Archive for election 2008

A President and Vice President For Our Time

Posted in Elections, politics with tags , , on October 31, 2008 by nighttwister

Today, we again find ourselves at a crossroads. The administrations of the Presidents since Reagan have worked to erode our freedom and opportunity since that time. Thankfully, our current President has kept us safe and fought against terrorism for the past eight years. His tax cuts have led to unprecedented growth and opportunity, but uncontrolled spending has brought us to the brink of financial disaster. Added to this are the socialist policies of the democrat party that have sought to completely undermine our financial system. Rather than acknowledge this, they seek to not only continue these policies, but to nationalize the financial institutions that are no longer solvent due to those policies.

The choice before us today is clear. We can choose to be led by a man without experience, who has been a part of the implementation of the very policies that has devastated our economy, who has never been proud of America, who pals around with domestic terrorists, who’s campaign has been involved in or turned a blind eye to corruption and hatred, and who offers only unspecified Hope and Change. If you listen closely, you’ll find out what that represents. Higher taxes, government handouts for people that don’t participate in the system, and a significant reduction of our freedoms.

Or we can chose to be led by a man that loves his country. This man has fought and sacrificed for his country his entire life. He’s made friends and foes on both sides of the aisle, but has always placed the good of his country over his own. A man with his qualifications and experience could have made millions in the private sector, but such a man is not motivated by money or power, but by love of country. This man is John Sidney McCain III. His campaign slogan says it clearly:

John McCain is the right man, at the right time, to make our nation great again. His priorities perfectly fit our needs at this critical time. John McCain will win the war, keep our nation safe, reduce government waste, eliminate the pork, stimulate our economy which will create jobs, and protect lives. Protecting lives includes those of our military, people at home and abroad, and most importantly, those that cannot defend themselves.

This leads me to John McCain’s most important decision; who would he select to fight this battle with him? There are those that would say words and rhetoric are most important. Those of us that have been around for some time know differently. We recognize that our even our children do not evaluate us based on what we say, but rather what they see us do. John McCain selected a running mate who shares his vision and hopes for America. Someone who has already reformed the government of one of our important States, and who has a genuine love for Country and for those who have challenges we cannot comprehend. This woman is Sarah Louise Heath Palin.

Sarah Palin’s rise has been fast and eventful. She took on the entrenched powers in both political parties in Alaska, reformed and cleaned up the government there (making enemies on both sides of the aisle along the way) to become one of the most popular Governors in the nation. At a time when less than 20% of the nation thinks our current leaders are taking us in the right direction, over 80% of those in Alaska believed Palin was doing the job the people sent her there to do.

More than this however, McCain’s selection of Palin shows that he is committed to the conservative principles of life and freedom that we hold dear. Her choice to bring her child to term, even with the knowledge that he would suffer from the terrible disability of Downs Syndrome, shows her commitment to the sanctity of all life. She has already shown on the campaign trail that she will work hard to be an advocate and voice for those that do not have one on their own.

John McCain is the right man at the right time for our nation. He will lead our nation with honor and keep us that shining beacon on a hill. Sarah Palin is the right woman for now, and for our future.

I hope you will join me in voting for McCain/Palin for President and Vice President of the United States on November 4th, 2008.

Night Twister

What’s a Conservative to Do?

Posted in Economy, Elections, First Amendment, Fred(!), Hillary, immigration, John McCain, Mitt Romney, politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , on February 8, 2008 by Randy Streu

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Fred Thompson bow out of the race.  A heavy heart as I finally made the decision on Super Tuesday to vote for the nearest candidate left to a true conservative: Mitt Romney.

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Romney get his ass handed to him on Tuesday, and then read his concession speech today.

It was with a heavy heart that I read John McCain’s speech to Conservatives, and began to understand that this arrogant SOB is the only chance we have left against a Dem-led White House.   The speech in which he acknowledged his differences with Conservatives on particular issues, but then dismissed those issues as unimportant.  Issues like the First Amendment and border security.  Issues like the Bush tax cuts. 

To his credit (I guess), McCain did not apologize for his decisions in these matters — merely acknowledged that they failed to line up with the views of the Conservative base.  He still believes the Conservative base is wrong on these issues.  He fails to see how McCain-Feingold attacks the fundamentals of Free Speech.  He promises constructionist judges — but won’t say how he will find judges who are both “strict constructionists” and will uphold McCain-Feingold (because such individuals don’t exist — the two are mutually exclusive.  This leads one to wonder, then, which ideal will be the guiding principle).  He promises to secure the borders first, if elected, but will not backtrack on McCain-Kennedy amnesty for those already living illegally within our borders.  He has not acknowledged any wrongdoing regarding his blatant and false smear against Romney on the Iraq issue.

Today, he said the right things.  I am not convinced — and don’t expect I will be — that he is the right man.

But, we conservatives are told, now is not the time to “abandon” the Republican party.  Now is not the time to let our principles stand in the way of a Republican victory.  There’s a war on, after all, we’re told.  An economy that threatens to collapse.  Could we be so callous, so … so selfish, that we would sacrifice the US to the will of the Democrat party, simply to “make a point?”

So, with a pat on the head (or a smack on the face), we’re told to hang on to those principles until 2012, perhaps.  Or maybe 2018.  The Republicans haven’t abandoned Conservatism, we’re told.  But we really need a win right now.  And if we Conservatives weren’t so damned picky, we could have this thing in the bag.

Fine… so we hang our ideals and vote for McCain.  We beat the Democrats.  And then what?  When do the Conservatives get their party back?  When do get to fight for our own values without being labeled as “traitors” to the party that is even now betraying us?  When do we get to fight the leftward motion of the Republican party, or failing that, leave?  2012?  Assuming there isn’t a similar crisis that demands our loyalty?

McCain spent the last few years of his career betraying Conservatives.  Now he’s asking for our loyalty?  How many times does this dog have to bite before we’re allowed to put it down?

I haven’t yet made up my mind about whether McCain gets my vote in November.  I know he’s not getting my money.  He hasn’t earned my support.  He hasn’t yet earned my vote.  A few paragraphs of pretty words and a call for Conservatives to make nice doesn’t undo McCain-Feingold, or the Gang of 14, or his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, or McCain-Kennedy.  The looming spectre of a Democrat president may well be enough to scare me into pulling the McCain lever.  But neither McCain nor his supporters should make the mistake of taking the vote as anything other than that.

It’s not a mandate to continue pulling the crap he’s been pulling.  It’s not an invitation to urinate all over Conservative principles in the interest of “bipartisanship.”  Conservatives aren’t voting for the Maverick.  They’re voting against the Democrats, plain and simple.  It’ll be a hollow victory for all involved, if victory it is.  A marriage of convenience with divorce looming ever-so-near on the horizen.

So congratulations to John McCain.  He may or may not get my vote, but he has effectively won the nomination.  He hasn’t won my mind.  He hasn’t won the heart and soul of the Republican party.  In spite of the fact that most Conservatives can’t stomach the man, he has a victory.  Maybe it’ll be enough.  Maybe fear of Hillary and Obama will be enough to unite and mobilize the Republican voters.  It’ll have to be.  Because McCain isn’t.

Giuliani and Edwards Steppin’ Off

Posted in Elections, Giuliani, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, News, politics, Ron Paul, taxes with tags , , , , , on January 31, 2008 by Randy Streu

John Edwards has finally decided that coming in third in every single contest bodes ill for his White House dreams, and has decided to stop using his own and donor money on campaigning.  You can’t argue with the wisdom of the decision, but it does leave something of a void in the Democratic primary.  Who will publicly tell Hillary what her next big proposal should be, so she looks like a leader?  Who will be the Dems’ “Nice hair” guy?  Who will IMAO make gay jokes about?

Edwards may have seemed like the single least influential candidate (who actually mattered) on the Dem side, but I’m not sure that’s the case.  My hunch is, he’s going after a cabinet position, or even the VP spot.  I just wonder if he’ll keep playing Hillary’s Svengali now that we can’t hear him anymore.

On the Republican side, surprising absolutely nobody, Giuliani’s Florida-only campaign policy was a miserable failure, and he took solice in the arms of John McCain.  Funny… I didn’t know RINOs moved in herds.  I suppose Huckabee’ll be along shortly.

Confusingly (though not surprisingly), Ron Paul continues to both raise and waste tons of money on his freight train to nowhere.

I grow daily stronger in my conviction to vote for none of these clowns in the Primary.  We’ll have to see what the GE has in store.  I can pull the lever for Romney, and even feel okay about it.  I may have to be enticed with food to leave my couch if McCain gets the nod.


I’ve Come To A Decision

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, Ron Paul with tags , , , on January 23, 2008 by Randy Streu

I’ve been pretty down since Fred Thompson’s announcement to end his bid for the Presidency yesterday (Tuesday).  I won’t go into it again; I explained my reasoning already.  I’ve been doing a lot of thinking since then — sadly, I don’t have the luxury of a brain that turns off.  I’ve considered the possibilities of where to go from here, considered turning my support to the second-best candidate, Mitt Romney, and I’ve reached my decision:  I’m voting for Fred Thompson on Super Tuesday.

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc., may well get to determine who winds up as the Republican nominee for President, but they don’t get to determine how I vote.  I helped draft Fred(!), signed the petition, and have had every intention of voting for Fred in the Primary — and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let anyone change my mind but me.

As Thompson said himself, this isn’t about Fred Thompson.  It never has been.  It’s not about me, or you, or Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee.  It’s not even about Hillary Clinton.  It’s about principle.  It’s about standing up for Conservatism.  And now, even more than that, it’s about a primary system that is flawed and only becoming more so.  As I said above, these early-voting states shouldn’t get to determine who the rest of us vote for.

For me, personally, it’s about voting for the candidate I want to win.  People have said we don’t vote for ideas, and that’s at least partially true.  You can’t put an idea in office.  What you can do is vote for the candidate who most accurately reflects those ideas.  That candidate, for me, is Fred Thompson. 

I will vote for Thompson in the Primary and, probably, in the General Election — unless something very big happens between now and then to change my mind.  But I’m tired of holding my nose.  I’m tired pulling the lever for a candidate simply because he’s “better than the other guy (or lady).”  This year, I’m voting for the man I want to see in the White House.

I say that to say this: Rombots, Huckabelievers, McCainiacs, Ronulans — all due respect, your guy’s not getting my vote, so don’t bother.  I’m voting for the man I believe is the best candidate — and that’s a right Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina can’t take away from me.


Choosing The President Based on Amending The Constitution?

Posted in abortion, Constitution, Elections, Fred(!), Mike Huckabee, politics with tags , , , , , on January 17, 2008 by Randy Streu

This election season has seen more than its share of candidates vowing to “create Constitutional amendments” that will do … well, whatever: end abortion, ban gay marriage, permanently end the income tax, or what have you.  These promises have certainly proved beneficial for those candidates making them — and somewhat detrimental to those who refuse to.

But these promises, unfortunately, are less than empty.  This is true for two reasons, both of which have to do with how an amendment comes to be.

First, the proposed amendment has to garner a 2/3 majority vote in the Legislature.  Never happen — especially when you consider what those proposed amendments would be.  The amendments in question this year are largely Republican-oriented; bans on gay marriage and abortion.  Even if 2/3 of the Legislature was Republican (which it isn’t, and I’d wager won’t be, certainly for the next eight years), not all Republican representatives would agree to vote for them.  So, barring slipping Sodium Pentathol into the Congressional coffee urns, it’s unlikely any proposed amendment would even pass this first step.

But let’s, for the sake of argument, pretend that whatever needed to happen, happened, and that some amendment — let’s say a Family Protection Amendment to ban gay marriage — did pass the first test.  Now, it has to go through the Legislative houses of every state, and garner a majority vote there for ratification (by 3/4 majority of the states).  This, of course, is a process which could take years.  For example, Amendment 27, restricting pay raises for congress, was proposed in 1789, and not ratified until 1992.  Granted, this is an extreme case, but you see the point.

Does anyone (Mike Huckabee, for example) honestly believe that such contested ideas as the gay marriage ban and abortion ban will even get to the ratification level — let alone pass?

Fred Thompson has been ostricized by neo-con activists such as James Dobson for no other reason, frankly, than being a realist.  There are other, better ways to fight abortion.  Ways that could actually work.  But it starts with good judges. 

The promises to pass amendments, as dear as these are to the hearts of many conservatives, are simply empty words.  And the sooner voters understand that, the better.


2008: A Showcase for Democrat Elitism and Racism

Posted in Elections, Hillary, John Edwards, News, politics, taxes with tags , , , , on January 14, 2008 by Randy Streu

As per usual with Democrats, Obama, Edwards and Clinton are playing the game of “who panders better,” most recently, with the black population.  I’m not going to say too much about this article.  I’d prefer to let these idiots just fight it out amongst themselves.  But this does help to highlight the elitism that pervades the platform of the new “progressive” (read: regressive) Democratic party.  Now, just for point of reference, I’m not referring to traditional Democrats, many of whom, though wildly incorrect in their perceptions of government, did much to bring about equal treatment (I don’t say equality, because equality is a quality of the person, and not of perception) between races.

I’d love to know when the “reverend” Sharpton and others are going to realize that such Democrats are not only not color blind, but that many are, in fact, racists who seek to create and exploit perceptions of incompetence in the black community.  I don’t add Obama to this last, for obvious reasons, but would suggest that he, like Sharpton, has been duped into believing African Americans, for some reason, need federal assistance for their lives, where white people don’t. 

It’s a reintroduction of inequality:  not reversed racism as many would label it, but a “compassionate” version of racism, wherein a group is considered unable to perform at the same level as another group, prompting the “more able” group to try to “help” the “less fortunate” group.  The black community ought to be disgusted by this Ivy League elitist nonsense. 

Now, unlike John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, Obama’s pretty new to this scene, and I don’t know much about him.  I do know that, policy-wise, he’s just as dangerous as the others, and just as socialist.  To be honest, I think Obama, in his own way, is a good man, with good intentions.  He’s just wrong in how he’s going about it.  But this is just my perception.  I don’t spend a lot of time getting to know most of the Dems at this juncture, because I’m not voting in the Dem primary, and I don’t really care.  Yet.  If Obama pulls a full primary win, however, you can bet I’ll be taking a far more in-depth look at the guy.

In the meantime, though, I’ll take a quick look at the elitism of Herself, and also Hilly Clinton. 

First, Edwards.  Though he’s not demonstrably racist, that I’ve seen, I find his attitude on poor people almost comedic.  Anybody who works for a mortage firm “to learn more about” poor people, clearly has the silver spoon planted too firmly in the brainpan.  That’s like working at the Food Network to learn more about world hunger.  More than this, though, you see this elitist attitude present in Edwards’ (and Clinton’s for that matter) policies.  The endless handout-based welfare policy should really be read by the average voter to mean, “here, poor dumb voter… I know you are incapable of taking care of yourself… allow the government to do it for you.”

As Reagan was noted for saying, the most frightening phrase in the English language is, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Clinton’s own elitism, though, is more obvious — not only in her policies (which she pretty much shares with Edwards), but in her clear pandering.  The speech below should have offended, pissed off and driven away listeners.  But then, perhaps the constant Democrat assault on personal identity and individual self-respect has so worn people down that they actually feel “honored” by this display. 

Wake up, people.  You don’t have to pander to people you respect.

Can Thompson Rally the Party — and more importantly, the Country?

Posted in Elections, Fred(!), politics with tags , , on January 11, 2008 by Randy Streu

Last night’s debate was a revelation to many people who have just started paying attention to this race to the White House.  After months and weeks and days of being told by the MSM that Fred(!) Thompson barely existed on the Presidential Radar, that he had “no fire in the belly,” and that his campaign was all but over, his performance last night made people sit up, take notice and, I’d imagine, ask the question “hey, what the hell have you media guys been talking about?”

The debates up to now have been, for the most part, lackluster for every candidate — the “winner” mostly undetermined, and certainly not agreed upon on any mass level.  Largely, it came down to who people already supported (or sort of supported) or else who’s performance was the least mediocre.  Though Fred won a few of these debates, it wasn’t, for the most part, the inspiring performance his supporters knew was in the offing.

Last night, Thompson became the first in this race to offer a clear, commanding and decisive win — a win reflective of, and worthy of, the man himself.  And people noticed.  Last night, when it counted, America saw the leader they could have in Fred Thompson.  A strong voice for common sense, conservatism and pride in our country.

Can Fred Thompson unite this divided nation?  I say he can — and I say he will, given the opportunity.  When he speaks from the heart (which always passes through his brain on the way out), Thompson has the uncanny knack to provide something long-missing in much of America: Pride.  Thompson, like Reagan did before him, makes us feel good about being Americans.  And I think Americans are tired of being told half-truths and outright lies designed to make our country look bad. 

Is Thompson Reagan?  No.  Hell, not even Ronald Reagan was “Ronald Reagan.”  In the way of all legends, the myth of Reaganism, grounded as it is in Truth, is bigger than any man could ever be — including the Gipper himself.

I think America is tired of being dragged down by those who want to see us fail.  I think we’re ready to feel proud to be Americans.  We’re ready for a rallying point — And I believe that rallying point is Fred Thompson.