The Future...

I have been doing a lot of thinking since the election.
What is the future of the Republican party - what does it need to do to survive and flourish?
What is the future of this blog?
How will Obama govern with the Dem majority in Congress?
How will the world react to Obama now?


I have felt for a while now that the future of the GOP is the moderate vote.
I believe the GOP must become the party of the moderates, the open-minded, etc.
This does not mean we throw aside our conservative message, but it does mean we start to welcome more views in, we start being willing to fight hard for our beliefs, and be willing to compromise on some.
The Democratic party has for as many elections as I can remember had a larger amount of people registered than the GOP, which means that the Republican candidates need to, and have gotten, a larger percentage of the Independent, generally moderate, vote.
This election was odd. We selected a rather moderate (especially in comparison to Obama) candidate, but Obama won a larger percentage of Independents than Kerry did four years ago, or Gore won 8 years ago, and I think Obama is the more liberal of them...
The reason this happened, I think, is that the far-right "base" of the party was in outrage at McCain being selected - so he had to extremely visibly court them. Obama on the other hand already had the far-left part of the Democratic party behind him, so while McCain had to look ever more right-wing, Obama was able to portray himself as the centrist candidate.

Personally, I think it is not McCain, or Palin, or even Obama that cost the GOP the election this time - I think it was the right-wing part of the party. We need to get to the place where no one wing of the party is "the base" - and we need to get it so the "social issues voters" (ie, the pro-life/anti-gay voters) are not the primary focus of the party - because at the end of the day, it will be whether our economy is strong, our military is strong, our trade is strong, and our future is strong that will determine whether we continue to have the right to even debate the "social issues".

I am not trying to demean those issues, I believe that allowing abortions is taking away the right to life of infants, and hurts our society as a whole, as life no longer becomes important. If we have the right to kill others simply because they depend on us, then it becomes a slippery hill that will eventually destroy this nation to follow that line of thinking through.

I do disagree with the anti-gay crowd, I believe gay should be able to have civil unions (though not marriages, the word marriage is specifically defined as a social institution between a man and a woman - dictionary.reference.com, let's not have the government changing the meaning of our language just to benefit one group....) as they should be able to get the same benefits from living in the same house, or insurance, or being family or whatnot in the event of death - that is their right under the constitution, but I am willing to debate that with people, I just think it is more important to first ensure we will have the opportunity to debate it.

I think we need to become more visibly active in the environment - I don't care whether you are doing it because of global warming or not, it is also a national security issue, an economic issue, a quality of life issue (regardless of global impact being from man or not, it is never good for our health to live in polluted areas), so let's start showing people that we mean business about the environment and aren't just going to keep pushing the status quo - which is what people think of us.

We need to lay out specifically what the government should and should not do, and then explain why we believe the way we do on each issue using that as a reference - because from what I have seen most people agree that a smaller government is ideal - so let's show them why that is, and why our views will accomplish that to all of our general good.

Another thing we need to do is start reaching out and bringing in more minorities and young voters.
In California, Prop. 8 passed (the ban on gay marriage), and one of the biggest reasons is that the majority of the black population that voted for Barack Obama also voted to ban gay marriage.
Many of these voters are more in-line with what Republicans believe than what Democrats do, it is just the Democrats have always made a big show of helping them, and are now reaping the benefits of that.
We need to show them why our views will in the end help them more, and help everyone more.

For the young voters, I think we just need to talk to them and show them why we are correct - I think the GOP does not target them enough, at least from what I have seen.
Young voters like to think they know everything, or at least "enough" - they also feel they are on top of the world - so because of that they tend to gravitate toward the party that claims to offer everything, because they firmly believe anything is possible.
We need to lay out for them why we can't have everything right now - it is possible, but it takes time to work towards it and make it happen, and, in the end, what Conservatism offers is better than what Liberalism does, once it is working.
Do you really want a good, strong, working system, plus high taxes and a huge government that barely functions - or do you want a good, strong, working system that also has low taxes and a small, functional government?


As far as what we need to do right now - we need new leadership and a clearer message.
I think Michael Steele is an awesome choice for Chairman of the RNC.
Eric Cantor is running to move up to the head whip position in the house (running unopposed last I heard), which is another good choice.
Both of these reach out to minorities (Steele being African-American, and Cantor being Jewish) as well as bringing a clearer, more Conservative, as well as a more level-headed, view for the party.

For the next election, and future leadership, I think Palin will be up there, but she won't be ready yet in 2012, I would say 2016, but who knows?
For 2012 I am personally watching Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, and Tim Pawlenty.
I think if Eric Cantor runs he will be up there too, and he is getting more of a national name for himself here of late, but I think he will wait and get a little more experience first.
Also, if Palin does run this time, she will definitely be popular, but on her own I don't know how well she will stand up against more experienced candidates...

I think of those that ran this time, only Romney will be a quality candidate in 2012, and I think he will pour himself even more into 2012 than he did this year, as I think that will be his last real shot, the others I am watching will all also do fine in 2016 or later.

Huckabee was only viable among the "social issues only" voters to begin with, and that is not the direction we need, as he would tear a huge rift in the party.
Ron Paul was always a joke as a candidate - he was older than McCain, few Republicans will take his foreign policy, and he just seemed not to have a good television presence.
Ron Tancredo won't tread any better a second time than he did this time, especially with the decreased focus on immigration (though that may cause him to run again itself...).
Duncan Hunter will do better I think if there is no good "Reagan Republican" running, but I think in a field with Romney, Jindal, Pawlenty and possibly Palin and Cantor he will be overshadowed.
Fred Thompson and McCain won't even run again - or if they do they will be perceived as too old, or has-beens.


As far as my blog, I have two options I think.
I will be turning 19 here soon, and will no longer be a teenager the next time an election comes around.
So, I can either end this blog at that time and start a new one (or rename this one possibly), or, I can pass it on to another to continue.
It has been surprising to see that my blog has generated some spin-offs in it's short existence already, like the Asian Conservative Teen or the ConservativeTeenager, so I would like to see this blog continued as a voice for all of the "young voters" out there who are Conservative.
If anyone would be interested in helping out (the more the merrier I think, we can have multiple people writing here, and I think more perspectives, even disagreeing ones, would be awesome) just comment here, or email me at gallfire [at] gmail [dot] com (replace with "@" and ".").


How will Obama govern?
I am really quite apprehensive of what he (and Reid/Pelosi) are planning, but to be honest, I hope it is not as bad as I think it will be, rather, I hope he does well.
If he does really well I will be the first to admit it - I probably won't just give up my views just like that, but if he is successful for two terms AND the President after him does well that will certainly shake some of my views.
Waiting time now though, to see what it will be, heaven, hell, or the same.


How will the world react to Obama?
I think they will do exactly as Biden predicted they would.
Several nations have already made it clear they will wait for Obama to discuss things, because they don't like what they are getting with Bush.
Russia seems to have either though Bush was weak now, or Obama would be weak, as they began to more visibly flex their muscles after the election.
I see nasty days ahead, but perhaps Obama will be stop them, otherwise I hope he has what it takes to get us through them...


I'm going to try and keep following politics and the news on this blog, but updates will be less frequent now.
I will continue to write about my ideas, and probably criticize the government.

So, my first criticisms of President-elect Obama:

1. Rahm Emanuel - while I appreciate the sentiment about reaching out to the Jewish population and Israel, Chief of Staff is hardly a foreign policy position, so I interpret this as a meaningless gesture.
2. Has anyone else noticed Obama is acting like he is already President? I think he should scale back and let Bush finish his term before he starts dictating policy.
3. Obama's government growth program - he is already planning an Environmental Security Agency (or something to that effect), and two of the top candidates for the Secretary of Environment Security are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Al Gore - why can't he just wrap "whatever" it is he plans to do with this into the other environmental agencies?
4. Will he now, finally, start dealing with all the allegations of his heritage? I can understand not wanting to give credibility to them during the election, but he really needs to address them now.
   

There are probably more I have forgotten, but that is enough for now.

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.

Looks like it's going to be...

McCain/Huckabee against Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton or something, take your pick...).

Huckabee won the first Super Tuesday state, West Virginia, when John McCain's campaign ordered his delegates to swing to Huckabee to propel him past Romney, who had nearly 50% or the vote on his own.

It now is clear that McCain and Huckabee are working to destroy Romney together.

They tag-teamed him in Iowa and NH, they covered each other in Michigan and S.C.
They blasted him in Michigan and Florida.
And now, they are making sure that if Romney is winning a state, their delegates go to the stronger of the two and make sure it is Huckabee or McCain who wins...

If this pans out to a McCain/Huckabee ticket, I am voting democrat.

Now that Fred is out...

After Fred left, I felt rather disappointed, but I soon came to the conclusion that I should find another candidate to support, because I did not want Huckabee, Giuliani or Paul to be the nominee, and voting for Thompson would in essence be a vote against the more conservative alternatives.

I had by that point already narrowed the choice to McCain or Romney.
So, I decided I would investigate them, and see if the most recurring attacks on them are true.
I knew that McCain was bad on immigration and iffy on abortion at this point, but beyond that I thought he was pretty good.
I was wrong.


John McCain:
The most recurring attack on McCain is that he is a maverick, and that he is bad on taxes and illegal immigration.

After researching McCain for a while, I have come to these determinations:
He is indeed a maverick, and is willing to do anything to get into the White House, he even thought about changing his party affiliation to Independent, following his loss to Bush in 2000 (read about it), and he also offered to run with Kerry against Bush in 2004.

He is bad on taxes, and flipped on them. He states that the Bush Tax Cuts were a foolish tax cut that only helped the rich, but he now states that we should keep them since they are already in place.
He also supported some new taxes as Senator.

He is bad on illegal immigration, but once again flipped.
He opposed the wall on the border, but when polls showed people wanted it, he said he'd build it.
He is opposed to sending all the illegals back.
In 2006 he was rated at 17% by the USBC (link to a recent article on McCain), indicating an open-borders stance.

So far, all the attacks on McCain seem to be well-founded.
But there are other areas, outside of the common attacks, where McCain is also bad.

He is not good on abortion, having voted to increase embryonic stem-cell research.
He was rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion.

He says gay marriage should be allowed (watch the video).
Though in the same video he did later say he was against it, sounds like he pulled a Hillary...
In 2006 he was rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay marriage.

For the reasons listed above, and for far more, please go to:
http://therealmccain.com/index.php


Mitt Romney:
The most recurring attack on Romney is that he is a flip-flopper.
He is a flip-flopper on abortion, gay marriage and gun rights.

Abortion.
Yes, Romney used to be pro-choice, feeling that he should not force others to hold his personal views on this issue, which are pro-life.
He came to that conclusion when a close friend died during an illegal abortion in the 70's.

In 2004, though, he had a conversion:

In 2004, Romney had a change of heart on abortion. It was triggered by a meeting with experts to help him better understand stem cell research.
"At one point, the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days.....it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality." - Mitt Romney

At that point he decided that his personal views on the matter were the only that were acceptable.
On abortion it seems that the attacks that he supported abortion were correct, but I don't think the flip-flopper attacks are quite on the mark, he genuinely converted (that is if any politician can genuinely do anything).


Gay Marriage:
This is kind of a gray area from what I have found.
He did say that he supported gays and that he would work for equality and non-discrimination. But that was at the time when gays were not under some (all?) of the anti-discrimination laws in Massachusetts, he never stated that he supported gay marriage or even civil unions.
He did once say that he supported civil unions only if marriage was the only other option available.
So it appears that the attacks on his record on gay marriage were not quite right.


Gun Rights:
Romney supported the Brady Bill and renewing the restrictions on bans on Assault weapons.
The Brady Bill seems to have been an honest attempt to make guns safer, but it doesn't work, and has just become a way for the government to control more of our rights.

Assault Weapons Ban:
Romney did indeed support this, and has now flipped on it, stating that he doesn't think we needed any new laws to make guns safer, just that we need to enforce the ones we already have.
Yes a flip, and I have seen no reason for this one except that he wants to appeal to social conservatives here.

Beyond these issues, I haven't seen a whole lot of substantive attacks on Romney. There were a few about his health-care plan and taxes vs. fees as governor.
On health care it seems he supports free-market "no mandates" solutions to get everyone insured, but I may be missing something here...
On taxes it looks like he cut them, and has always been for removing waste and cleaning up government to decrease the deficit, before ever considering new taxes.


In conclusion, I feel McCain is good on foreign policy (though I don't think we should stay in Iraq forever, there does come a point when we will no longer have anything worthwhile to do over there), he is good at cutting waste, and almost acceptable (though far from perfect) on social issues.

I do have some reservations about Romney's health care plan, and about why he is not for gun control now.
But I also feel he has flipped less than Huckabee or McCain.
And where he is a question mark on taxes/health care, McCain and Huckabee are bad.
And on the issues of abortion and gay marriage, neither Huckabee nor McCain are perfect either (Huckabee campaigned for pro-choice Democrats against pro-life Republicans while governor, he also spoke at a large pharmaceutical company that specializes in finding cures for diseases using stem cell research).
Gun Control alone seems to be the issue that Huckabee and McCain absolutely trump Romney.

But what I respect is that, unlike McCain and Huckabee, Romney does not change his record, or lie about it, or deny it.
He acknowledges his mistakes and says he has changed.
Huckabee ignores and distorts his own record tremendously.
McCain seems to be pretty consistent on a several issues, but he has twisted or backtracked on quite a few as well.

In light of these records, I have come to the conclusion that I will not vote for McCain or Huckabee if they are the nominee.
They may not be nearly as bad themselves as Hillary or Obama, but they will cause a huge rift in the Republican party, will cause the Republican party to go more liberal, and will make it very hard to win another election any time soon.
They will cause very liberal changes on most issues in Washington, and my feeling is that we should let the Democrats cause a mess if they want to, but don't let everyone blame Republicans for the higher taxes, worse economy, and terrorist attacks.
I will vote for Ron Paul over Hillary, but not Obama.

I therefor feel that Romney is the only remaining candidate who is a Reagan conservative, and the only one I can trust of the Republicans (except Paul, but I trust him to be a disaster) not to be a RINO on most issues.
I will vote for Mitt Romney in my primary, if he is still in.


A new list of the candidates in order of who I would vote for.
Note, this does not mean I will enjoy voting for Obama or Clinton.

• Mitt Romney
• Barack Obama
• Ron Paul
• Hillary Gack! Clinton
• John McCain
• Mike Huckabee

Redraft Fred Thompson in '08 or vote for Romney.

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.

Why?

Why does it seem like there is only one major candidate running who I really can pull for?
Based on everything I have written on Romney recently, everyone knows I don't prefer him for a candidate.
But the sickening thing is that, among the major candidates, he is now my number two pick.

My current ratings are:

• Fred Thompson
• Mitt Romney
• John McCain
• Rudy Giuliani
• Ron Paul
• Mike Huckabee

It seems like Thompson is the only stalwart conservative, not 100% sure, but consistently very close.

Romney appears to be the opposite if Huckabee, ie, Huckabee is a conservative on pro-life and sanctity of marriage, but otherwise where is he a conservative at?
Romney on the other hand, does not have a record of being conservative on abortion or gay marriage, but on other things it looks like he is ok.
And he is now saying he was wrong and has changed. I'm not sure I believe the change is permanent, but at least he admits his past mistakes and tries to fix them.

McCain worries me on illegal immigration and abortion.
Giuliani worries me on abortion and illegal immigration.
Paul, well, he worries me with his foreign policy, and makes me doubt his sanity at times.
Mike Huckabee worries me on foreign policy, illegal immigration, criminal paroles, among other things.
Mitt Romney worries me only in that I don't feel I can trust him.

Thompson worries me only that he has not been a soldier, but, then, this is not the year for that I guess - Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee weren't in the military.
And, on the democratic side, neither Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards have any experience.
And war experience is not enough to make me pull for McCain.

I wish Duncan Hunter had a better campaign running, as he seems to be the only consistent conservative besides Thompson running.

I will vote for any of these candidates (except for Ron Paul) if they are nominated, but I won't enjoy it if it isn't Fred Thompson, or, maybe, Mitt Romney.

Fred Thompson, the right choice if you want strong, consistent, experienced leadership in an uncertain world.

Mitt Romney - again...

I have another article on Romney here, entitled "Warning!"

Why is it that the candidate who is spending the most time and money to get the publics attention is the one "flying under the radar"?
He is spending a 85,000+ dollars a day on television advertising, more than any other candidate in history.
He has spent a whopping 10.2 million dollars on ads already.
His closest competitor, John McCain, has spent only 300,000 dollars. You can see an article about his spending here.

Yet he is getting the least scrutiny.
People are blasting Fred Thompson over abortion when Romney professes the same view.
People are digging into Mike Huckabee's record and bringing up some stink, yet they ignore Mitt Romney who has a very much identical record on everything except abortion and gay marriage.
People are even giving Giuliani more thought - at least he is honest, he hasn't changed his views one bit, they just aren't conservative. Romney on the other hand had very liberal stances when he ran for governor, but now is toting himself as a conservative.


Well, it appears he is an aspiring robot who is just trying to stay out of the lime-light.
In a recent interview (located here) he claimed he is pleased to be in Clinton's newest ad because he has "always (aspired) to be a machine".

Now, acting as a robot, he has decided to skip the Iowa Fox news debate (read about here), opting instead to just run ads that say what he wants, instead of going out and actually answering the questions people have for him.
I hope the debate actually goes ahead, without Romney - especially given the fact that the most recent rasmussen poll has Huckabee moving ahead of Romney! (read about it here)

Much as I wish Fred Thompson were the one winning Iowa, at least people are realizing that Romney is not the best candidate, and picking one who is at least a little better.

So, why are people letting him slide under the radar?
I guess it is because most people do just listen to the media.
And since the media is liberally biased, which a recent Harvard study
(reported here) has proven, and since Romney is probably the most liberal candidate, except for maybe Giuliani - but that is only because Giuliani hasn't switched, it isn't unreasonable to believe that, since he is spending 34 times the amount of advertising of his nearest competitor, he would be very largely in the lead.

The only reason he is in second place is because he is buying people's time and vote, and because Giuliani is the only one courting the moderate/liberal vote.
If either of those changed, he would either be in first, or last.

Warning!

Mitt Romney is possibly the most liberal candidate the republicans might actually be able to back.
I had thought it was a lock-up with Giuliani taking the cake, and that Mitt Romney might really be as conservative as he sounds.

Then I began seeing some people saying things like "He was a democrat 2 years ago", or "He only started being a republican 7 years ago" and a few others like it.
Uh-oh, "too good to be true" ring a bell?
I had always thought there was something about him that wasn't right. I actually had the impression that he was sort of a republican JFK.
So, I started looking around the web, and found that he has been a republican his "entire" life. Both his parents are republicans, and both were active in the political scene.

This made me start to doubt the accusations ... until I came back for round 2.
I finally found a good site that covered his past voting record, the massresistance site.
Here are some basic conclusions drawn from that page (which in turn are based on his voting record, and political statements):

• Mitt Romney had a major role in destroying the republican party, and helping the democratic party while he was governor of Massachusetts.
• Mitt Romney pretty much single-handedly allowed the homosexual movement to become a serious threat, to legalize gay-marriage (and not the gay as in happy kind), and to push homosexual, bi-sexual and trans-gender teaching in the schools.
• Mitt Romney welcomed and helped agendas that supported, assisted and encouraged abortion.
  

Incredible! How can someone go to all the lengths he has to ruin the republican party and rewrite his own liberal record, and then have people actually believe him to be a staunch conservative?
He is just another smooth-talking, flip-flopping, back-stabbing and believable politician.
Basically he has the charm, looks and the attitude a lot of people want, like JFK, but the "republican" version of a Bill Clinton in view-point.

We don't need Bill back, whether it be through his wife, or through someone posing as him.

Here are some more links about Mr. Mitt:

• http://contraception.about.com/b/a/000075.htm
• http://votingundertheinfluence.blogspot.com/
• http://conservativesagainstromney.com/
• http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/