Why They Hate President Ronald Reagan

Once upon a time, there were two great superpowers on Earth. There was the Union of Soviet Socialist "Republics," (USSR), a.k.a. the Soviet Union, and there was the USA.

The USSR was controlled from Moscow by the leaders of its Communist Party, with an iron grip over the official Soviet "republics" of Russia at the others, and the Eastern European puppet governments of East Germany and such. It was a massive land expanse all under the control of the elite Soviet men.

A "cold war" existed between the Soviets and free nations such as the USA and UK, with global nuclear war presented a serious and eminent threat.

The USA had series of Presidents as follows:

FDR - A Big Government Democrat who expanded the federal government enormously. Most terms of any President.

Harry Truman - First became President with the death of FDR, as he was FDR's last VP. A Democrat who pushed for the United Nations and national health insurance.

Dwight Eisenhower - Republican who did not make limiting government a driver of his campaign or Presidency. He'd been a successful WWII General.

JFK - Democrat. While some of his positions sound downright conservative today, since he was a young, handsome, well-spoken, charismatic Democrat who apparently won a public standoff with the Soviets (the Cuban Missile Crisis) and was assassinated, he has been revered to this day. He had been Senator.

LBJ - Democrat who pushed for the Great Society government expansion after first serving as VP under JFK.

Richard Nixon - Republican who ended the gold standard, set some price controls, ushered in the EPA, and did not make limiting government a driver of his campaigns or Presidency. He had a long political history, including having been VP.

Gerald Ford - Republican who basically prostrated himself in the wake of Nixon's resignation. He'd been in Congress and then VP under Nixon. He did not make limiting government a driver of his time in office.

Jimmy Carter - Democrat who continued to increase the size and powers of government. Americans were basically told to accept higher energy prices, and by this time more and more on the Left were accepting the Soviet Union and its control over Eastern Europe as permanent and just another, valid way of governing. Carter had been Governor of Georgia.

Then there was the election of 1980.

Of course the Left and partisan Democrats wanted Carter to win a second term over any Republican.

The Republican nomination came down to two choices: Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Bush was much like the other recent Republican Presidents. He had been in government forever and was milquetoast. He'd "waited his turn." Reagan was a "cowboy" who had served as Governor of California, interrupting the Brown Democrat Dynasty, but had been out of office since early 1975 and had no other political experience. He spoke about limiting government, government often being the problem. With talk like that, the Left wasn't going to be able to push through to nationalized health for all and all sorts of new federal governments they claim to be birthrights. He took a stance of being aggressive in defending liberty against the Soviets, and unreservedly claimed we were the good guys and the commies were the bad guys.

He cut taxes and built up the military. A terrible economy recovered well under Reagan.

What Reagan did was ruin what they saw as a great march to globalist progressivism. He revived modern conservatism and patriotism, unashamedly touting the benefits of capitalism and private industry. He lead a revival of our country.

They predicted Reagan was going to lead us into war and nuclear annihilation. Instead, his policies and collaboration with UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II lead to the collapse of the Soviet empire and new freedoms for a significant portion of the world and renewed strength and leadership for the USA.

Yes, it's true, he didn't drop everything and overhaul the organization of the federal government and spending to try to eliminate a negative consequence of the entirely voluntary activities of bloody and rough anal sex with strangers, and sharing recreational drug needles.

And he wasn't perfect. No President is flawless.

But what he did was ruin "everything" for the Left and certain political cultists, and so to this day they hate him with a passion.

He was one of our greatest Presidents.

The Gipper

If You're a Social Network Professional or Investor

I hope you can still read this. Certain large tech companies have been silencing or at least restricting content creators and users who aren't in lockstep with the Leftist*/SJW/victicrat doctrines and practices. Some fire or push out employees who deviate from the groupthink.

A viable social networking platform is needed that won't be hostile to conservatives, libertarians, moderates, classical liberals, observant Jews, and conservative/evangelical Christians. Facebook and Twitter are two huge examples of services that have been engaging in problematic practices. A long time ago, Townhall.com, which hosted user blogs, might have been able to evolve into such a service, but that's a long dead issue.

So, if you're a "Silicon Valley", tech, or social network person with technical expertise and/or managerial skills and/or money to invest and you're NOT a Leftist, it behooves you to give the majority of us who aren't Leftists a viable alternative, once that will protect privacy. People will be willing to pay a small monthly or yearly fee or pay for extra services as long as they know they aren't being shadowbanned or otherwise restricted and that the information they've set to "private" won't be shared. People have been leaving Facebook, Twitter, and certain other services. Many more would be willing to jump ship for a viable, user-friendly alternative, or at least would add an account at the new service. Even some Leftists would join, and they should be welcomed as long as they can be prevented from trolling/harassing staff or other users.

I think such a service would offer the ability to:

• network
• form and maintain groups
• schedule/plan/invite to events
• post and share short comments/updates as well as longer-form commentaries and analysis, text, audio, images, videos
• follow/block content and other users
• commenting on content
• private messaging 

The terms of such a service could still prevent or remove activity that encourages or facilitates crime, terrorism, or even actual racism (regardless of the source).

So how about it??? Who will take advantage of the opportunity that is before them???


*Leftism is distinct from classical liberalism. An important difference is that Leftists do not support free speech. There are other examples.

I Thank God I Was Born in the U.S.A.

People risk and lose their lives trying to get here. People lie, cheat, and steal to get here and stay here. Me, I was blessed to be born here, making me a citizen simply by surviving Roe v. Wade.

So many people sacrificed and fought and worked to create and build and preserve this nation, from the explorers who made the journeys across the Atlantic and had to turn around and make the journey back, to the pilgrims and others who colonized here, to the revolutionaries who broke away from the monarchistic mother country and later set up the greatest Constitution in history, to the people who insisted that human beings should not be treated as property, to the people who went around the world to defeat Naziism and Soviet Communism. I thank God they did. I thank God my ancestors dared to come here.

I thank God I can choose my job, choose where to live, choose what to buy, choose my doctor, choose what to drive, choose to have as many children as I can, and openly worship Jesus Christ and study the Bible.

Our nation is not perfect, but it is the best place in the world, and it does have the ingredients for further greatness. We must now implement the recipe to preserve and further that which is good and discard or change that which isn't. We must fight to make the government work to protect our rights instead of infringing on them. We must work hard to raise the subsequent generations with the morals and values that produce good citizens and aid in limiting government.

Our way of life is under attack – from enemies both foreign and domestic.

One way we can fight them is to declare our independence, and continue declaring it - our independence from: being governed by those not operating under our Constitution; the failed promises of politicians; the failed and restrictive programs of the federal and state governments; the tyranny of the minority; the activist judiciary; socialist labor unions; academics who hate America; media with a Leftist bias or that degrade our culture; churches that have become lukewarm; family and "friends" who are sociopaths, malignant narcissists, unrepentant evildoers, or enabling cowards.

Pray. Study the Bible, the Constitution, and history. Go to church. Get informed. Tell others. Vote at the ballot and with your dollar. Stand between evildoers and the innocent. Civilly disobey unjust laws, rulings, or orders.

Happy Independence Day and God Bless America!

Two Weeks Under Trump

Under the headline "Yes, All This Happened. Trump's First 2 Weeks As President" (which allows writer Jessica Taylor to throw in things other people did and associate it Trump), we get a recap from National Public Radio.
She starts off noting the claims about Inauguration crowd sizes, and returns to it a few times (because Trump and his reps kept addressing it). I can believe Obama's crowd was larger. His Inauguration was especially historic, and Washington D.C. and some nearby areas have a high percentage of Democrats and government employees who directly benefit from enlarging government, as Obama promised to do, and African-Americans who felt a connection to Obama because his father was African.

It's not like Trump was promising you can keep your doctor. If he was lying, it's a rather silly lie.

The biggest news happened when Trump met that evening with both Republican and Democratic congressional leaders, reviving his unfounded claims that there were between 3 and 5 million illegal votes cast in the 2016 election that caused him to lose the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

It's probably a hyperbolic statement. Trump should have left it at noting that there were probably some illegal votes cast, and, combined with the fact that if the process of electing the President was based on the popular vote he would have taken a different strategy, and he would have won a legitimate popular vote.

The fact is, California, which is where Clinton got her high numbers, 1) has millions of illegal aliens; 2) gives driver's licenses to illegal aliens; 3) has a "motor voter registration" program. Is it far fetched to think that there was significant voter fraud?

An Election Retrospective

Here is the entry I posted on my Townhall user blog* on November 5, 2008,  "Why McCain Lost". I am reprinting it as it was on presented originally, except I'm going to color certain parts red before emphasis.


*****


As with the elder Bush losing in 1992, and Bob Dole losing in 1996, Senator John McCain’s loss yesterday was not a rejection of conservatism.

McCain was the GOP nominee because he was the most unlike Bush, and Bush, rightly or wrongly, has been effectively trashed in the populace.  We knew Bush wasn’t a consistent conservative before he got the nomination in 2000.  He’s proved it in his Presidency, and although there has been much he has done right, there have been things that he’s done wrong, or ineffectively, including public relations.  McCain ran against Bush in 2000.  In a year where Bush was unpopular, choosing McCain was seen as perhaps the only way to get a Republican elected President.

Unfortunately, McCain had a hard time winning over the GOP base.  His campaign finance reform, which has obviously been ineffective in removing the influence of money from campaigns, had left conservatives with a bad taste in their mouths.  Many conservatives and others were also upset with his work on the shamnesty bill for illegal aliens.  Instead of having a nominee who offered a clear difference from Obama in that regard, we had McCain.  And did it help him or anyone else in the GOP with Latino voters?  No!  So he lost some of the base and independents, and didn’t gain Latinos.

While McCain touted federalism in some areas that weren’t a major focus in this election, he failed to articulate truly conservative or libertarian positions clearly enough or early enough in the general campaign.  That’s because in many areas, he couldn’t without disavowing his own votes and previous positions.  Instead, he tried to play Santa Claus.  But a Republican can never outpromise the Democrats.  The Democrats will always promise more goodies.  So to a lot of people, McCain appeared to be doing the same thing Obama was doing – only halfway.  And they thought – why go halfway when we can get the genuine (new) deal?  Why go for someone who is always "reaching across the aisle" when we can pick someone who is already across the aisle?

People who want Democrats will vote for Democrats, not Republicans.

McCain also lost because he wanted to run a nice, respectful campaign that would be applauded by the MSM once it was over, instead of running a campaign that would win.  For far too long, he was busy disavowing comments from his own supporters instead of focusing on the weaknesses of Obama.

He lost not because of choosing Palin as his running mate, but by not letting Palin be Palin.

Obama doesn’t have all that much experience, but he had enough –and recent - experience organizing people to get out the vote, and then getting to higher and higher offices. He's good at getting the vote, but we don't have any reason to believe he can actually govern.  The MSM was already on Obama’s side, but he knew how to work them all the more.  He is more photogenic and a smoother speaker.  He can talk for hours and not say anything.  This allowed him to avoid really dealing with the facts that he was low on experience, low on accomplishment, and prone to extremist associations and thinking.

Finally – McCain lost to Obama because of racism.  It wasn’t just African-Americans who voted for Obama in part or in whole because of the color of his skin.  And that’s racism.  There is no way around it.

What we need now is for Republicans to be Republicans.  We need them to fight for limited government, federalism, and sticking to the Constitution.  We need them to fight for fiscal responsibility.  And we need them to start organizing NOW for 2010 and 2012.  Start identifying, grooming, and promoting ethical, effective people for local and state offices, as well as Congress and President.  If you contribute money to any Republican organizations, instead of donating in bulk, donate small amounts.  Donate when they do something right, and refrain from donating when they get it wrong, and let them know why.

We need not surrender to socialism.

*****

Wow! What did we see this year? We saw Trump drive the MSM crazy AND repeatedly take a tough stance on border control and dealing with illegal aliens, and it paid off. He also got a higher percentage of the Latino American voters.



*Townhall abruptly and without warning removed user blogs and our access to our own blog files, so I retrieved this entry from the Wayback Machine.

Wanted: Presidential Candidate

Required Qualifications:

1. Believes in a higher power - an omniscient, judging authority and future state of rewards and punishments for actions in this life.

2. Has integrity, ethics, morality, and discipline as demonstrated in both professional and personal life. Owns up to and has worked to correct mistakes.

3. Is a proven leader, manager, and appointer as demonstrated from previous experience.

4. Takes national security seriously, including control of borders/ports, and willing to use intelligence, covert operations, and military force to kill our enemies, break their things, and disrupt their threats to the U.S. Will ensure our military personnel, active and retired, are appropriately supplied and assisted.

5. Recognizes that both Islamofascism and European-style socialism are incompatible with and a threat to Western civilization and the American way of life; believes in American Exceptionalism, and has a grand vision for the union.

6. Recognizes Israel as beneficial to American interests.

7. Accepts the Constitution as the highest law of the land, not foreign documents, courts, personalities, organizations, or opinion polls; believes that the Constitution limits government, including the judiciary.

8. Believes in the sanctity and worth of individual human life from conception until natural death; seeks to treat individuals equally based on what they do, not based on identity politics.

9. Recognizes and respects the definition, roles, differences, and necessity to the American way of life of: marriage & family, business, government, church (or equivalent), and charities and civic organizations.


Preferred Qualities:

10. Has executive and foreign policy experience.

11. Will promote and support tax reforms that will move us away from federal income taxes towards a system primarily consisting of user fees and tariffs, supplemented, if necessary, by “sales taxes”.

12. Will work to eliminate or reduce federal government involvement in education, health care, business, and any activity not clearly stated as a federal responsibility in the Constitution, instead encouraging voluntary, private action, and state and local involvement only where and when appropriate; will seek real reform of Social Security, Medicare, etc.

13. Will support easing the immigration process for those who demonstrate a desire to legally immigrate, become naturalized, and become law-abiding, productive, integrated members of American society who are loyal to our Constitution and our way of life. In the event of an actual and detrimental labor shortage, will allow businesses to import temporary labor.

14. Promotes voluntary, proven conservation as opposed to using government force to force businesses and individuals to comply with the demands of alarmist activists.

15. Is effective at communicating and defending these principles.

16. Will not fall into the siren call of MSM praise for "bipartisanship", "listening", "international cooperation", and "change" - which are all codewords for supporting Leftist causes - to the detriment of these principles.


Notice I do not mention race, ethnicity, age, appearance, education level, sex, specific religion, marital status, or even political party. That's because as long as the person is described above, I don't care about those other things.

Of the current candidates, is there anyone who meets #1-9? Who meets #10?

Democrats to Republicans: Be Pigs Like Us

Considering how hateful, crude, and willing to lower the political discourse Obama-supporting Democrats were before the election (while claiming, in a classic case of projection, that their opponents were doing just that), it should come as no surprise how arrogant, hateful, and crude they have been since the election.

Part of that arrogance is the nonstop lecturing supposedly directed at Republicans, but is really just Leftists babbling to each other and slapping each other on their back(side)s. "Be like us," they tell us, "And you'll win." No thanks. We're not going to commit massive vote fraud to win, Democrats. We'll never be able to get the repeated votes of dead felon illegal aliens like you will. Let's get real. While some Democrats will vote Republican on occasion, Democultists never will, even if the Republican's positions are closer to their own than the Democrat's.

Hello! Nothing much has changed. For all of the euphoria being experienced by the Left (no doubt many are taking advantage of newly relaxed pot laws), we still have the same President, we still have a Democrat-controlled Senate (still without a supermajority) and a GOP-controlled House of Representatives. The popular vote wasn't lopsided, but rather relatively close. The way the Democultists are carrying on, it is apparent that they realize that if the electorate had been sensible, Mitt Romney would be President-elect and the Senate would have a GOP-majority. They know they should have lost, rather than retained. They are admitting that Obama's performance and the economy have been lousy, and so they see the ability of the Democrats to keep the Senate and White House as a chance to blame GOP "extremism".

Which is funny, considering that Obama lost several times over the number of voters from 2008 to 2012 than the number of voters who voted for McCain in 2008 but didn't vote for Romney in 2012.

Yes, Republicans had been counting on changes so that Obamacare could be countered and religious freedom protected, the economy allowed to flourish, to deal realistically with the debt and deficits, and to keep the USA an international leader that supports Israel and is serious about countering Islamofascist aggression. Yes, we are disappointed that people chose other priorities. The lecturing, however, is absurd. I don't recall Repulicans lecturing Democrats after GWB kicked John Kerry's behind, or in 2010, or when incumbent Democrats were sent packing and conservative Republicans elected in such great numbers in 1994 that Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government was over.

As we well know now, Big Government came back, stronger than ever. Limited government principles can, too. Sure, it will be more difficult than ever for that to happen. Once a massive new federal ponzi scheme is put in place, it seems like removing it is never going to be a possibility. Still, I'll be just fine if the Democultists get a false sense of security along with all of their smugness.

The Democultists were not elected to run the GOP. We still have some amount of freedom of association. They're lecturing us anyway, telling us how to "win". Right. Because they want us to win, right? Again, it is just self-serving BS. They are saying things like:

"Support abortion!" Uh, Mitt Romney's position on abortion is very much in line with the majority of Americans - that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother. Democrats, on the other hand, have the position in line with current law: As long as the baby hasn't been born yet, even at week 40, you should be able to kill it, AND have people who have deep convictions against such barbarism be forced to pay for it. Obama even voted to let babies who survive abortion die without any lifesaving or pain-relieving aid or just mere comfort. Who needs to change their position on that one, hmmmmm? Time for Obama to evolve on something else.

"Support gay marriage!" My own marriage is quite gay, thank you. The GOP should continue to oppose the neutering of state marriage licenses, however. Most states have relatively recently voted to affirm the bride+groom requirement, after all. What we do need to do is counter the BS marriage neutering advocates are constantly piling on young people in academia and the media. The right polling will show that the people support a distinction between marriage and same-sex pairings.

"Hush Rush!" This one of their favorites. They tell us to get rid of conservative radio talk show hosts, columnists, and talking heads. However, most of these Democultists have never paid much attention to what these conservatives have actually said or written, only what Leftist groups and basement-dwellers claim the commentators meant. No, this will NOT help Republicans. Democrats have academia, most media, control of major online information sources, the government employee unions, professional associations, and so many other things. People who believe in American values such as liberty, In God We Trust, and e pluribus unum, people who believe in Constitutional, limited government also need a voice.

"Diversity!" The Left is obsessed with race, gender, class, sexual orientaton. So Democrats focus on one issue said to be the most important to each "minority" group, and insist conservatives (and thus Republicans) want to deprive the groups of their respective "rights". What's supposed to be important to women, you see, is to have other people forced pay for their birth control. Latino voters are supposed to care most about amnesty for illegal aliens. Never mind the fact that most Latinos here are natural born citizens, and those who are naturalized citizens or legal immigrants shouldn't have to take a back seat to cheaters. The Democrats insist that any opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens is nothing but anti-Latino racism, as if most people opposed to amnesty aren't just as opposed to, say, Canadian or German illegal aliens getting amnesty. It's divide to conquer. Meanwhile, Republicans attempt to appeal to people as Americans, including treating people, regardless of sex or skin color, as capable adults. Every single woman or person of color voting is an adult American, supposedly. The Democrats are gushing over each example of someone elected to office with this (non-"white") ancestry or that (non-Christian) religion, and how many females are going to be in the Senate, or openly homosexual elected officials there are now. Uh, except they've cheered for the defeat of Allen West and Mia Love, and any other Republican woman or person of color. So they lack credibility when they tell the GOP we need more diversity in our candidates. Contrary to the evidence, they insist we're only bunch of old rich WASP heterosexual males (and sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, and bigoted ones at that), and anyone else in the party is a deluded or self-loathing token or sell-out, worthy of being subjected by the Democrats to the very hatred the Left claims the GOP harbors. Even as they sneer and hurl epithets at them, these Democrats, completely devoid of self-awareness, say more people should be begging for such despicable treatment. They act like Michael Steele was never a GOP honcho, and like they didn't reprise their historic role as the actual racists with opposition to integration and civil rights laws. For all of the Democultists' talk of diversity and inclusion, they deride white heterosexual males, especially wealthy ones, and are calling on the GOP to take a discriminatory stance against people who are actually serious about following Christ.They tell us to purge our racists, which the GOP did so swiftly a long time ago that no blatant racists remain in power within the GOP, but there are far more racists in their party. They tell us to get serious about the treatment of women, even as they continue to give President Clinton and Tony Villar a prominent role, an deify late Senator Ted Kennedy. We ARE serious about women. We think women can, for the most part, take care of themselves without Big Brother, thank you. Contrary to the constant bleating of the Democultists, Republicans, except for the odd rarity, really don't care whether a politician is male or female, or care about their skin color. We care about values, priorities, positions, plans, and character. Such things have no gender or skin color.

"Restrain the Rich and Make Them Pay More!" and "Let the tax cuts expire!" and "Boycott companies announcing layoffs!" The people saying these things either want to bring down the quality of life in the USA or simply don't understand basic economic realities. The businesspeople even warned ahead of time what would happen without a change for the better in the election. The angry Obama worshipers deny that these are the logical and natural consequences of increased costs to business and increased regulation to business - they instead chalk it up to greed, spite, and racism towards Obama. Where is this heading? Many of these people would cheer if Obama and the Senate had the federal government seize these businesses to stop layoffs and to dictate salaries, dividends, etc. These people think they know how those businesses should be run, based on their concept of what is fair. Just see here. The people running these businesses are the ones who had the creativity & ambition, busted their humps, put in the blood, sweat & tears, took the risks, worked the long hours, made the hard decisions, invested their own money and convinced others to invest theirs, and thus have provided goods, services, and employment. Why should they have to give up more based on what outsiders want? Outsiders don't get to tell them how to run their businesses (beyond what they've already put into law) or how to live... not yet, anyway. Yes, they have the freedom to boycott, and in doing so, will mostly hurt the people they claim to be concerned about.


Nope, that is not the way forward for the GOP.

We'll let the Democrats be Democrats. We can have big wins again without becoming clones of the Democrats (which wouldn't lead to winning anyway).

How? Here are a few ways:

1) We will show that the looming problems are not the fault of the current House of Representatives or "greedy" private sector people, but the failing model of increasing government expansion.
 
2) We will show unmarried women that they can be responsible for themselves. Relying on Big Brother is not independence and in the long run, makes them and everyone else worse off. In relying on Big Brother, they are actually dependent on men as well as burdening other women.

3) We will show that blanket amnesty for illegal aliens would hurt citizens "of color" and legal immigrants the most.

4) Cracking down on vote fraud while pointing out to citizens concerned about this that fraudulent votes devalue theirs.

Sorry, Democultists... we're not going away. We're going to stand up for American values and the Constitution, for free markets, and yes, we will continue to follow God and share the good news. Deal with that.

A Real Sign Obama Will Not Be Re-elected

I don't personally assign any more or less weight to celebrity political endorsements. I don't favor or disfavor any political candidate or legislation based on what a celebrity says. I also believe celebrities have just as much right to give their opinion as anyone else  - though they need to be mindful if what they say will hurt the people they work with, who might be struggling financially.

That all being said, I think Clint Eastwood's endorsement for Romney spells trouble for Obama. Eastwood has long been involved in politics, even serving as Mayor of a California city. Comedian John Lovitz, a Democrat who voted for Obama, has spoken out against some of Obama's statements, tactics, and policies. Even adult video performer Jenna Jameson, a name known widely even among people who do  not view such material, has endorsed Romney.

Centrists and even people who lean a little Left, people who usually vote Democrat, are thinking a change is needed - and more importantly, they are speaking up about it. Are there prominent Republicans or conservatives speaking up, saying they will vote to give Obama a second term? We could be in Jimmy Carter territory here. To me, it is very telling that someone of Eastwood's stature and entrenchment in politically-active Hollywood is willing to endorse Romney and appear at a Romney fundraiser.

This should give us hope, but not assurance. We must reach out to conservatives and libertarians who are leaning towards not voting at all, or voting for a third party candidate (which would really be a de facto vote to re-elect Obama. We need to reach out to centrists and classical liberals. We need to get the word out, get people registered, and get them excited about voting.

We need to elect Romney, and we need to elect Senators and Representatives who will support limited government policies. This will help the economy to recover. We can make this happen!

Who Will be the GOP Nominee for VP?

What is needed in a VP candidate?

In addition to what I wrote about what I wanted in a Presidential candidate, from a political science consideration, a VP candidate should:

1) Round out the ticket as far as experience and appeal to the electorate. Does the person experience the Presidential candidate doesn't? Does the person appeal to a voting demographic the Presidential candidate isn't reaching, or reaching strongly enough? Will that person help carry states the Presidential candidate might not otherwise carry? Romney was Governor of Massachussetts but has otherwise been a businessman.

2) Be a good prospect to run for President in 8 years and likely to build, rather than shrink, the GOP and its influence. Will the candidate help unite the GOP and motivate the GOP donors and voters? Will he or she help recruit new voters to the GOP?

3) Not leave vacant a critical office that will likely be filled with a Democrat.

4) Make the Presidential candidate look good, rather than overshadowing or embarrassing them. (Of course, Obama still got elected with Biden.)

Call me cynical, but I think it will help if "white, male, Mormon" Romney is also "balanced out" with someone who is "ethnic" and/or female. Sex or ethnic background matters not to me, but apparently it matters to enough voters, and it certainly matters to the media.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has been mentioned a lot. Advantages: experience in the Senate, ability to carry Florida, Cuban/Latino, Roman Catholic and attends a large Evangelical church, young

Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico. Advantages: former District Attorney, ability to carry New Mexico, female, Latina, Roman Catholic.

Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina. Advantages: former legislator, female, daughter of immigrants from India, Methodist with a Sikh background, young, was endorsed by Romney

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Advantages: fomer legislator, entrepreneurial experience, ability to carry Louisiana, son of immigrants from India, Roman Catholic, young

All of them are decidedly conservative, which should motivate conservative GOP voters who think Romney isn’t a solid conservative. It looks to me like any of them would be a great President, and thus would be a great pick to the VP candidate.

What do you think? Am I missing someone?

Fighting the Republican Party Establishment

If you are a registered Republican or usually vote Republican and you're not happy with "the Party Establishment" and their candidate for President...

Don't Snatch Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

I'm going through some of my past postings about why we lost the Presidential election in 2008, and what I thought should be done to win in 2012. What should we have learned from McCain's 2008 loss?

Well, first we need to remember why McCain was the nominee.

McCain was the GOP nominee because he was the most unlike Bush, and Bush, rightly or wrongly, has been effectively trashed in the populace. We knew Bush wasn’t a consistent conservative before he got the nomination in 2000. He’s proved it in his Presidency, and although there has been much he has done right, there have been things that he’s done wrong, or ineffectively, including public relations.

So why did he lose?

Unfortunately, McCain had a hard time winning over the GOP base. His campaign finance reform, which has obviously been ineffective in removing the influence of money from campaigns, had left conservatives with a bad taste in their mouths. Many conservatives and others were also upset with his work on the shamnesty bill for illegal aliens. Instead of having a nominee who offered a clear difference from Obama in that regard, we had McCain. And did it help him or anyone else in the GOP with Latino voters? No! So he lost some of the base and independents, and didn’t gain Latinos.

While McCain touted federalism in some areas that weren’t a major focus in this election, he failed to articulate truly conservative or libertarian positions clearly enough or early enough in the general campaign. That’s because in many areas, he couldn’t without disavowing his own votes and previous positions. Instead, he tried to play Santa Claus. But a Republican can never outpromise the Democrats. The Democrats will always promise more goodies. So to a lot of people, McCain appeared to be doing the same thing Obama was doing – only halfway. And they thought – why go halfway when we can get the genuine (new) deal? Why go for someone who is always "reaching across the aisle" when we can pick someone who is already across the aisle?

We need someone who articulates and has demonstrated clear differences in policy positions from President Obama. Obama is vulnerable.

McCain also lost because he wanted to run a nice, respectful campaign that would be applauded by the MSM once it was over, instead of running a campaign that would win. For far too long, he was busy disavowing comments from his own supporters instead of focusing on the weaknesses of Obama.

The GOP contenders need to keep that in mind.

What we need now is for Republicans to be Republicans. We need them to fight for limited government, federalism, and sticking to the Constitution. We need them to fight for fiscal responsibility.

We need Republican candidates and leaders to do those things in a way that lets the voters see why it is the best way to go.

Replacing Obama

Many people naively voted for Obama because they believed the hype and that what they didn’t like about how things were was primarily Bush’s fault. Obama was oversold. They thought Obama is going to wave a magic wand and make their lives better. They thought he was going to create cushy, high-paying new jobs for them, or hand them a prestigious diploma for free, or that he'd bring about world peace and no American soldiers would be wounded or killed, that he'd end pollution and global warming, make the dolphins and polar bears happy, end racism and homophobia, make abortions a pleasant and painless experience with no negative consequences ever, and give them a big new house for cheap, punish the unfairly rich, cure cancer and AIDS and provide top-notch medical care for free, and that everything was going to be just one huge party and lovefest across America and around the world. He was going to cure lepers and turn water into wine.

The Occupy movement is largely resulting from that.

Don't antagonize these people. Don't call them stupid. Don't badmouth Obama in front of them.

There are better ways to turn them into the conservative voters of the future.

Feel free to let them vent about Obama.

Show interest in their hopes, their dreams, their expectations, and their thoughts (if they have any).

If you followed the advice I gave on November 6, 2008, you would have documented and kept their exact expectations that they expressed to you back then.

If you didn't do that, you should be able to dig up stuff online listing Obama's promises.

We knew Obama wouldn't be able to do a lot of the things he promised. We also knew he was going to make some things worse.

So, our jobs from now until Election Day in November 2012 is this. We're going to check in on those 2008-was-their-first-time-voting Obama supporters – talking about current events and what is going on – specifically, asking them questions and making sure they've been paying attention. This is very easy on some of the social networking sites.

Don't let them forget their expectations or the promises of Obama and the Democrats.

Remember – be gentle and respectful, but firm. Don't be nasty and drive them away, but don't let them wiggle out of the logical conclusions.

Often, you are going to have to link them to info from sources that favor limited government, federalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and so forth – sources that actually take the Constitution seriously and might even mention now and again that this is the greatest country in the world. There are plenty of such sources that are clear, calm, and reasonable and avoid taking a tone that turns off those who might not automatically agree at first glance or hearing – sources with a lot of credibility. If the person has indicated that they voted for Obama, at least partially, because of his parentage/skin color, be sure to use Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, and Thomas Sowell as sources, among others.

Don't accept a dismissal such as "Oh, that’s just an Obama hater." Ask them exactly where and how the source is wrong. Appeal to them to be open-minded and fair.

If you can’t get them to vote for the Republican, perhaps you can get them to vote for a third party candidate or not vote, rather than voting for Obama.

Obama deserves to lose the support of many of the people who voted from him in 2008. If he does lose that support, he will be replaced.

A Sincere Mormon Can Be a Better President Than a Lukewarm Protestant

I'm a follower of Christ – a Christian that some would identify as an evangelical Protestant. I believe the core essentials of the historic Christian faith – the authority of the Bible, the Triune God, the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the reality of sin and what it has done to our relationship with God, and that Jesus Christ lived the perfect life and was crucified in my place, and was resurrected to everlasting life as Lord and Savior, and that He will return at the end of the world as we know it.

It is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints ("Mormonism") teaches things counter to the historic Christian faith. As such, I can't recommend that church to anyone, because their theological philosophy is entirely different, including believing in the existence of many gods, believing that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are three separate Gods, believing that men can become gods, that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross wasn't enough to make us right with God, and that the Bible is one of four books of holy scripture, the Book of Mormon being the "most correct".

All of that being said, I could support a sincere Mormon for President. Why? Because it is the office of President, not my church pastor. While I think the LDS church leadership is dead wrong about Jesus Christ and the nature of God, it promotes conservative values, clean living, thinking about eternal consequences, being prepared for the future, and American exceptionalism. For those reasons, I would prefer a sincere Mormon who believes in limiting government to a liberal Protestant churchgoer (or someone steeped in "Black Liberation" theology) who either doesn't "get it" when it comes to a personal relationship with Jesus or simply refuses to commit to Jesus as Lord and Savior. What good is sitting in church every week if you refuse to sincerely seek God's guidance and holiness, or if you see the government as a better way to solve social ills than churches?

I want a President who truly believes he or she is accountable to God for their actions, and can't really ever "get away" with anything. I want a President who understands that personal morality matters, and more moral we all are, the better off we'll be. I want a President who sees the U.S.A. as special and seeks to keep the country special through excellence. I want a President who knows what the role of government should and should not be in our lives.

If Romney is the GOP nominee, I will support him. Will I support Romney in the primary? Depends on my choices when California votes.

Republicans, especially those who are evangelical Christians, need to ask what they want to accomplish with this next election cycle. Would we rather have a candidate for President who shares our theology, religious practices, and every major political viewpoint at the expense of losing? Or do we want to replace Obama with someone who is more capable, more conservative, and who believes more in American ideals and the American people, at the expense of ideological or theological purity or agreement?

Jesus did not call perfect men who would always agree with Him to be His close disciples, and He was building a church. We should not expect a perfect person to take the political position of Presidential candidate. And make no mistake - someone needs to be a great Presidential candidate before they can be a good President, and a great candidate attracts and inspires more than just conservative Republicans. They get the votes of others, too.

Greg Koukl Effectively Defends Marriage

For a while now, I've been meaning to call attention to the podcast of the July 3, 2011 "Stand to Reason" program, hosted by Greg Koukl. The podcast is nearly three hours long. Towards the end of the first hour, the issue of neutering marriage comes up, and much of the rest of the program deals with that, per the callers.

Koukl's commentaries are:
Are Christianity and Patriotic Expressions Compatible?
Is America a Christian Nation?
Atheists: Freedom from Religion

The caller topics are:

What is the difference between objective and situational ethics?
How can we move the public debate on same-sex marriage to the merits of the argument instead of slogans?
Same-sex marriage is fair.
Does the Bible teach relativism?
In favor of same-sex marriage
The definition of marriage has changed and should continue to change.
Why do Christians not observe the Sabbath on Saturday?
Americans shouldn't be forced to accept same-sex marriage.
Will same-sex marriage lead to polygamy?
How can we know what the Holy Spirit is teaching us?

Here's the MP3.

Here is a larger file version, the Enhanced Podcast (AAC format - chapters and higher-res audio).

Here is the M3U format.

Koukl is fond of using sound reasoning and logic, and does so effectively in the defense of marriage.

How to Call Talk Radio

My humble suggestions are now here on this page.