State of world affairs...

There have been several interesting developments around the world since I last wrote here.

First, Benjamin Netanyahu has been picked to be Israel's next prime minister - and, based on statements by Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak, I have a feeling that the coalition Netanyahu forms will be almost exclusively right-wing. Maybe now they can get somewhere. A lot of places around the internet are talking about how right-wing "Bibi" is, and how he will butt heads with Obama, or that he, in general, is a warmonger not interested in peace.
I disagree on the last one, he is opposed to pieces for peace, popularly known as "land for peace", which basically means Israel forceably removes it's people from land, then turns it over to the Palestinians.
This has been tried now for a several years (in fact he tried it when he was PM before, and then lost power because the right abandoned him) and we have seen where that has gotten Israel.
Rocket attacks from the land they gave the Palestinians, blatant disregard for ceasefires, suicide bombings and a government in Hamas that wants to destroy Israel.


Another interesting thing happened in the Middle East - Iran has enough material for a nuclear warhead! (link)
That probably means (based on how the UN and everybody else has been off on their estimates of Iran's capabilities to date) they have enough for several.
This just days after the UN announced that Iran was slowing expansion of their uranium enrichment program - I wonder why? (link)
To top it all off, Iran has also just recently put a rocket into space. (link)


On a similar note, North Korea is now pushing ahead (again) with a test for a missile supposedly capable of reaching the mainland USA. (link)


So, apparently Obama really wants to fix the economic crisis in the world, so much so that Hillary Clinton made this comment to the Chinese, "Our pressing on those issues [human rights and Tibet] can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis." (link)
So basically - we want you to give us more loans to help us out of our economic rut more than making sure you treat people correctly - as long as we get the money we don't really care where it comes from.
We care more about your looking out for future generations by cutting greenhouse gasses (which might slow global warming, assuming there is a connection, of course) than how you actually treat the current generations.
Finally, we are more concerned with you helping us fight tyranny in other countries than in fighting tyranny in your own.
You know, I am very much against Iran and North Korea, and I do see them as bigger threats to us - but does that really mean we should make friends with tyrants to defeat other tyrants? Haven't we tried that before, and then just had to deal with those tyrants that we were supposedly allied with (you know, Russia, Iran, etc.)?
Clinton did clarify that those issues are still important, but can't interfere with other issues.

Seems like a rather sad state of affairs to me.

Who will be McCain's VP pick...

After Obama picked Biden it has become even clearer that the VP's may well decide this race. With McCain and Obama about even in every poll, it may come down to wh picks the better VP.

I think Biden was the best choice for Obama. For numerous reasons, but for me personally because Biden was my personal favorite of the Dems - which isn't saying much I know. Another reason is his experience will help Obama a lot.

For McCain then it is down to 3 or 4 choices I think.

First, Mitt Romney is the one I personally would like most, or second most. The biggest problem with him, though, is that with McCain hammering Biden about his criticism of Obama and support for McCain, Obama will be able to say the exact same thing about Romney and McCain, as I don't think they really like each other much - and they were very heated during the primaries.
On the good side though, he will certainly help in Michigan, Colorado, Nevada, etc. And you know he would be willing to go toe-to-toe with Biden.

Then you have Tom Ridge. I think this is a very bad idea, mainly because McCain has not assured the vote of a lot of conservatives, and Ridge would only alienate more. The one good thing he brings with him is a good shot at Pennsylvania...

You also have Eric Cantor, I think. He is the other that I would like most. The reason he is better than the other younger possibilities is because he does have some more experience, he will help with the Jewish vote in some places, and because he will help in Virginia, another must-win for McCain. He will also help with conservatives.

Finally, there is the possibility he might pick Pawlenty. I think this would be the worst, as I don't think he'll bring Minnesota, and I don't see what he would bring to the ticket. Also I hear he is not as a good a debater - which the VP must be this time around.

There are probably other choices too, but I think their bad points out-weigh their good ones.
Rudy Giuliani will add nothing but more scandals.
Joe Lieberman will not add anything McCain needs with Republicans - and while he might bring in a few Independents, will that offset the conservatives who could not swallow the Republican party adding a past Democrat and liberal to the ticket?
Palin and Jindal, I think they won't add as much as Cantor - but who knows?
Condi Rice will only draw the parallel to Bush that McCain does not need.

I think Huckabee is also completely out of the question - he would add nothing but more problems with conservatives for McCain.


I think right now, of the choices above McCain should pick Cantor, or Palin.
Pawlenty might help if McCain thinks he really can bring in Minnesota - but I doubt it, and he doesn't strike me as a bulldog that will help outside of Minnesota either.

I think, though, in the end it will be Ridge that he picks. Mainly because he will combat Biden in Pennsylvania and because he has foreign affairs experience, and because of his pro-abortion stance he will help bring in some more of those Clinton supporters who are on the fence. I just hope he doesn't alienate conservatives too much with the choice.

Ok, McCain...

Well - following McCain's speech the other day - I was truly surprised.
He looked strong. He had a vision. He talked about the same change Obama is always throwing out - but also added the specifics on how we will get there.
When I saw him - it was plainly clear he knows where he stands, what he has planned, and how to get there.
He did not look flustered as he has in the past. Nor did he contradict himself - or not make sense.


When Bush spoke before the Knesset it clearly highlighted the differences between the Republicans and Democrats.
Bush said a few very good things - and the Democrats immediately took it as a personal attack against Barack Obama.
Bush merely was stating this to curb future talk of dealing with terrorists at all.
They are radical, fanatical, and want only the destruction of anyone not Muslim - but especially anyone who is Jewish.
They are beyond the understanding of westerners - because they are not acting for political reasons, defensive reasons, or any of the "modern" war-causing issues.
They fight because of their religion - they believe it is so supreme that they must fight to prove it - or they have already failed. You cannot appease or make peace with that.
The only ways to stop it are to utterly destroy it, or for those who profess it to lay it aside in the pursuit of peace.

I was most disappointed in Clinton. Seeing that she is less fanatically against Iraq as Obama, I made the foolish assumption that she would not blast this perfectly reasonable remark from president Bush.
Instead - she appears to maneuvering for the VP spot - thus she cannot very well continue blasting Obama.
McCain on the other hand feels exactly like Bush - and I know will not let Israel down due to political pressure.
I cannot say the same for Hillary or Barack.

While listening to McCain I began to realize that the purpose of the next presidency will focus mainly on the aspects of his platform that are pretty good - and less on the parts that aren't so good.


Hillary is once again looking nasty.
The only change I can see is that I realized, once again, that she was merely trying to come over to the moderate stand-point to get voters.
She has not ever been more conservative than John McCain.
And I am now pretty sure that indeed John McCain will not hinder the conservative movement as much as Hillary Clinton will.
That was the only thing really making me go for Hillary over John McCain to begin with.
I thought that perhaps Hillary would be able to galvanize Republicans into fighting against her - instead of getting some pretty liberal stuff along with the good of John McCain - and not being able to figh tour own candidate as well.



So, again, as it has so often already this campaign season, I have changed my opinion.
I now support John McCain - and will not vote for the Democrats anymore.
If John McCain made the serious blunder of selecting Huckabee (or any of the other moderate/liberal Republicans) I would be forced to look to a third party candidate - or perhaps not vote.

I do not think avoiding voting is the way to go though - as it is a responsibility, and will indeed impact our country.
I will instead eagerly await John McCain VP choice - which I would suggest he make soon - allowing him to make full use of the balancing they would hopefully provide.
I will also look to see who else will be running form the third parties.

Strange indeed...

Well, I'm back now from a break following the buildup and climax of Super Tuesday.
I haven't been posting a lot, but I certainly have been thinking a lot since then.

It is really strange how my opinions on many things have changed since I started this blog - and even since my last post.

I now think, of the three remaining contenders, that Barack Obama is by far the most dangerous.
John McCain, in my opinion, is a loose cannon, and you never know what he is going to do - and may very well be more dangerous to the conservative movement than either of the other two.
Hillary Clinton, seems to me, scarily enough, to be the only one that only looks better and better the more you investigate.

Now, there are few big things there, several of which I never thought any conservative would ever say, let alone me, but here is my reasoning.

Barack Obama speaks in very vague terms, which makes it hard to pin anything specific on him.
The scary thing about him is that he is so believable. He is the Democratic version of Reagan - very believable to everyone, even those outside his own party.
The thing that makes them different is that Reagan spoke in specifics, Obama speaks in generalizations.
Obama has virtually no foreign affairs experience, except his travels, which are not foreign affairs in my opinion.
His version of foreign affairs seems to be that you learn everything you can from these other countries, and then emulate them here, instead of trying to negotiate with other countries to protect the way of life we have now.
He wants us out of Iraq right. now. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
He supports abortion fully.
He is pro gay marriage (in fact some have stated he has had gay relations, but a lot of people seem ro consider anyone who says this to be loony...)
Beyond that, all I can pin him on is that he is rated the "most liberal senator".
Which means he is probably pretty liberal, comparable to Dennis Kucinich?


John McCain has been described as a maverick - that is a perfect description.
How many people know where he really stands on gay marriage? He has proclaimed, in the course of 5 minutes, that his views are in line with both sides of the argument!

How about abortion? He thinks it should be acceptable with no limitations in the case of rape of incest, and doesn't think testing if there actually was a rape is needed. Beyond that, he says he is pro-life, but doesn't seem talk about it a lot.

The economy? He seems to always be saying it is bad, while offering very few solutions. Beyond that, I don't think he is very good on the subject despite his adamant statements that he is (and prior to that "that he is not...").

There seem to only be two things that are clear from his statements:
1: Stay in Iraq, and possibly extend into Iran, while at the same time annoying Russia and anyone else by interfering with them.
2: He contradicts himself way too often to be an effective communicator. I hope it is merely that he doesn't communicate his ideas well, and not that he really doesn't know where he stands on the issues.

Another thing that scares me is that it seems that his entire life since he returned form Vietnam has been all about trying to get into the White House. He went into the House of Representatives very quickly - then to the Senate. He involved himself in as many important issues as he could, trying to get as many bills passed as possible - whether they were liberal, moderate or conservative seems to have had little bearing.
He ran against Bush in 2000, after he lost threatened to leave the party - even meeting with important Democrats about becoming Independent.
In 2004 he offered to run with his close friend, John Kerry, against Bush.
And this election has been a zoo that seems to have been a well-orchestrated attempt at insuring he got the nomination - and I am not being a conspiracy theorist, I will explain.

1. Rudy Giuliani stated throughout his campaign that "If I weren't in the race, I would be supporting McCain".


2. Fred Thompson entered the race at the precise moment when it looked like McCain was done and Giuliani and Romney were the only two serious contenders.


3. Previously, before entering, Thompson had been making phone calls on behalf of McCain, and supporting him.


4. In 2000, Thompson endorsed McCain over Bush, and even became one of his campaign co-chairmen.


5. Huckabee worked with McCain to attack Romney, and defend each other.


6. Thompson and Giuliani seemed to slow there campaigns, and then quit, as soon as McCain began to take a lead.


7. Once it was down to McCain, Huckabee and Romney, McCain and Huckabee began sharing delegates from states, to make sure that one of them would beat Romney. Such as in West Virginia where Romney had nearly 50% on his own (about 45-47%), McCain instructed all of his delegates to go to Huckabee, thus giving him the majority.

While I supported Thompson, that chain of events seems highly suspect, and at the very least rather coincidental.



Hillary Clinton is the Republicans worst nightmare, or so we've been told.
At least with Clinton, you know most of the bad stuff there is to know about her - and it isn't really that much worse than Obama or McCain, in fact, it is often better.

She is not as bad as Obama on most issues - she wants an ordered retreat from Iraq - even stating that we might need to be there until 2010.
She is wishy-washy on things, but no more than McCain who changes his mind mid-sentence more often than he says it right the first time, or Obama who rarely has an opinion at all, let alone a wishy-washy one.

While she is for abortions, she is also for parental notification and against late-term, partial birth abortions.
On immigration she is definitely no worse than the other two, if not better.
On foreign policy - she is not as bad as Obama, but also not so interested as McCain about getting into a world war.

She is indeed bad on gay marriage, but how much worse than the other two?



These issues have raised some interesting questions for me.
While I supported Thompson, I find his actions highly suspicious.
While I never thought I would say this, I'm not sure McCain is better than Hillary.
My views on Obama have gone from the "He seems to be saying good things" to "wow, how did I ever believe him, and not look deeper?"

So, at this point (though it seems my points never last more than a while ;) ) I will vote for McCain over Obama.
But if the Democrats pick Hillary I will need to think a bit more - but I am leaning towards Clinton.

Right now, it looks like Hillary will be both easier for McCain to beat and also better than Obama should McCain lose.

I know that recent polls have shown Hillary shooting up past McCain - but McCain is also not attacking Hillary anymore - so I'm not sure how much I would trust those numbers.

If McCain picks Huckabee as his running mate - or any other moderate VP - I will not be voting Republican.
Whether I would go to Hillary, or vote third-party, I don't know, but McCain is scary enough as is, we don't need them together...

The candidates in a Star Wars setting...

My brother and I got this idea after something similar was started at blogsforfredthompson.
Basically, we took each pf the candidates, and our impressions of them, and compared them to Star Wars characters.

So, first, the Republicans.

Mike Huckabee - Senator Palpatine/Darth Sidious, because at first glance he appears to be all for the good of the country (or Republic if you are in Star Wars ;) ), thus he is not a visible threat with his several non-conservative traits, like big-government, higher taxes, poor foreign policy, which he is just waiting to reveal if everyone gives him the chance.

Rudy Giuliani - Master Luminara Unduli, because, while he is a jedi (jedi = conservative in this comparison) he has a few places where he doesn't agree with the council (mainstream conservative beliefs) and he has some personal issues. (Yes, I realize the Luminara is a female, but I Rudy was asking for that when he dressed up as a woman ;) )

John McCain - Master Qui-Gon Jinn, because, while he firmly believes he is doing the right things, on a number of subjects he disagrees with mainstream conservatism, and he has his own way of doing some things that is conflicting with what most people want.

Mitt Romney - Anakin Skywalker, because he can't decide whether he is good or evil.

Fred Thompson - Master Yoda, because, while he talks slower, and doesn't get all consumed by ambition, he has the knowledge and wisdom to lead. And, when the need arises, the passion and ability to defeat just about anyone, without getting all consumed with his power and place.

Ron Paul - Viceroy Nute Gunray, because he is all for free-trade (well, ok, the TF is only for free trade for themselves...) and because he can't stand a fight (he would rather send in a bunch of disposable droids...).



And now for the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton - General Grievous. I think this one is pretty self-explanatory, but if not, Hillary is a clear and visible threat that represents a secession from the values that have shaped our country. And because neither of them look extremely healthy...

Barack Obama - Darth Maul, because he came out of nowhere to a high position, and because he is a very visible threat.

John Edwards - Count Dooku, because, while he is very wrong in how he is going about it, he does appear to truly think he is doing the right thing.

Dennis Kucinich - Jabba the Hutt. He is against conflict (it isn't good for business if everyone dies is it?), he is for more governmental control, and he opposes most, if not all, of the morals that this country is founded upon.



Well, I think that covers most everyone, but if I forgot someone, just let me know ;)
If nothing else, this serves to make me like more the values that the media are blasting Thompson for, slow, deliberate, powerful.

And if you are wondering, I see Huckabee as the most dangerous, followed closely by Hillary and Kucinich.

Fred Thompson - may the force be with us.