Herman Cain.

I've refrained from saying anything much about Herman Cain recently, because despite my reservations, I generally like his personality and policies, and I wanted to see what happened before I jumped to any judgements or conclusions.  I don't like to be a party pooper, the only person saying that something people are excited about won't work like they hope  ...  goodness knows I get enough of that as a conservative.  I also don't want to get into unpleasant conversations for expressing those views  ...  goodness knows I get enough of that as a conservative, too.                     

That said, I really want to raise two concerns I have with Cain's candidacy.  

1)  Electability:  Herman Cain is our least electable candidate.  He has no political experience, no law degree and no foreign policy experience.  His affable country-boy mannerisms, while appealing in a person, will not play well against Obama's "eloquence," however contrived that might be.  They will also not be effective in Washington;  they destroyed Jimmy Carter because of those mannerisms, and they agreed with him.  Imagine what they will do to someone they disagree with.  He's also made some blunders in the past few days, and that comes with the inexperienced territory (saying he wouldn't support Perry if he became the nominee, some accidental misstatements, claiming he could get 1/3 of the Black vote, and then clumsily calling Black's brainwashed [he should have said something similar which showed empathy and compassion, and couldn't be construed as an insult]).  Now if Cain does, indeed, get elected (and Obama's disapproval is low enough that he might), I really had concerns about his ability to be effective in Washington DC (the Carter thing, for instance); it is a shark tank, after all.  After consideration, though, I've decided that because he's chosen Newt Gingrich as his running mate, he's got political savvy on the ticket, and if he had Thaddeus McCotter behind him as Speaker of the House, he might just be pretty good.  So I've revised my view on his potential effectiveness while in office, but I still really worry about his electability in the first place.                             

2)  The reason for people's excitement:  This one isn't exactly a concern I have with his candidacy, but it is an issue I want to address, in fact a more important one than the other.  Now we conservatives have been called racists a lot recently (most likely in person as well as on the media), like, a lot, and it sucks.  It's instilled in us a desire to prove them wrong, and a desire to throw that back in their face.  It seems like having a black conservative candidate (and one actually descended from Slaves) would be the way to do that.  It is not.  I cannot emphasize that enough.  The left has been working on its rhetoric for half a century, we are not going to be able to overcome it.  You don't fight fire with fire, especially if your opponent has a flame thrower and you're sitting there banging two rocks together.  We don't use that kind of rhetoric (because we are too good), and we do not vote in candidates because of race (for the same reason).  We should not do it now.  They have the experience on their side, and they have the media and pop culture on their side.  They will win that battle, and if you still don't think so, look at what they did to Clarence Thomas, a self-made, intelligent, conservative, Black man who became supreme court justice, and who they went after with everything they had (and then they complained that Clinton was being treated like the "first black president" when he was caught doing everything Thomas had been wrongfully accused of and worse).  And speaking of "first black president," the novelty has worn off, no one will be impressed.  We will be the party who copied the democrats to cover up our racism (they implied it with Sarah Palin as a VP nominee, even though Geraldine Ferraro was way back in 1984).  We won't win this battle by proving them wrong, we will win it by calling them out on what they're doing, which is to try to divide the country so that people forget what America is built on and stands for, paving the way for them to increase their power.                                                       

Our greatest strength as right wingers is our belief in American ideals, and hope for America as, as Reagan so eloquently put it, a "shining city on a hill."  To win, we need someone who has that vision and can articulate it and how we get there.  Oddly enough, that's also exactly the person we are going to want to elect as Republicans.         

CNN/Tea Party Express Debate Reflections.

Last night was the Republican debate hosted by CNN and the Tea Party Express.  I'd say that, though the debate still suffered from the critical flaw of the other debates of excluding some candidates while giving a platform to others, I'd say it was better than the others.  Another thing I get really tired of in the debates, this and others, was the constant bickering between candidates ("I created more jobs" "No I did" "Nuh uh!"  "Uh huhhhhh!!"), very juvenile.  At points, though, it really gave insight into some of the candidates, with substantial issues (thank you Tea Party) and revealing questions for the most part.  I wouldn't say that any candidate actually won the debate, but if Americans will critically examine and evaluate the statements they made in the debate, America could be the true winner, because it's not enough to choose the candidate that the media tells us can beat Obama, we need one whose policies are substantially different and significantly better.  That said, here's what I took away from each candidate's performance at the debate.                                                                  

Rick Perry:  After this debate, I can't even see how Rick Perry could even be a contender.  Though his performance early in the debate was strong, throughout the debate he said that he supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, that fortifying the border was essentially impossible (though he said otherwise the debate before), that he would not repeal obamacare, and that "he was sorry" for the Gardasil vaccine executive order (it's easy to say that in a debate, though, and he could just as easily not mean it as mean it).  Furthermore, corruption accusations were very convincinglyl raised by Michelle Bachman, and his only response was that Merck had only contributed $5000 (of $30 million) to his campaign (without even addressing the chief-of-staff part of the issue).  Though that was intended to show how ridiculous the statement is, it just sounded like he thought that wasn't enough to buy him off.  No moral indignation, just "They only donated $5000, that's nowhere near enough."                                              

          But, they say, Perry can win, and beating Obama is what we need.  Well, even if that were true, how much better is it to have a Republican who supports illegal immigration, won't repeal obamacare, and has the potential to overuse executive orders than it is to have Obama?  All of the worst things about Obama, we still get.  Oh, yes, *perhaps* he will lower taxes, and *perhaps* the economy and job market will improve (and as a recent graduate looking for a job, I realize the value of this), but America will continue to go down the wrong path, fast (and as an American who wants to actually live here, I realize that the danger of this is much worse than any recession could ever be).  It is not worth the idea that maybe he's more electable to choose the single worst candidate of the group.  And is he actually more electable?  You don't know anything about him.  Anyone who reads his book ends up disliking him, which indicates that the more you know Perry, the less you will like him, and the less electable he will be.  Furthermore, if allegations of corruption are emerging already, it's too probable that something which shows him to be so corrupt as to be unelectable will emerge after the primaries when we have no other choice except to vote third party, splitting the Republican vote and ensuring another Obama victory.  Perry is promoted by the media, sure, but he is standing on the edge of not one but multiple cliffs, and he could fall apart as quickly as he has come into the spotlight.  I actually see him as potentially the least electable of all of the candidates.                       

Mitt Romney:  He did a good enough job in the debates, but has nothing in his past which would indicate that he would govern according to the principles he now claims to espouse.  Electability?  Probably the highest on this list, but that does not mean high enough to win.                  

Michelle Bachman:  She did an excellent job last night (and she, thankfully, raised issues which need to be raised, really her performance was great), but she can't be called a winner, really, because she is already too weak.  Even if she strengthens, she'll be unelectable because the left will just throw a select set of quotes and soundbytes at her until people will not vote for her.  Those statements will alienate everyone who is even on the fence about her.              

Newt Gingrich:  Greg Gutfeld said it best, albeit after the MSNBC debate:  "Newt is really on point. Too bad about the "him being Newt" thing."  Once upon a time he was good, but now he has no real credibility.  No one takes him seriously, he will not be elected.                    

Rick Santorum:  Pretty solid performance, though he doesn't manage to catch enough attention to be a serious contender.  I'd be inclined to look more into him.  I hear that he'll always be labelled un-electable because he was defeated as an incumbent, but I'm not sure.                                

Jon Huntsman:  I'd talk about how unconservative he is, but he's not even relevant anymore.    

Herman Cain:  I like Herman Cain.  He seems like a genuinely nice person with conservative ideals and values, and who I'd love to discuss politics with, but he's not presidential enough, and he was totally silent during the whole foreign policy section of the debate, as I suspected he would be, because he is focused solely on one thing:  supporting small businesses.  That's valuable, but not the only thing or even the most important thing you deal with as president.  He needs to be convincing on foreign policy as well, and he was silent.  He's not electable, either, because he does not act "presidential," a lot of people simply will not vote for him.                 

Ron Paul:  Ron Paul is nothing if he isn't consistent.  You can trust him to follow his ideology and ideas, whether they're popular or not.  You can trust him to give a substantial response to a question, whether or not you agree with it.  That's a valuable asset, and not one all of the candidates share (perhaps not one other on that stage, actually).  His foreign policy statements yesterday were undeniably problematic, even distasteful, and though I'd never excuse such comments, at least he wasn't just catering his message to his audience.  Electable?  I don't know.  If he could win the Republican nomination, he could win the presidency I think.                                      

As time goes by, debates go on, people start hoping that more people will get into the race.  What they don't know is that there's already a fantastic candidate running, but that he has been pushed out by the media, and his name is (I'm saying it again because it is so, so important.  We need a better candidate than they're offering us, and this is a better candidate) Thaddeus McCotter.  If you want more info, visit my wall, visit his facebook page, visit his twitter, or visit his youtube channel.  If you're waiting for something better, stop waiting, and start helping it to become a reality.  We need you, America needs you.            

Ponzi Scheme.

Rick Perry's Ponzi Scheme comment was an extremely well played move in the game that this election has turned into, and it worked.  It wasn't a statement of conviction or belief; it was just a statement like politicians make.  It served a purpose in getting him elected, though it really gave no indication of how he intends to govern as president.  It was a controversial enough statement that everyone could pitch in and give their opinion on it, and he knew that the majority of his base would agree with him.                

The fact that it is controversial would, and did, cause it to be picked out as the line of the debate that everyone discussed afterwards, and the fact that most of the GOP base was united in his favor, against people who will not have much say in the outcome of the primary, but who will in the general election, would cause everyone to feel that they were on his side, though we know very little about him as a candidate (those who have read his book, Fed Up, excepted).  We do know that in the last debate, he defended in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, and rejected the notion of a border fence and protection as impossible.  We know that he abused executive orders in the Gardasil case.  These are two big, and one (the illegal immigrant issues) huge problems with Perry, and there could easily be many more, but by making one statement that people can really get behind him on, he's able to draw attention away from all of those issues and problems and gain support.                               

The primary is not a game, the election is not a game.  It is the future of this country.  Perry is standing so precariously on the edge of so many cliffs it's scary.  There is little reason to think he can win an election, and there's little reason to think he would govern well if he did.  Speaking as someone who's seen it happen (in Colorado, and talk of it in the last presidential election), the Democrats will try to pull out some corruption issue too near to the election for the GOP candidate to overcome it, and Perry could easily fall in that trap.  He could lose a lot of the GOP base and he won't appeal very strongly to people outside of it.  If nothing else, we just don't know him well enough to get behind him this early on.  We as a people have a tendency to project what we want to see on candidates we know little enough about that we can, but that doesn't make them the person we see them as, it just makes them more likely to be something we would not have imagined, and if we don't find out before it's too late, the country will be in serious trouble.  This kind of talk and manipulative behavior is how we wind up with the kind of politicians we wind up with, egotistical and ideologically weak who see themselves as our masters and the people they work for as the elite, Washington, and special interests, rather than ones with ideological purity and conviction, who see themselves as the founding fathers envisioned them, the servants of the people and nothing more.                                  

On the other hand, Thaddeus McCotter has actually introduced legislation to try to fix Social Security, substance over style, but the MSM has taken every opportunity it could to shut him out of the debate, discussion, and election itself.  We have the chance and ability to choose the right candidate, but will we?  Or will we continue to let those who see themselves as the "elite" choose for us?    

Bipartisanship, the South and Voting Outcome...

Firstly, I'd like to start the post off with a commemoration of 9/11.  I can't believe it's been nine years since that day, because it is still so vivid in America's memory.  What happened that day and through the following weeks was unbelievable on every level, so horrific, with such acts of heroism, and such unity of the country, truly a day that shaped the future of America and the world.     

The Myth of Bipartisanship: 

The Democrats have been calling for bipartisanship recently.  The thing is that this bipartisanship, in their minds, means that they still get to do exactly what they want to, which is expand the role of the government.  They're calling for the Republicans to come over to their side without giving any significant concessions to the other side, and even if they did, it would be at too great an expense to the overall republican ideology to pass the bills they want passed.  Essentially what it boils down to is that Obama and the Democrats' idea of bipartisanship, one which they so aggressively call for and criticize others for not following, is that they will do exactly what they want, only a little bit slower.  That's ridiculous. 

Voting: 

I hear all this talk about person versus party.  Do you vote for the person or do you vote for the party?  Neither.  You vote for the outcome.  That means you vote for whoever has the best chance of improving the country or the state.  That means that you don't vote for someone solely because they seem like a good person.  You don't vote strictly party line no matter what.  You don't vote for third parties unless there is an overwhelmingly good reason.  It means you get involved early and intensely to get your candidate chosen, and this might be the most important thing you can do.  Primary voting is often overlooked and is incredibly important.  Then, during the final election, you vote for the best outcome.  Chances are you might not like either candidate, but you vote for the outcome.  There was a great South Park episode where Stan wondered what the point of voting was if it was "between a douche and a turd," and the reason to vote is that voting is your way of shaping the future of the country, it is your input into what will be the outcome, and the politicians are just the middle man in that step, you could say, using a pun I have used before, that they are just tools.  They are not a higher class of people and should not be treated as such, and you don't vote for the person you like best or who deserves the most respect except to the extent that that person may be more likely to get the policies you want done.               

The South: 

I'm increasingly perplexed as to why the rest of the country wants the South to be a part of America.  It is always belittled, ridiculed, and spoken of and portrayed in a derogatory manner using nothing less than bigotry and stereotypes.  Nothing complimentary is ever said about any of it except perhaps the food which is supposed to be tasty but unhealthy.  Politicians (especially on the democrat side but on both sides) go out of their way to minimize the South's influence and push Southerners to the periphery of their parties, trying to distance themselves from that region of the country.  So why did we fight a war to keep it in?  What reason could you possibly have at this point if the South decided to secede again?  I actually want an answer here.   

Quran Burning ...

So there's this one florida pastor who has a congregation of fifty people in a small church that more resembles a barn in Florida who has announced plans to burn the Quran on September 11, 2010, and no one else in the country agrees with his actions, but for some reason this is the biggest news story of the day. 

Obama called for Americans to  unify as "one nation under God" (man, who knew he knew the pledge of allegiance?), and said there would be increased violence in the Middle East toward our troops if this occurs. 

Mayor Bloomberg of New York said that he had the right to do it, but that it was "distasteful," which is exactly the response people wanted regarding the ground zero mosque.   

Hillary Clinton said that it would inflame tensions in the middle east and endanger muslims abroad. 

Robert Gates said pretty much the same thing. 

General Petreus said that it would put US troops at increased risk. 

The FBI got involved, visiting the church and collecting information relating to his plan (if only they'd done the same for the Ft. Hood shooter ... )

The response wasn't even limited to the governments of the US, state and federal.  Nato even chimed in, its secretary general condemning the act, calling it "disrespectful," and saying it would have a "negative impact" on the security of troops in Afghanistan. 

So did the Vatican!  They called the plans "outrageous and grave."  They also said that “Each religion, with its respective sacred books, places of worship and symbols, has the right to respect and protection."  This prompted some to call them hypocritical in light of history, something which seems to be a recurring theme in this post.   

Then, after a discrepancy in which it was briefly believed that both the Ground Zero mosque and the quran burning were going to be called off, neither was and the mosque's imam said that moving the mosque now would send the wrong message and cause violence in the muslim world (as if he was going to move it before, or didn't realize that it was not a good idea when he announced plans to put it there). 

Finally, muslims from around the world threatened violence if this one man went through with his plan. 

Let's put this in perspective.  This is one man who no one had ever heard of before.  Not only does virtually no one else agree with his plans, and not only do the plans pose no direct threat to anybody, but it is not even a widespread occurrance (which really doesn't matter, as the government is not there to tell citizens what to do as long as it doesn't hurt other people directly), and yet it has made international news and the highest authorities in the world have gotten involved?     

Pastor Jones, himself, said there was a double standard for burning Bibles and American Flags and Qurans, and he said some other stuff but I couldn't find it just now, but essentially the world is trying very hard to prove him right. 

I guess the difference is that radical Christians burn Qurans and radical Muslims burn people. 

Lastly, I would like to make it perfectly clear that, if there are violent protests and innocent people, including our troops, are killed or put in harms way because of this incident, it will absolutely not be the fault of the pastor or the country.  I came to the conclusion a long time ago while reading about the nazi occupation of Poland in WWII, in which the preferred way of keeping order was to kill innocent people when crimes were committed in order to keep the country in line (to the extent that when the Warsaw Uprising occurred, rather than fighting the fighters, the nazis spent most of their time emptying hospitals and churches and killing their occupants), that threats and intimidation do not in any way put the blame for an action on the person being threatened and intimidated.  The fault for killing somebody lies with the killer, and submitting to threats and intimidation is unacceptable.

Legislating Morality ...

Ok, so recently, there have been a few controversies, one of which involves a mosque/muslim community center being built close to ground zero, and another of which involves Dr. Laura saying the n word on the radio. 

I'll address Dr. Laura first.  She said the n word.  On radio.  Multiple times.  Ok, well, firstly, in her defense, she was not calling anyone an n word.  She was saying that the n word gets said on hbo or something.  Then she repeated herself.  Then she repeated herself again.  Also, in her defense, she has done a whole lot worse than saying the n word.  She's been anti parent, anti woman, told little girls they weren't raped when they were.  With that said, I don't know why anyone would say it at this point.  It weakens your point and it offends people.  To defend herself, she said that her first amendment right to freedom of speech included saying that word.  Now, no legal action was taken against her, and it is other people's constitutional right to express being upset with her, including her being fired or whatever, but let's just focus on the defense at this point in time.        

Now for the mosque.  There is a mosque which is going to be built right near ground zero.  The people building it say that they want to promote tolerance and inter-ethnic dialogue.  Actually it has just upset people, 65% of Americans surveyed, to be precise.  Now, why would they be upset?  Because it is insensitive.  It is putting something dedicated to the same thing which 3,000 people were killed in the name of right beside where they died.  It's like putting an eastern orthodox church or or a serbian flag beside Srebrenica, or like putting a German flag over Auschwitz, or a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor, right after WWII.  The two best responses I heard to the controversy were Greg Gutfeld's and Rand Paul's.   
Greg Gutfeld announced plans to open a gay bar catering to Muslims beside the Mosque.  That is brilliant on every level.  There is a severe lack of tolerance in Islam, particularly with regard to gays and women.  If they're going to push our tolerance, perhaps we should push theirs. 
Rand Paul said that, if they really wanted to promote inter-ethnic tolerance and dialogue, the people should have donated money to the 9/11 victims' fund.  That is exactly right.  If you want to get someone to like you, you show sympathy, empathy, and solidarity, not rudely tell them that they should like you.  It works in personal relationships and on larger scale relationships between groups.  You don't tell people what to think of you, you act as the best person you can be and if they don't like you, then it's their problem.                
What's the defense of the mosque/community center?  It's legal.  The constitution gives people the right to worship when and where they choose.           

Sound familiar?  Oh, that's right, Dr. Laura.   Both of them did insensitive and ridiculous things, both claiming to make a point, and both making the opposite point much better than they made their own.  Then both used the constitutional rights that people in the US are supposed to have to defend their actions.  Of course those things are legal, but just being legal doesn't make something right.  At the point where morality and legality become interchangeable, it becomes necessary to make everything which is wrong illegal, to legislate morality.  That is wrong, and should never happen, but living in a free society means you have to take some responsibility for yourself and your actions.  Things which are illegal should be restricted to things which directly take away other people's freedom, but for that to work, legality and morality must be recognized as distinct concepts.        

Obama the Muslim?

No, Obama is not a Muslim.  Obama is a narcissist.  The end.