Bobs Blog

bored.

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:33:00 +0000

Yeah.

Done with this. Bored.

Moving on.

Go look at my other stuff.
http://www.dndreviews.com/
http://www.writemeanovel.com/
http://www.thehistoryguru.com/
http://www.squidoo.com/gencon
http://www.squidoo.com/dnd4e

and Angie's
http://www.angiespangies.com/

See you after the convention. Maybe.

Short and Sweet.

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:24:00 +0000

Just like my wife.

Sorry, honey. Hey, at least I linked to you!

I've spent several days thinking about it, and I've decided that Bob's Blog will, indeed, continue.

However, I wanted to let my vast audience of 5 (you know who you are) know that I'm taking the week off of Bob's Blog. When I come back next Monday, February 11, 2008, look for a totally revamped site. We'll still hit politics and social issues, but I'm going to try some new and different (and hopefully exciting) things.

Until then,

Adieou

Changing Directions

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:10:00 +0000

So, I've spent some reading my old posts and thinking about this blog, what I'm doing with it exactly, and where it's headed. A few compelling points and questions come to mind:

I'm spending waaaay too much time on Primary Politics;
I hate Hillary too much (see yesterday's post);
Most of my readers, unless you know me in real life, don't necessarily know what my views are;
By way of disclosure, I owe it to you to talk about those views some;
There are a lot of politics blogs; many are more insightful and better written;
What compels someone to read this blog? What makes it unique? What makes it valuable to the reader?
What compels me to write this blog, other than hearing my own thoughts?

I'm going to spend the weekend refocusing my thoughts. I think there's definitely the potential for something here; I think it just needs to be narrowed quite a bit.

Wish me luck!

Republicans in the lurch

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:05:00 +0000

So, it seems the party is on the brink here.

We may be about to become as irrelevant as the Democrats were in '84.

Problem #1: I told you earlier this week. McCain, should he get the nod, CANNOT win in the general election.

Problem #2: We hate Hillary Clinton too much.

Huh? How is that a problem? Let me explain.

Sean Hannity has called his program the "Stop Hillary Express" for months now. Rush can't go a day without mentioning her. We all know that she's got huge "disapproval ratings." Problem is, the Dems know it too.

You see, the negative attention that Republicans are providing to Hillary, the missteps of her campaign (read: her husband) in recent weeks, and the defection of party leaders like Teddy to Obama's camp make a tri-fecta. All together, these things are about to make the Democratic nomination a lock for Barack.

Barack Obama is going to be damn hard to beat. Why? Same reason Hillary isn't beating him: race. Race trumps gender in the United States; it always has. How does that hurt us in the General Election, though?

Regardless of who the Republicans put up, we're going to be stuck. If we criticize Obama in any way, shape, or form, there will be accusations of racism. Don't believe me? Ask Bill Clinton. And nobody wants to vote for someone they think is racist, and no one wants to be seen as racist by not voting for "the black guy." Add to this the fact that McCain is throwing around racist terms and that the founder of Romney's religion (NOT Romney himself, however) was violently racist, and we're really screwed.

Make no mistake, Obama is dangerous.

But, Obama is dangerous in other ways. Need proof? A sample of his issue positions, from his web site:

"Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. "

"As president, Obama will reward work by increasing the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increasing the benefit available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increasing the benefit for families with three or more children and reducing the EITC marriage penalty which hurts low-income families."

"Obama's K-12 plan will expand service scholarships to recruit and prepare teachers who commit to working in underserved districts."

"Obama will ensure that trade agreements include strong labor and environmental protections and that all Americans share the rewards of globalization."

"The lack of affordable, high-speed Internet access in rural, urban, and minority communities has created a digital divide between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not. This severely limits the growth potential of many urban and rural companies. Barack Obama believes we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation technologies, and new tax and loan incentives. "

Name one provision in any of his policies above that doesn't involve a radical expansion of Federal power and/or a radical expenditure of federal funds.

Barack Obama may well be the most dangerous man in America right now.

No way. Way!

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:30:00 +0000

This has got to be, by far, the most interesting primary season that I can recall. Looks like one of my predictions from yesterday was actually spot on. Of course, my Florida predictions were rather akin to a shotgun blast...

At any rate, McCain beat, not handily, but he did beat, Romney in Florida. Rudy's out, and probably going to endorse McCain. Will that hurt Romney? Probably. But, Mitt still has some things going for him, leading up to the convention:

There are enough Western states, where Romney is likely to perform well, on Super Tuesday to catch up, or at least keep within striking distance, of McCain's delegate count.
He has the support of a sizable majority of the "uncommitted" delegates (akin to the Democrats' SuperDelegates)
If Huck makes it all the way to the convention, his delegates could, in theory, be sent to one column or the other, tipping the balance. My guess is that Huck is going to send them to Mitt, rather than John, because Mitt is closest to Huck on social issues.

As for the Dems, Hillary continues to shore up her delegate count, while Barack is wooing establishment Dems like Teddy into his camp. Hillary's ace in the hole has always been the SuperDelegates; Teddy's defection suggests that they may not be a lock for Hill. Still, Barack is going to have to pick up some delegates on Feb 5 if he wants to stay in this thing.

As for Super Tuesday? Hell if I know.

Bye Bye, Rudy

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:19:00 +0000

Odds are against America's Mayor tonite.

Was a time I thought Rudy might have been the most electable guy in the Republican field. (Note that I didn't say he was the guy I would vote for, but he was the most electable). Truth be told, he's probably still the most electable in a general election, at least against Hillary. Obama he'd have a harder time with, I think.

At any rate, there are several scenarios that could come out of Florida, not just for Rudy, but for the Republican field. Since I suck at predictions, I won't tell you which I think is most likely. You'll just have to guess.

Under scenario #1, Rudy wins the Florida primary. The momentum carries him all the way to the Convention. Alternatively, there is no momentum and he fizzles on Super Tuesday, leaving Mitt or John at the top of the delegate count.
Under scenario #2, Mitt takes it. This is pretty much the nail in the coffin for the rest of the field; If Mitt takes Florida, he probably takes Super Tuesday as well.
Under scenario #3, Huck makes a comeback. We have a 3-way race, maybe decided on Super Tuesday, maybe later. Maybe third round of balloting at the Convention.
Under scenario #4, John picks it up. It's a 2-man race, with Mitt in the lead. John could easily pass Mitt on Super Tuesday.
Under scenario #5, Fred Thompson remembers who the hell Terry Schaivo was, makes a Santa Clause/Superman tour of the state and wins it as the "hands down" candidate.

Sorry, couldn't help it. I had to put something light in there. No way Huck's coming back. Some things just ain't possible.

McCain is NOT going to win. Not even against Hillary.

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:34:00 +0000

Frank Rich thinks that the combination of Hillary Clinton on the Dem ticket and John McCain on the Republican ticket means a Republican victory.

Respectfully, I must disagree with Mr. Rich. Or maybe not respectfully, we'll see how it goes. Depends on whether he starts to behave himself or not. If not, I might suggest he go back to reviewing Broadway plays. Poorly.

At any rate, Frank Rich has got to realize something: the people that want to see John McCain as the Republican candidate, primarily, aren't Republicans. They are Independents and crossover Dems. They're people like Frank Rich who have the good sense to be tired of the Clintons. But, most Republicans would rather have another candidate. Practically any other candidate.

You see, the buzz about McCain, like it was in 2000, proves something about Republicans: we aren't willing to nominate someone just because the media thinks that they could be electable. If you don't believe me, I've got two words for you: Bob Dole. The media never thought Dole was electable (he wasn't) but we put him out there anyways.

The thing is this: with the exception of defense, John McCain offers nothing different from what any of the Dems are offering. Independents and crossover Dems will vote for McCain in the primary, because 1) they have no scruples, and 2) because they know that, regardless of which Democrat is nominated, they are probably going to be OK.

McCain vs. Hillary, or McCain vs. any Dem, is a loss for McCain, no matter how you slice it. You see, he isn't going to win in a general election because those Independents and crossover Dems aren't going to vote McCain in the general; they're voting Democratic. Add to this the fact that the Republican base is not going to get any more fired up about McCain than it got for Bob Dole, and you've got a solid Dem victory.

Yeah, Romney, Giuliani and Huck all have their problems in terms of electability. Fact is, so did Reagan. We need to be less concerned about electability, and more concerned about ideas and competence. If we put forward the candidate that has the best ideas for America, and that is competent to implement them, we've got a shot at winning.

WOW.

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:46:00 +0000

Sometimes, stories just speak for themselves.

Sometimes, it helps to remember that you're not the only one who believes political correctness is a bad thing.

Sometimes, you just need to hear from Edgar Friendly:

Not related, but did you know Alan Keyes is still running (again) for president? I love Alan. I campaigned for and voted for Alan in the 2000 Republican primary. But I'm kinda done with the whole "I'm gonna run for president" thing. He's getting to be a bit like the Jessee Jackson of the right. Maybe he could run for congress first, or something. I know the whole senate run thing didn't work out, but then again, Keyes is no Michael Clarke Duncan or Scatman Cruthers. (A nickel's worth of pocket lint to anyone who gets the reference without having to actually click the link).

Fred Drops Out

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:26:00 +0000

Read all about it. No surprise here, but I'm sad to see it happen. Hindsight being what it is, I suppose it's the right time to reflect a bit about Fred's candidacy, and how it went sour. Here are the things that could have been done differently:

Got in earlier. July 4 would have been ideal, and may have given him more momentum. September was, in retrospect, definitely too late.
Debated more. Fred performed well in the debates; it was a mistake to announce on Jay Leno during a debate that he could have won.
Media management. Fred's campaign had no idea how to handle media criticisms. When even Fox News is accusing you of being a lazy candidate, you need some serious PR help to disprove them.
Created a winning delegate scenario. Fred needed to be able to focus on the states where he could win. He could have done what Rudy is doing for Florida, and taken Iowa South Carolina. Instead of focusing on a place he could win, he seemed all over the map.
Been easier on James Dobson. True, the Focus on the Family founder's initial criticisms of Thompson's faith was uncalled for, and unsound; but Fred could and should have been conciliatory, rather than standoffish. This put off a good number of evangelical supporters, driving them over to Huck.
Smartened his message. His slogans were a bit trite. I think the campaign underestimated the intelligence of the Republican base.

Just my thoughts, informed by the light of hindsight.

And Now For Something Completely Different

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:09:00 +0000

Taking a day off from news, elections, politics, and the like, I'd like to make a few arbitrary declarations. These are some of the deep down ideological secrets I carry with me, the ones that compel me to turn on Hannity or Rush, those evil little voices inside of me that say, "Go ahead, talk to your wife about politics. Deep down, she enjoys it." So, here we go:

I always find myself voting for the underdog, at least in the primaries. Whether it's Alan Keyes or Fred Thompson, it just sort of winds up that way. Not sure why. At lest I'm not a Rudy guy this year, things just don't look good for America's Mayor.
My knowledge of economic theory is shallow, at best. I know what I need to know about economics to study history, and that's about it. Milton Friedman was convincing enough that, once I found him, I didn't feel the need to go any further.
I'm OK with having shallow knowledge of economic theory. Econ majors were always a little bit odd in college. And, I'm a historian, not an economist.
There are two people that it literally pains me to hear on the radio or see on TV: Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton. Presidential prayer breakfasts were especially difficult in that 1990s.
Like many people, I'm done hearing about Britney. Time for her to OD, so we can all get on with our lives.
I shouldn't say that; it isn't Britney's fault that these bastard news editors keep putting her in the headlines. Maybe it's time for them to OD.
I do like more Girl Rock than other music right now. Not sure what that says about me. I like to think it just says, "Dad of 3", but that may be wishful thinking.

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:43:00 +0000

Oprah is in trouble with women. As it turns out, there are plenty of women who believe that you ought to put a person in office just because she's a woman. These women believe, it would seem, that race is not a good enough reason to put a person in office.

But, as it turns out, in the U.S. race has most often trumped gender (or class, for that matter). After all, in the mid-nineteenth century when Europe was undergoing its class revolutions, we got into a civil war instead. We granted "all men" the vote long before we granted it to women. Not saying it's right (I don't believe it is) but it is how things are here.

To get mad at Oprah for not supporting your favorite liberal democrat is just plain silly. As an American, I don't identify myself, politically, as a white male. In fact, the one person I really wanted to see in this primary season, and the one person for whom I would have fervently campaigned, is Condi. But I have a sneaky suspicion that if there were a general election between Condi and, let's say, John Edwards, Oprah and every one of her little minions would be voting Edwards. Would they be traitors for doing so? Of course not. It would just mean that they had the sense to vote for the candidate whose ideas most fit their own.

Three-Ways aren't always good

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:31:00 +0000

Just a quick update from South Carolina:

Looks like McCain will narrowly take it over a close second Huck. Looks like we forgot about the 25% of voters in South Carolina that are veterans, as it seemed they tracked extremely high for McCain.

While I'm here, let me say this: I thank John McCain for his service. America owes him a great debt that we can only repay by insuring future generations of Americans grasp the freedom for which he was imprisoned.

Having said that, the fact remains that, while a veteran may be emotionally connected to McCain, it doesn't mean he'd be a good president. It's not that much different than a woman who votes for Hillary, or an African American who votes for Obama. Being able to relate to a candidate does not qualify them, and voting on that basis is plain foolish.

Aw hell, at least Rudy's way down at the bottom. Still, I'd prefer him to McCain. And Mitt may actually be in trouble here if he can't make some deeper progress in the other southern states.

Goodnight, Fred, we hardly knew ye. If you'd have run 200 years ago, you'd have won in a landslide.

This is it

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:45:00 +0000

Well, It's 3:45 PM here in Eastern Standard time. The South Carolina polls close in just a few hours. The last available polls show Fred tracking a little higher than he has in a long time, but still more than 10 points behind both Huck and John. I'm still hoping for a political miracle here; this is indeed Fred's last chance. If he can place a strong second, I think he can still take much of the rest of the South, and still carry on to St. Paul on labor day. Still, it's a long shot, and I recognize that.

Maybe Mitt won't be so bad. Maybe he'll come through; maybe he really will be fiscally sound, not increase taxes, appoint constitutionalists to the bench. Still, I've got a bad feeling about this. It's too much like how I felt during the 2000 primary season. Bush scared me then in terms of things like spending, and he's proven to be a big spender beyond even the dems wildest dreams.

If McCain manages to take South Carolina, he's almost guaranteed to get the nod. I'll probably vote USTP/Constitution Party in November. It doesn't seem likely that he will, however.

Huckabee... well, even if he were elected president, I am betting that he winds up as the Jimmy Carter of the Republican Party.

Go, Fred, Go! You're our last, best hope.

So now, fiscal responsibility is "radical."

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:25:00 +0000

Leave it to California.

Governor Schwarzenegger has the wherewithall to actually cut government spending in California to try to shore up a budget defecit. And when he does so, he is considered "radical." The very same article praises the governor because of his "tough stance on climate change and a recent willingness to engage with Democratic rivals in the California state legislature." It even says that those two factors have make him popular "across the political spectrum."

It's not new news that there is media bias, and that it slants to the left. Even academics have had to admit it. In the middle of Primary season, even reporters assigned to specific candidates have been shown to be consistently biased.

I've said it before, but I bears repeating here. We need to be careful, as conservatives, about how we talk about media bias. The fact of the matter is that there is no grand conspiracy aimed at destroying the right. Media bias comes from the fact that, first of all, it is impossible for human beings to transcend their own presuppositions, and they describe their world through that lens. Second, it is liberals in the media that have power. When a liberal editor looks for a reporter, he may not be consciously looking for a liberal reporter; however, he is more likely to be impressed with a sample article about the dangers of global warming than he is about the dangers of tax increases.

Just a couple of links today

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:16:00 +0000

It's Thursday, I'm slacking...

IMHO, in the world of up-and-coming political pundits, there is no one more up-and-coming-ing than Greg Gutfeld. The Daily Gut has priceless quotes like, "So last Sunday I did something against doctors orders: I read the New York Times," and "Small towns are great because it's quiet and the beer is cheap - two factors that allow for wishful thinking. See, to me UFO's are the small city version of big city recycling. Because although I'm sure recycling exists, I've never seen it. Seems like it all goes into one bin."

Priceless.

The other link is to his FoxNews show, Red Eye. Watch it if you're a night owl, DVR-it if you are not.

Well, I suppose that's it, then.

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:58:00 +0000

Fred managed to hit higher than Rudy, but lower than Ron.

The big surprise yesterday, for me, was the Mitt victory over John McCain. Let me tell you why I was certain McCain would win.

In 2000, when McCain was running a primary campaign against George W. Bush, he won Michigan handily, thanks to folks like my democrat boss who really liked the guy. I assumed that would carry him.
McCain's campaign actively sought independent and even Democrat voters in the Michigan primary (a move, by the way, which pisses me off to no end; MY party, not yours. I don't pretend to be a Democrat, you shouldn't pretend to be a Republican.)
My precinct is around 10-1 in Democratic favor. Yesterday, at least from the pages I could see, at least 3 Republican ballots were passed out for every 1 Democrat ballot. Even if the Dems stayed home, that's just shenanigans.

Fortunately, my precinct wasn't especially representative of the state. Mitt, my #2 man trounced McCain handily, and is creeping closer to the magic number of 1,191..

Unless Fred can turn it around in SC, or Rudy in FL, it is looking like Romney will be the Republican candidate. There is a scenario in which McCain places 3rd in Florida and then makes a big bang on Super Tuesday, but even if that happens it is likely that the delegate count will be close come July. Same thing if Huck handily wins SC, and then begins to carry the rest of the South. Still, things are looking good for Mitt right now.

Reaganism was not an era

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:14:00 +0000

And conservatism is not a movement; rather it is the foundation upon which this nation was built. While we have always, and will always, tended to vacillate between extremes, the fact is that conservatism will remain.

Rush is right on this one, and Newt is wrong.

The Michigan Republican Primary, Conclusions

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:57:00 +0000

As promised, let's take a look at the remainder of the Republican field for tomorrow:

There are, of course, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. These guys are all right in terms of policy, but have run terrible campaigns, and are almost completely unelectable due to their lack of personality. Normally, a lack of personality wouldn't be enough to turn me off of a candidate, but add to this the fact that they have been ignored and shunned by both the media and the Republican establishment, and these boys don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

That leaves me with, of course, Fred Thompson. As you can see from the archive, I'm a Thompson supporter, and have been for a long time. Yeah, his campaign has been poorly run. Yes, he's been portrayed as not having enough "fire in the belly." But, in some ways, that's just what I want in a president: someone who had to be convinced to take the job, and for whom his personal success doesn't depend on him becoming president. I want a president who's not a career politician, who can go back home to Mount Vernon and make booze. On policy, he's almost dead on, and is the first viable candidate since Reagan to speak convincingly about federalism.

Is Thompson electable? Well, he was. I think he might still be. He won't win Michigan, partly because he hasn't had the resources to campaign here, but also because our Dems will all be voting for McCain once they figure out Hillary is the only one on their ballots. Still, if Thompson can beat out Huck in South Carolina, he may have a shot at capturing much of the rest of the South. Granted, it's a very slim scenario, and I certainly wouldn't take bets that it will happen. But in 1980 Reagan lost Iowa, swept the south, and lost 5 more primaries on the way to the convention. If there was indeed a Reagan political miracle, isn't it all right to hope for one for Thompson?

So, whether you are from Michigan or not, get out there and show Fred some love!

The Michigan Republican Primary, Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:51:00 +0000

With just one day left until the Michigan primaries, it's time for me to finish out my analysis of the Republican field. I'll hit two of the candidates this morning, and the remaining candidates, including my choice, this evening.

Mitt Romney. Mitt is an interesting candidate. As a Michigander who is too young to remember his father as governor, I can't speak intelligently about his political heritage. His religious heritage worries me, however. I know I'm not supposed to care that Romney is a Mormon any more than I care that Bush is a Methodist, or that Rudy is a Roman Catholic. Still, Mormonism is a relatively new player in the grand scheme of things, and several of its core tenants go against the most ancient of Christian tenants, including the doctrine of the Trinity. Does that disqualify Mitt to be president? No. But it does speak to his judgement.

The Mormon thing would probably be all right if Mitt hadn't been Governor of the same state that keeps electing Teddy Kennedy and John F. "I served in Vietnam" Kerry. Fact is, he had to do an awful lot of cow-towing to the left in Massachusetts, and while he says he's changed his ways, I'm skeptical, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, given all of this, Romney's stated positions make him my #2 choice. I'd have no problem getting behind a Mitt presidential campaign, even if I don't prefer him in the primaries.

Giuliani is a bit of an enigma to me. While I get that Mayor of New York is kind of a big deal, I'm not sure his experience there is far-reaching enough to work as president. Experience in the senate helps Thompson and McCain in that it has given them a taste of national political life. Experience as governor helps Mitt and Huck, because it covers so much wider a geographic spectrum. But Rudy's entire political life has been New York politics, which is fine for New York, but worries me at the national level.

I'm confident that Rudy would be all right for defense. I'm worried about his approach to social issues, and to the supreme court. He's saying the right thing as far as the court and things like gun rights, but his track record is worse than Mitt's here. I'll vote for Rudy in a general election, but I'd do it a bit begrudgingly.

The Michigan Republican Primary, Continued

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:28:00 +0000

OK, so, moving on...

John McCain. What do I think about John McCain? Well, he'd probably do all right in the War on Terror. Border security is a wishy-washy issue for McCain, having supported the failed immigration bill. He calls himself, on his campaign web site, a "leader on the issue of global warming," which is, of course, not a good thing. He seems to be OK on taxes, but less so on government regulations. McCain-Feingold, of course, best exemplifies this. His work with Kennedy on education falls into that category, too. He's generally OK on social issues, but has the whole federal marriage legislation thing going on.

My big beef with McCain, however, has been this maverick-centrist image he's tried to create over the years. It pissed me off in 2000 why my boss at the time, a staunch democrat, decided to vote in the Republican primary for McCain. She liked what he had done, and what he had to say. Fact is, unless the Dems had run someone really off the wall, she'd have voted for the Dem in the general election anyways. I always felt like McCain enticed "independents" to interfere with the Republican primary process, which just isn't the way it ought to be. The Republicans ought to be able to pick their own guy. By targeting independents, McCain corrupted the process. He did it again in New Hampshire, and if he wins Michigan, it will be the independents that did it for him.

Those are plenty of reasons not to vote for McCain in the primary. Beyond that even, he just seems like a loose cannon that could go off at any moment. He feels like the Republican Howard Dean, in terms of personal stability. That all is perception and maybe even a result of media interpretation, and not the reason I am not voting for him, but I do have to admit it scares me.

The Michigan Republican Primary

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:00:00 +0000

Well, I have to say... seven months has been too long. But, I don't feel bad about it; the thing about being a conservative is that, for the most part, I'm not interested in what government is doing. In fact, the less it does, the better. I've got better things to do, like raise my kids, work for a living, and play Dungeons and Dragons every Saturday. I think that's probably why Libertarians do so bad at the polls; most of the folks that share their views believe that government should have less power, and folks are always more motivated to gain power than to give it up.

Anyways, the Michigan Primary is just days away, and I've got some thoughts I'd like to share. Each day over this weekend, I'm going to talk about the Republican candidates, and I will finish off on Monday with a discussion of my pick. Reading my previous blog entries you might be able to guess who it is, but I think it is still a worthy exercise.

Today, let me start with Huckabee. I want to like Mike, I do. Heck, if nothing else, I'm scared that if I don't vote Huck that Chuck will come and kick my ass. In addition, I like his conservative social message. I'm completely OK with a Baptist pastor as president. I greatly admire his weight loss story, as I'm working on my own right now. Here's what I don't like:

The Arkansas tax record. Yeah, I know, even Reagan raised taxes in California as governor. Still, it makes me wary.
Golden Rule foreign policy. The golden rule is a rule about individuals, not nations. It's appeasement foreign policy cloaked in biblical rhetoric.
Immigration. He just doesn't seem to know where he's going with it.
In a general election, the anti-Christian left would eat him alive.

While I'm at it, I may as well do Ron Paul. I like everything about Ron Paul, save one big issue: the war. Paul is short-sighted here; there is indeed a constitutional basis for what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Paul would come out in support of the war on terror, he'd be my candidate. I know its one issue, but its a big one for me. In addition, like most libertarians, Paul needs to recognize Friedman's ideas about transition, and that these unconstitutional programs need to be phased out rather than shut off. But, I could live with that if I had to; the foreign policy thing is too overshadowing.

True Colors, baby

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:07:00 +0000

The grassroots Democratic party, hell, I'll just say it, are lunatics.

I mean, Hillary is left, there's not doubt. But Democrats at the local level are whacked out. After all, it's local democrats in San Fran who banned military recruiting. It was grassroots Democrat officials doing gay marriages all over the damn place. And now, local dems have decided that a county's emergency warning system does not belong on the same station as Limbaugh and Hannity.

It's all right by me, though. Rush has been the Early Warning system, preaching the disastrous impact of liberalism for decades. Putting their little county thing on the air with him would be, well, redundant.

Impeach Gonzales

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:17:00 +0000

It boggles the mind.

Renowned RINO Arlen Specter is going to vote for a "no confidence" vote for Attorney General Al Gonzales, alongside his democrat buddies in the Senate. This guy, who is by any measurement an ideological liberal, is portrayed by his supporters as being strong-willed enough to stand against the Republican establishment. The problem is that Specter, like most liberals, is spineless.

You see, here's the thing. If Gonzales had done something illegal or inappropriate, congress has a built-in remedy: impeachment. The AG serves at the will of the President, and always has. But congress has the ability to impeach the AG just as they do any of the President's cabinet. So, why this charade of a "no confidence" vote? I mean, other than the fact that Gonzales hasn't done anything wrong?

It's simple: the Dems (and Specter) feel like they're in a win-win situation. On one hand, they may get Bush either have to fire Gonzales, thus admitting that there was impropriety over at Justice. Alternatively, they will pressure Bush and he will stand by Gonzales in the face of a media who have already crucified him at least twice. In their minds, they win either way.

The problem is here that the Dems (and Specter) are being as political, or even more so, than Gonzales. If the Dems (and Specter) truly believe that Specter is not the man for the job, the only true recourse is to impeach him. The option of "Bush defends a guilty Gonzales" doesn't help the country, even if it helps the Democratic party (and Specter).

I told you so, Loren

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:55:00 +0000

I used to work with a fellow by the name of Loren. Loren was a good guy. He was good natured, had a wonderful sense of humor, and was good at his job. I even convinced him to play some D&D with Cliff, Doc, Nitz, and myself for a little while. He was even a relatively staunch conservative. Loren had one problem, though.

You see, Loren fell for the lie that was being perpetuated at the time that only stem cells from embryos could produce medical advancements that might cure Chris Reeve. I tried to tell him that only a small number of stem cells needed to be embryonic, and that regular stem cells made the research harder, but not impossible. Using stem cells from discarded embryos, at least using federal money to do it, was a violation of the religious rights of Catholics and other pro-life advocates. If I believe an embryo is life or potential life, then using my tax money to destroy that life is a severe violation of my conscience. Loren said that the research was too important. I, of course, countered that NO research is more important than any one of our freedoms. (As a point of disclaimer, I am not Catholic and I'm rather agnostic on the question of whether a frozen embryo is a person).

At any rate, the science has caught up with the ethics on this one, finally. As it turns out, you CAN do research on stem cells without destroying embryos.

So, Loren, wherever you are, I'd just like to say: thhhhppppppptt!!!!!

A Thank You

noreply@blogger.com (Bob) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:23:00 +0000

For those who have gone before us and paid the ultimate price to insure that this last, best hope for the world would not perish from the earth, I offer a humble citizen's thanks and gratitude.

May D-Day never be forgotten.