won’t. In a Zogby poll, Clinton starts off the general with 47% of the country saying they would NEVER vote for her. That’s a ceiling of 53%.

Clinton supporters can be as delusional as they want about her general election prospects. They could pretend that she is as gifted of a politician as Bill. They could pretend that she will win the commander-in-chief argument against McCain. They could pretend that people won’t be affected by the possibility of both Clinton’s back in the White House. They could pretend that the Republicans won’t play as dirty with her as she has with Obama. However, none of these things will happen.

2) Florida and Michigan

First of all, let’s take Michigan off the table. Obama wasn’t on the ballot. When he signs a pledge, he means it.

With Florida, yes, Clinton has an advantage in the state. However, let’s not forget that she held fundraisers in the state, and that even before South Carolina she began to pander to Florida and Michigan. So her advantages in the states are partially due to her breaking the spirit of the pledge she signed, as well as her stabbing NH and Iowa in the back as soon as the cast their votes for her. The NH Union Leader told NH voters they had been duped.

I believe that there should be a revote. Clinton is going to lose. The writing is on the wall. Obama is and should support a revote, beat her in Michigan, and maybe that will shut her up.

3) Ferraro

The Clinton’s have repeatedly used surrogates to run a smear campaign. Ferraro’s comments are another step in that direction. They use surrogates to state explicitly what Hillary only says implicitly. Hillary talks about how Obama won Louisiana because of the pride of African-Americans, Ferraro goes on Fox News and says that he is in his position because he is black. That will get that blue-collar vote!

I am done with the Clinton’s. I am through.

I guess the one good thing about that is that the Democratic Primary Voters have spoken: And they are done with her too.

 

Spitzer

Elliot Spitzer is going to destroy the Democratic Party in New York State. The NY Times has reported that Spitzer has admitted to being involved in a prostitution ring.

How many scandals can a first-term Governor get involved in? Especially one who was running a campaign on ethics? I am embarrassed to have him as a Governor. I am embarrassed that he is a Democrat.

I have been disappointed with him from the day he got elected. He ran a campaign that promised to bring his tough, ambitious tactics to the Governor’s mansion. He promised to make Albany work for New Yorkers. Instead he swooped in to office to try to expand abortion rights and pass gay marriage legislation. He has been a complete and utter failure.

I am calling for the Governor to step down. This is not a case of adultery, which I believe is grounds for stepping down, but of breaking the law. The man who broke up two prostitution rings as Attorney General has taken part in one now.

I wish I had more to say, but for now, I’m just disgusted. I am ashamed. I hope the Governor is as well.

 

Dallas Morning News and Huckabee

Dallas Morning News endorses Huckabee again. I think it’s a good editorial and one that says a lot about the future of faith and politics, particularly when it comes to evangelicals.
Editorial: We recommend Mike Huckabee

A vote for Huckabee is a vote for GOP’s future

11:06 AM CST on Sunday, March 2, 2008

Whatever Texas Republican primary voters do Tuesday, John McCain is all but guaranteed to be the party’s presidential nominee. It is mathematically impossible for Mike Huckabee, the last remaining major GOP contender, to capture the nomination. The former Arkansas governor even turned up on Saturday Night Live recently to poke fun at himself for not going away.

Let’s be clear: Mr. Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, remains our choice for the GOP nomination. But Mr. McCain has racked up by far the most delegates and leads among Texas Republicans by a wide margin in recent opinion polls. Though he can’t clinch the nomination Tuesday, victory is undeniably close.

Aside from his long experience and personal courage, he has a solid record of fiscal responsibility and has been on the right side of campaign finance reform and environmental issues. And he was correct and principled to lead the fight for comprehensive immigration reform last summer. Still, his age – 71 – and his choleric temperament gave us pause, particularly when contrasted to Mr. Huckabee’s sunny-side-up brand of conservatism.

Also Online

Voter Guide: Comparing Republican presidential candidates

Win or lose in November, the GOP is destined to spend the next few years redefining itself. For many reasons, Reaganism, which made the GOP the dominant political party of the last generation, no longer resonates as it once did with the American public. The world has changed since Ronald Reagan’s election nearly 30 years ago, and the great man’s political heirs will have to adjust the GOP’s strategy and tactics to new realities.

To that end, Mr. Huckabee, 52, should be a top leader in tomorrow’s Republican Party. His good-natured approach to politics – “I’m a conservative; I’m just not mad about it,” as he likes to say – is quite appealing after years of scorched-earth tactics from both parties. He’s a pragmatist more concerned with effective government than with bowing to ideological litmus tests. For example, he has proven himself willing to violate anti-tax dogma to undertake investment in infrastructure for the sake of long-term prosperity.

Mr. Huckabee also is good on the environment, contending that the future of the conservative movement depends on embracing conservation and stewardship of the natural world. And he’s a compassionate conservative especially in tune with middle-class anxieties in a globalizing economy.

Though his social and religious conservatism puts him on the wrong side of abortion, gay rights and other key issues, that same deep-faith commitment inspires his dedication to helping the poor and to racial healing. He truly is representative of the next wave of evangelical chieftains and, if nothing else, will emerge from this primary season the leader of one of the most influential factions in the GOP coalition.

We look forward to having him around to help shape and lead the Republican Party beyond November. That’s why we encourage Texas Republicans to mark their ballots for Mr. Huckabee in the GOP primary: to demonstrate to the party’s elite that Mr. Huckabee and his vision have a solid constituency.

True, a Huckabee vote today won’t do much to determine the 2008 GOP presidential candidate. But it’s a good investment in the Republican Party’s future.

 

A Break From 2008 Politics: Religion, Faith and Public Discourse

A classmate in my last class today brought up what Mike Huckabee said at Rev. Jerry Falwell’s old church Sunday.

From CBS News:

From CBS News’ Joy Lin:

LYNCHBURG, VA. — “I always cringe when I hear people talk about throwing away the vote when they vote their conscience,” Mike Huckabee told reporters today. “That’s what voting is – voting is voting with your conscience, it’s voting with your convictions.”

Earlier, he spoke at Thomas Road Baptist Church, the pulpit of the late Dr. Jerry Falwell. Lacing together the relationship between religion and state, he delivered a short speech about how moral clarity decreases the need for more government and more law.

“Frankly, we really don’t need a lot of law if we are people of morality,” he said to the congregation of over 7,000. “There are only ten basic laws that we need. If you think about it, the Ten Commandments cover it all.”

“The reason law gets more complicated is because we try to figure out clever ways around those ten,” he said to applause.

Huckabee cautioned that a lack of moral clarity would result in “paying for more and more government to overwhelm us with direction when our own personal freedom and conscience does not.”

“And that’s why I stand here today, not to make a political statement but to make one I hope you will hear,” he said. “That what happens in this church every Sunday, what is spoken from this pulpit every week, what comes forth from the word of God is not a disconnected message from whether or not we will continue to be a free and great nation because the day our nation quits listening to God and the day we no longer have moral clarity, is the day that we will have to have increasing levels of government and law to restrain us because then our own consciences will not. ”

“I hope you know Jesus Christ personally…because the level to which he rules you and governs you, you need less and less of man’s law to tell you how to live and that is what our Founding Fathers understood and we must understand.”

This young woman in my class, mockingly, the way those who are “tolerant of all people” usually do, brought up this statement and this prompted several other students to mock Huckabee. (Just to be clear, the only statement the girl brought up was the statement that we wouldn’t need laws if people were moral.)

Now I spoke up and stated that what Huckabee said was obvious, and has been affirmed by political philosophers of all types of backgrounds. Laws are necessary to keep order and set restrictions because laws rule “out of bounds” actions that people would take without them. Of course, this girl would have never said something if Thomas Jefferson was quoted saying the same thing, but knowing Huck is a Christian, she pounced. As does the media. As do most liberals.

I also mentioned that Huckabee’s speech was not made to a political audience, and although some may hold that as a candidate, every word he speaks is political, which I in fact hold, we still should keep it in mind that he is speaking to a church audience.

Because, apparently, when pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-expression of faith, politicians (like Bill Clinton this weekend) speak at churches, particularly black ones, it is accepted and never criticized.

An illustrative example:

We do discussions at my College Dems group meetings. I choose the topic and lead the discussion. A few meetings ago, I asked if the Democratic Party should change, compromise, or tamper down the rhetoric on any issue in order to make our Party more palpable. In other words, what core principles should our Party not compromise: Health Care, Ethics, War in Iraq…

Well, right away, one of our Huffington Post, Daily Kos- reading members said that the question (he assumed the premise of my question meant my thoughts were that we should compromise our every value) was feeding into what the GOP was feeding us. Which is the usual response of the losing Party…Republicans lost in 2006 because they moved away from their principles, Democrats lost in 2004 because we tried to move to the center…which, by the way, shows why Dems should never elect a candidate based on electability because the fact they thought a Senator from Massachusetts was electable and a move to the center is a major testament to some major problems with how we judge electability.

The member’s conclusion was that if we steadfastly spoke out for and pushed policies that reflect “our” values…which, I would assume, what he considers “our” values to be with what I consider “our” values to be would be completely different. (Talk about imposing values)

The following meeting the topic was along the same topic…basically what our 2008 platform should be. The same member from the last meeting spoke up about ten minutes into the conversation and said that we need to hang onto the African-American vote, and African-Americans are social conservatives. Given that, we might have to back off on some of our positions regarding abortion and gay marriage.

The insinuation was clear, it is common, and it is this:

That black people were bamboozled into Christianity, they are ignorant, but Democrats need them and so it is ok to try and fool them and not speak out about the social issues.

However, if a white Christian believes that ending a human life is not something our government should promote, allow, or be proud of, then that person is written off and chastised.

The only people I see using a religious test is those people, like the folks at MSNBC especially, who use the opportunity whenever a religious candidate runs, to question his personal doctrinal beliefs. Apparently, it is only acceptable for candidates to “kind of” believe in their faith, or “only kind of” follow their religion. The luke-warm believer, the very kind the Bible condemns, is the only one acceptable to some people.

It’s great if John Kerry quotes the books of James or Matthew in order to slam Bush, but if Huckabee talks about the fish and the loaves, or David and Goliath, that “Baptist Minister” has crossed a line.

Well, I apologize, but I will not concede my right to say what I believe, and be forced by those who would like to win an argument by shutting up the opposition to try and parse out what I believed before I read the Bible and before I became a Christian, to what I believed after.

 

Laying It Out

I have been silent on this blog on many major issues. Well that ends now as I will try to cover everything that has happened. This will be a fairly long entry and I hope it will cover all major issues. Feel free to leave a comment asking me to cover another issue.

THE RISE OF MIKE HUCKABEE

As some of you may remember, I predicted Huckabee’s rise before August, when he was polling less than 1% nationally and a little over 2% in Iowa. Huckabee has run his campaign using free media, church mobilization and his charisma. He has a message of common sense and traditional values. His Christian Values do not extend only to gay marriage and abortion, but to fighting poverty and believing in the common humanity and value of all Americans. He can not, as a Christian, out of political expediency, “grind his heel in the face of an immigrant child.”

Many stories and attacks are coming out against Mike Huckabee. Most do not have merit and the rest are a question of values.

Mitt Romney has thrown out the immigration attack, claiming Huckabee supported giving a tuition break and scholarship to illegal immigrants. The situation in reality, which doesn’t matter much to someone who is down 20-points in the first-primary state I guess, is that Huckabee wanted to allow all students to obtain a state scholarship if they met the criteria. It is not the fault of the child of an illegal immigrant that their parents took them over the border. America does not punish children for the sins of their parents. It is a choice between having teenagers who feel hopeless on the streets, committing crimes and wasting lives, and allowing them to reach the American dream that is available to all of us. Huckabee is getting criticized for choices and positions (by the way the same can be said for Obama) he held that were positions he held that reflected the needs and concerns of his district. In other words, say I am a Governor of a State that has no gun laws and my state has over 1,000 homicides a year as a result of gun violence. I may support a statewide ban on automatic weapons, such as the AK-47 that a teenager was able to attain to shoot people recklessly at that mall in Omaha. Now if I were to run for President, it would not be inconsistent for me to not support such a ban at the federal level because my concerns and responsibilities are different as President than they were as Governor of a State with over a thousand gun-related homicides.

Huckabee was from a state that needed highway projects desperately and had a budget deficit, and with the support of 80% of Arkansans he raised taxes (I believe it was a poll tax) in order to fund highway projects. I would much rather have a President who took action in the interest of his constituents rather than in the interest of preserving some futile ideology. We should choose a President who protects his constituents, not the ideological purity of his policies. I want a President who takes whatever position is necessary to solve the problem at hand.

I will cover Mike in my overall thoughts on the Republican nomination and in the following topic:

THE MEDIA

I have never been the kind of person who blames the media first. I love journalists. However, this cycle has brought out the worst in the media. The media is certainly going after Huckabee, and he is now in some serious trouble. MSNBC, particularly Chris Matthews, hates Christianity. They don’t hate Christians, just when Christians figure in their beliefs in their decisions. So MSNBC, CNN, AP and many others, not to mention the blogosphere, have spent the last ten days spending each day on quotes from two decades ago, or comments taken WAY out of context. They’re turning what would be non-issues to them, into discrete and not-so-discrete assertions that Mike Huckabee’s faith led to the rape and murder of a woman, illegal immigrants getting scholarships, and AIDS patients being quarantined. The last of those is the media’s favorite as of late. For instance, all the stories yesterday were about how Huckabee “stands by his 1992 comments about AIDS victims.” Which is a mischaracterization. Huckabee obviously does not support the policy NOW, but he does believe his comments in 1992 were defensible. These stories will continue.

FOX News on the other hand hates people who want to help others. I have said it before and I will say it again here: FOX News does not care about social conservatives. Sean Hannity does not care. Bill O’Reilly does not care. FOX News has one priority: Taxes. They realize social conservatives are a part of the Republican base, so they play up these tabloid issues about a “War on Christmas,” making Christians easy targets for MSNBC and seculars. I do not trust FOX News. I never trusted Pat Robertson. I do not trust most National Christian leaders. I trust Rick Warren, and I think Franklin Graham is a pretty good guy, with less sense than his father. I will not comment on Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani again, but it is an example of the priority of those who have used their prominence as religious leaders, and traded their souls in for power. I know that is harsh, but when you have Christian leaders not endorsing candidates who agree with them because they want to beat Hillary, that is a real problem.

But I digress…The moral of the story is, Huckabee is facing attacks from every side and has no refuge in the media. He has to rely on getting his message out any way he can and on the faithfulness of the supporters he has attained.

The media is doing this all over. To create a story, or to push a criticism, they omit and distort. They pretend as though Obama thought Oprah speaking out for him would seal the deal, they pretend as though John Edwards has never criticized his opponents…on and on. The media loves you when you’re the underdog, then kills you when you’re on top. There is no overriding liberal bias really…The real bias of the media is that they despise power.

The Democratic Nomination

My second prediction, that Obama would win the nomination is becoming more realistic as well. He is rising in the early states and the momentum is certainly on his side. But let’s take this state-by-state…

Iowa (January 3):

Iowa is literally a dead-heat between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Obama has run a strong campaign there and has the organization to back it up. Clinton has convinced Iowans she is the “experience” candidate and that is very important to Iowans. Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa since 2002 and has very committed supporters and high favorability ratings. While health care is now a prominent issue, and Iraq is still in the background of all of this, the race in Iowa among Democrats is coming down to the intangibles: electability, leadership, change, honesty, likability, competence, etc. The issues only come into play as evidence of a candidates possession or lack of one or more of these qualities.

Turnout will be a major factor in the race. If there is low-turnout, Edwards will benefit. If there is high turnout it will be a showdown between Clinton and Obama with Obama receiving a slight advantage. The race is still extremely fluid at this point so these last three weeks are crucial, beginning with tomorrow’s debate. Last year, almost 50% of Iowa caucus-goers did not decide until the last three days before the caucus.

I will make a prediction which I will evaluate each week.

My prediction for Iowa is this: Obama 32 Clinton 29 Edwards 20 Biden 9 Richardson 7 Dodd 4

I expect Biden to surge a bit as he just put up his first ad in Iowa and he is a charismatic fellow. He is one of the most genuine people running. I met him last year and he is a remarkable guy. The best foreign policy man we have running. Richardson has the resume as does Dodd, but neither of them have the “it.” In 2004, either of them would have been great candidates, but in 2008, with Obama and Clinton, there is no oxygen left for underdogs.

New Hampshire (January 8):

Obviously, New Hampshire will be dependent on Iowa, as will all other primary states. The nature of the campaign will change dramatically depending on the outcome of the race. I like Clinton in Iowa because of how well her husband did there. I also think her organization is stronger, and I think the female vote will be better for her in NH. However, Obama is gaining. A new Rasmussen poll that came out today has him up three points in NH. NH also has a tendency to like the fresh face, the comeback story, and the change candidate. Obama also has the support of both of NH’s Democratic congressmembers and of the Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick. His organization is not lacking.

Here are my numbers:

Clinton: 35 Obama: 32 Edwards: 10 Richardson: 8 Dodd: 5 Biden: 4

I expect Dodd and Biden to drop out after NH. I think Clinton will win in NH because her organization is strong and her attacks will become more fierce after Iowa. However, NH is the state about which I am most uncertain, so do not be surprised if next week my views change.

Nevada (January 19):

Nevada is interesting because it is a new early-state. It’s voters are notoriously less engaged and turnout will be low. The culture and demographics are also strikingly different. Union support and hispanics are two key factors. I believe Nevada, more than any other of the 4 states will depend on the outcome of the states that precede it.

Clinton: 39 Obama: 33 Edwards: 17 Richardson: 11

Richardson will hurt Obama and Edwards by stealing votes from them, but Richardson will drop out after Nevada after the Hispanic support won’t work miracles for him.

South Carolina (January 26):

South Carolina is the big one. It will test so many things. The major test being who, if anyone, African-Americans coalesce around. It is the first test in the South for Hillary or Obama. This is the perfect state to lead into Feb. 5.

Remember that John Edwards won SC in 2004. This is the only state that he won.

I believe that when it comes down to it, Obama will mobilize Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Jackson Jr., Artur Davis and Deval Patrick…not to mention Michelle Obama, and that Obama will win the black vote resoundingly. This is important as the black vote is about 50% of the primary electorate.

My numbers:

Obama: 44 Clinton: 34 Edwards: 22

Edwards will drop out after SC. I believe Edwards’ support will go to Obama, but that has lately been up to debate. We may see the media delegitimize Obama’s win as a mere effect of him getting the Black vote. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina. The media will need to do this to make Feb. 5 seem epic.

So there you have it. As of right now, I believe Obama and Clinton will split the first states 2-2 and we will go into Feb. 5 with a two-person showdown.

Some X-Factors:

Gore: If he endorses anyone, it will be Obama. The question is: will he?

Drop-out endorsements: Who will Edwards endorse? Who will Richardson, Biden and Dodd endorse?

Kerry: If he endorses, it will be the kiss of death to the candidate that he endorses that Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean was last year. If anyone, I think Clinton will trot out a Kerry endorsement as a last-ditch effort to salvage her campaign.

Revelations: Rumors are swirling that the Clinton campaign has material it will release close to the Iowa caucus that is damaging to Obama. I can only see a late-breaking story hurting Obama. Everyone knows of the skeletons in Hillary’s closet.

Bill Clinton: What impact will he play as we get closer to the election?

Turnout: It’s huge.

Des-Moines Register Debate: It is tomorrow, Dec. 13. It will be huge. It’s on CNN at 2 pm.

Though I had hoped to complete the entry before the GOP debate, I guess I will have to cover the Republicans after their Des Moines Register debate this afternoon as I am now going up to the Hill for a luncheon with Congressman Chaka Fattah that I organized for our membership at the GW College Democrats. It should be a great event.

I also have some big news that I will post soon.

I hope to receive some thoughts, questions and/or comments on this post and find out what ya’ll think.

I will be back to post tonight or tomorrow about the GOP.

Thanks for Reading.

 

An Immoral Dilemma

I was getting all nostalgic reading through my journals and so I’m going to try and get back to the journal entries. It is very hard considering that I am so busy!

However, I do have a subject for this entry and it is this article. I will not get in to the merits of the article except to say that the Scientists are lying when they say that they are conducting the survey with no goal in mind. That doesn’t happen. You don’t do research with no end in sight. They are trying to find a genetic justification for homosexuality. Instead of trying to sound unbiased and professional, they should just admit what they’re doing.

Now there was some laughing when Bill Richardson said that homosexuality was a choice…now of course anytime a Republican says the same thing there is an uproar…and I understand the knee jerk reaction to such a statement. It’s just that Governor Richardson is right. If you define a homosexual as someone who engages in homosexual acts, then of course it is a choice. Just as a heterosexual is someone who engages in romantic or sexual acts with someone of the opposite sex. Just as a liar is someone who lies, not just someone who thinks about lying.

I would think those who support gay rights and gay marriage would support that understanding. It gives a more fluid notion to sexuality, which is apparently what my generation has decided to believe in. The idea that, not only can people change their sexuality every week and change it back the next week depending on their mood, but that people are whatever gender they feel like. Only in these times, with a philosophy of moral relativism ruling my generation, can gender be defined, not by what you have between your legs and whether you can GIVE BIRTH OR PRODUCE SPERM…no, instead, gender is based on the gender one feels best describes themselves.

But I digress…

My main point is this:

The article points out that there is a fear among the LGBT community that if genetics is found to be the cause of homosexuality, that that could effect Health Care (Genetic Non-Information Discrimination Act! Holla! I worked on that bill!), develop new forms of discrimination, and ultimately lead to abortions. Now this puts my pro-choice, pro-gay rights friends in a bit of a situation. You see, for pro-life, pro-gay rights, anti-gay marriage people such as myself, there is no contradiction. However, if you are pro-choice, then you believe that a fetus does not constitute life and therefore has no merit. The abortion of a fetus causes no moral dilemma. So therefore, if a baby could be aborted for no good reason at all, then certainly one could be aborted because the mother doesn’t want a child who has a genetic disorder, or if the mother doesn’t want a homosexual child. Wouldn’t it be something to see liberals argue for a gay right-to-life while continuing to deny everyone else that same right?

It will be interesting to see how this progresses…

 

Colorblind

It has been a while.

First, let’s talk politics, and then I’ll follow-up with a post about how college finished up and what I’m up to now.

The GOP debate in SC was great. I thought Fox News did one heck of a job. The questions were appropriate, they allowed the candidates to point out the differences between themselves and the other candidates, and it was professional and informative.

That said, it showed how out of the mainstream the GOP nominees are. McCain seems to be the only candidate with common sense. Romney wants to “double Guantanamo,” Tancredo is “looking for Jack Bauer,” and with the exception of Brownback, Huckabee and McCain, all appear to be willing to disregard reality and just pretend as though the immigration problem will solve itself with barbaric rhetoric and a fence. McCain impressed me very much in this debate.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: What reason is there to be a Republican if you are not Pro-Life?

The party’s membership is so conducive to being strong on the social issues. Instead, Giuliani is spitting out the same tired pro-choice rhetoric that relies on individual arrogance. Giuliani is not personally against abortion. He’s a smart man, if he was personally pro-life, he’d realize the stupidity of his argument for why he’s publicly pro-choice. The mayor proclaimed that he believed women should have the choice, but that it should be an informed one. In other words, they should be informed as to the other options, and exactly what the abortion entails. The only reason a person would make an informed decision against abortion, is that the information presented was the knowledge that the thing inside of them is a living, heart-beating human being. So if Giuliani’s stance is that people should be informed of the immorality of abortion, then he acknowledges that abortion is killing a human being. For there is no other explanation as to why abortion is wrong.

Giuliani will win if he is the Republican nominee. It will be interesting to see if the Republicans…especially the evangelicals…are more concerned with values or defeating the “devil incarnate” that is Hillary Clinton.

There is no clearer picture of the danger of so closely aligning religion and political parties as this one.

The Republicans will either not vote for Giuliani, or they will, accepting his idea that lawmakers have no role in fighting against abortion…in which case, Evangelicals should be lining up to join the Democratic Party.

It surprises me that the Republicans aren’t the pro-choice party, they are able to ignore the plight of the unseen in every other case. Republicans champion the policies that every American would support as long as they weren’t affected by them. Immigrants: Ship them out and break up their families. Health Insurance: You should be able to afford it yourself. Why should taxpayers money be used to improve the lives of taxpayers? Torture: All for it! It sounds tough! Nothing is weaker than being anti-torture! College Costs: So what if interest rates are above 6% for college loans? I paid mine off easily with the help of my Harvard Degree and my Father’s company salary. Taxes: Tax Cuts for everyone! So what if some people can’t afford to pay there bills, even with that extra 200 dollars in tax returns. Tax cuts amount to benefits for all. Right?…Well, at least it sounds like it…Speaking of, that DEATH tax is killing me.

It would make sense that the Republican stance on abortion would be:

Abortion: Who cares about a fetus? I can’t get votes from that! As long as my constituents can live out whatever lifestyle they wish, I’ll accept the collateral damage.

One last thing…

I’m sorry. I believe tax increases are necessary at times of crisis. I don’t believe that every tax increase is an unholy act. I also don’t believe that undoing extreme tax cuts amounts to a tax increase. It’s a return to tax sanity.

When our deficits are as high as they are, a tax increase should be looked into.

I will not apologize for believing that sometimes, in times of need, tax increases are necessary. I won’t apologize for it. And Mike Huckabee shouldn’t apologize for a tax increase he passed with the support of 80% of his constituents.

As the Republican position on abortion is contrary to their overarching philosophy, it seems as though support of civil rights is in some ways against Democratic philosophy. While Republicans believe everything is black and white, Democrats have common sense. Democrats aren’t colorblind.