Temperature gauge

Illegal Immigration Redux

2011-03-13T21:06:00.006-04:00

How about a little perspective on the subject beyond rhetoric and typical talking points. Why not look at this from a different angle so every (open minded) person can agree.

Let's pretend that you live in Mexico. You decided you wanted to work in the United States, so you applied for a Green Card. You are a law abiding citizen who just wants to make a better life for your family, your children. The issue is there are no jobs open here in the United States. Why? Because someone jumped the border and is working illegally in the position you were going to take.

As the days go by, money gets tighter, and there are still no jobs here. You are now faced with some hard choices and may have to take drastic measure to feed and house your family. You beg for work in the US, try anything you can to get pushed the front of the line because you can't stand listening to your child talking about how hungry they are or the meals they have missed.

More time passes. You have no home now, and you beg in the streets for food scraps and pocket change. People kick dirt on you and spit at you. What did you do wrong? Why has your life turned out so bleak? You did the right thing, applied for a green card, tried to live a morally sound life, and are a genuinely good person.

What did you do wrong? You followed the rules; that's what you did wrong. Why would doing the right thing be bad? Because your neighbor ran the border and stole into the United States while you stood in line and applied for a Green Card. Your neighbor is living comfortably, though hiding from ICE, and stealing YOUR job.

So here is the question for my liberal friends; How can you talk to me about illegals coming here to save their families and how much it would hurt them to be deported? That illegal is harming every other person who is doing the right thing. Do you care about the people they are hurting? Is the criminal your defending worth MORE that the morally sound person who followed the rules and has real skills to offer to our country?

Read my fictitious account of a Mexican's struggle again. Do you feel good about that story? Can you sleep better knowing the criminal you protect has destroyed the life of a good person? Do you enjoy screwing good people by allowing the illegals? Does it make you feel warm inside to know that your defense of the corrupt is at the expense of good, honest people?

Don't claim that an illegal is needed to work jobs that Americans won't. If you take that shallow opinion, keep in mind that is what Green cards are for. Let them come here the correct way. If you CLAIM the process is too hard, then get rid of the illegals so it will be EASIER for those who want to come here the RIGHT way. Remove those who have PROVEN they can not follow the rules and invite those who have proven they CAN follow the rules.

Every argument, my liberal friends, for illegals is invalid. Everything you CLAIM in your ignorance is disproved BY everything you say. Think about the legal immigrant who can not be here because you protect the law breaking trespasser.

Welcome back?

2011-03-08T18:58:00.003-05:00

I have been thinking about opening my blog back up to the world again. As you can see there are no posts here since I closed the site almost 2 years ago. I will be fixing the site, updating, and writing a piece or two when I feel I want to share.

Want to know my thoughts on something? Email me at TGRadio@live.com and ask. Send me links, ask me questions, show me what YOU find and want to share. I will entertain anything you send to me, so send those links and stories!

I'm back. I'm ready. I'm yours.
See you between the lines,
Myke

Studio Cam

2009-03-22T16:02:00.000-04:00

http://www.justin.tv/wsmnradio

Listen live link

2009-03-22T16:00:00.001-04:00

http://azulweb.streamguys.com/absolute2.asx

All You Need To Know About The Stimulus Package

2009-02-15T20:03:00.002-05:00

How to handle a missed flight.. in style

2009-02-15T16:05:00.001-05:00

Here is how:

And what are YOUR children playing with?

2009-02-13T09:35:00.002-05:00

When I buy toys for my children, I buy the closest item to what they are asking for. But now I am now an uncle (after about a decade of waiting), I have a niece who may soon be interested in dolls, dress-up, and tea parties, and I don't have the luxury of "making up for it." So I did what any excited uncle would do; I started looking into what is hot and new!

I have a few good ideas, but I need you, my listeners and readers, to help me decide what toys will be best. Here are the top toys on my list. Make sure you play the video! I need a totally informed decision from you.

Typical talking baby doll 1:
Fisher Price Cuddle and Coo doll

Typical talking baby doll 2:
Another Fisher Price Cuddle and Coo doll

Or maybe something to help her learn about technology AND still fun:
Nintendo DS (showcases both amazing toys):
Baby Pals by Crave Entertainment for Nintendo DS

It is such a hard choice for me. My daughter is 16, so I am not up with all these hip new toys. As a parent, what one do you think is appropriate for your impressionable child?

A Royal Ball For The King!!!

2009-01-20T19:30:00.021-05:00

January 16, 2009

Let us stipulate that you have achieved a goal that you have been working towards for a number of years. You planned a party to celebrate, but money gets tight in your household. You have already sent out invitations months in advance and people are currently traveling to see you. What is the best course of action?

A. Call off the party even though you have people who have traveled to celebrate.

B. Cut back on what you are spending on the party (don’t go as big).

C. Throw the party as planed with no changes.

D. Throw a larger party than should be expected for such an occasion.

Well, if you are Barack Obama, you go with choice D. Though the Democrats BEGGED George Bush to be cautious with funds for his inaugural four years ago, they seem to have NO issue with Obama spending upwards of $150 million on his inaugural event. Yes, $150 million towards a 3 day block party for the man that just pleaded for the rest of the $700 billion from the bail-out money to be released to save us from economic crisis. (That was a mouthful.) But there is good reason to spend $150 million on Obama's inaugural block party, we must have a proper party for the first President of color! (at our expense!)

Can I opt out of this? Can I just tell the IRS “Don’t blame me, I voted for McCain”? Would that be enough to get me out of paying for this? I think Obama should have an inaugural party, but let us be reasonable. Bush DID spend $40 million on his inaugural AND his parade, yet the Democrats were screaming bloody murder. If $40 million bothered them so much, where is the outrage over King Obama and his $150 million, three day block party? How can it be wrong for George Bush to spend $40 million, and perfectly wonderful that Obama spends $150 million. What price tag sounds like it should have everyone up in arms? What "party" would YOU rather pay for?

In short, Obama has proven that he can spend millions in excess waste, and not one Democrat will bat an eyelash. The Mainstream Media does not care, they have "this thrill go up" their collective legs, just ask Chris Matthews. Those of us that were hoping for responsible spending and economic stability over the next four years, are screwed.

UPDATE:
January 19, 2009

The price tag has increased!!! King Obama’s festivities have now reached an estimated $170 and climbing. This is the most expensive inauguration I have ever seen. I can now see that this is the beginning of four bleak years. Years where we spend more than we should, THEN increase the price tag on something we are ALREADY overspending on. Your next four years in a nut shell; tax increases, spending increases, and economic decreases. Stay tuned for more bad news!

UPDATE:
January 20, 2009
MORE BAD NEWS!!!
As if enough money was not spent on the 3-day party that has been the Obama inauguration, Michelle Obama decided that she should wear a dress that is valued a $1,500. This is not the first time Michelle was worn one of the expensive designer outfits made by Isabel Toledo, and it will not be the last. The only difference is that now ALL of the United States will be paying for Michelle to flaunt wealth, not just Illinois!

Thank you president Obama, Spread that wealth!

We Have AUDIO!

2008-11-05T12:11:00.005-05:00

There has been some issues with the podcasts. It has been fixed (I hope) so I will be adding the ENTIRE ELECTION COVERAGE to the podcasts later this week! I am cutting the MP3 into segments and listing the contributors in the segments, so you will have to give me a day or two to label.

What is there to fear?

2008-11-05T10:44:00.003-05:00

In the wake of the elections, what is my biggest fear? I wonder if this is Jimmy Carters 2nd term. We have lived through this before, and it did not kill us... too much. I can see more spending and more deficits over the next four years. We have two years that we have to tolerate until we can fix the mess we are in. But a lot of damage can be done in two years.

You have already seen my fear of the "fairness" doctrine, and you know about Hoover's... err... Obama's tax plan, what else could go wrong? How about partial birth abortions? What about late term abortions? Both are disgusting procedures that DO constitute murder in my eyes. How about Obama's "share the wealth" comments? What does that mean? Obama has not fully explained what he meant by this, but considering his voting record (the little that he has), and his ideas and comments, I am thinking socialism.

I know the picture I created has a communist flag, but then again, we have never seen communism in the world. We have seen extreme socialism (such as "communist" Russia and China) and therefore the flag fits. I fear that Obama, in conjunction with the Democrat Congress, will move us one step (or more) closer to socialism. If I have to give my hard earned money to the government so they can "redistribute income" to those who DON'T work, what would you call it? Socialism.

What else do I fear? Click the links on the right hand side that say "black panthers" and you will see. Intimidation, fraud, and cheating are the tactics used by the far left for years. Add to those videos the actions of Acorn, and the "don't be selfish" message from Obama, and you start to see the how close we are to socialism.

Barack wants big government, income redistribution, government run healthcare, and government control over the media (IE: fairness doctrine). He can't do it alone, but he doesn't have to; we have given him a Democrat Congress. (Talk about a free pass!) I know of another country, one previous and one current, that is very similar to the one Barack wants to create; China and the U.S.S.R.

I am quitting my job. Thank you for sharing your paycheck with me, comrade!

YES! I hear you!

2008-11-05T09:09:00.003-05:00

I am getting your letters, and I know how you feel. I can not respond to everyone. Please do not email me with "did you get my email." The answer is YES! But there are WAY too many. Please give me some time. I am flooded, but I am reading. I am sorry if I am going so slow. I awoke to over 150 emails; some long, some short, all very good. I can not respond to everyone, but I will try to address everyone's concerns.

First, the fairness doctrine. Yes this is a real thing. It was enacted in 1949 to "ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair." (The Museum of Broadcast Communications

There is a part two to this. The net is also susceptible to "fairness" via content policies. Just ask the FCC commissioner. He said, "the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned." -commissioner Robert McDowell

What next? How about another economic depression like in 1932? Look at Obama's tax plan, then look at this plan from Hoover (that failed miserably). Don't be fooled by the wording, this is what BOTH plan call for. Tax the top tier more, give money to everyone else. Yes, I am part of "everyone else," but I can see though the fluff. Simply put, the higher taxes to the top tier will cause a rise in prices to the lower tiers. There will be no relief from this policy, only an increase to cost of living. Mark my words, Obama will fail because this is Hoover's failed plan.

Keep the emails rolling, I will try to address every issue you raise. FYI, no I do not feel safe in my own home. Even Obama's VP agrees with me; within 6 months we will face crisis.

More to come check back later today!

Quick note from Scott: the podcasts are working correctly again, so we now have the entire Jennifer Horn interview up in its entirety (not cut down to 30 seconds). Sorry for the technical difficulties.

Ready... Set... GO!

2008-11-04T08:06:00.003-05:00

It is 8am EST, and the races have begun. Make sure you get out to vote today. This morning I have been writing, so check for updates on the site. Today I dedicate to the races, and tonight I am going to be on the air. Listen tonight from 7-midnight to 1590 WSMN Nashua's source for news and talk, or online (Click the WSMN logo on the right). Call in and talk with us on the air at WSMN at (603) 883-9900.

New Hampshire and the Election Cycle

2008-10-26T21:36:00.011-04:00

No, I am not going to bore you to death talking about the literal meaning of this post's title. This is a treat for you. Want to know what was going through my head today while I was in studio? Did you miss the show and our wonderful guests? Well how about a quick recap of the topics, a few free shout outs for my special guests, and I will also post links up to their websites. (Remember that we keep recordings of our shows in the "podcasts" link. GO LISTEN! You'll be sorry if you don't!)

Our guests (click a name to go to their website):

Paul LaFlamme

Sandra Ziehm

Jacqueline Casey

Part one (click here to listen to the podcasts)

Today we had Paul LaFlamme in the studio during part one of Temperature Gauge Live (sorry about the picture Paul, it was the best one on the web). We talked about his debate in Hollis, spending in New Hampshire, alternative energy (sort of, we got side tracked), over regulation (what we got side tracked to), and the economy. Over all, Paul came across as an intelligent conservative who is looking out for you and me.

Towards the end of the segment, Sandra Ziehm called in to talk with us. I tried to get Paul and Sandra to work off each other for a couple minutes, like a round table of sorts, and it worked out fairly well.

Segment two, we said goodbye to Paul and talked with Sandra one on... two (?) Sandra talked about the record of her opponent, taxes, spending, and some of the ridiculous legislation that has been presented under the Democrats. I have to say, this woman makes a lot of sense. Sandra is an intelligent, well informed, solid conservative.

I was inept in my duty to reign in the filibustering today, so I decided to turn segment three over to Jacqueline Casey. I posed a few soft questions to her and started to feel guilty. Jacqueline spoke about second amendment issues such as gun free zones and crime rates, stated she was a "Ron Paul" Republican (or rather she is a Libertarian), and eluded that her favorite word when it came to taxes and spending was "no!" We also talked about proposed taxes by the Democrats and spending issues. Just so I could milk my point about gun free zones, I played devils advocate with her. You must listen if you want to know what I asked!

If you’re going to listen to one of the shows, this might be the one. (I am still partial to the one with Jennifer Horn –website-, listen to Part 2) The part with Sandra (2) has a conversation between a Lanna and Sandra. This is one of the best parts, listening to Sandra talking to one of our great listeners.

I want to thank all three candidates for taking the time to come talk with us on Temperature Gauge Live. Also, thank you to those who are listening, reading, and continue to support us at Temperature Gauge and Temperature Gauge Live. If you want to leave a question, comment, or just want to voice your opinion, I will pass on any “appropriate” comments to the candidates. Remember to visit their websites!

Paul LaFlamme

Sandra Ziehm

Jacqueline Casey

Just the Facts, Scam... ahh, Ma'ma

2008-10-17T18:03:00.004-04:00

Now THAT’S what I call a debate. The candidates actually debated! If you missed this one, you missed the best one. Obama came off as cool, calm, and collected… almost. He was sent reeling a few times by the questions and comments from McCain.

Obama might have looked good on the surface, but by watching and listening to Obama’s responses, you could tell he was having a hard time fielding McCain’s assaults. Obama stammered and stuttered his way though a few different factual inaccuracies, and in some cases, out and out lies.

One of the worst inaccuracies was when Obama said people at McCain rallies are yelling “kill him” towards Obama. This is not true for two reasons. First, Obama made it sound like people were calling for Obama’s death. Not ONE person called for Obama’s death, and this fact is backed up by the investigations of the Secret Service.
Supposedly, when Bill Ayers name was mentioned, someone yelled “kill him,” in reference to Bill Ayers. This is an important distinction to make, and Obama tried to blur the truth. Obama lied by telling only half of the truth.
Here is an example; It’s like if I said, “I hate when I run over frogs in the rain” and someone twists my words and tells you I said “I hate frogs and run them over” then qualifies it as a racist statement toward people of French descent. Obviously the words in the second quote were said, but not in the way they are written.

So why is this important? If you haven’t figured it out yet, Obama is a liar through and through. He gives you half the truth, and even the truth he gives you is twisted around. Obama may have looked smooth, but McCain dominated in substance. Rather than recap the debate, let me point out other Obama half-truths

Let’s start with one of my favorite subjects, oil. Obama said the oil companies have 68 million acres leased that they are not drilling. He was correct about the leased land, and that’s about it.
Fact:
Exploratory drilling is being done on quite a bit of the 68 million acres. Though they are not producing oil yet (key word is yet), they are using the land. The only area that can be listed as land used is those that are actually producing oil. Thus, the areas that are being drilled for exploration are not counted until they produce oil. Oh, and by the way, it takes about 10 years for an exploratory hole to produce oil. Thank you for the half-truth Barack O-Liar.

Another favorite subject of mine is education. Barack tried to claim that he doubled the number of charter schools of charter schools in Illinois. Talk about stretching your resume! First, you happened to put your name on a bill, so you didn’t do a damn thing other than sign. Second, you AND your fellow politicians double the charter schools in Chicago. That is one city out of the entire state. Sorry bud, be honest.
Fact:
You supported legislation that doubled the amount of charter schools in the city of Chicago, you did not personally double charter schools in Illinois (you fraud!).

Again, Obama tried to claim he breaks ranks with the democrats (he claimed bill S.5 as an example.) How often does Obama reach across the aisle?
Fact:
18 to 26 among democrats voting on this, and Obama happened to vote along side about 40% of the Democrats? How is this even CLOSE to breaking ranks? About 97% of the time, he voted the party line. Enough said.

Let’s skim the “Joe the Plumber” issue. Joe said he was going to buy a company that is projected to make $250 to $280 thousand a year. He wanted to know if his taxes would go up. Let’s stipulate that Joe’s company make $250K. The answer under Obama’s plan is yes.
Fact:
You will receive a tax increase if you make $200k gross or more annually ($250K if you are married filing joint). Let’s talk about the increase of 3%. If you made $199,999 this year, and you make $200,000 next year, your taxes will be $6,000 more for 2009. That extra dollar you make next year is going to cost you $6K. Sound equitable to you?

Speaking of taxes, the Tax Policy Center claims that the national debt would substantially increase with either candidate’s current policy. Even with Obama’s proposed spending cuts, he could increase our debt by $281 billion for the year 2013. That’s not over the next five years that is just one years deficit increase for calendar year of 2013 (re-election year). McCain is not innocent here either, he needs to do some major spending cuts too, but I trust McCain to cut spending, not the “tax and spend” record of Obama.

I also love how Obama walks around the truth by avoiding key facts. So “small businesses” who do not supply healthcare coverage would not be fined. This is great, don’t you agree? Now define small business. Mr. Obama? Oh, that’s one fact that you conveniently ignore. Is small business a company with 2 employees, or 10, 20 may be? Do you take into account how profitable the company is? Or does profit only matter when you decided how much the company must pay in taxes? (33% not high enough for you? what about 70-80%, like France?)

Obama also claims that his health care plan will cut family’s premiums by $2,500 annually. At least Obama has strong optimism! Maybe you should try a lower number, Mr. Obama. Let say $1,600 at best. He claims he can save $120 billion a year, but that is an inflated figure. He MIGHT save $77 billion (64% of what he is claiming)

At this point, I think you get the idea. Like I said before, there were some good parts to this debate. My two favorite moments happened to be John McCain moments. The first was a slip of the tongue when John was talking about the government. He called Senator Obama, “Senator Government”. Personally, I think it was a fitting name, but John corrected himself. It was an obvious slip up as evidenced buy John’s reaction to his own words.

The second great moment was when John said,
“Yes. Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country.”
And John is correct. He is not President Bush, and he will not be President Bush. John McCain has his own ideas, his own cabinet appointments, and will not govern the way George Bush has. It is important that John distinguished this fact, and that he called Obama out on this.

I think John did fairly well. The only complaint I have about McCain’s performance was that he did not press Obama when he had him pinned. John had Obama on the ropes, and let him go. McCain did a good job pointing out inaccuracies in Obama’s statements and platform, but did not dig deep enough or push hard enough. It left a lot more work for the fact checkers and analyst, like me. But like I said, it was a good debate. I would call this a slight McCain win.

So here we are, with less than 3 weeks until the election. It is up to you. Do you want to pay more taxes, screw up the economy more and increase the chances of being killed in your own home by a terrorist? If so, vote Obama, or just stay home this election cycle.

Want to be safe in your home, not afraid of a terrorist attack? How about fixing the economy? Want to reduce the national debt without raising your taxes? Vote John McCain.

And where is your name, Senator Obama?

2008-10-12T17:59:00.002-04:00

Take a look at the signatures. Notice the names on the first page. John Sununu is at the top of column 2 and John McCain is the second name in Column 1.

Barack Obama must have just been "Present"...

Enough To Warm Your Heart

2008-09-22T18:48:00.005-04:00

Sunday morning was a bit unusual for two reasons; First, it was unseasonably warm. The second part needs a little explaining. What I saw from my front porch, on this warm Sunday morning, I have not seen since I was a child. I saw the effects of true "Family Values."

At first glance, I saw a young teenager riding his bike with his little sister. The teenager was wearing the quintessential "Rapper-Wanna-Be" clothing, so I figured it was the typical "got stuck with my sister" situation. As they got closer, I could hear the little girl complaining, but could not make out the words. I saw the boy grab the front of the bike and pull her forward and let her glide. I thought he was frustrated with the girl, and it made me a little nervous.

When the girl came to a stop, I could hear what she was saying. She was cried to her brother because she could not move the bike on her own. "Pull me," she begged. "NO!" he replied. The little girl told him she couldn't move without him pulling, but the teenage boy told her she could do it, she just needed to try. Now my curiosity was peaked.

I started to pay close attention to what was being said by the siblings. He told her to push the pedal, but she found it too hard. He pushed her forward one more time, and told her to push the pedal as she was moving. After she stopped coasting, she begged for another push. The boy declined and said he was going ahead without her.

The girl begged then she sat on the sidewalk. The boy did not give in. He simply told her that she could do it, she just needed to try harder. The girl had dug her heels in, and was not going to budge. The teenager came back and told her to get on the bike. Once on the bike, he told the girl HOW to push the pedal. The girl tried and tried. Then after about a 30 seconds, the bike started to move. Not only did she move it, but the boy was able to coach her to keep it moving. He became her cheerleader, chanting "You can do it!" and "Good job!" The two continued down the street with the girl giggling and the teenager cheering all the way. I am not sure who was more excited, the "Wanna-be Rapper" or the cute little girl, but they both rode down the road with the broadest smiles I have seen in quite a long time.

Sometimes we judge people before they have a chance to show their true colors. I was guilty of such sins on this morning. I assumed the boy was a typical punk. Turns out he was a sweet, caring, brother. After seeing this display of kindness, I realized how cynical I have become. It never crossed my mind that this teenager could be a good kid. This was a great reality check for me, and I thought it might be for you as well.

Next time you see or meet someone, stop and think of what YOU might be thinking that will get in the way. What walls have you put up without having any facts? Did you give this person a fair shake, or did you act as I did and prejudge them? Everyone deserves a fair shake; extend a friendly hand with an open mind.

Barack-O-Nomics 101

2008-09-18T11:36:00.008-04:00

Barack Obama has again been kind enough to show me my place. While addressing his "age appropriate sex education" ideas, (for kindergarten children?!?) he took a pop shot at conservatives. Though he wanted us to know that Americans are "... generally decent people..." he felt the need to tell us conservatives that we "...listen to the wrong talk radio..." (video Last 60 seconds contain the comments) Considering I do not agree with on.. ah.. hmm... ANYTHING that he stands for, I guess he was referring to me. If you are reading this post and listen to my show (1590 WSMN Sunday's 6-7), then he must be referring to you as well. But then again, Barack does think we are "basically decent people," sort of like Hillary is "likable enough." Well, I am proud to be generally decent even if I listen (or host) the wrong kind of talk radio. Thank you Barack Obama.

Thank you for condescending to those of us who do not want to pay more of our hard earned dollars. No I do not agree with you, and yes I would LOVE to see you FAIL. Nothing would please me more during this presidential election than seeing you lose. That doesn't make me wrong, but it does make me an opinionated individual who believes, rightfully so according to your VP candidate, you are going to cost me more money. No I do not make 250K annually; my family does not even make 100K. But if you're taxing the corporations, their revenue will be reduced. When a company's profit are decreased, the cost for their products typically go up. In other words, this cost is typically passed onto the consumer (you and I).

One more economic point, Barack wants to give tax breaks to 95% of Americans. Not tax payers, but Americans. Sounds good, but let’s look at some examples.

1. About 50% of all tax revenue is paid by the top 5%. Maybe they can afford higher taxes, but what does their tax bracket look like? The people in the top 5% pay about 50% of their gross income. Could you afford to pay 50%? I can't, but then again, I am not making 300k. Most people, who actually pay taxes, pay 25-30% of their gross income in taxes. Quick math for you using arbitrary numbers (not actual figures):

Gross=250k 50%Taxes=125k Net=125k
Gross=150k 30%Taxes=45k Net=105k

So a person making 150k brings home 20k less than a person who makes 300k. So if I net 105k, and I want to net 20 k more per year, I need to make 100k more per year gross? That's 80% of my increase GONE in taxes.

Another way to look at this is for a person to make one third more, they have to spend 80% of their increase on taxes. I am not kidding, this is reality. Even if my example is based on incomes that could be the same tax brackets, it is a fair assessment of the way tax brackets percentages work around the tax bracket break.

2. What did I mean “actually pay taxes?” Out of the 95% that Barack wants to give tax breaks to, many are not paying taxes. No joke, they pay nothing in taxes. Either they are not working (maybe a welfare recipient), they make so little that they get a refund of 100% (or more), or after all deductions are figured in, they receive a refund that equals the taxes they pay. Want a couple of examples?

Family A - Single mom with 3 kids. Makes 20K annually, Pays 6k in taxes. Tax time comes, and she is head of household, 3 children on her taxes, Earned Income Credit, deductions for child care, Transportation write-offs, etc. Refund check = Taxes paid out. 100% refund.

Family B - Married couple who owns a business and has no kids. Tax write-offs for toilet paper, office supplies, computer supplies, automotive expenses, advertising, tax preparation costs, etc. Gross income 60k., taxes on income 18k. They receive a rebate 100% because they can write off ANYTHING so long as they can prove it is used for business purposes. They can even write off part of their rent or mortgage, if they have a designated area that they use for “business.” Yes, if a corner of one room is used for the business (accounting, storage, etc.) and nothing else, you can write off a percentage of your housing cost. (Ask an accountant if you do not believe me)

So how exactly is Barack going to lower taxes for these people? THEY ARE NOT PAYING TAXES!!!!! What are you going to lower? Do you give them free money? Where does that free money come from? Who gives you the money to pay them? Oh wait, you need to take more money from the tax payer so you can pay the tax payer more money? HUH?!?

Of course not! Don’t be silly! He is going to end tax cuts for the oil companies and businesses. A great idea!! Let's make it more expensive for the oil companies and businesses! Companies would never try to raise their prices to recoup the cost of tax increases... WRONG! Yes, the government will get more tax revenue from the companies. But when the increased cost comes down the line, WE pay for the increased cost to the companies!! Thank you Barack for costing us MORE MONEY! Please do not buy into the half-truth Barack is spreading. The part he left out you learn in economics 101; increased cost has to be recouped in product prices, or by cutting staff. (Higher unemployment sound good to anyone? How about lay-offs?)

But Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden was kind enough to show me the flaw in my logic. (video) He told me that if I was concerned with higher taxes and didn't want taxes to go up, I was not being patriotic. I just need to be more patriotic and pay more money that I don't have, or I am just not patriotic enough.

Well, I guess I don’t want to be more patriotic, just ask my thinning wallet.

Gibson's Ass Kicked BY A GIRL!

2008-09-12T09:21:00.024-04:00

Before anyone decides to jump on me for the post name, understand how I view Charles Gibson before you start you ranting. Mr. Gibson is one of those good liberals who (supposedly) believes that women are equal. So under this presumption, Chuck decided to viciously discredit Sarah Palin. Figuring that he is a good liberal who treated Sarah with proper respect by hitting her with tough questions, he did his best to nail Sarah to the wall. He made one big mistake; he assumed Sarah would not be able to handle the Great Media God, Charlie Gibson. Can you say, "oops?"

So why does this post point out that Sarah, a "girl," kicked Chuck's ass? Like I stated before, Chuck is supposedly a good liberal. Personally, I think he walks both sides of the line. I really believe Chuck didn't think a woman would be skilled enough to stand toe to toe with him. I knew Sarah could handle this joker, but what I did not know was how badly she would kick his teeth in. Forget John McCain, where was this woman back in the primaries?!?

Mr. Gibson (to be referred to as "Glib-son" and other variations on his name from here on) entered this interview with an agenda. This was supposed to be the one interview that shot the Palin effect to hell. Instead, Sarah shot Glib-son's credibility to hell. One of the best examples was when Glib-son decided to twist Sarah's words and stated,

"You said recently in your old church, our nation leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from god... are we fighting a holy war?"

Obviously, Chuck did not do his homework. That is not what Sarah said. Let me quote Sarah:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them our on a task that is from god."

Now sometimes the written words are not enough to explain, but if you listen to both Glib-son and Palin (Click here), you will hear clearly that Sarah is saying her church should pray that our leader is sending our troops on a task that is from God. In other words, pray that god is on our side, pray for God to protect our troops. As she said, "Let us pray that we are on God's side." Sarah's response was perfectly phrased to disarm Glib-son, but he didn't concede! He actually tried again to discredit her on this topic! Glib-son states:

"But you went on and said there is a plan, and it is God's plan."

Again, Sarah backs herself up by stating that she believes that there is a plan for this world and that it is a plan for good. In other words, she does believe God has a plan, and God's plan is good. She did not claim to know God's plan. Is this not obvious? What's the problem Chuck? You think God should have a plan for evil? This one was a T.K.O.! Chuck, stay down! NO! He is getting up.... He is punch drunk and swings wildly!!!

"But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?"

Oh my God! Are you serious Chuck? If you have not seen this interview, you need to go to ABC and see this pathetic interview... um rather attempted character assassination. I think this can be considered a body check, and Glib-son should stay down on the ice. But he doesn't. He gets up and comes back for more butt kicking....

This was not Glib-son's only screw up (are you surprised? I'm not), just my favorite. Where else did Glib-son throw the facts out the window? How about my second favorite self-inflicted wound, the Bush Doctrine? Chuck asked what Sarah thinks the Bush doctrine is. She knew she was being baited, and walked very carefully around the landmine that was laid for her. She quickly asked, "In what respect, Charlie?" Chuck said the Bush Doctrine "September 2002, before the Iraq war." She stated that she felt President Bush, "attempted to... rid the world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation..." and admitted mistakes were made, but new leadership allows us to try to do things better.

For some reason, Chuck acquired foot-in-mouth disease. He stated that he felt the Bush Doctrine is that, "We have the right of anticipatory self-defense and we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us." Though Sarah handled it perfectly and put Chuck in his place, I want to focus on the Glib-son factual inaccuracy.

Charles Gibson's futile attack on Sarah using his "NEW" take on the Bush Doctrine of 2001 was based on his ability to change facts that he stated! His exact words in 2001 were a perfect compliment to Sarah's! "...He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated." (Charles Gibson, 09-21-2001). So the moron was wrong about his own words in 2001. Let me bang my head against the wall as you continue reading....

You know I love Wikipedia. Not a perfect source, but a great place to find the sources to back up the facts. Wikipedia is not the place to find facts, but the cited excerpts are. "The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves..." (-Wikipedia). This is prior to the invasion of the Iraq war. The Iraq war started in March of 2003.

Now this is not Chuck's first rodeo. There really is not any excuse for his inability to ask questions that are pertinent while being accurate. His lack of accuracy is what I found most humorous, and therefore I have shown you how slanted this interview really is. The only other ploy Glib-son tried to use was asking the same question over and over to try to get a different answer. This is nothing new, and I do not begrudge him for trying. It was pointless and wasted a lot of time, but it did give Sarah the chance to reaffirm her standpoint.

The Iran and Israel questioning was a perfect example of this monotonous questioning. I have paraphrased the conversation below. You will have to listen to the interview (ABC edited interview) for the exact words.

Chuckle Head: What if Israel felt threatened and needed to take out Iranian nuclear facilities?

Sarah: We are friends of Israel and we should not second guess the measures Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

Chuckles: If we wouldn't second guess (Israel), and they decided they needed to [take out Iranian nuclear facilities] because Iran was an existential threat, would we be cooperative or agreeable?

Sarah: We cannot second guess what Israel has to to do to secure its nation.

Laughing boy: If Israel felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

Sarah: We cannot second guess the steps Israel takes to defend itself.

Strike three Chuck, you're OUT!

Jennifer Horn Runs Away With the Nomination

2008-09-10T00:35:00.008-04:00

Just a quick update on the 2nd Congressional race...

Congratulations Jennifer Horn.

This was the first time I was actually at a campaign headquarters while the votes came in. There was no up and down, nor where there any out bursts of cheering and clapping like you typically see on television, but there was plenty of positivity and and happy faces. Why, you ask? Not once was Jennifer behind Bob Clegg. To make up for the lack of drama on the floor, we talked about the other races, November elections, and other political items on our minds.

Starting at 8:30 pm. Jennifer Horn was up 46-28 with 5% reporting, and she held the lead all evening. The closest Bob Clegg came to taking the lead was when he was trailing by 3%. This was a good thing for us who support Jennifer, but it made for a quiet evening waiting for her to arrive. Most of us knew it was over at about 9pm, but no news networks called it until 10:30.

Around 10, people were getting antsy. Many of us started pacing, shifting in our seats, and walking in and out of the building. We were not bored, nervous, or even concerned. Simply put, we were anxious. We all knew it was over and Jennifer had won, but the news networks would not call it, and Bob Clegg seemed to miss what we all knew.

When Jennifer walked into the room, the crowd exploded. She spoke about November and beyond. She outlined the direction she expected to take once she hit Washington, and spoke in detail about her major goals (I know I am going to miss some points here) such as energy independence, term limits, lowering taxes, and much more.

Granted, politicians say a lot, but with Jennifer...
Word is bond.

"The Little Green Men Took My Daughter! I Swear!"

2008-08-25T22:02:00.004-04:00

Casey Anthony claims to have dropped her daughter, Caylee, off with a babysitter on June 9, 2008. Funny thing is, when she went to pick up her precious little girl from Zenaide (Zani), the babysitter, Caylee and Zani were nowhere to be found. The initial reaction from a responsible parent would be to call the police. Oh no, not Casey! She decides to wait a little while to see if Zani might have taken a walk… a 5 week long walk….

I really do not want to report the news here, but I would like to give some background information. Four weeks after Caylee disappeared, her grandmother asked her mom where Caylee was. The Grandmother was getting suspicious as she had not seen her granddaughter in a number of weeks. Grandma told Casey that she would go to the police if Casey did not. A week later, Casey reports her daughter is missing. If you’re doing the math, it has been five weeks since the disappearance of Caylee.

So the police end up arresting Casey, and Casey has been sitting in jail. During her stint in the joint, she has refused to see various family members at different times, stuck to her ludicrous story about some phantom babysitter that no one has meet or can find, and generally acted in a manner that screams “Pay attention to me! I don’t want you asking about Caylee, pay attention to me.” The drama queen actually said she didn’t understand why everyone was so focused on her daughter, and followed it up by asking why people were not concerned with her. Well, we are concerned with you, that is why you’re in jail.

I don’t mean to be callous, but I want the police to find the body of your daughter so they can charge you with the murder you committed. Sorry folks, but my gut feeling is this psycho killed her own daughter. Blood and hair fiber were found in her car and trunk, the officer who is in charge claimed the car smelled of decomposition…. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect these dots. My only hope is that the District Attorney’s office charges her for First Degree Murder and puts her away for life.

Now there is an alternative. Caylee could have been kidnapped and held for ransom. I doubt it for a number of reasons. First, what can the family offer a kidnapper? They do not seem to have money. Second, with the amount of attention this case has drawn, a kidnapper would probably give up by now. Third, someone should have seen Caylee by now. She has been missing for over two months. With all the media coverage, if Caylee is alive, someone should have seen her.

This is what I am getting to; how can a parent do something like this to their child. I have a hard time understanding abusive parents, never mind killer parents. I can not understand how a parent could EVER cause pain (abuse) to their own flesh and blood. How people turn out this way is a mystery to me. People like this should be put to death. Yes, I do advocate for the death penalty, and this is a case where it should be used. I don’t want to hear about her “scared childhood” or how she “needs help.” The only help Casey Anthony needs is help into the electric chair.

Global Warming Update: so maybe we're not going to die?

2008-07-21T21:29:00.007-04:00

For anyone who listened to our show last Sunday (July 13th), you know that I did a brief monologue on global warming and detailed the differences between the RSS MSU temperature system and data; and the GISS/NOAA system and its data. Until recently, the readings between the two (or three, depending on whether you actually consider the NOAA numbers separate) have been pretty similar.

The GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) is a branch of NASA that is involved primarily with tracking climate data. The NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) has, among its other duties, to warn of weather hazards to boaters and news agencies. It should be no surprise that the NOAA also tracks global historical weather data. The sensors these two groups use to gather their temperature data have been a topic of concern lately because they've started to differ substantially from another trusted source - the RSS MSU system.

MSU stands for Microwave Sounding Units and it works by measuring microwaves emitted from the Earth and extrapoling very accurate readings from any part of the Earth (and at any altitude) that it can see at that moment. An ever-growing number of scientists are now proclaiming this to be the most accurate system of all.

Why? Because it's not subject to local influences which could alter the data, that's why. Reports (largely overlooked) have circulated for years that the GISS and NOAA sensor data was being altered by poor implementation. It seems that when the system was put into place in the 60's the original specs set up by the designers called for the sensors to be put into metal boxes coated with a special whitewash that would reflect heat from the sun. In 1978 though, the rules were changed (presumably to save money) to allow the boxes to be painted with white latex paint. Obviously, the paint doesn't reflect the sun's heat nearly as well.

Enter Anthony Watts, a young meteorologist who read about the change and wanted to find out if it mattered. He located where the nearest sensor was and drove out to see it for himself and to his shock, he discovered that the sensor box was at the top of a lightpole in the middle of a parking lot... something that would surely throw the data off. He then watched as the afternoon sun set and the light came on. Since the sensor was directly above it, he concluded (correctly) that the equipment could not possibly be relaying reliable numbers.

To make a long story short, he recruited dozens of people and set up a website at surfacestations.org which he uses to gather measurements on these sensors to determine whether they are being influenced by outside heat sources. As of now, he and his team have surveyed just under half of the stations in the US and a brief rundown of his results is as follows:
* 18% of the stations had a heat source within 30 meters (1 to 2 degrees C variation)
* 56% of the stations had a heat source within 10 meters (2 to 5 degrees C variation)
* 13% of the stations had a heat source within 2 meters (5 to 10 degrees C variation)
* In all, 87% of the stations had a heat source too close for reliability.

I myself would probably have never heard of Anthony Watts & co. if it were not for new information coming to light revealing that the MSU numbers for 2007 differed from those of the GISS/NOAA data set. While the latter ranked 2007 as being tied with 1998 as the 2nd warmest year in the past decade, the MSU numbers ranked it as only 9th. It was this disparity that caused climatologists around the world to take a second look.

Here's the yearly temperature average rankings:

	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
RSS MSU:	1st	--	--	7th	3rd	4th	6th	2nd	5th	9th
GISS/NOAA:	2nd	--	--	7th	3rd	4th	6th	1st	5th	2nd(tied)

The real story here however should be that the Earth is actually cooling (or at least plateaued) when you look at the graph for the past 10 years. Skeptics will naturally declare that 10 years is an unreasonable sample size and that not too much should be read into that. Keep in mind though, that we're told the Earth is warming based on a sample size not much greater; 23 years by the scientific community's reckoning.

But is a little over decades of warming even a trend? The story of the 20th century tells us that this has happened before and it will happen again. From 1918 to 1940 we had a warming trend about like the one we've seen recently, and from 1940 to roughly 1965 it cooled. A plateau of cool stability then carried us through the mid-70's until we began the latest upward temperature trend.

Check back soon - I'll have a part 2 on global warming ready in a week or so.

- Scott

Is This Exxon Mobile's Fault Too?

2008-07-17T21:11:00.003-04:00

Oil prices have come down over the past three days. Oil is still over $130 a barrel, but it is down about $14 since the close on Monday. That's a heck of a slide. The way I figure it, even if oil comes back about $5 over the next 3-5 business days, gasoline prices should be dropping in about 4 -8 days.

Ok, is that as confusing to read as it was to write? Let me bullet this for you:

Monday: 1 barrel of oil about $145
Thursday: 1 barrel of oil about $130
1 gallon of gasoline about $4

My guess is that if oil stays under $140 for the next week, on Friday of next week (or Monday of the week after), gas prices should come down a few pennies.

Now here is my question. Is the DROP in gas prices going to be blamed on Exxon Mobil also, or is Exxon only at fault when the price goes UP? Actually, I am going to put up a poll right above the pod casts. Let's see what you think.

Oh, and let me throw up a prediction... I haven't had a prediction in a while, and I haven't been correct on a prediction since the Republican Primary. But this has been on my mind for a while and I just want to share my feeling with you.

Something (oil related) is going to be attacked by terrorists (surprise surprise) in the Middle East and magically oil prices are going to $175 a barrel. This should happen before Israel attacks Iran at the end of this year. If I am wrong and Israel attacks first, we will see $175 a barrel by March of next year. Be prepared for $5-6 a gallon by summer next year.

Blast from the past

2008-07-17T20:25:00.002-04:00

Considering this is an election year, I thought you might like to remember why we typically vote for Republicans:

Ronald Reagan 1984 election

A friend of mine in Conway, NH. reminded me of this site. I forgot about all the good (and old) stuff on retrojunk.com this is where I found the Reagan commercial.

If you comment there, just let them know I sent you!!

Enjoy,
Myke

Primary Language

2008-07-17T11:04:00.001-04:00

Why is it so important to most of us to have a primary language? I thought long and hard about how I was going to write this post. I was going to raise hypothetical’s, approach the topic from the points made on the air, and also tried starting fresh with this topic. None of this worked for me. The reason I ended up writing this post about a “private” conversation is because during our last radio show, I was asked about this topic off the air. There was a “fly on the wall” who thought it would be a good idea to jump in while my co-host and I were discussing the next topic on “Live.”

Her argument was simply that the government should not change the constitution to make the people do anything. Specifically, she referenced having a primary language. She phrased her argument to say that the founding fathers intended the constitution to be a bit more open for the people, not to dictate to the citizens. For this reason, we should not amend the constitution to make English the primary language. She further stated that we, as American, are superior to other governments, and because we are better, we don’t need to have legislation to state our primary language. Her next key point was that if I get my ballot in English, then why am I complaining.

No, I did not unload on her with both barrels. I was actually quite polite about this, allowed her to state her case, and plainly answered her retorts with as few words as I could. To be honest, she didn’t really interest me, just annoyed me. I think she was more interested in finding an argument than a discussion.

As to her three main points, I agree with her first and second point. There is no reason for a constitutional amendment that states we must speak English here in the United States. Personally, I think that would be wrong. Etiquette should be the guiding light as to the language you speak while you are here in the United States. If you are in a room of people who speak only German and you turn to a friend and start talking in English, your being rude. Thus, socially acceptable behaviors should be the guiding factor here. Either you’re a rude jerk, or you’re a polite “socialite” who has chosen to speak with respect. No law should dictate manners. She and I seem to agree here, though she seemed to think she was arguing this point with me.

In my opinion, the founding fathers were not looking to dictate to the people of the United States. Honestly I think the founding fathers wanted a document to use as the skeleton for laws and guidelines to be build on. The idea that English is the primary language is not skeletal in nature; it is more of a supporting clause to our culture. By having everything done at the federal, state and local levels in one common language, you remove the cumbersome task of translation, and the mistakes of interpretation. For example, if a Senator from Washington State sets forth a bill in Mandarin, and a Senate office in Maine translates it to Spanish, then it is voted on in English, there is much room for error. Just ask a person in Iran about the English version of the Qur’an. See if they think the translation to English is pure enough to be used in their Mosque.

Now here is where she and I separate. I think the United States is a great country. I enjoy the fact that my ancestors came here to root their families. I am also pleased that the FIRST GENERATION of my family learned English and assimilated. Then again, immigrants of the early 1900’s came to America to be American, not to make America the country they left (as some people from specific cultures are trying to do). But I digress. We are not superior to anyone. There are things that we may be better at, and there are things that we enjoy about our country. But this doesn’t make us superior to anyone. Who makes the best electronics? Who makes the best car? Each of us has our own opinion in these matters, and one line of thinking is not superior to the other. So how can we, Americans, be superior to another culture?

To be honest, there are parts of other cultures that i feel are BETTER than ours! Go to Germany, speak English and you will be treated like a tourist. Now LIVE in Germany, speak English and try to survive… Not so easy. Fair enough, German is the language, and you must know German to BECOME a German. I also like Mexico’s immigration laws. If you steal into their country, they kill you. I think this is fair, don’t you? (Yes I am being facetious) But seriously, if you going to wage your argument on the premise that we are superior, maybe you should start thinking about Nazi Germany, or Stalin.

Superiority doesn’t even come into question here. This is all about consistency and efficiency. Do I care if you speak another language? Yes and no. Yes, because it shows me that you have a useful skill. No, because it doesn’t really matter to me unless I need a translator or tutor. Things should be consistent within the government. My president should not be addressing the country in any language other than English. If you want to hear the Presidents words in another language, then you should have it translated like they do on the Spanish channels. Congress should never address any proposal that is in any language other than English. You will NOT try to pass a law in MY NAME that I can not understand. Further, no ruling should be made in the name of the people in a language that can not be understood by its citizens.

One last thing; I want to reiterate something I said to the “fly on the wall” that started this baseless argument:

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to pass a law, ruling, policy, or raise an issue in a language that the citizens can not understand. You must be proficient with English to be a citizen. THAT is why English should be the primary language.

Barack’s insane, oh my God!

2008-07-10T23:09:00.005-04:00

Let’s start with an intelligent quote:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and the is a loyalty to the American people.”

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Now we delve into the stupidity spoken 101 years after:

“…you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.
You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual.”

 Barack Obama 2008 (video to follow)

Did Barack have an ice cream headache when he gave that speech in Powder Springs, GA.? I should be thinking about how my children can “become” bilingual? First off, don’t tell ME how to raise my kids. I have a sixteen year old honors student, a very bright eleven year old, and a precocious seven years old. Excuse me, Mr. Obama, but last I checked, we speak English here in the United States. If my child would like to take Spanish, that’s their choice.

Barack has slid, yet again, back into his comfort zone… The far left (even MSNBC admits Obama is SOLIDLY in the top 20 three years in a row). On July 8^th, he stated that he does not understand why people are calling for “English only” in the United States. Well Mr. Obama, we have something in common. IF people were calling for “English only,” I would not understand the sentiment either. Yet I believe you were talking about people like me. People who want the United States Government to operate in English. People who want to continue the requirement for citizenship that states you must learn English.

Well Barack, don’t forget where you are. This is the UNITED States of America, and, as much as you might hate to hear it, "applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language." (Quoted from US Citizenship and Immigration Services website) Deal with it. We like it this way, and we want it to stay this way. Keep in mind, the key word was UNITED. People like me want legislation to define the official language as English simply to ensure that things remain united and uniform. I don’t care what language you speak in your own home. If “Xhosa” is your cup of tea, please, by all means.

Voting has become cumbersome with the various “language” ballots (Thank you for the example California), and it would be perfectly legal and justified to offer ballots in ONLY English. Remember the requirements for citizenship; must speak, read, and write English! Only citizens of the United States may vote in national elections and primaries. Now, Mr. Obama and friends, please tell me why I should allow ballots to be passed out in other languages? Do you NOT understand the difference between assisting and enabling?

Fact: ONLY US citizens may vote in the Presidential election.(thank you PA and TX)

Fact: To become a citizen you must speak English.

My last words on this:
As a private citizen, the Government should NEVER mandate that I must write or speak in ANY other language.

And one last opinion:
It is rude to speak another language in front of others if it is not the common language of the land. This is to those French people who sit on the stoop and talk “nineteen to the dozen” in French. (Yes I am French.)

I am going to ensure that you all can read and hear what raised my temperature. I don’t want anyone to second guess the words coming out of Barack’s mouth here, so not only did I put up a video, but the words have been written under the video. Please read along as you listen to this 1 minute clip from his speech.

"I ah I I don’t understand when, people are going around worrying about, we need to have English only.
They they wanna pass a law, we want just, ah, we want English only.
Now I agree that, immigrants should learn English.
I agree with that. But, but understand this.
Instead of worrying about whether, ah immigrants can learn English they’ll learn English you need to make sure, your child can speak Spanish.
You should be, thinking about how can, your child become bilingual.
We should have every child, speaking more than one language.
Yo its embarrassing, its embarrassing when when ah, eu when Europeans come over here.
They all speak English they speak French they speak German, and then we go over to Europe, an an ah wah ah all we’s can say is, merci beaucoup ... Right?"

Ok, if you haven’t found humor in Barack’s words say the title of this post with the same accent and "swing" that you say Barack’s full name with.

Temperature Gauge Live is on the air!

2008-06-27T20:00:00.006-04:00

You and I have been waiting for this day to come. Looks like it is just around the corner. Yes, Temperature Gauge is going live. I have been putting together advertising spots, and "learning my lines," (who knew there would be acting involved?!?) and it looks like we go live on the 6th of July. My show is going on every Sunday, and I look forward to talking with you all.

Just to clue you in as to why this is taking so long, I have to "sell" my show. Basically I have to convince local businesses to buy advertising on 1590am WSMN. The advertising pays for my air time. If I have had the pleasure to meet you before, you might know I am not a sales person. My own failings have been holding me back. But somehow I managed to do it thanks to you. You gave me the backbone I needed to get this done.

Either way, The important thing is that we are going live! I will update with air time later this week, (if I can get on the internet from my hotel) but it should be 7pm every Sunday. This is a basic trial for me. I am in it for 10 weeks, and longer if the live show takes off! I will be waiting on your phone calls at 883-9900.

Temperature Gauge Live on 1590am WSMN
Sunday evenings from 7-8
(603) 883-9900
Streaming at wsmnradio.com

Call or email me... What's your temperature?

The missing post... I weep for our country.

2008-06-27T19:22:00.003-04:00

(This post was actually written on the 11th, but I lost it. I am also searching for one more)

In social circles, I try to never bring up politics or religion. Sooner or later, someone has an opinion about something political, and then they turn to me. “So what do you think, Myke?” Of course I can’t just ignore the question, and they want to know my feelings on the matter. So I sit back, take a breath and launch into a dissertation regarding the subject at hand. Unfortunately, the recent subject at hand was the attacks on 9-11, or should I say the “conspiracies of 9-11.” (put on you waders, this gets deep)

Let’s get this squared away from the beginning; you and I both know the attacks on 9-11 were terrorist attacks. If you think the U.S.A. attacked itself on that day, please stop reading and do not EVER reproduce (We can not afford anymore idiots in the world, we are over our quota). Science and common sense has proved that I am right about 9-11.

Why would an American ever claim that we attacked ourselves? Who in their right (or left as the case may be) mind could ever believe we could do something so horrific to anyone, never mind ourselves? What kind of sick and twisted person would ever want to crash a plane of civilians into a building of civilians? But then again, I did have this argument with a kid in his 20’s just a few weeks back. He swore up and down that we blew up our own buildings and murdered the people on the planes.

His take on it was that we “…used explosives in the World Trade Center buildings, and hijacked our own plane.” The proof was that “…the buildings fell straight down.” Of course my first question was “Are you a %&$*-ing moron?!?!” I followed such eloquence with the hard facts of the case. The buildings did NOT fall straight down, they toppled slightly. Second, we know that as the floors collapsed, they displaced what was ON those floors and sent it to the easiest exit; the window. The “plumes of smoke,” as he called them, were nothing more than dust particle, papers, and parts of building and furniture being forced out the windows.

The reason I bring this up is simple. This kids in his twenties, and he will be helping steer this country over the next few decades. His vote is going to affect how we live our lives. This ignorant fool, who doesn’t know the facts, and has no desire to be educated, is going to decide my future? If this doesn’t scary the hell out of you, let me try this; President Barack H. Obama. You see, this idiot… who plagues my nightmares… “will vote for Barack, because Barack stands for change.” (Yes, the moron even told me so.) He doesn’t know what Barack is going to do in Iraq, with healthcare, taxes, or any other political issue. But he knows Barack stands for change. Ahh, come again?

When did we lose track of our sanity? Was it just bad parenting that lead to this worldly ignorance? Was it too many drugs in the 60’s and 70’s (and apparently 80’s)? Could this be the product of single parent households? Or is it that we just don’t care about ourselves enough to educate ourselves on the world around us. Very few of my Democrat friends can explain to me what their party is going to do for our country if Barack wins the election this year. Even less can explain how the Democrats can be beneficial to the United States this election cycle. They all have learned the mantra, though. Change for ’08. I weep for our country.

Bartender… another shot please….

John who?

2008-06-27T18:58:00.002-04:00

So I finally heard a commercial about Jean Shaheen that was not by Jean. I was had just took a left into traffic, and as I shifted my car, I must have hit the volume up button on the radio. An announcer comes on and states how Shaheen promised us that as Governor, she would not allow new taxes in New Hampshire. I rolled my eyes and shifted into 3^rd gear. I thought to my self, “Wow, already lying to the public…” But then the tone changed slightly, and the announcer starts to remind us of the truth. I was so surprised that I mis-shifted 4^th gear.

It outlined how Jean proposed new taxes, AND raised property taxes. I forgot that in New Hampshire we pay the third highest property taxes. The Announcer was kind enough to remind me of this while also stating that the taxes she proposed would have cost the New Hampshire business owners hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Say that 10 times fast!!) As interesting as this was, I started to think, “Why would John Sununu use this as his political add?” Then the final line of the commercial came, and it was NOT a John Sununu commercial. In fact, it wasn’t even a commercial from the Republican Party; it was a third party spot!

Now I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but where the hell is John in all of this. I really hope he is not intending to ride in at the last moment and scoop up all the votes he needs. His opponent has been out of sight long enough that many people forgot what she was like as Governor. There is no way he can pull this off unless he starts putting his name out there, and starts hitting the streets again. I am sorry John, you might be the incumbent, but you don’t have squat against Shaheen right now! Too many people have forgotten that you’re even in Washington at this point. You are about to lose us another chair in Washington.

Look, John, unless you intend to step aside and allow someone else to run in your place, get your rump out there and show us what you got! Just for the heck of it, I have asked some people what they thought about John Sununu. Too many times, people asked me, “Wasn’t he a congress person or something?” I don’t know John, does this sound good to you? It doesn’t sound good to me. If this was the political climate I was looking for, I would move to France and let the government have my paycheck (where you could be paying over 55% back in taxes). John, Stop sending ME emails and DO SOMETHING!

Lamenting

2008-06-05T15:04:00.003-04:00

Bitter sweet feelings passed over me today as I recycled my "Mitt '08" signs. It was difficult for me to remove the eight foot long Romney banner from the side of my house, but I was tired of explaining that I still feel Mitt is the man for the job. I finally gave in and admited that I have little choice but to vote for John McCain yet again. It has been a few years since I was anticipating his name on a ballot, but this fall I will again be checking the McCain box.

To be honest, this is not a new revelation for me, I know I would vote for McCain this fall. I was indignant, the thought of voting for a man who I felt was second best. "Well, bite the bullet," I told myself. "John moved from third to second best after South Carolina..." I rationalized. "... then second to first once Romney dropped out." Yes, I know Huckabee was still in the race at that point, but I couldn't rationalize Mike as viable... for anything... even janitor. (harsh words, but not as harsh as Mike's words towards and against his fellow Republicans.

So here we are, with what appears to be an Obama VS McCain contest in a few short months. Now it's time to decide who would be the best candidate to lead our fair country. To me, the choice is clear; John McCain. Why, you ask? Let me highlight two key points:

1. Barack wants to... Damn, what does he want to do? Change... ok, got it! He wants to change Washington!!

2. Who cares about number one. Any new President is a change. Do you have anything else for us?

What is your plan for our future, Mr. Obama?
(insert dead air here)
How do you plan to spend my tax dollars?
(enter "ummm" sound here)
How do you plan to pay for the national health care your proposing?
(Enter the "well, you know" sound clip here)
If you pull out troops in Iraq, how do you plan to deal with the fallout cause by the vacuum we leave behind?
(Play cricket sounds here)
When the vacuum is filled with terrorist, how do you plan to protect us from your mistake?
(...... Thank you for coming everybody! And remember, together we can. Change you can believe in!! Have a good night!)

Ah, yeah... This guy wants to run my country... Like I said, Bitter sweet. I am going to have to vote for McC-amnesty instead of my man Mitt (bitter), but I know John is the best choice for '08 (sweet).

Why I Love the Democrats... Today

2008-06-05T07:47:00.001-04:00

As a conservative, let me say thank you to Hillary Clinton. Your current course of action has been uplifting to me. Mathematically I could not see how you expected to win. Granted, a pledged delegate does not have to vote the way of the people they represent, but do you honestly think a “pledged delegate” would change their vote from Barack? True, he has no experience, and looks like an intern on the debate stage, but I think the Democrats are more interested in keeping the votes where they belong. There are many good reasons for the Democrats to “stay the course” and nominate Barak Obama. Here’s one off the top of my head… “To give the Republicans a better chance to win.”

Alright, let's consider this for a moment; Hillary is out because she does not have the delegate count necessary to win the nomination. After losing yesterday, she decides on some abhorrent speech about choosing the right leader and blah blah blah. Typical Hillary rhetoric that does not truly congratulate the obvious winner, and further divides the Democrat Party. (Oh and also makes me happy!)

I wish I could explain to you why she has not said those beautiful words; “It has been a great run, and I thank all my supporters for bringing me this far. Now it is time to stand as one and…. (Insert rhetoric here)” Is she going to drag this out to convention? This might work for her, but the only way she can steal this is to buy, bribe, and cheat votes out of Barack pledged delegates. On the other hand, what delegate in their right mind would ever vote against their pledge? Think about how bad a presidential candidate must be for a delegate to vote against their pledge! I can't think of a time when a pledged delegate has ever voted against their constituents’. I mean CRIPE!!! THEY PUT CARTER UP ON THE STAGE!!!!! (I rest my case)

So Barack is the nominee, and he will have to face John McC-amnesty. There are only two options for the conservatives; first the conservatives MIGHT fear another Jimmy Carter and come out in force. Second, we might just stay home and try to drink the next four years away. To be honest, I think I am going to do parts of both.

Let's get drunk and vote! Another shot there, bar tender!

Violated... In My Own Home!

2008-06-03T13:47:00.001-04:00

I feel violated. I was just accosted by the putrid image of Jean Sheehan yet again. I knew the commercials were coming, but I was hoping I would be spared the constant reminder of her Governorship. I understand that she is trying to unseat an incumbent and reminding us that she was Governor is a great use of name recognition. The problem is that too many people who are hearing the name from years past may vote for her because they remember the former Governor (her name not her term). Not all of us actually research the candidates before we vote. I know some people who have voted for a candidate because the “signs were pretty,” or “he looked pretty rugged.” (Ok, I know, not the brightest bulbs.)

This is going to sound strange, but I knew the full name of the person I was NOT voting for the second I started writing. It took me about two lines before I could remember John’s first name. I don’t know what is worrying me more, the commercials of Jean Sheehan or the lack of commercials from John Sununu. Maybe it’s the fact that John’s name slipped my mind; not a good sign. How could I forget the name of my representative? Then again, how many advertisements have you heard for John Sununu?

In the advertising industry, “branding” is a term that basically refers to making an advertisers name stick in you head. This method of advertising basically puts a product (Jean) in your face, and repeats the facts they want you to remember (Jean did this or that… Governor). You would think the Republican Party would be sinking money into John’s campaign, posting his face on your T.V. every 15-20 minutes. Considering my slight memory lapse, the average voter probably forgot John is a Senator. Last time I saw his name in print was some energy bill 2-3 months ago!

So where are the radio commercials, flyers, and billboards? (Ok, I know flyers are for the recycle bin, and people don’t pay attention to billboards….) But there has not been any attempt to get his name out yet! Where are the Republicans, and why is Sununu asleep at the wheel? Is he running for reelection, or sitting this one out? At this point he’s about a lap down and loosing ground.

This is my point; with John down in the “polls,” Jean running adds every 30 minutes on Comcast, John and his staff really need to get on the ball. If they don’t act quickly, proposes some prolific legislation, or…. ANYTHING!!!!!, this is over before it even begins. Today, if you ask people who they would vote for Jean Sheehan, or John Sununu, you might get an answer, but you might also get a “John who?” The problem for John is what I call the “What have you done for me….lately?” syndrome.

In this “ADHD” style political world, I can not help but ask these questions; “Where is the Republican Party?” ” When is John going to run?” and the all important, “Is it already too late?”

I hate to say it, but it may already be over for John. Cheer up though; I was wrong about Hillary and Rudy….

The Weapon of Choice

2008-05-08T21:16:00.002-04:00

So your down at a pub off Main Street, when in comes a Yankee’s fan. What is the proper response?

a. Talk sports

b. State the facts that prove the Red Sox are a better team

c. Run the bastard over with your car

Well, after last week, we all know the correct answer is “C,” run the bastard over. Nashua has just received its new summer past-time thanks to Ivonne Hernandez. It’s a simple way to waste some excessive time (like life in prison at the taxpayers’ expense). Just go to a bar, have four beers, then get in your car and “scare” a fan of another team by running them down with your car. Then you can claim it was an accident in court (though you already have a record) and face second degree murder charges…

If you can’t tell, I am a bit upset with this. I don’t care if alcohol impaired her judgment, this woman got into her car with the intention of aiming her 4-5,000 lb car at pedestrians. Seems to me she also left the area she was arguing in, retrieved her car, and then hunted down the people she didn’t agree with TO RUN THEM OVER! Sounds like intent to me. This is first degree in my book. I may be wrong, but I thought New Hampshire law states that the charges go up then the driver is intoxicated, not down. Unfortunately, the prosecutors decided that because she “didn’t mean” to rundown her victims, this is second degree.

Now here is a creepy though; I think I have had a run in with Ms. Hernandez. If here maroon Dodge Intrepid is the one that had the Yankee symbol on the back window, she is the same one who cut me off then told me I was “number one,” if you know what I mean (finger gestures). I feel lucky today knowing I might have saved my life by ignoring her and letting her act the fool. Who knows, she might have thought I was a Red Sox fan and started ramming my car if I beeped at her.

Basically, what I am getting at is this. We have some very unstable, immature, ignorant people we must share the world with. Therefore we must gauge our actions cautiously. This does not mean we must cower from every shadow, but more that we must think about EVER possible consequence before we act. The two poor people who were run down by this lunatic probably thought they were having a typical Boston VS New York sports debate. Little did they know that they were messing with a ticking time bomb.

When Intelligence Fails...

2008-05-08T20:33:00.003-04:00

The whole Reverend Wright situation made me think again about the whole “race” issue. I don’t really think about “race relations” all that much because I never see the “race” part of it. I have friends of many different races, religions, and other “defining” markers. I don’t think of my friends as being one attribute. My friend Garret is Garret, not black or homosexual. Do the attributes of my friends really matter in the whole scheme of things? Yes, because some characteristics design the person, and other no, because some characteristics would not change the person if they were altered.

We all wish that race was not an issue for anyone in this day and age. I personally do not understand why it is an issue now or ever. I may be naive, but the human mind is generally the same from on person to the next, and the blood that courses through our veins created in the same manner. Skin “color” is simply pigmentation of the skin, not a measure of the person.

Cultivation of the person (morals, values, etc.) is what I have found to be important in life. So why do so many things seem to revolve around skin color? Is there a certain lineage that makes one being better than another? Is there a purer bloodline in one race or culture? I found these questions easy to field, the answer is no. There is no “birthright” that makes one person superior to another. Each of us has our own strengths and weaknesses that help shape who we are.

So going back to the good Reverend, I can not help but wonder why he must interject race into the equation. Congratulations, your skin color is different than mine. I fail to see how you could state that I am somehow evil due to my skin tone. What if I was the same person, but my skin tone was darker? Would I still be evil, or would you change your opinion of me? What is the defining line you use when you judge my character? Is it my personality, my education? Could it be that you prejudge who I am simply because of the amount of pigmentation in my skin? I mean no disrespect, but that does seem a bit shallow and dim witted to me. Then again, I could be missing something. Could the good Reverend be correct? Maybe race is a factor and I have not received enough education to understand this concept. Perhaps the amount of or lack of skin pigmentation affects the body adversely.

For some reason, even writing such idiotic statements has made me feel less intelligent. So let us get back to the heart of my argument. The amount of pigmentation in ones skin does not affect the function of the mind, nor the morals and values of the individual. Therefore, to bring race into a conversation about the merits of a person is to be racist. Simply put, I do not care what “color” you are, if you are judging people (group or individual) due to their skin pigmentation, you are shallow indeed. I venture to say you may be racist.

Climate Control (part 1,2&3 combined)

2008-04-21T21:11:00.003-04:00

The teacher’s contract issue has been the center of much turmoil for a number of months. With a quick stroke of the pen, it all went away with the exuberance of a snail. Mayor Donnalee Lozeau signed the latest proposed contract without fanfare, a very mature decision.

The atmosphere within the schools has changed dramatically, and the teachers are actually taking kids out for field trip now. Teachers have made themselves more accessible to the students, and there has been talk about the extra curriculum activities for next year. Every student I have talked to has stated that the teachers seem more relaxed that they had been one month ago. In the school, you never would know how recently things have changed.

I have been there, and I have worked there. I have seen the changes taking place. I may have only seen the teachers for a short period of time prior to the contract being signed, but it was long enough to notice the change.

Before the contract was signed, I found it fairly easy to slip into the teachers areas unnoticed. While “eavesdropping,” I heard some interesting conversations. One of the most memorable went a little something like this:

T1: So. Do you think they will sign?
T2: I hope so. I don’t want to strike.
T1: Yeah. Gotta do what you gotta do.
-pause-
T2: So… ahh… How do we do this?
T1: Do what?
T2: Shhhhh… (whispered) here comes a sub.
-pause-(another substitute entered the room then left)
T2: Okay, now how do we do the strike thing.
T1: I don’t know, I’ve never done this before either.
-pause-
T2: Well, hopefully they sign it
T1: If they don’t, we strike until they give us everything we want…
T2: Yeah…(then while walking away) whatever…

Because I carry the same badge the teachers carry, I have found that they don’t notice me quite as often as I thought they would. Sometimes I hear things that I shouldn’t. But right along I have been telling people that not all the teachers wanted to strike. This does not mean that those teachers are innocent I am just restating what I have said in private conversation. If a teacher acted against our children (like I have listed so many time before) then it does not matter if they wanted to strike or not, they are still guilty.

So do I cut the teachers a little more slack now that the contract negotiations are finished? No, I just allow them a little more breathing room. There are good teachers and there are bad teachers. Now that the teachers are not acting as one to destroy our children’s future, I will only be ripping into those who continue to be a waste of tax dollars.

A Stupid Mistake

2008-04-21T20:30:00.002-04:00

Due to an error on my part, nothing has been posted on my site for a few weeks. I just wanted to say thank you to the person who finally sent me this email:

Myke,

I was just wondering if you were ok. You’re not sick again, are you? I noticed you haven’t written in a month and I know that’s weird. You always seem to have an opinion on everything. I never saw anything about the teacher’s contract and was wondering how it panned out. Drop me a line and if you need some help just ask.

Thank you for the concern, but I am alright. It seems my new software has not been functioning properly. I do not actually look at my web page, and everything is done via publishing program. It was my own fault for not checking my page.

Much of what I wrote will not make sense if I just repost it. I will be rewriting my previous blogs, and combining a couple of them. I think I can weave most of my work in with very few glitches.

Again, I am sorry for not looking at my own page. I assumed my programs were posting and reporting to me correctly. Starting right now, 8:22pm on Monday April 21, 2008, I am going over my previous (non)posts and revamping them. I think I can sum it all up in three posts.

Crossing my fingers and thanking you all for the support (even when I let you down),

Myke

Exploitation and Extortion… NTU’s Favorite Tools

2008-03-21T10:36:00.001-04:00

I have been quiet as of late, due to the collapsed lung and other issues, but I think I can make up for my absence. I think I want to open up my favorite can of worms, the Nashua Teachers Union contract negotiations. We are called cruel, heartless, and frequently have our intelligence questioned if we disagree with the teachers union here in Nashua. So let me once again put my neck on the line, and call it like I see it: The Extortion artist are at it again.

Last year, a great number of teachers found religion and observed "Good Friday." Amazingly, there are quite a few teachers who no longer observer "Good Friday". School was right on time, and all the "religious" teachers of last year seem to care very little for their "Christianity" this year. I find this rather insulting as I am a Christian (practicing…. Meaning I haven't quite gotten it right yet) who would never use my religion as a bargaining chip for personal gain. Actually, I would never use another person's religion for my gain either. I find it appalling that the teachers are able to work this year on "Good Friday." But then again, why would they have to exploit "Good Friday this year? Instead, the union has stated they are going to strike as of March 31, 2008. At least this time they had the stones to call it a strike.

I think we should let them strike, but make sure we get the right message out first. If the correct spin is put on this issue, the teachers union will look like the aggressor and the city of Nashua will not look like such monsters. The Nashua Left-o-Graph, better known as the Nashua Telegraph, has been printing only pro-NTU stories. The Citizens here believe the teachers are getting screwed, and this is the only way to fight back. The problem is the reporting is not balanced. The telegraph has refused to talk about the issues I have raised of the year (Please look at my "No merit for teachers" posts from 2007._

Part of this posting will be an email to the mayor of Nashua, Donnalee Lozeau. The next paragraph is the beginning of the letter. This letter will be sent to Patty Rogers in the Mayors office and to Donnalee herself:

03-12-08

RE: Nashua Teachers Union and contract negotiations

Mayor Donnalee Lozeau,

First, I do not want the City of Nashua to continue to look like "the bad guy" in this melodrama. Second, The Nashua Teachers Union (from here to be listed as NTU) has gone too far. Third, the Telegraph has been reporting from the pocket of the NTU. With that said, I would like to suggest that you release a statement that puts the blame where it belongs, and also clears the City of the liable suggested within the pages of the Telegraph.

If I may be so bold, I have an idea for how to phrase such a statement. Of course you need not use my idea in any form, but my hope is that you will find valor in my suggestion. I do not feel that the city of Nashua should continue to bear all the blame for the actions (or inaction, if you will) of the NTU. I believe that the NTU believes they can simply push the local government around by spreading propaganda and smearing the local municipal offices. Public opinion is very important, and the NTU is using this to their advantage. Therefore I suggest you take the next step by placing the responsibility where it belongs; back in the lap of the NTU.

My suggestion of such a statement is as follows:

"The city of Nashua is taking every step necessary to ensure the educational process of the Nashua students is not disrupted. We have been, and continue to look for options that would be mutually agreeable to the Nashua Teachers Union and the City of Nashua. We understand that the Nashua Teachers Union has threatened to disrupt the education of the students that the teachers are responsible for. It is unfortunate that the Nashua Teachers Union has used the children of Nashua to force action on the teacher's contract, yet we can not make hasty decisions that could be detrimental to the economics of Nashua. Therefore we will work diligently on a suitable contract for the teachers, but we will not rush to any decision simply because the teachers union has threatened to disrupt our children's school year. The city can not guarantee that the teacher union will be appease before the March 31 deadline, though a valiant effort will be made to ensure the lightest impact on the children of Nashua. We are currently looking to…."

and continue from there. As I am not sure what avenues you have open, I can not continue. But the idea is to place the blame where it belongs. The teachers union is trying to force your hand by using public opinion. Therefore, the best alternative is to find a way to take the "soapbox" out from under them. Let the city know it is the NTU who is threatening the students, not the City of Nashua. Paint the city as an open and flexible unit that is working to find common ground. Allow the teachers union to appear as the impassive, unrelenting, bullheaded aggressor.

If you need to contact me, please feel free to email me at this address or call me at XXX-XXXX

Mychel Elderd

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Nashua, NH XXXXX

Media Puppeteers

2008-03-03T07:12:00.005-05:00

The average person listens to a story, gets the 30 second blurb, then commits it to memory as if it is fact. The media knows we don't research the facts of the case, therefore they only give us the half of the story they want us to know. Though I have urged people to research the facts on their own, as an author I am not and would never claim to be innocent of having a bias. Authors have a bias, and it tends to show in their work. My bias is obvious, and I do not try to hide it. Even this posting is agenda driven.

Sometimes a news source's bias is slightly askew from what we would expect. A perfect example appeared this morning on WorldNetDaily. They threw me off when they went after John McCain and one of his latest endorsements.

John McCain can not seem to get a clear break. It seems that every time he turns around, there is another strange story raised somewhere in the press. This time, I found an interesting story from a Christian Right Wing (by my estimation) online news group, WorldNetDaily. It seems McCain is being backed by a lobbying group that represents the Kosovo Liberation Army.

According to the story, when you research the "KLA," you find that they have ties with al-Qaida. I have been looking around a little, and was unable to find a hard link until I found this. I will not say whether there is or is not a link because I have not had a chance to fully investigate. In all honesty, from what I have been reading it seems there is a link.

Endorsements are a point of interest for the media and, by proxy, the constituents. I remember a few weeks ago, there was a buzz about Obama and Farrakhan. Obama tried to distance himself after Farrakhan said he liked Obama as a candidate. A quote from ABC: "Farrakhan said that if Obama was avoiding controversial black leaders like himself, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Rev. Jesse Jackson for fear of alienating white voters it would be an acceptable price to pay for an Obama victory." For some reason, people were very concerned with these words. Keep in mind, the story is from last year! Where was this story a year ago, and why is it news NOW?

So, do such endorsements matter? That depends on your point of view. Many people believe that if you are sponsored by a group, then you have an agenda that is in line with such groups. Personally I find that laughable. There have been groups and organizations that have supported me that have no links to my agenda, nor could I say I agree with them. John McCain would never consciously act to benefit al-Qaida, nor would he actively seek a common goal with the group. McCain has seen and knows too much, to align himself with a terrorist group.

If you can find proof that is contrary to my thinking, please forward the link to me. At this time, I think this is just more "New York Times" style agenda driven dribble. Stories like these only seem to surface when someone is trying to weaken the position of a candidate. We know this is done on purpose, and we know why this is done. I don't want the reporting to change, but I would like people to understand there are two sides to every coin. If we were to expect the news world to be unbiased, we would not have any news.

"Times" for the Wolves to Attack

2008-02-21T08:20:00.003-05:00

Since John McCain seized the nomination, I have been wondering when his status as "Media Darling" would change to "Republican." Looks like we didn't have to wait too long. This morning I was looking over the New York Times, and sure enough I found a story about John McCain trying to pull a Clinton. I assumed this was the "quiet before the storm," but it seems the NYT has decided they would not wait until the general election to take on McCain.

Before I get called a hypocrite, let me first start by pointing out that I am not on McCain's side quite yet. I still have not decided what I am doing in November. 4 or 5 people have asked me when I was going to jump in line with McCain. If I am to change my position and back up McCain, I need to do some soul searching. Remember I am a conservative independent who is registered as a Republican. The reason I brought up this story is because we conservatives expect this type of garbage from the "Times" and other newsprint papers.

The NYT is back to showing their true colors as a liberal rag that hates individual thought. Again, we are shown by the "Times" how Republicans are immoral sex fiends who can not be trusted. Of course I just roll my eyes, but too many people believe the "Times" is a newspaper. As we all know, The "Times" has an agenda, and they want the United States to move to the left. Unfortunately, most Americans are lemmings so they follow the lead of the "Times" blindly.

Please read the story and make up your mind. Is the NYT just pushing their agenda, or are they just opening the door to let in some light on the truth. My gut reaction is that this is an agenda driven rumor. Though I don't like the idea of John McCain being my candidate, I would not stoop so low as to accuse the man of having an affair to stop his candidacy. I will be looking into this further to see if there is any merit. Personal, I doubt there is any truth to this story, and even if there was, how does this affect his ability to run the country? Didn't the NYT argue that Bill Clinton's actions had little to do with his ability to run the country? Just as an example, the story from the NYT on the day of Bill's State of the Union Address, they ran a story that basically said, "Yeah, bill might be screwing around, but the county's is what is important, not his sex life."

One last thing. I beg you to see the "New York Times" for what it really is, an agenda driven liberal mouthpiece. If this story is not the greatest reason to write the NYT off as a tabloid, they what is?

*An update:

Looks like others are picking this story up. I just turned on the radio and this story has made the news. John McCain has just started a news conference, I will listen and add to this post later if I find good reason to.

Update:

John seems to have just denied any seedy actions, and basically said what I expected. Nothing happened. Other than that, John had nothing to say. What did you expect? It is time for the Republicans to get the beating they deserve for putting up a liberal. I can't help but smile and think of how stupid the NYT is. The NYT might have just done what McCain can not do on his own; unite the conservative base of the party. Let's see how this plays out.

This still does not move me to a decision. I am still on the fence. Convince me. Tell me what you think, and how does this affect you? (Comments are better than emails. This one needs to be discussed.)

I will look this over and fix errors later. I just wanted to get this out to you as quick as I could.

The "Castro" Effect

2008-02-19T09:35:00.012-05:00

Fidel Castro officially announced his resignation as leader of Cuba. Many people will see this as a great day in history. Others will feel like they lost their greatest leader. I have none of these feeling, I can't even explain what I truly feel about this announcement. I am unsure of the future of Cuba.

Until today, I have been thinking about what would happen in Cuba if Castro was to die. My first thoughts were of Yugoslavia in 1980. There was a strong leader in charge by the name of Josip Broz Tito. He ruled over the people of Yugoslavia with total control. The man added stability to the region, though I don't agree with his tactics. He was a great asset to the people of Yugoslavia, creating a social environment that allowed the people to prosper and live with stability. Again, I don't agree with his methods, only the results. He ruled in the manner that was necessary for the region he reigned over considering his constituents. He only completely failed his people once; he died.

I know Tito was not the type of leader I would accept, and I do not advocate on his behalf. But to help draw a parallel, I have to explain that Yugoslavia was STABLE during his rule. Once he died, instability crept into the area. My fear for Cuba was much the same. I was afraid Cube would dissolve in chaos once Castro died. Castro has relieved my fear slightly by stepping aside. But then again, who else can rule over Cuba? Is Cuba ready to become a democracy, or does the country need a strong leader to pull them by the nose?

I can not answer these questions, but I know what I feel and I am not comfortable with the possibilities. My greatest fear is that the country will crumble in violence and chaos. With Castro's decision, it is less likely a military solution will chose the next leader. But who is ready to take the reigns?

Castro's' brother is in his 70's, and could be no more than a temporary solution. If he was placed in power, he would have to spend his whole time as leader teaching the next prospective leader. I do not think Cuba will become a democracy, so there would be no constituent consultation (no input from the people of Cuba). The next leader will be chosen by the current leaders, so the most likely choice is Castro's brother, Raul Castro. But who will replace him? As far as I know, neither of the brothers has a child that can, or will take the reigns of Cuba.

So here my new fear for Cuba; Who will take over next decade when Cuba is searching for a new leader? Will they be ready for a democracy? Will the next ten years be spent training the next leader of the Cuba Communist party? The next ten years will be decided by Raul Castro. He will have to decide what direction Cuba will take in the decade of 2010-2020. As we watch the changes in Cuba take place, we must look at the intentions of the leadership. Will we see privatization, and minor governmental questions being opened to the constituents?

If the people are brought in to help decide the future of Cuba, they may become a democracy in the next 20 years (or longer). The issue is how shaky the democracy will be. If there is no interaction with the people of Cuba, then I pray the next 10 years are used wisely while the Communist party choses and trains the next leader of Cuba. I also pray the person they chose is a benevolent leader of his fragile people.

The only hope for democracy in Cuba is for a benevolent dictator to rule over Cuba, and introduce elections and decision making power to his people. If the next few leaders do not give the Cubans a taste of the democratic society, then a democracy is sure to fail. I don't know that Cuba is ready from a democracy now, and it might be a few decades before power can be returned to the people of Cuba.

The Swiss save the "Big Dig" commuter

2008-02-16T22:24:00.001-05:00

I figured you guys might like a little levity. commuter

I couldn't help but share some exiting news to all my friends who drive through the "Big Dig." When the Swiss found out we were having issues with the Big Dig, they decided they would try to help. When they completed their efforts, they created this five minute video to show us how you can safely navigate the tunnel during your morning commute. Considering the magnitude of the "Big Dig" leak issue, they came up with this solution for Boston drivers:

Gun Free Zone (get your bullseye here)

2008-02-15T08:01:00.005-05:00

Sorry everyone, I need to vent. I was just talking to a liberal friend of mine about the shooting at the college Illinois and they REALLY got me fired up.

Why is it that every time I turn around, some kid decides it would be great to obtain a gun and shoot people for NO DAMN REASON! The only thing worse than this type of crime taking place is the way people respond to such a horrid crime. First, check out the story in Illinois, then continue to read. Over the next few days, people are going to come out of the wood works and try to convince you of all kinds of ridiculous things.

First thing that is going to happen is this kid's name will become famous for a week or two. You will hear the shooters name on every major news station all across the nation. Then you will hear people (Like my liberal friend) claiming that this twisted dung pile had a tough childhood, was misunderstood, or worse yet, he was depressed over a girlfriend. If you can think of a dumb excuse, it will be said to explain why this kid should be "understood." Understand this, I am GLAD he is dead, but upset he didn't die sooner.

Who cares, he is dead. Too bad he didn't get hit by a train before he shot someone. The shooter is a criminal who isn't worth having his name spoken. YOU WILL NEVER READ HIS NAME IN MY POSTS! EVER!

On the other side of this story, people are going to blame this on poor gun control. You have GOT to be smoking crack to believe this line of garbage (or my liberal friend). If you think gun control would help, then tell me why there are five dead students in Illinois? Seems to me, the campus was a gun free zone, wasn't it? Great help gun control was here. Guns don't kill people, gun control does. (By the way, the liberal is my friend that's why I haven't printed their name)

The issue in this case was not the lack of gun control. Gun control makes it easier for a criminal to take advantage of you. Point in case: Washington D.C. has banned the private ownership if guns. How many people are murdered by a gun carrying killer annually in D.C.?

Sorry, I gave up my 9mm by choice, but I would NEVER expect anyone else to give up their lawfully attained firearm. When a robber does not know if you have a gun, they tend to think twice before robbing you. When a robber knows you have a gun, they find a different victim.

So over the next few weeks, just remember what I said:
1. The shooter is SCUM and does not deserve to have his name printed or spoken.
2. Gun control is not the answer
3. If you are a criminal, go to a gun free zone, your victims will be easier to subdue.

Congressional Races

2008-02-11T08:55:00.000-05:00

As you know, there are Congressional races right around the corner. Considering we conservatives have been screwed out of the Presidential race, we must look forward to another area where we can make a difference. If we do not have a horse in the General Election, then we must find people who can stand up and balance the inequitable leadership that our country decided to elect in 2006.

We should take this time to put forth conservative advocates to represent us in Congress for 2010 to unseat the Democrats we blindly placed in power. Congress has not been effective in advocating for the people of the United States. We are unhappy with the results we have received (or rather the lack of results), and the only way to fix this is to put conservative people back into Congressional seats. It's time to look at those who are announcing their candidacy.

I make no bones about who I support. I know Jennifer Horn and genuinely like her values. From what I know about Jennifer, I can tell you that she is a woman who will advocate the conservative values we hold dear. I will be outlining her positions over the next few months to further show why I support Jennifer in her endeavor for office. There are areas where Jennifer and I disagree (Like setting a time frame for her time in congress, a bad idea in my mind), and areas where we agree (such as Congressional leaders need to be accountable and need to be in touch with their constituents).

If you follow the link I have on my right hand column, you can see her points for yourself. I have not put up any hard line information on her candidacy yet, as this is only a post to show the direction I will be heading in the next few months.

I will be watching for new candidates in this race, but at the moment there are three on the Republican side. They are Jennifer, Jim Steiner, and Bob Clegg. Of course the incumbent is running, Paul Hodes, on the Democrat side. I have not decided if I am going to outline the candidates individually, or if I am going to pick one topic and contract the candidates. If you have a preference, please use the "contact us" box to the right.

No, I have not forgotten about my promise to look at the presidential candidates, but I have no interest in which liberal wins. I am more concerned with what conservative we can put in place to stop the liberal legislation that comes down the pipe. I would like to elect people to Congress who are concerned with costs to my family ($$$ taxes $$$), freedom (infringement on freedom of speech such as the fairness doctrine and campaign finance), and their rightful place as CITIZENS in our community (legal citizens). Of course there are greater issues, I am just venting.

We know the Democrats for president will let the illegals immigrants darken our doorstep, and John McAmnesty is no different. Every Candidate will tax us, and limit our freedoms. So let's put in some conservatives to save us the horror of the French tax system and British limits on campaign speech. I could go on for hours, but this is not a rant it is a reminder.

We MUST elect leaders in Congress who will advocate FOR us, not against us.

Too Hot to Handle

2008-02-11T07:36:00.000-05:00

I am posting this message from "Mitt Romney for President, inc." Please notice the last paragraph of this e-mail, "Please stand proud today that you fought for a cause greater than yourself, and please continue to fight to preserve our ideals." I guess the question now is where do we turn?

Considering the turmoil the true conservatives feel, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. There is no clear answer as to where future primary voters should place their votes, or what we should do during the General election. I have decided I am not going to throw away my vote in November. I am going to outline the positions of the candidates, evaluate their positions, and vote on the issues. But to me the message is clear, "make a difference when you elect congressional seats."

As for the General election, I will be supplying you with all the information I am using to make my choices. I will also outline what I weigh my decisions on. In other words, You will see where the candidates stand, see what I think is good and bad, and see what issues I believe are important to my decision. I am NOT going to just throw my vote to one candidate to hurt the other (Like all you who voted for "Liberal Huckabee" have been doing)

To view this email as a web page, go here.

Dear Mychel,

If you have not heard by now, I have decided to suspend my campaign for president. This was not an easy decision for me, and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your support from the beginning to the point where we are today. We’ve come such a long way, and our hard work together will leave an imprint on the course of history.

As I addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) yesterday in Washington, D.C., I outlined what I know is the right course ahead for our nation – a course based on conservative principles such as individual responsibility, strong faith and values, economic strength with lower taxes and a national defense that will not retreat from the threat of evil extremism.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and, you, our supporters, have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

You can be sure I will continue to stand for conservative principles. I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism.

It is the common task of each generation – and the burden of liberty – to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.

Please stand proud today that you fought for a cause greater than yourself, and please continue to fight to preserve our ideals.

Thank you again so very much.

P.S. To read more about my vision for strengthening America’s future, please take a look at my speech from CPAC. Thank you.

This email was sent by: Romney for President, Inc.
PO Box 55899 Boston, MA 02205 USA

We respect your right to privacy - view our policy

Manage Subscriptions | Update Profile | One-Click Unsubscribe

Mitt the Passenger

2008-02-08T11:28:00.000-05:00

Many people have asked me what Mitt should do now that he has suspended his campaign. As far as the election goes, he should do nothing. Mitt would best serve the Republican Party (and more so himself) by staying out of the election from here on.

To Josh in Seattle and Mike in Nashua, No Mitt should NOT be the Vice President. Under NO circumstances should Mitt affix himself to John McCain. If you missed Romney's speech to CPAC, he BOLDLY stated he and John disagree. Not only was he bold, but he also drew attention to the fact that he disagrees with John. There is no question Mitt is going to stay away from John (if he is as smart as I think he is).

Now Peg in Nashua and Jeb in St. Louis had an interesting idea: Mitt as an independent. This is a really bad idea. It is interesting, but a REALLY bad idea. This would further split the Republicans, and Mitt wants the Republicans to unite to defeat the Democrat. Running as a third party would guarantee a Democrat in the White House. No, Mitt should stay OUT of this election.

Mitt's best course of action is to hang in the background and watch. When it comes time to support candidates for Congress, Mitt should AVIDLY support the conservatives who will run to unseat Democrats. This will align Mitt with the conservative base of the Republican Party while making the memories of Mitt about whom he backed up in the congressional elections. This is just one more way for Mitt to align himself more strongly to the conservative base.

This is the game plan, and I hope Mitt follows it:

1. STAY OUT OF THE ELECTIONS FOR 2008!

2. Do not go back to the private sector.

3. Stay visible, but not too visible. Cut a sound bite every so often, but don't be "in your face" about it.

4. Find congressional races where a conservative Republican is trying to unseat a Democrat and support the conservative.

5. Visit many different parts of the United States. Get to know the people. Politics is about fame and perception.

Personally, I think it would be a mistake for Mitt to run for congress. I think he should throw his support behind conservatives who have similar beliefs to his own. I think Mitt has a much better chance in 2012 if he does what I have listed. Of course what I wrote is a rough outline that needs to be revamped, but I think it speaks to the heart of what Mitt needs to win next time around.

Convention Time

2008-02-06T09:49:00.001-05:00

I will not bow down to the McCain sycophants, and I will not allow McCain to roll over this party. You want to nominate a liberal to fight the Democrats, fine. It's your funeral. I will not go quiet, and don't tell me that I should "know my place" and "fall in line." Then again, this is not 100% in the bag for McCain either. If McCain is unable to exceed 30% in each primary, and loses one of the "Winner Take All" primaries this baby goes to convention. Thus far, McCain has not been able to blow out the 1/3 vote. If he continues this trend, he can not get the necessary delegates to win the nomination. His only hope ... Mitt continues to be the adult on the stage and bows out gracefully (the only way Mitt knows how to do anything is gracefully).

What does it matter if this goes to convention, if McCain has the most votes going into convention, he wins, right? Likely, but not necessarily. There is a chance that in the end, the convention will vote Mitt Romney into his rightful place as the ONLY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN; The Republican who would have been elected if not for the McCain/Huckabee partnership.

Now I know it looks like I am going for the silver lining of this rain cloud, but really I am not. I know Mitt will probably pull out of this race and save face. I think Mitt will pull out later this week because Mitt knows what I know; The longer this primary drags out, the longer before the Republican can start a national bid. What's a guy to do?

Mitt is not as divisive as I am. Mitt does not want the Democrats to win the Presidency in hopes to strengthen the Republican party. Mitt does want a Republican in the White House. This leaves him only one choice, pull out, and give John McAmnesty the green light. I give Mitt a lot of credit by saying this; he is a bigger man than I.

Of course there is still two possibilities that have silver linings here; If McCain does not win the Presidency. Mitt has a new platform to run on in 2012; "Not only is Washington broken, but last time we learned that sending the same politicians back in different seats doesn't work. We also learned that we can not beat the liberals by being a liberal."

If McCain does win the Presidency (and he wont have a chance unless Hillary is the nominee), the lack of confidence we will have in McLiberal will allow Mitt to come in as an insurgent candidate, removing the ineffective President and putting in the better, stronger version of a Republican. Mitt can use the platform of "look what happens when Republicans try to be Democrats. You get a lame duck who can not pass anything. Republicans think his ideas are too liberal, and the Democrats won't pass anything because it was agreed to by the Republican President. We need a true conservative to work through the log jams in congress."

I still don't know what I am going to do in November. My wife tells me I should just stay home rather than vote dem...

dem...

I CANT EVEN SAY IT!!!

Where is Mitt Going to win?

2008-02-05T08:35:00.001-05:00

The main question you ask was the title of this post. The simple answer is the true answer; I am not sure. But you want a guess, and I said I would. These are the states I have been asked about where Mitt will have a good showing.

Places Mitt has a real good showing:

Massachusetts
Colorado
Utah

Maybe states:
California
Georgia
Montana
North Dakota

Places I was asked about where Mitt might not have a good night:
Arizona
Arkansas
New Mexico
Connecticut
New York
Delaware

Some of these states are winner take all, some of them are by congressional district. My hope is that Mitt can be competitive when today is over. The conservative base is not interested in putting John McCain out in front, yet the moderate and liberal base is. Remeber something when you go out to vote today; the moderates and independents gave us the Democrat Congress that we dislike so much, do we really want to give them the Presidency too?

The moderates want us to follow like sheep. It's time for the conservatives to stand up for their party. It is time to make a difference and show the false-liberals what this party is really about. We can not blindly follow the liberals into a McCain nomination. The moderates are not the only ones who want you to vote for McCain, the Democrats want you to vote for him too. Do you really want to elect a Democrat? A vote for McCain is a vote for the Democrat presidency.

The true conservative, the one who can lead our country to greatness and save the Republican party is Mitt Romney. There is no close second to Mitt Romney. Today is your day, please send a message to the moderates. Tell them you want the real Republican. Vote Mitt Romney for you future and the future of your children.

Good luck Mitt. We are rooting for you.

Primary Debate?

2008-01-31T09:54:00.000-05:00

I think I was watching a Republican debate last night, but I am not sure. It was basically McCain VS Romney, but it sounded like a general election debate. In a general election debate, you have a Democrat against a Republican. Each candidate try to sway you either slightly right, or slightly left. Also in a general election, the candidates spit out partial quotes of the other, taken out of context, spun and used against the other candidate. This is exactly what I saw last night.

Last night was not Romney strongest showing, but Romney did what he does best; He kept his cool, and continued to carry himself in a professional manner. McCain sat there and lied to our faces about Mitt, and threw childish quips, and generally acted like a four year old with no manners. Mitt just pointed out the truth, and continued to carry himself as the adult on the stage. McCain seemed to think he could just spew out lies and they should be believed because he said it. It felt like john was telling the voters, "It's True because I said it, and damn it, I'm John McCain. How dare you question me."

McCain has further proved my point; McCain would make a great Secretary of State, but should NEVER be trusted as a President. Honestly, I can not think of anything McCain said last night that showed his position. WHAT THE HELL DID MCCAIN SAY?!?!?! Simple, he said Romney wanted a time table for withdrawal (a lie) and basically admitted nothing about his positions. All McCain said was Mitt sucks, "Mitt doesn't support the troops," and I was backing this surge of troops (Not that he is alone in backing the troops, so was Mitt and I have an old bumper sticker on my car to prove it). McCain never backed up his claim that Romney wanted a timetable for withdrawal. I have said it before, I respect John, and he is a great guy to talk to. I generally like him, and he seems to like me, but what the hell is he doing?!?! All I can say is the man has become a liberal as he aged. This is not a Republican McCain.

Though this doesn't support the fact that John lied during the debate, but I found it funny that John is so misinformed that he doesn't even know the background of the people who support him. Jane Swift was the Governor, not the Lt. Governor, of Massachusetts. But John has spent a lot of time on the ground with her? Her backing of John does not surprise me, look at the way she ran Massachusetts. She was not exactly a good Governor, nor did she really make any good marks on the soil while she was there. I never liked Jane as an executive, but it is still hard to see her back up a John Kerry wannabe. (McCain was trying to get on Kerry's ticket)

Romney held his ground and tried to confront John, but it's hard to debate someone who backs up their facts by saying, "I said it, so it's true." Mitt still made a good showing, and I hope this reflects well on Super Tuesday. Mitt needs the support of true Republicans and conservative independents like myself. My final thought when the smoke cleared was that Mitt came out looking the best, and John buried himself last night.

On another note, I am one of those who is splitting the Republican party up. The Democrats love the fact that John McCain is ahead, and those of us who are politically savvy will not stand behind him. Why am I willing to split the Republicans? Because I can not allow my values to be jeopardized by putting forward a liberal as a Republican. I will not jump behind McCain, and I don't know if I could vote for him in a General election. I think I might sit out, or vote for Hillary. Yes, I MIGHT vote for Hillary to save the Republican party.

If the Republican put John McCain up as the nominee, we can not reward the Republicans with a win. I think I would rather see Hillary destroy our country for 4 years and strengthen the Republican base than reward the Republicans with a McCain win (assuming her can win the general, I don't think he can) and allow the liberals to blame us for everything they don't like in the next four years. If a conservative play is made and fails, Democrats can blame us. If a liberal plan fails, they can still blame us. This is win win for the Democrats.

I can not believe Republicans would let McCain destroy the Republican party forever. As a conservative Independent, I need a party to vote for, and if John McCain wins, there will be no party left for me to vote for...

... ever.

Florida, a Swift Kick in the…

2008-01-30T15:30:00.000-05:00

After I posted yesterday, I spent hours looking at the voters of Florida trying to see if my thoughts would be remotely close. As you can see, I assumed that a closed primary would bring out the true conservative voters and a close Romney win. I was wrong. Late in the afternoon, I found there was a large sector of moderate republicans as well as other anomalies I was unaware of. I was not joking when I said I was reluctant.

So here’s the run down; I am 100% wrong about Mitt taking Florida (I wish I had researched the demographics before yesterday). I was wrong about Rudy winning the nomination (I think he is going to support McCain in the next 24 hours). The icing on the cake is that I might be wrong about Hillary as well; Hillary might not be the nominee (strange to hear after she won, huh?). So this is what I think; Mitt Romney must finish strong on Super Tuesday, otherwise we may end up with McCain as the nominee. I still feel Hillary is the Democrats nominee, but there is a 45% chance that Barack Obama might surpass her (three weeks ago, I though Obama had about a 20% chance).

So if we look at what I missed on the Republican side, you can see how little I was paying attention over the past week. I did not consider Cubans or the “good ‘ol boy” mentality of all the veterans in Florida. I also did not count on there being such a large number of moderate Republicans. If I had done my homework, I would have known John McCain was going to win this one by about the same margin as he won New Hampshire. Though I wonder why, in an area where illegal immigration, taxes, and the economy were key factors, Mitt Romney did not do a bit better. Obviously Floridians did not do their homework either (Just look at the videos on the right side of the page).

I respect John McCain and enjoyed the conversations I have had with him. He seems to generally like me also. We do not agree this time around, too much (of John) has changed in the past eight years. I understand it is John’s “turn,” but he is not the type of leader I want for my country. McCain has become more liberal as he has aged. It seems the older he gets, the less he remembers what it means to be a conservative. I take offense to John stating he is a conservative in his victory speech, this was another McCain lie. To be honest, I would rather Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, or even Rudy Giuliani over John McCain, each one is more conservative. There are only two Republican candidates I dislike more than John McCain; Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

One the Democrat side, I feel Barack is starting to chip away at Hillary’s commanding lead. From what I have seen in voting trends, it looks like Hillary’s numbers may be slipping. I don’t think it will be enough to steal the nomination from her, but Obama picked up an endorsement from Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. Now we just need Al gore and Howard Dean to back up Barack to solidify my feelings

So with my new found knowledge, where do I think these races are going? This is going to be a two man race on both sides (no I will not correct this because Hillary is one of those “men”). The new course of these elections is as follows:

Edwards won’t be an annoyance going toward Super Tuesday; he will drop out at about the same time as Rudy Giuliani. From here it will be a great fight between Obama and Clinton. In the end, I think it will be Clinton.

On the Republican side, I hope Thompson throws his support behind Mitt Romney.

Rudy is going to drop out in the next 72 hours and throw his support behind John McCain.

Ron Paul is an idiot and will continue to be an idiot (sorry, I have limited patients for this guy) so I will try not to waste anymore time on him.

Mike Huckabee is going to be the Edwards of the Republicans and soak up valuable time and vote until he figures out that he has lost (Super Tuesday).

With Romney and McCain left to duke it out, I hope and pray that a true conservative wins the nomination. If we put McCain up against a Democrat, we have no one to vote for. When there is no conservative on the stage, we are left with only liberals. I weep for the Republicans if this happens.

Lord, give us Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.

Sunshine State?

2008-01-29T10:23:00.000-05:00

Today is the Florida primary, and I did not want to speculate. If you know me, you know that's a lie. I have been hanging back on this one because I have not been able to research the climate in Florida. Today I will make a grave mistake; I will tell you my thoughts without fully researching the voters.

This is the first true closed republican primary. The true conservative should win with little effort, but that does not mean Mitt Romney is going to win. If Floridian Republicans are true conservatives, there is no question that they would vote for either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. As Fred has dropped out, that leaves Mitt Romney.

Rudy Giuliani has placed 80% of his chips on Florida, ignoring the early states. I have always thought this was a poor decision, but then again I am not part of his campaign staff, who cares what I think. Rudy might get a majority of the early voting, but I cannot see him doing any better than 3rd place.

My buddy John McCain has been driving the Double Talk Express up everyone's rear. I wish he would just drive it back to Congress. John is going to be a tough competitor in Florida, and I for the life of me do not know why. Why would republicans in a closed primary vote for a man whose record is as far skewed from the party? My hope is that Floridians open there eyes, and see what McCain really stands for. Remember something; HE PARTNERED WITH TED KENNEDY!!! Need I say more?

So if we follow the "typical" logic of a closed primary, the clear-cut winner is Mitt Romney, with John as a close second. Rudy will be third, but he will be so far behind that the diesel smoke from the Double Talk Express will have dissipated.

Molasses Moves

2008-01-23T08:57:00.001-05:00

Fred Thompson has pulled out of the race. Thank you Fred for the collateral damage. You pulling out of the race has caused my email box to be FLOODED with emails. To all of you who have badgered me in the past 24 hours, yes this is PART of what I eluded to in my January 11 post. There is more to my prediction, but the problem is I don't know which way to call it. Are you confused? So am I. The night of the debate, I turned to my wife and said "Oh my gosh, I just realized Thompson is dropping out and aligning himself with ___________" When she asked me what I meant, I told her I thought "Fred is going to attempt to get the Vice-presidency." Though she agreed half-heartedly, she reminded me that Fred was trying to win South Carolina. Something in me said that was wrong; Fred is not trying to win, he is trying to align himself with a candidate.

So who is the mystery blank? I can tell you his name, but let's look at the likely candidates who could take Fred as their VP. John McCain is the media darling right now. Not surprisingly, the media loves him, and I think he is a bit liberal for my taste. (surprise, surprise) The only problem I see with a McCain Thompson ticket is that McCain is too liberal for Thompson. I think that is an "oil-and-water" mixture.

Mike Huckabee is an unlikely candidate for slightly different reasons. Not only is Mike Huckabee liberal, he is also a non-competitive candidate. How is he going to stand toe to toe with the likes of Bill Clinton, opps, I mean Hillary. No, Mike Huckabee is not the man who is headed for the White House.

Rudy Giuliani? Hmmm, no. This is the Candidate that never was. I wish I could say more about Rudy, but he is really dropping off the map. If Rudy does not win in Florida, where does he go? Where can he win? He has one delegate and apparently about the same amount of support. This is a very sad situation for Rudy Giuliani because I thought he was going to be the man. Americas Mayor, the man who was best known going into this race, and the most likely candidate. Don't get me wrong, I like Rudy, I just disagree with some of his ideas.

This leaves only one candidate in my mind; Mitt Romney. Could Fred side with Mitt and push him into the white house? I think he might try, but in this case, I don't know if Mitt would take Fred as his VP. It's not that Fred doesn't have anything to offer, it's that Fred doesn't have anything "NEW" to offer. The two most conservative candidates on the stage are Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Even if Mitt would not take Thompson as his VP, Thompson should still jump behind Mitt and push him to the winners circle.

Tom Tancredo made a great choice my standing behind Mitt. I do not say this because I voted for Mitt Romney, I say it because Tom made the hardest choice of all who are voting; "Who best fits MY agenda." Tom decided to contact all the candidates and see who had the best plan (in Tom's eyes) for illegal immigration. Tom chose Romney. Now Fred is going to do the same. I think Fred is going to jump behind Mitt for this primary because Mitt best encompasses the policies Fred Thompson stands for. Further, and to answer the question (what name was in the _______?) in paragraph one, I think Fred might be trying to convince Mitt to take him as his VP.

My predictions have been off by numbers only. I only got one placement incorrect so far, so I am confident this will be my first major blunder. I honestly believe my thoughts on Thompson are accurate, but there is always the chance that I have overlooked a small detail. I seriously doubt Fred Thompson has missed anything, and I am sure Fred has analyzed this thing a thousand times harder than I have. I am positive Fred knows what I know:

In Republican ONLY primaries (closed primary), the conservative candidate (Mitt) will win.

Liberal VS Liberal?

2008-01-18T10:35:00.001-05:00

Someone help the Republican Party please. They have two liberals in the delegate race, and one conservative. This is not a good position for them to be in going into Super Tuesday. Republicans can not put a liberal up against the Democrats if they intend to win the general election. Mike Huckabee is not a contender, and would get crushed against anyone on the Democrats side (Even Dennis U.F.O. man). John McCain can compete with the top two Democrats, but he has nothing to offer except a slightly more conservative platform than the Democrats. How can Republicans compete if they are offering the same thing? You can not win the Presidency by putting a liberal against a liberal.

South Carolina will be an interesting contest. I think this is McCain country, but Huckabee isn't going to go down quietly. Mitt Romney can not be counted out as he is the other major name going into the first primary of the south. So who is who with South Carolinians? I have researched voting trends, polls, and newspapers in the state, and this is going to be difficult to decipher. South Carolina is another open primary, like Michigan.

I think South Carolina is going to split heavily by interest. What I mean is this is going to be like New Hampshire and Iowa combined. In Iowa, the evangelicals went toward Huckabee mostly and true conservatives found Romney appealing. New Hampshire has many liberal Republicans and even more independents. This gave McCain an edge here in the Granite state. Even with the minority of Republicans voting as conservatives, Romney pulled a strong second here.

So let's break this up. If people vote party lines and follow voting trends, I estimate about 21% of the voters will be the evangelicals for Mike Huckabee. McCain will pull the Independent vote and the liberal Republicans. He may also get a few Democrats on his side, but he will not get the conservative vote. Conservatives will flock to Mitt Romney, giving him a solid third with 18%. South Carolina might think they are a red state, but from what I have been reading, they are Red-ish-purple. By this, what I mean is they are a slightly liberal type of Republican. John McCain has the edge and the win at 30%.

John McCain 30%

Mike Huckabee 21%

Mitt Romney 18%

Nevada is a strange animal, and might be more decisive for the Republican going into Super Tuesday. I don't think South Carolina is going to make much of an impact this year, I believe Nevada is going to make the greatest splash. I have been looking at Nevada more than South Carolina for this reason, but to be honest, I do not understand the mindset of those residing in Nevada. My hope is that Ron Paul does not get as much traction in Nevada, but then again, Ron Paul is a libertarian, and therefore, he appeals to those who want legalized prostitution and drug use. This may be the first contest where Ron Paul actually matters. Why do I think Nevada is more important? There are 34 delegates at stake in Nevada and only 24 in South Carolina.

Nevada will give us:

Mitt Romney 29%

John McCain 22%

Mike Huckabee 10%

Rudy Giuliani 10%

Ron Paul 10%

My only hope in both contests is that the Republicans remember why they are Republicans, and appeal to their conservative values. The Democrats are scared of Mitt for a reason.

Republican Frontrunner

2008-01-16T09:10:00.001-05:00

In every sport I know (except for golf), the idea is to gain more points than the opposition. The primary is not much different. So what is the goal when running in the primary? Obviously to gain more delegates than the other candidates. If this is true, then why has the media been so hard on Mitt Romney? Before Michigan, Mitt had more delegates than anyone else, 30 to be exact. In any sport, you are defiantly in the game if you are ahead, but the primary is a different animal. Even if you are in the front, you must have a strong showing in the next "quarter" of the game to stay in the lead. I know, the same is true in sports, but the difference is that a mistake that cost you points in politics can make you lose point in the next "inning."

I had few doubts about Mitt running in Michigan, but my concern was for South Carolina. I am not as worried about S.C. as I was yesterday because Michigan may have given Mitt a bit of a bounce. If Mike Huckabee can get a bounce (a liberal Republican who appeals mostly to fringe voters), there is no question Mitt will get a bit of a bounce with his 9 point win. I feel confident in predicting a first or second place in S.C., but I am not sure I want to make a full prediction yet.

I don't mind being wrong (once in a while), but this time I was mostly ecstatic about my incorrect projection. I though Mitt would be at 35%, but instead he pulled out 39% of the vote. This is a great time to be wrong as well as being right. McCain pulled 30%, 2% lower than I projected. The only projection adoration I am upset with is Mike huckabee, who pulled 16%. Can't win them all. So what do all these percents mean? Let me make two small lists:

_________Delegates Before Michigan . . . . Delegates After Michigan

Mitt Romney .........................30 ..................42

Mike Huckabee .....................21 ..................21

John McCain ..........................10 ..................19

Others ......................................9 ..................9

Check it out for yourself.

So right now, Mitt is winning 2-1 over his closest rival. S.C. has 24 delegates, and split between whoever wins, Mitt will continue to lead the delegate race. Florida is the first "winner takes all" competition, and Mitt will still be ahead of the curve. Giuliani is hoping to pull into first after Florida, but with 57 delegates, Rudy is praying Mitt gets less than 15 Delegates. This is highly plausible for Rudy, but at this point it is almost "do or die" for Rudy. If Rudy has less than 20 delegates going into Super Tuesday, his campaign might be over before it even starts.

From here, I will not predict until I get a better feel for the environment in S.C. as I need a few days to feel the ground in S.C.

For now, the front runner is Mitt Romney.

Debate, or slugfest?

2008-01-11T10:20:00.001-05:00

I expected to hear much of the same during the debate last night, but I did not expect to hear anything new. I mentioned that Fred Thompson has been making more of an impression as of late, and the last debate has proved my point. Thompson really made his presence known, but there were also other aspects that I noticed during the debate. It seemed that everyone backed off of Mitt Romney, and focused on Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Was there a clear winner? Fred Thompson stole the show. Fred is the winner.

I want to alter your focus for a minute, and study Rudy Giuliani for just a moment. Rudy padded Mitt Romney during and after the debate. Why would Rudy do this for a competitor for president? Rudy can not afford to let John McCain run away with another win, so Rudy needs to pad his closest rival, Mitt Romney. He needs a scattered field going into Super Tuesday to win the necessary electoral vote for a nomination. So what did Rudy do? Rudy pointedly stated that John McCain was not the only one who supported the surge, and tried to take Johns "surge foothold" away. Rudy is correct, John is not the only one who supported the surge, but Rudy's comments AFTER the debate were absolutely key to my argument. In his statement to Sean Hannity, Rudy said "Mitt was for the surge…" when he said Republicans were ALL for the surge on day one. Rudy is running for Mitt because Rudy can not win South Carolina.

Let's go back to Fred Thompson again. Fred took on John McCain and Mike Huckabee, but like Rudy, he did not go after Mitt Romney, even when Romney left himself open to attack (and Mitt left himself WIDE open).Thompson also seems to be putting Mitt Romney out as the front man. I have a feeling, and I have had this feeling for a while, but I won't make the prediction yet, but I think Thompson has a different motive. I don't think he is running for President, or rather he is keeping himself open for the one he thinks is going to win the nomination. I will not say any more than this for now, but I do think Fred is picking his fights for a different reason. Fred is correct when he told Hanity that he has to win big. To be a true contender, he needs to place or win in South Carolina. Thompson hit all the right points last night, and made a strong showing, but I wonder if he is really trying to win.

Michigan predictions

2008-01-11T07:18:00.000-05:00

So what happens in Michigan? Well, I think the Democrat part is obvious. But the Republican side is a bit different. I do not see many evangelist in Michigan, so that cuts Mike Huckabee out of the picture, and the Economy is a major issue over there. So this puts Mitt Romney out in from. McCain did get a bounce from New Hampshire, because we actually matter (as opposed to 10% of Iowa, IE the caucus). So is it Romney, McCain, Rudy, or Thompson?

First lets eliminate Thompson just out of sheer numbers. Thompson has not caught on (yet or at all) and I doubt people will vote for him because he does not resonate out there. Rudy is still waiting on Florida, so we can take him out of the equation. Now we are left with Romney and McCain. So who will it be?

Before I continue, I must stress that this is an open election, so there is the chance that my thoughts are going to be way off base here. The Democrats of Michigan might come out and skew the numbers by voting for the one they think they can beat in the general election. With that said, I am going to go with my conscious here and believe Michigan is going to vote intelligently. I am going to say Romney is going to take this because he has the right stuff for Michigan voters.

I know I am going out on a limb here, but Michigan is feeling the crunch of job loss and the sinking housing market. Michigan needs a strong economic leader, a true turn around candidate who can bring economic growth. Mitt Romney is the one person who can turn everything around for Michigan and create the breeding ground from new jobs, stronger employment base, and generally move Michigan from an economic sink hole to a prosperous land of employment.

Now how will Michigan vote? That depends on who turns out at the voting booth. If Michigan is as intelligent as I believe them to be, they know what I know; Mitt Romney is the only candidate that can be trusted with the future of Michigan. It is where he is from, so it is personal. He will put Michigan towards the top of his list, and bring jobs back to the state. Mitts framework for economic growth is the plan that almost guarantees Michigan a bright future.

In short, If Michigan uses their heads, they will vote for Mitt Romney.

Romney 35%
McCain 32%
Everyone else 33%

I think my "fluke" on the NH primary will not be repeated, but I hope I will be close here. I know New Hampshire better than any other place, I have lived here all my life. I have a good feeling about my percentages for Michigan.

My prediction, Mitt Romney takes Michigan.

When the ball falls in the Mitt…

2008-01-07T01:46:00.001-05:00

Tonight the Republicans participated in a forum on Fox News with a bit more class than they had last night. I think they all noticed what I noticed; "Romney did not attack any of us, boy did we look stupid." I would guess McCain's people told him how tripe his unwarranted barb throwing sounded because I did not hear one negative comment from John. It's not that there were no occasion where I though John might attack, but rather John seemed more in control tonight than he did last night.

Before I get deeper into the other parts of the debate, let me touch on Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani. As far as Fred goes, he was not as good as he was last night. I would say he was a "4 out of 10". His points were good, and his ideas were ok, but it took so long for him to get them out, I wanted to light my hair on hire to pass the time. Fred, buddy, you're in New England. If you said it five minutes ago, we already moved on. Fed was not quite as quick as he has been, maybe he is over tired. But Fred did have one good line, when he asked Huckabee if he said he did away with death. That was a nice moment of levity.

As far as Rudy goes, he was not impressive. I barely noticed him on the stage tonight. Rudy had one great moment also; he said he admitted mistakes, and that we all make mistakes. No one is perfect, and he has made mistakes like everyone else. This was one of the most humanistic and true statements I have heard this election cycle. This was the one shining moment for Rudy in my eyes; he became a person like you and I.

All parties acted more statesmen like with the exception of Mike Huckabee. His little temper tantrum about Mitt asking him questions was less then becoming. Mike also decided it was time to be a politician when he ignore a question about raising taxes, not once but four times. Four times Mike talked around the question and never even came close to answering. Mike failed again at another point when he pulled a "Giuliani" (Clinton … Obama …) move by saying his immigration plan would not make the children of illegal's pay. In the next breath, Mike said the children must go home with their parents and get in line.

So let me get this straight, we do not want to punish the children of illegal's by making them suffer the consequences of their parents actions, but they must go back to their country and get in line? No, that's not what Mike said. According to Mike, he said the families of illegals are tight knit, and the children would leave voluntarily to be with their parents. Are you as confused as I am? I don't think Mike Huckabee knows what his position is at this point, so let's move on.

So why did Mitt win? Mitt has a strong immigration plan, believes in the rule of law, and opposes amnesty. He also has a responsible foreign policy that deals with Iraq in the most intelligent manner, a great economic plan that puts money back in you pocket, and the determination to get it all done. He will take on the challenges of Washington and get things done. Mitt loves a challenge, and loves to succeed. He is not a quitter.

Mitt was a true statesman who fully explained his standpoints. He showed how his record proves, unmitigated, that he is a good leader and he is a man make a real change (I hate using that word now) in Washington. During the forum, Mitt did not hide from the facts, and admitted to his record. In areas of change, Mitt accepted that he changed his viewpoints, and explained clearly how he came to a new understanding. He disproved every false, or slightly skewed "fact" the other candidates accused him of, and did it all with dignity. Mitt is the first "politician" I can honestly say I trust.

If I learned one thing from the forum tonight, it is this; Mitt Romney is a man you can trust.

Mitt-igating facts

2008-01-06T23:10:00.001-05:00

So I hate to be right. Ok, that's a lie, but on occasion I am wrong. Looks like I might be wrong about my Next President of the United States posts. Rudy Giuliani is sliding out of the public eye, and sliding in the polls. According to some of the latest polling, Giuliani is slipping nationally. He was barley a radar blip in the two caucuses, but anyone in the Giuliani camp will tell you that is because he wasn't running for those states. Funny, but I thought those states were part of the United States of America … what is he running for again?

But I digress, Mitt Romney won in Wyoming by a margin that was near identical to what I formulated from the Iowa results. Is this a fluke or is this more? I think it is an uncanny fluke, but it is part of a much bigger picture. I said before Mitt was the only other candidate I could see winning the nomination, and here he is proving just that.

John McCain my still win New Hampshire, but by my best guess, it is not going to be the cake-walk John was hoping for. In the last debate, John seemed bitter and hateful, attacking Mitt as many times as he could with each breath of air. This was the same strategy that John said cost Mitt Iowa. Well John, if that's the case, am I to assume you want to lose New Hampshire?

You have seen my flash responses to the debate, and I just reread them myself. Next time I want to enter a flash response, I need to have my editors read it first. I think I got my point across; Mitt was a gentleman, the only true gentleman on the stage. He suffered the slings and arrows, and continued to move as fluidly as possible. I would not say it was his best performance, but he did a fine job of explaining his points and deflecting the attacks. Not once did he lower himself to the tactics of the others on the stage. This maneuver won the debate for Mitt.

Mitt Romney was clear and concise while advocating his positions. Mitt stuck to the issues while others stuck him in the ribs. The true test of presidency from last nights debate was how the candidates handled themselves on that stage. Mitt Romney was the only person who cared enough about the voters to spend his time conveying his thoughts and plans for when he entered Washington. By now you have followed my links to Mitts positions, and you know where Mitt stands. Mitt was unwavering in his positions and near flawless in explaining his ideas to the public.

With a solid background, solid platform, and great integrity, Mitt Romney showed the world who the next President of the United States should be. Mitt is honest and forthcoming, never hiding from the facts while taking challenges head-on. Mitt will not be persuaded by special interest. The only interest that concerns him is the interest of the citizens of the United States. These, my friends, are the markings of greatness.

And the winners are…

2008-01-06T00:04:00.001-05:00

There are a few winners here in my mind. There are also a few losers here too. I may go against the grain here, but this is what I feel about each candidate from the worst to the best. I will go into more detail once I can sort out my notes from the debate. From worst to best, here they are:

Ron Paul

He really should have sat this one out. He did himself no favor by standing on the stage spouting ignorance about the issues surrounding the war in Iraq. If Paul tried to answer the questions asked, showed his stand points about the other issues, and tried to be a bit more versatile, he might have won a point or two. Instead he sat up there and beat the Iraq drum and showed he has no substance.

John McCain

John came off as bitter, childish, and hateful. It was almost as if he was only there to attack Romney. His camp said they would not attack Romney unless Romney came at him first. Within the first 15 minutes, John started with the personal attacks. So what else did John accomplish? Nothing, he did not come across as a strong leader or an established candidate. John spent more time attacking Romney and avoiding questions tan he spent on answering anything. I was totally turned off by John. The only one worse was Ron Paul.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary became excited, defensive, and vindictive in the first 15 minutes. She was goaded by the others, but her response was less than presidential. After she calmed down and started acting like an adult, she came across as experienced and well versed. This served her well, but she was still the worst of the Democrats.

Mike Huckabee

I think he showed he was not as experienced as he should be. He seemed unsure of himself as he answered question, and didn't seem sure of himself. Something was off in Mike tonight, even though he was real good at putting his points forward. I think mike is the worst of the middle candidates.

Rudy Giuliani

It's not that Rudy wasn't good, but he was not on top of his game. I think Rudy did well except for the switch in mid sentence. He first said that it was not amnesty if you fined an illegal and let them stay, then said it was giving them amnesty. When Thompson called him on it, Rudy said it was not amnesty. A true Hillary moment if I ever have seen one.

Barack Obama and John Edwards

Both men were very strong, and fully stated their points. Each on backed themselves up very well, and fearlessly took on Clinton. Both men were equally impressive, and therefore I can not choose between them. I think if I was forced to chose, I would say Obama was the better of the two.

Bill Richardson

The best Democrat of the night. He jumped in at the right times, said just the right things, and was flawless in his execution. I think this was Bills night. I might not agree with his politics, but the man had me thinking. He displayed his thoughts vividly, and projected his vision with a great clarity. I was very impressed with Richardson tonight, but I must admit, be was only slightly higher on my list that Obama and Edwards.

Fred Thompson

This is a guy who I might consider voting for. After watching him tonight, and seeing his conviction while answering, I know this man is serious when he speaks. He took no prisoners up on the stage, and backed down from no one. His points were valid, and his retorts were like an ax on an ice block. Thompson really pushed the envelope tonight. He was almost my number one tonight.

Mitt Romney

Mitt had a rough night. Not that the questions were hard, or it was not an easy format, but every time he turned his head, someone made a nasty comment. It was like tonight was "pick on Mitt night." But Mitt did a great job of brushing it off and moving on. Twice Mitt had to remind McCain about the agreement to be civilized. With that aside for the moment, Mitt stood strong on the issues, and held fast to his believes and stayed consistent with his views. Mitt hit every major point without fear, explained his views with perfect clarity, and made some of the best points tonight.

Mitt was unwavering, strong, and flawless. A lesser man would have folded (like Hillary) and started slinging the preverbal mud. Mitt was a gentlemen, and did not stoop to the level of the others on the stage. He pulled himself away from the pack, showing he was the only adult on the stage.

The reasons I have Mitt as the best candidate of both debates is this; He never lowered himself to mud slinging, was the best at defending his views, conveying his view, and debating his views with others. Mitt proved he has the ability, know how, and integrity to lead our nation.

Mitt Romney is going to be a great President.

Democrat flash response

2008-01-05T23:04:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama

The best I have seen him
Confident
Well stated
Showed backbone
Stood up for himself
Seemed to try to hitch his wagon with Edwards against Clinton

John Edwards

Looked calmer than I have seen
Showed no fear
Worked well with Obama against Clinton
Was very persuasive
Seemed natural and researched

Bill Richardson

Impressive
Very good at getting his point across
Made some very good point
Did the best job of differentiating himself from the others

Hillary Clinton

Can across as experienced
Was easily excited
Became defensive
Shrill
Made me very uncomfortable when she got defensive with John and Barack
Too sensitive

Overall

This was the first time I saw the candidates get specific
Less spin on the stage
The first time I felt like the candidates were actually answering most question
I really enjoyed how comfortable the candidates seemed with being candid
The best debate I have seen this cycle for the democrats
The perfect format for a debate (promoted candidates to force others to answer)

Republican flash response

2008-01-05T21:05:00.001-05:00

Alright, my quick rundown while between debates:

Ron Paul

Seemed clueless, and uninformed. Did not seems to know what he was talking about
No good points, many areas where he avoided the question
Tried to focus everything on the war, and made everything discussed about ending the war
Paul can not lead a country on only the issue of the war. He was simply an annoyance

Mike Hukabee

Childish attacks
Took personal pop-shots
Came across fairly strong on his issues
Basically stayed on topic
Seemed to give the other candidates more room to work, stayed out of the fray
Decent standpoint well stated

Rudy Giuliani

Quoted Romney
Fairly gentlemanly (except the quips against Romney)
Changed his statements during his statements
Seemed to be advocating for Romney by stating Romney's points

Fred Thompson

Stronger than I have seen him
Poignant remarks
Solid stand point
Hit everyone except Romney with the issues (seemed to be on the same page as Romney except when he decided to attack Romney)
Took no prisoners with his comments. Did not shy away from locking horns

John McCain

Bitter and hateful
Childish and spiteful
Very vague in many instances
Claimed he was not advocating amnesty (dishonest. He admitted he would let illegals stay)
Fixated on Romney lying about him in "attack ads" (I checked the facts from Romney's ads. Romney ads are true)
Struck me as the only politician on the stage. (everyone was more statesmen like)
Turned me off. I now regret ever supporting him (2000)

Mitt Romney

Gentlemanly
No personal attacks
Refused to retaliate when attacked personal
Very strong and solid standpoints
Consistent
Seemed very presidential
Solid positions

Overall

The best debate format to date.
The first 45 minutes were captivating
Second half was also very informitive
You can tell everyone is afraid of Mitt Romney by the personal attacks
The childish comments toward Mitt we repugnant
Mitt showed to be the most adult. He didn't stoop to the level of the other candidates. (attacks)
The candidates all received ample time to talk
Each candidate covered a great range of issues in great detail

Huckabee The Nominee

2008-01-04T21:13:00.001-05:00

You know who I think was the real victor of the Republicans, and you know what I think is happening on the Democrats side. So this leaves us with some very simple facts to dissect on the Republican side. First is the Huckabee angle; what does this mean for Mike? Second is the Romney angle; how does this change Mitts chances in the primary? Third is how does this affect the other candidates? Well we know this means Huckabee gets 15 minutes of fame, but does it matter? Not really, but it give Huckabee the chance to hang around for an extra election or two. He has no chance of winning an election unless we become evangelical Christians. So I guess the question is who wants to convert? No takers? Alright, then lets write him off; he didn't win on the issues. He is only going to win in and around the Bible belt. I would be really surprised to see Huckabee win any other elections unless the Republican base are short sighted evangelicals who have not looked past the church doors for political information. This is not to say anything negative of you if you like Mike, but just to say you may not be looking at the big picture. First and foremost, who could he win against in a general election? Second, this is a republican primary and Huckabee is not ethical or a conservative. Republicans want conservatives.

What about Mitt? Well, he mopped the floor with the other candidates. The closest candidate to him was McCain with 13%. Romney won the election on the issues. Romney is now coming to New Hampshire where he is to face the other major candidate who made a blip on the Iowa map. McCain will not roll over in New Hampshire and may win next Tuesday. Does this mean Romney is dead? Could this be over before it even starts for Mitt Romney? Not even close. If McCain wins here in New Hampshire, Mitt has Michigan and South Carolina. Both states poll Romney with a favorable light. Romney will either gain the silver or the gold in New Hampshire before he receives a gold in Michigan and another gold or silver in South Carolina. Romney can win the Primary if he can stay in the top two or three for every election until "Super Tuesday." Iowa and New Hampshire will propel Romney to the top, even if McCain takes first here and Mike has Iowa. Romney just has to pull second.

So where are Thomson and Giuliani? Like I said before, Thompson landed with a thud. I think Thompson's campaign has been on life support for at least month now, and I think he is going to drop out after New Hampshire. I would be surprised to see him in South Carolina, but I do not intend to see him at "Super Tuesday." As far as Giuliani, it's hard to win if you do not show up. He is betting on the later states to crown him king. I hope others have enough good sense to see his true intentions. Rudy only cares about you if you are a major state. If he cares about you, he only cares that you see him how you like your candidate (in the style of Hillary). Does he have some real positions? Yes, he is a social liberal and a fiscal moderate. I pray Florida knows that Rudy wants to grant amnesty to all the illegal's soaking up space in their state. To the legal immigrants and children of legal immigrants how are voting, think about Rudy's "amnesty measures" when your time comes. The Caucus only affected Mitt and Mike; no other candidate mattered in Iowa.

If you learned one thing from Iowa, please know his:

Mitt Romney won.

This is Getting Interesting

2008-01-04T21:07:00.001-05:00

The Iowa caucus has traditionally been an informal vote of about 10% of the voting population. This year was nothing different. About 10% showed up and "voted" for their candidate. We had Obama winning on the Democrats side, and Huckabee on the Republican. Both sides showed very clearly who the most viable candidate for both sides is. I know … how can Mike Huckabee be viable? I never said he was, only that the vote showed us who was viable. Now that I have teased you, let me swing our attention to the Democrats. If you want to read about the Republicans, read this post.

So Obama wins by a good margin, followed by Edwards, and Clinton as the caboose. This is a fitting order in my opinion. I think Clinton makes a good rear end, and I don't want her to think she can just glide in, take the vote and glide out. She is still going to be the nominee in my opinion, but I would like to see her work for it. Further, if she has to raise hell on the way to the nomination, the other Democrats are going to start digging into her past. This will make my job easier (picking her apart), and it also make an easier victory for the Republican candidate (not like they need it). If you expect me to take more pop-shots, please wait for another post. I try to reserve those so I can spread them out and not be too repetitive.

Edwards should be used to second. It seems to me he has been there before. Then again, he HAS been there before, and therefore he knows how to run for office. For Edwards to pull second place is about the same as saying he tripped on a stair. Do not count Edwards out because he is not a new kid on this block. You must watch Edwards, he learned from the best. I am not being hypocritical; I still stand by my other post. John Edwards appeals to a particular group within the Democratic voting population. Hillary is still the favorite.

Our buddy Obama is a wild stallion on the stage. No one knows quite how to handle him. Do you attack him, discredit him, or ignore him? He is the first viable "black" candidate offered in a primary election. Obama has staying power, but I don't think he can pull New Hampshire under his wing. Hillary seems to be the one speaking New Hampshire's liberal language. Obama is going to make this a close race, but I don't know if he can get over on Hillary.

Hillary VS Obama offers a new piece to the game board, one I had not thought about. If Obama take New Hampshire, Hillary might not fair too well in the primary. My assumption was Hillary would resonate with Iowa in the same fashion as she does here in the Granite State. I expected Hillary to get silver, maybe gold, and then plow though New Hampshire like a moose in the brush (New Hampshire reference). Now I am rethinking the ease of access for Hillary. South Carolina is a state that has a high ratio of minority voters. Right now, they are not voting for Obama because they do not think "white America" would vote for him. What happens if he wins New Hampshire and Iowa? Both states are 95% "white," doesn't this prove that Obama can win the white vote? Will this sway the South Carolina voters? Many questions, few answers. Here are my thoughts; Even if Obama takes the first two elections, then takes South Carolina, he can not win. Hillary is the "Hollywood candidate" who will sweep New York, Massachusetts, and the entire "Left Coast." Obama is going to get a HUGE bounce, but it will not rocket him into the general election.

Obama is going to make this one interesting, and Edwards is going to be a thorn in the side. When the dust settles, Hillary will be the only MAN standing.

NH prediction

2008-01-04T19:41:00.000-05:00

Barack steals it in Iowa, and sets up the Democrats for “change,” and Mike Huckabee comes out of no where and tears it up. So where does that leave us in New Hampshire? Does Barack get a bounce here, and will it help him going into South Carolina? What about Mike Fluke-abee? What bounce will he get from winning the Iowa caucus? How is all of this going to affect New Hampshire? Simple, it won’t.

Every pundit has been talking about the polls and the bounce from Iowa. I have heard, “Barack is up 7 points!” or some other ridiculous fake number. Yeah the pollsters have been calling, and yeah I have taken the surveys. In one survey, I was asked if I would vote for an African-American candidate. Well, yeah I would. I don’t care about their skin color, I care about their positions. Now if they had asked me if I would vote for Barack Obama, I would have said no. I will not vote for Barack because I do not agree with his position, not because he is black. I think most people are intelligent enough to know that a person’s position is what makes the candidate viable. Skin color, lineage, sex, and religion are irrelevant when deciding who is best suited to run our country. I really think the pollsters are basing the Barack Boom on responses from intelligent people who vote on issues and positions, not cursory items such as “skin color.”

As far as Mike Huckabee, he will not get any major bounce from Iowa. I think he might scrape together 10% of the vote, but that’s only 2% more then I have been predicting. Mike will be off the map the day after Super Tuesday. I think his win lets him hang around until Super Tuesday and steal votes from the “real” candidates. Mike is not going to win the nominations, and he is barely going to surpass Ron Paul in New Hampshire.

Ok, my predictions for New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are your winners. Hillary is going to win by about 4% and McCain will win by about 7%. Everyone has been telling me I am nuts, but I will not change my opinion. I think I may eat my words on the Democrats side, but there is no question New Hampshire thinks it is McCain’s turn.

For the republicans final count, Mitt Romney is going to pull the conservative vote (30%), McCain is going to pull the independent vote (36%). As for the Democrats, Hillary is going to pull the liberal vote (40%), and Barack is going to get the independents vote (36%). You will see the results will reflect this on Tuesday.

Simply put, New Hampshire is all about old school politics on the republican side. On the Democrats side, Hillary will have more appeal because people think they know her. She has been around (and around, and around) the block, so she can be” trusted.” Yeah, good luck with that my liberal friends.

VICTORY!!!

2008-01-04T10:00:00.001-05:00

Last night was the Iowa caucus and the first win for Mitt Romney. By now you have seen the headlines, and you know it was a good night for Obama and Huckabee, but the raw numbers only show half of the story. The missing part is the true story of last night’s caucus; Mitt wins, and Huckabee losses. Yes, Huckabee did lose. Oh, you didn’t know the entry survey stated 60% of those voting in the Republican caucus were evangelical Christians? Well, knowing this changes the true reflection of the results of Iowa’s straw polls.

Think about it this way; evangelical Christians are biased. FACT: They feel more comfortable with a Baptist Minister than a Mormon. Out of the evangelicals, Mike was able to pull ONLY 56.6% of the vote. This is a deadlocked crowd, and he only pulled 56.6%? This doesn’t look good for Mike, and I think this is the beginning of the end. I know he won, and I understand he was at 34%, but he only got 56.6% of the possible guaranteed votes. You can not win the nomination if you can only grab a small majority of your minority vote.

Mitt Romney was only looking at 40% of the voters as viable. Mitt pulled 25% for the total vote, or 62.2% of the viable vote. This may seem like an unusual way to evaluate the vote, but it is quite a bit more accurate when you look at the demographics of the voting populace. Can religion make a difference in a presidential race? Sadly, yes, it can, and Mitt Romney is not the first candidate to face such a problem. Romney may have fewer votes than Huckabee, but he had more votes than any of the real candidates.

Com-“Mitt”-Ment

2008-01-04T00:38:00.001-05:00

When people ask me who to vote for, I always give them the same advice. To make an informed decision, you need to know where you stand. What is important to you? Look at the issues and decide where you would stand if you were running for President. Now take you opinions and put them in order from most important to least important. Look at your list and match you views up to the candidates. Who matches best with your views? After I compiled my list, I decided there is one candidate who will not only make a good President, but would be monumental. That man is Mitt Romney.

When you break down the issues, you have leadership, national security, the economy, and immigration. Leadership is an issue that can only be gauged by experience. With a strong track record, Mitt is the conservative candidate that the United States needs to lead us into greatness in the coming years. His leadership skills are unmatched by any candidate on either side.

As Governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the nation, Mitt advocated conservative legislation that turned a $1.2 billion dollar deficit into a $700 million surplus. Most figures say the deficit was $3 billion, but either way, Mitt took Massachusetts from the red to black.. This is the same man who took the winter Olympics from rags
to riches.

So Mitt must be worth his weight in gold, right? Well, Mitt actually didn't take payment for his work as Governor of Massachusetts. Likewise, what Mitt received in compensation for his job with the Olympics he gave away to charity. In both cases, Mitt did what he does best, removed duplication and waste from spending. When the chips are down, Mitt will turn it around.

National security and immigration go hand in hand in my view. Romney encompasses my feelings in both, individually and separately. Romney was strong against illegal immigration during his time as Governor, and was against the liberal immigration legislation that was presented in 2005. He has opposed amnesty in any form, and has held strong with the rule of law. He didn't ignore the illegal immigration issue, Mitt allowed the State Police to detain illegal immigrants and enforce immigration laws.

Mitt intends to close the borders to illegal immigrants and to enforce immigration laws. This is what we, the voting public, want. We want the borders secure, and the law breakers prosecuted; we want law and order. This is why the degrading immigration bill I mentioned failed so miserably.

One thing that really bothers me is when people say we should walk away from Iraq. Mitt Romney knows and understands the implications of such hasty actions. We can not let Iraq fall into chaos; we must ensure Iraq has some type of stability. Pulling out of Iraq would be the same as saying the soldiers who gave their lives did so in vain. To back out of Iraq could lead to the collapse of the Middle East. If this happens insurgents gain power and terrorist/terrorism becomes stronger. If you take this a step further, you also invite further attacks on United States soil. Terrorist have already said that if we leave Iraq, they will come here (The United States).

Mitt is known to be trust worthy and ethical. He is the true conservative leader who is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, but also knows when to make a necessary concession. He has proven that he can work with both sides of the aisle and is not afraid to stand his ground. We have the chance to elect a man of fiscal responsibility, morality, and integrity. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this what we all wish for in a candidate?

My friend Blither was quicker than I, and wrote a wonderful piece on Mitt. I hope you will read the next post before leaving this page. After you read Blithers post, I want you to see where Mitt stands for yourself. When you add it up, you will know why I am com-mitt-ed to Mitt Romney for 2008.

Why I'm Voting For Mitt Romney

2008-01-03T19:03:00.000-05:00

People have asked me why I'm voting for Mitt Romney, and what I usually tell them is this:

Mitt has the most experience, and also has a platform and voting record that most closely matches what I feel we need in a good president.

That's really all I need to say on the matter. But, like most, I'll assume you're here because you need specifics. OK, let's start with a brief overview of his past....

School & Early Life

Attended Brigham Young University, where he graduated as valedictorian.
Graduated Cum Laude from Harvard Law School.
Named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top 5% at Harvard Business School.
Participated in several pro-civil rights marches in the 60's.

Private Sector Experience

1978 named vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. (a management consulting firm).
1984 co-founded spin-off company called Bain Capital for 14 years, earning them 113% on investments.
1990 facing collapse, Bain asked him to come back - he did and turned the company around.
1998 headed the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee, profiting them $100 million.

Political Experience

1994 Ran for senate against 8-term senator Ted Kennedy. He lost, but it was Kennedy's smallest margin of victory ever.
2002 Ran for Massachusetts Governor, despite an incumbent Lieutenant Governor running. When it was revealed his popularity was 50 points higher than hers, she bowed out. As a conservative, and with over 50% of the vote, Mitt Romney was elected Governor of the state with the highest ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the state legislature (more than 2 to 1 and breaking the all-time record).

As Governor

Turned a projected $3 Billion budget deficit into a $700 million surplus by lowering taxes and spending.
In a very heavily democrat state, he still managed to leave office with a 43% favorability rating.

After Governor

Won the Iowa Straw Poll in August 2007 with 31% of the vote.
Has the bankroll to fund a decisive campaign against any democrat candidate.

Mitt has the most executive experience of all candidates on either side in both the public and private sectors, all of it marked by overwhelming success. In addition to corporate executive experience, his time with the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics shows that he can switch gears at will to head a team that is very different from his prior endeavors.

Mitt is the most experienced candidate in the field. Combining that with my firm belief that he will be strong on national security, the economy, and immigration makes him the best prospect to lead the country.

The Coolest Kid Here

2007-12-29T13:45:00.000-05:00

I am currently setting up a pathway for our youngest member to our writing team to post directly. For now, I am going to post the text she sent me. Once we have her ready to post directly, this will be reposted under her name and I will delete this post. And now the moment you have all been waiting for, TheCoolestKidHere makes her debut:

Teachers contracts in Nashua NH has become a weary subject for everyone for the past couple months. My fellow students and I have gotten to the point where we just don’t give a damn what the teachers want and what they receive, we just want something done. It’s rather disappointing to see our teachers pulling the “work to rule” ethic just because they aren’t getting the contracts they want.

In Nashua, teachers are required to stay after school once a week to provide extra help for those who need it. Due to the strike, if you cannot make the extra help day, or miss it, then you’re on your own; there is no compromise. Teachers are refusing to stay after days that aren’t their extra help days. This has become an issue for students participating in sports and other activities. Some of our classes require us to participate in after school practices on one predetermined day every week. When practices and extra help days collide then we are forced to choose which class is more important.

Teachers are also refusing to advise clubs. Without an advisor those clubs cannot exist. The only clubs that are open now are the more basic ones like yearbook, newspaper, literary magazine, honors societies, etc. The library is also not open as long after school because, like club advisors, the librarians are refusing to stay after and supervise.

Some teachers have taken the strike to an extreme and have refused to write teacher recommendations for students applying to colleges. It is disappointing when teachers are willing to hurt us and risk our futures to get a contract. I feel bad for juniors and seniors who don’t have clubs, teacher recommendations, or the opportunity to get the extra help they need during the most important years in their grade school careers and.

As much as I would love to see the teachers get a new contract, they are asking for too much. Their salaries are average for the state and they receive superior dental and healthcare coverage. I’m sorry to say that some teachers don’t deserve what they already have. Don’t get me wrong, I have had some truly gifted teachers that I appreciated and even inspired me to become a teacher. However, I’ve also had teachers that barely spoke English, taught classes while drugged on Vicodin, never gave back any of the work I passed in, and even a teacher that let the class watch Saw II during class. The list goes on.

If teachers can’t deal with the contract we have now then they should just leave. At least it would be one less problem teacher to pay. I think the Teachers should stop acting like children and stop using me to prove their point.

Merry Christmas

2007-12-25T09:24:00.001-05:00

Merry Christmas to everyone from the bottom of my heart. Remember that your loved ones are what is important today, and the greatest gift God has personally placed in you life is your family (The greatest gift was his son, Jesus Christ). The second gift God has blessed you with is your friends. This week make an effort to tell those who you have been blessed with how much they have touched your life. My family and friends are the greatest gifts I have personally received, more precious than any material object I may unwrap this morning. I thank God for those who have touched my life, and made me who I am today.

Merry Christmas to the men and women of the United States military who can not be home with their families today. God bless you all, and may God keep you safe. Thank you for your service. Your service, and those before you, has made it possible for us to celebrate today. God bless every one of you.

From my family to yours; we wish you a merry Christmas.

God bless.

Republican YouStooge Debate

2007-12-20T08:41:00.001-05:00

First and foremost, I want to apologize. You asked for my analysis, and I made you wait. Why haven't I written about the Youtube Debate? This is a great question, especially since Mitt stole the show . There are a few reasons why I did not write about this, the most obvious is because of the blatant fraud CNN committed. I should have posted my thoughts the day after the debate, but I wanted see what else would unfold excluding the "Clinton plant." This was supposed to be a debate not and evening of Democrat plants from one side of the room to the other. As the evening unfolded, I noticed that even the questions were erroneous, or portrayed in an erroneous light.

Typical, I would have to back up my arguments here, but I just feel like I am telling you what you already know. CNN flew a guy out from California to Florida to accost the candidates face to face. Why would CNN fly him out? Simple, because the Clinton News Network (CNN) thought it would be good to have a member of Hillary's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Tran-sexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee spout rhetoric at the Republicans on the stage. Way to go CNN. You really showed your "fair and slanted" side there didn't you. Don't get me wrong, I like and watch CNN, but this stunt went too far. The next mornings follow up with John Roberts was pathetic . Keith Kerr tried to say his "…friend…" just "put (his name) there" on the steering committee list and he had nothing to do with it. I don't know what is worse, the fact that it happened, the lie from Kerr, or Roberts sitting there trying to act like CNN had no idea about this mans background. It took me one quick web search and I knew were this "Log Cabin Republican" stood. (Can you taste the sarcasm?)

You know, I am enjoying this, so let me continue dissecting the deceit in an indirect way. I have not read much from Michelle Malkin, but look at how much she has uncovered. Hillary was not the only Democrat to be represented at the "debate," Obama and Edwards also were represented. So what's the deal? CNN can pull this stuff on the Republicans but the Democrats are allowed to skip a FOX debate? Oh look, here we have the New York Lies, I mean, Times trying to justify the withdrawal of the Democrats from said debate. … Sorry, I went off on a tangent there … Anyhow, Michelle pointed out other issues with the people selected, but she did not point out my thoughts from the evening of the debate; "What did CNN do, look for the worst videos to portray conservatives as pathetic extremists?" What was with the questioners, and more importantly what was that music video they used to open? The whole debate format turned me off. The candidates were great and took it in stride, but I do not feel I "got my money's worth" from the debate. At least they didn't use these videos .

CNN and Youtube did a great job disappointing me, just like the Democrats youtube debate. Just about every question seemed out of place in a GOP presidential primary. Almost every question that leaned towards conservative beliefs was asked by a "youtuber" who looked or acted like they escaped from a mental institution, or came straight out of the movie "deliverance." It seems that CNN hand pick the most unstable looking people to ask a conservative values question. The most eloquent of the questioners asked questions with a liberal slant. Why can't we have relevant questions asked in a mature manner by one moderator? If you want input from the constituents, ask them to write in a question, and then create a list of the questions asked. Present the list to the candidates and let them debate the topics. This would allow the constituents to see how their candidates fair on the issues. If candidates have differing opinions, this gives us an opportunity to hear both sides and understand both viewpoints. You know, like a debate!

Many of the questions were good at the heart, yet ridiculous on the surface (I like the bible question, but not the way it was asked). Conversely, many were simply ridiculous. This style of "youtube debate" is degrading to the candidates, and degrading to me. So what was the point of the Youtube debate? It was so real Americans could ask the candidates question … if CNN liked the slant. The debate left me with more questions and less answers. Did we learn anything about the candidates, or did we just hear grandstanding by the democrat sympathizers? Why was there so much rhetoric in the questions and audience responses? Why did CNN transport a Hillary committee member to the debate? Incase I haven't explained this well enough, CNN=liberal.

For anyone who has been paying attention over the past few months, you learned almost nothing.

For those who were not paying attention until now, you learned this:

Republicans make really bad Democrats.

My Mood? I'm Gonna Jihad!

2007-12-14T18:08:00.000-05:00

Iranian President Mahmood Amadinejad has reason to be smug these days - In his eyes, he's just been vindicated.

The new The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report released on December 4th states that in 2003 the Iranian regime halted its nuclear weapons program. The New York Times and liberals in general have been having a field day with this, shouting from the proverbial rooftops about how Iran isn't a threat, seemingly to stave off any talk of a US-led invasion.

But what did the report really say?

For starters, the keyword to focus in on here is "halted", not "dismantled". In fact, the senior intelligence officals who gave the reporters their findings feel it is even possible that Iran's cessation of nuclear activity was part of a deceptive strategy, basing their beliefs on a continued policy of denial in other areas. They went on to say that there was a somewhat high likelihood that they were keeping open the option to resume operations at a later date.

As was the case with Saddam, there's no evidence that they destroyed one shred of nuclear weapons equipment. Unsurprisingly, the mullahs aren't exactly being forthcoming with the IAEA in regards to the inspection of their nuclear facilties.

One of the least-cited findings by the team was the increased agreement that Iran had in fact been running a covert nuclear weapons program, moreso than they felt in 2005 on the date of their last report. Just to remind our good readers, these reports are based on extensive evaluation of intelligence data. There's a much heftier stack of data on Iran now as opposed to two years ago because the US has taken a much closer look at Iran than they did in 2005.

Why? Well, let's look back at 2005 for a moment. Two things happened that year; one, Mahmood Amadinejad rose to power that year; and two, the US first became convinced that many of the terrorists in Iraq were coming from Iran.

But back to the present, let's not forget that Iran is still enriching uranium in their centrifuges to a high degree of purity. They state that their nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes only, yet some experts have raised alarm at the quality of the centrifuges they bought - units that could enrich weapons-grade uranium, not just the cheaper stuff needed to run a reactor.

Also not to forget are the remarks (and I use that term loosely) that Iranian President Mymood Ahmgonnajihad has made regarding Israel - among his reported assertions are:

that Israel should be wiped off the map,
that the Holocaust was a myth,
that attempts to normalise relations with Israel were against their best interests,
that Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a trick,
and that Israel should be relocated to Canada or Alaska so that they could have their own land.

That last one threw me, but it's clear this is a guy who just doesn't like Israel, or jews in general. That may sound like an understatment but it was intended for those of you still not paying attention, so let me summarize:

The guy hates Israel. (no, really?)
He has equipment good enough to build the bomb when it only has to be good enough to make a reactor.
He won't let UN inspectors in to see what he's doing.
The experts largely believe he still intends to build the bomb at a later date.
Overwhelming evidence exists that he is responsible for sending terrorists into Iraq to incite unrest and cause the US to be delayed there longer.

Still think Iran isn't a threat?

No Merit for Teachers Part 3

2007-12-10T10:58:00.001-05:00

I understand that union based laborers think they are entitled, and they should get exactly what they ask for. Seeing as this thought process has impeded negotiations with the Nashua Teachers Union and the city of Nashua, I have a better idea. Why not run the school more like a business and pay teachers based on the good (and hard) work they do? Keep in mind you already have a system in place for merit pay that does NOT include student evaluations. In the work force, the worker has a supervisor, who has a manager, who has another boss and so on. In the school, a teacher has a department head, who has an academy head, who may have a vice principal who has a principal (do I have to keep going, or can I stop at principal?). So as we see the structure is very similar.

In the work force, the supervisor watches and evaluates the work being done at the most intimate level. The input of the supervisor is very important to the evaluation of the worker. The manager is the boss of the supervisor, and is responsible for the evaluation of and for the supervisors. Hence the manager is the balance for a fair evaluation of the teacher by the supervisor. Further, the final decision on increases is made a step removed from the worker (IE manager or higher).

Teachers tell students to think outside the box, please apply such advice here. Now if you insert the word "teacher" for the word "worker" and "department head" for "supervisor" (and so on) you will see how this structure falls into place. Your ability to perform with the students you have (whether they are top of the class or future drop-outs) would be evaluated by your department head. Your department head has been in your shoes, and is still in the classroom. Because they are responsible for the same job as a teacher, they know how difficult teaching is. The department head is in the best position to give a teacher a fair evaluation. Administration then reviews the evaluation and you receive the increases due to you for your performance with your students. Not only will this style of management work, but it has been working for decades in the modern business world.

Now to be preemptive, I know the department head has classes to teach, and can not be in your classroom everyday to watch you work. They do not need to be over your shoulder to evaluate your abilities. In the work force, there are many times I have had to evaluate employees with whom I saw two or three times a weeks. They were judged the same way as employees who I saw on a daily basis; their ability to show up and complete their job. Margins we added to all employees to allow for intricacies of their respective position. These margins also allow for issues relating to individual positions. For a teacher, this would account for teaching students of differing calibers. The margin of error for a supervisor is limited by the adequacy of the supervisor and their respective boss. In other words, if you could not "cut the mustard" in the position you hold, you would not retain your post. This system adds accountability to your boss, not just you. You are held to a standard, and so is the management; Perform or move on.

To sum up my idea, if you are a good teacher, you would reap the benefits of a higher salary, and compensations would not be such a burden on your paycheck. You would be wealthier if you are an "above and beyond" teacher. On the flip side, you would hate merit pay if you are a "do nothing" teacher who feels you are entitled. If you teach economics, think about the "free market system" and how competition breeds greatness. If you know you can make more money by working smarter, you're going to put more effort into your job. On the flip side, you also know that if you do nothing, you are not going to get the compensation you desire and may lose your job. This is fair. In the work place you must perform you duties or lose your job. The better you perform, the higher your compensation at time of review.

I want the teachers to have a fair contract, and I would love for them to receive past due compensation. But if you're going to take things out on my kids (the ones I am currently teaching) then I have no pity for your situation. I have proposed an idea that I think is fair, though it would need to be fine tuned. Consider it a viable framework and think of a way to expand and adjust it as needed. I am more then willing to work with any suggestions you have, and I am full of ideas. Problem solving is a gift of mine.

Oh, you must be joking

2007-12-06T18:41:00.000-05:00

Ok, I know most of you have seen my poll questions, and you know I put up one "funny" answer. I am just letting you all know that Ron Paul was not the "Joke" answer, I was being serious. Obviously you thought it was a joke answer and thought it would be funny to vote for Ron Paul, but let's be serious for just one second. Ron Paul did not win the last debate, nor did he win any debate. Ron Paul was completely unimpressive, yet very comical while he babbled on like a mental patient. He lost on all the issues and had his hat handed to him by the heavyweights on the stage. Honestly, if you really think Ron Paul is the right guy for the job, your almost as misguided as those who think Hillary has experience because her Husband was president.

I have noticed something common about people who support Ron Paul. Every person I have talked to who is a "Ron Paul Supported" seems to have blinders on. They seem to only hear what they want to hear, and ignore the parts they do not want to hear. Here is an example from a conversation I had at the local Ron Paul headquarters:

I asked a gentleman what was going to happen to the United States if we pull the troops out of Iraq with no regard for the climate of the middle east. The response was "Who cares what happens in the middle east, they are not here."
I assumed that he might have misheard what I asked, so I rephrased, "So when the middle east falls into chaos, oil hits $150 a barrel, and fanatic Islamic terrorist start blowing up targets in Europe and United States, your ok with this?"
Again, he said "Who cares what happens over in the middle east."
Frustrated, I tried one last time, "So you don't care if the collateral damage from pulling our troops out causes oil to hit over $150 a barrel, and suicide bombers start blowing up you family and friends here in the United States."
He looked exasperated and exclaimed, "Don't you understand? If they want to blow themselves up, let them. If they raise oil to $150 a barrel, we will just use other fuels. It's not our problem, we are not the world police."
Dumbfounded, I blinked and said "Ok, thank you for the information. I don't think you are listening to me. I am sorry that we can not have an intelligent conversation."
He wished me a good afternoon and thanked me for stopping by. I nodded then asked if he heard a word I said. He nodded and explained "Ron Paul is the wave of the future. We are tenacious, and we will prevail."
He either never heard a word I said, or just did not understand what I was asking.

Tenacious? Well, maybe so if you mean stubborn or obstinate. Is this the message that should be coming from your political headquarters? Just like his supporters, Ron Paul seems to have blinders on. His view seems narrower on Iraq than any other issue. I would love to see Dr. Paul explain his feelings about the collateral damage that he wants to reek on the world. I dare you to address the fall out you intend to cause when you pull our troops out immediately. I know Paul will not address this because he knows he is wrong.

One piece of advice to the misguided, "don't miss the forest for the trees." Get the big picture.

No Merit for Teachers Part 2

2007-12-03T12:11:00.001-05:00

I have always been good with a quick quote. This is the one I had for the end of the aldermanic meeting last night: "As a teacher, you will witness temper tantrums, hear people shouting out of turn, stamping their feet, and generally being disrespectful … then there are the children." The teachers of Nashua have yet again showed how indignant they can be. As a public display, the teachers decided to throw their temper tantrum to sway public opinion. Public opinion is everything for the teachers, and they are not doing anything to their credit.

At this point, I am going to give the teachers some sound advice. First and foremost, we know you want a contract but slighting our children is not going to get you a contract any faster. Second, find a better way to get the money you want in the new contract. The teachers want retroactive pay for increases they have not received. I agree with the teachers. They should receive the past due income. But here's the question: In the next contract, when the teachers want to pay less health care and get higher raises, do we just give it to them? Should we give in to the extortion tactics of the teachers for new every contract? I say we make the teachers earn their pay the same way as the rest of us. Merit pay would make the good teachers better and the bad teachers quit. Our educational system would be the best one in the state because only the good teachers would continue to work here.

The teachers who have approached me over the contract issue all have one thing in common; they agree with me. They all agree that the contracts need to be settled equitably for both sides (I don't know the solution, but I have some great ideas like merit pay). The other area we agree is that the students are being affected. We disagree about the severity of the affects on the students. I have stated that the teachers are hampering the students' ability to excel in their studies. Teachers think I am blowing this out of proportion. I will let you be the judge.

Before the teachers adopted the "work to rule" ethics, I tutored some students from Nashua. Most of my tutoring was simple touch up work and brushing up on skills. Today I am teaching entire lesson plans to students because they do not understand their schoolwork. In my eyes, this is absolute proof of the effect on the students at the high school level. I might be 100% wrong, and the kids I am tutoring could be the problem, but I doubt it. I believe that if students require me to be a teacher, the "work to rule" ethic is having an adverse affect on our students.

Alright Nashua and others, tell me your thoughts. Are our children dumber, or are the teachers robbing them of precious instruction that is vital to a child's educational success? Who is really being hurt, the teachers or the students? If you agree with me, stomp you feet in a childish tantrum!

Do You Speak Spanish?

2007-11-29T22:07:00.001-05:00

So I was in work the other day, when a lady addressed me in an unusual way. I said "Hello," and introduced myself as I do with all our consumers. She responded in Spanish, and asked "Do you speak Spanish?" I answered in English, "Yes." The conversation was very unusual because I do understand Spanish, but I can not talk eloquently or efficiently in Spanish. During our conversation, I chose to respond to this lady in English while she chose to speak to me in Spanish. When the conversation was near the end, she noticed I had not spoken any Spanish, yet I answered all of her questions. She looked at me quizzically, and then asked in English, "If you speak Spanish, then why you no speak Spanish?" I simply replied that I was sorry, but I could explain things to her easier in English. She nodded then thanked me, in Spanish, then left the store. I couldn't help but smirk knowing that she understood everything I said to her IN ENGLISH!!!

So why did I speak English to her? Two reasons; number one, this is The United States of America, and we speak English. Number two, I do not speak Spanish, I understand Spanish, and so I can not talk to you in Spanish. Did I lie to the lady? Yes, I did because I was not fully honest with her. I told her I spoke Spanish, and I do not. I do understand Spanish, but that's not the same.

Why should I speak a foreign language in my home country? Let's think about this for a minute. In America, you either speak English or you are not a citizen. If you are not a citizen, you are visiting my country. If you are going to visit a country and you do not speak the native tongue, you either learn prior to going or you bring a dictionary that helps you to interpret the language spoken in the land you are traveling to. If I was to go to Germany, I would know German. Sprechen Sie Deutsch (Do you speak German)? Ich spreche nur ein bisschen Deutsch (I only speak a little German). But I do not speak enough to get by unless I have a German to English Dictionary.

So what is my point? Why do I have to learn your language if you are in my country? Why do you expect me to speak your language? This is the USA. We speak English, and if you are here, then so should you. Do not expect us to accommodate you, the world does not revolve around you, and therefore you should not expect accommodations just because you breathe. This goes for Americans too. When you travel abroad, you need to know the language of the land. NEVER expect people to accommodate you. Always be gracious and accommodate those who you visit. Think about it this way; when you visit your friends and they have different rules, you accommodate the rules your friend has for their house out of respect. I have a friend who wants all shoes taken off at the door, so I take my shoes off when I enter their house. I don't care about shoes at my house as long as you're not tracking mud in my house. Another person's country is their house, so follow their rules.

Welcome to American, please speak English.

Happy Thanksgiving

2007-11-22T10:46:00.001-05:00

Today, my daughter is playing for the last time in Nashua High North marching band. The 4^th annual Turkey bowl is under way; the local high schools, the Titans of the North and the Panthers of south, compete for the city of Nashua. At the end of the first quarter the Panthers are up 6-0.

My wife left to watch the game, and I am home making a feast watching on Channel 99. Being by myself, I am left with quite a bit of time to stop and think about what this holiday means to me, so I thought it would be nice to say my thanks to everyone in my life who made it possible for me to write my blog..

I want to say thank you to my family, starting with my wife for putting up with my passion for politics and supporting my side project. Thank you to my daughter for challenging my thoughts, and sharing my passion. The two ladies in my life are the major reasons I can bring my thoughts to you. Thank you.

Thank you to my parents for molding me into the adult I have become. It was a long tough road, but you stuck it out and showed me the way to lead proper life. Thank you.

I would like to thank my friend Scott for beating me into submission and making me start my blog. Thank you for convincing me. Thank you for telling me I should write my thoughts for others to share. You are a great editor, web advisor, and friend. Thank you.

Thank you for the United States Military. Jennifer Horn says something to the effect of, "Please say a prayer for the good men and women of the United States military who everyday would give up there life for yours." (Check out Jennifer's Thanksgiving day post) I second that statement, and her Thanksgiving post. Thank you to the troops for the great sacrifice you make for us everyday and today. I can not explain to you how much I am in debt to the Military for the incredible job you have volunteered for. You are all an inspiration to me. Thank you to all of the men and women who are fighting for our country.

Thank you to all my friends for talking with me and debating topics. I know I am very headstrong and passionate, but you have all stuck to your guns and made me rethink my positions. This has lead to a greater understanding of the topics that I write about. You have all balanced my views, and helped me with the empathy I tend to lack. You are all great friends, and I could not wish for a better group of friends. I know that if I need you, you will be there. I will always be here for you. Thank you.

Thank you God for my life. It has been a rollercoaster ride, and is never bland. Thank you God for all those in my life, and all the blessings you have bestowed on my life.

Thank you to everyone for all you have done. I love you all, my family and friends. Thank you for you love, and everything you have added to my life.

Thank you for being a part of my life and reading my thoughts,

God bless.

No Merit for Teachers

2007-11-19T02:06:00.001-05:00

Teachers' contracts in Nashua have been a major grip of mine over the past 12 months. I have no problem with sitting down and finding a mutually beneficial contract for the teachers of Nashua and the town of Nashua. The problem I have is with the tactics of the teacher's union and teacher's application of those tactics. For some reason, the union and teachers have decided that the best course of action to take would be to extort the tax payers of Nashua. They are using the quality of our children's education to force a new contract. Many people have been asking me how I can make such bold accusations and I have told them all the same thing; because it is true.

The definition of extortion that best fit the description of the teacher actions is the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority. Though I think this is pretty self explanatory, let's break this down and explore the application of the definition.

Crime; the abject neglect the teachers have for students I consider to be a crime. You will understand this point a bit later as I describe the neglect I have been witness to and have heard from the children I work with from the schools. A quick way to explain my observations would be to say I have to teach the students because the teachers are not taking the time to teach the necessary concepts to the children.

The second part is to obtain money or some other thing of value; In this case, the teachers are trying to get both. The teachers are seeking money in the new contract, and also health care concessions from the city. Granted, health care does fall under the money angle, but I don't want to lose sight of the healthcare piece. Further, I believe the teachers have the right to renegotiate their contract with the city, and have no issue with the renegotiation. The issue is the teachers have decided that they would sacrifice the education of our children to force the city into a contract. The taxpayers and children can not do anything to grant the teachers a contract. We have now become collateral damage in the fight between the city officials and the teachers, further our children have become pawns in the chess game the teachers are playing.

The last part of the definition states; abuse of one's office or authority. Earlier I alluded to neglect, and this is where it fits in. The abuse in this statement is the mannerisms of the teachers toward our children and the neglect of the teacher's responsibilities. The teachers have pulled the "work to rule" card. This does not seem to break any laws, but I see it as a breach of duty or better stated, abuse of the power they have with the future of our children. A teachers' job is to teach subject matter to the children within their classrooms. This does not mean the teacher ONLY teaches in the classroom, but rather teaches those who are part of their classrooms.

Again, I relent to the teachers as they are only obligated to bring forth the approved curriculum and to present it to the students while addressing issues of the students during class. I have never known a teacher who would not make themselves available at another time for the children who need extra help. Should a teacher make themselves available for those who need a more in depth explanation? Every teacher I have ever known or worked with has met with students at times that were mutually agreeable outside of normal classroom hours. I admit the teachers of Nashua are making some effort outside of normal hours; they will only make themselves available on one day and time with no flexibility for the students. If a child is not able to meet with the teacher at the teachers predetermined time, that student will not get extra help from the teacher. The teachers do not seem care about the child's ability to be successful with their academics. The only concern the teachers appear to have with their students is using them in their extortion scheme. We could stop the extortion with two words, "merit pay."

Nashua teachers have no problem with our children slipping between the cracks and falling behind. By their actions, the teachers have proven to me that they do not care if your child gets a full and beneficial education. Why should the teachers care, they get paid either way. It might not be the exact figure they are looking for, but they still get paid. I forgot to add that when a new contract is approved the teachers will get their new pay retroactive. How are these teachers going to give our children a retroactive education? This is why I feel the teachers of Nashua do not care about our children: There is no way to give back the lost time. Time is the largest of the opportunity costs, and the students of Nashua are paying dearly.

So You Think I’m a Bad Parent?

2007-11-14T10:30:00.001-05:00

Frequently, we hear people complain about how children are raised. I also complain about this, but my complaints differ with the collective voice that we hear about on a daily basis. People often try to explain away the actions of our youth. They say, "It's just kids being kids … It's not their fault," and the worst one, "They never had a father (or real family)." What happened to accountability? Where is the world I grew up in where kids were responsible for what they did whether it was right or wrong? As a child, I was well aware of what my parents expected of me. I followed the rules or met the consequences for disobedience. My parents taught me how to act and converse from a very young age. I knew that when speaking to adults, we were to call them "Mr." or "Mrs." Using words such as "Please" and "Thank you" were parts of fluid conversation, not a mandatory statement to get something from someone.

So when did we lose focus on parents actually parenting? Why are we trying to be our child's friend and not their parent? As a child, I knew I could play a game with my mom, or fish with Pop (I called my father Pop), but I was never confused with the idea that my parents were my friends. Time with my parents was special, and it was a great opportunity to learn from the best (I thought they were the best, and I was right!). I could trust Mom and Pop, and I could tell them anything without fear. Sure, I could play a game with my friends or go fishing, but it wasn't the same. My friends were the ones who judged me, and turned on me when the chips were down. My parents were always there, even when I wasn't being a "good boy." They were my greatest, most dependable allies in my journey to adulthood. Friends were never reliable, but my parents never faltered.

Commonly, a child's negative actions are blamed on external forces and not on the internal. I will not subscribe to the idea that a video game or a cartoon can cause a child to act irresponsibly. When I was growing up, I watched a cartoon coyote fall off cliffs and get smashed with huge boulders. I never tried to drop large rocks on people, or shoot someone after playing a violent video game. The difference between children of earlier generations and children of today is this; we were brought up with values, morals, and accountability. I was taught right from wrong, and my parents showed me what morality and responsibility are. My actions reflected on my parents, and more specifically my parents' ability to be parents. I bring up my children the same way as my parents raised me. Therefore, I should expect my child to act in the same manner as I would. My children should be respectful toward others, and be accountable for their action. Essentially, if my child was to act in a manner that was not socially acceptable, I have not done my job as a parent. It is my obligation to raise my children so they will grow into proper young adults.

One small disclaimer here, I have a blended household, and my biological child does not live with me. I personally feel that my biological son is not headed down the correct path, but I do my best to instill my values morals in him his mannerisms. I can only influence him in small increments as I only see him on the weekends. I have a responsibility to my son, and therefore I must do everything in my power to ensure my son knows right from wrong. Though I am not the primary parent in his life, I feel it is my obligation to teach my son to grow up with the correct morals, values and accountability. I might not be as influential with him as I am with my two bonus children (Stepchildren for those of you who do not know the term bonus-child), but I am responsible for showing all three children the correct way to live their lives.

Now, if it makes me a bad parent for being strict, having guidelines, expecting manners, and punishing bad behaviors, then you will never understand what it means to guide a child to become successful. I don't care if an "expert psychologist" doesn't agree with my parenting style, they are wrong. My children and I are the proof that they are wrong. Look at the local news and you will see what happens when kids are not raised with positive influences or held accountable for their actions. In a recent story, a minor in Rhode Island was caught transporting alcohol. The parents of one child said, "Kids being kids," and asking for the cops to look the other way. You look at all the kids that have gone wrong and you will notice one of two things; either they have limited guidance from their parents, or they have a "parent/friend." A "Parent/friend" is the parent who let there kids do anything they want, and "talk" about the issue with their child. There is no punishment, and no expectations. So when the child grows up, they believe that all they have to do is talk about what happened, and everything is better. The child never expects to be held accountable.

Let me think about how I might handle one of my kids if they transported alcohol. Um … how would I phrase this … (imagine a raised voice and a firm tone, not yelling) GO TO YOU ROOM! YOU ARE GROUNDED INDEFINITELY!
When I calm down, we can TALK about possible parole. I don't care why you did it, give me your cell phone, the computer is blocked, and I cut the cable to you TV. I took the speakers from your stereo, and your DVD player. Oh, and while I am at it, I'm borrowing the IPod I bought you. I hope you like country music because while you're grounded it will have my music collection! While I am thinking of it, here is your new chore list; clean my house top to bottom. I am going to the state prosecutor to make sure your punishment make you think twice before disobeying me or breaking the law again.

This is my main point: A child's actions are a reflection of a parent's ability to parent. You are the reason your child becomes who they are. By your actions, you are the one who influences who your children become. A parent should be a disciplinarian, a manager, a councilor, a therapist, and a teacher. There are many other things we become when we become parents, and I could not possibly list them all. But as parents, the most important thing we become is accountable for our children.

The Next President of the United States of America Part 3

2007-11-05T09:43:00.001-05:00

Personally, I think Bill Clinton is one of the best politicians in the world, though I have never and would never vote for him. Nothing seems to sticks to the "Teflon Clintons", no matter how bad it may be. If we learned anything from Bill, it is that not even a major mistake is enough to topple a Clinton. So effectively, Hillary has the best political adviser at her disposal. This means that by her own actions, name recognition, and Bill's advice, she can lose only if she makes a major mistake. Hillary continues to prove this as she avoids taking a stand or decides to alter her statements with the political tide.

The latest example of Hillary twisting in the wind came forth at the latest debate. When Hillary was asked if she was for or against the Governor of New York giving out driver licenses to illegal immigrants, she said at first she was for it. In case you missed it, by proxy she was for it when she said, "… So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap." She was then rebuked by her colleagues, and in the next breath, she was against such a proposal: "I just want to add that I did not say that it should be done but I certainly recognize what (why) Governor Spitzer is trying to do it, and we have failed, we have failed." Chris Dodd again jumped at the bit, and interjected with, "no, no, no, you said... you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Hillary challenged Chris with an outright lie, stating, "no… no I didn't, Chris." I am sorry, but yes …yes you did, Hillary. But why are you so upset about being caught in a lie? It is not news when a Clinton lies, but you're acting like someone just said you broke one of the Ten Commandments. Oh, wait, that was your husband… who you're still married to… who you knew cheated on you… numerous times….

Moving on, she was then asked unequivocally if she supported the New York Governor's plan and she responded with, "This is where everyone plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense; what is the governor supposed to do?" Then John Edwards hit one out of the park when he wanted to "add something to what Chris Dodd (said because he) didn't want it to go unnoticed." He pointedly stated that, "Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." John might not be the most eloquent man on the stage, but his comment really drove home the inconsistency of Hillary's statement. Will this be a negative thing for her? Maybe, but this won't stick to Hillary, nor should this be a complication for her while running for the nomination. Want proof? This 3.5 minute video will show how little people are affected by Hillary and her "two minute flip-flop." Hillary will be representing the democrats for 2008 and we still don't know where she stands.

Rudy may be running as a Republican, but he is not running to the right for the primary. He has been fairly liberal on a number of social issues (immigration, pro-choice, pro-gun control, gay rights). He seems to be running to the center during the primary, and is popular enough with conservatives to get their vote in a general election. Right now, it looks like Republicans will take anyone who qualifies as Republican so long as they think that person can beat Hillary and/or Obama. I can't shake the feeling that Rudy isn't running to the center from the right, rather he is actually left of center. He may be just slightly right on some issues, but the social inconsistencies make me very hesitant. Rudy became America's Mayor in September 2001, and is now a household name. He passes as a Republican, and handles the spotlight well. He may not be the best Republican by his record, but I think he can hold his own against Hillary. As I have said, he is a bit liberal and Republicans just won't vote for Hillary. This is a very attractive combination for a Republican running for election in 2008. Conservative Democrats and independents will vote for Rudy and maybe he can capture the moderate and slightly liberal independents. There are some good points to draw the conservatives closer to him during the general election; he is tough on crime, and that may transpose to a tough military leader. Rudy was about getting the job done when he ran New York City, and that might be an approach that would work well with Iraq and also the war on terror. If Rudy is half as tough running our military, there is a good chance he can end the current conflict we are having with the Islamic jihadists. Then again, he might metaphorically knock down a beehive, stirring up the nest, to remove it from the building.

One other quick point on Rudy; one of his recent commercials personifies my greatest fear. Rudy has stated, "…I want people to look at those and say if I agree with most of them, then this is a person who can bring them about. And if they disagree with it, they should vote against me, because I am going to bring it about." So what Rudy is saying to me is that he wants to do it all his way. So Rudy, are you willing to make concessions to pass legislation? When you are president, how thick will you make the log jam of legislation? Again, I think we need a leader who knows how to make concessions, and works well with others. I do not believe headstrong bullheaded policies are good for the nation, but I do believe that mindset will cause polarization and hyper-partisanship. Rudy might win the nomination, but I still don't think he is the right person for the job.

As you all know, I am having a hard time leaving Mitt Romney out of the mix here. I can't help but think what Mitt could do as President. As I stated in my last post, Mitt can do it all, but I also feel that he can handle the Iraq situation with greater finesse than any other person on either stage. Mitt has the right idea when it comes to immigration, taxes, extremists, and health care. Mitt is the best candidate on either side of the aisle, and would be a great president. Rudy might be a good president, but Mitt would be great. I have heard every candidate, and met many of them. There is no question in my mind that the next leader of the free world should be Mitt Romney. I may not agree with everything Mitt has to say, but I do agree with him on every issue that I find important.

Considering my feelings about the next election, and who will be the nominees, there is one slim silver lining; we will have a Republican in office next. Unless Mitt Romney can overcome Rudy Giuliani in the primary (I am crossing my fingers and praying real hard for Mitt), ladies and gentlemen, your next President of the United States of America is Rudy Giuliani.

The Next President of the United States of America Part 2

2007-11-01T09:39:00.001-04:00

In the last post, I decided who I thought would be the Democrats nominee. To get the Republican nominee, I have to remove the dead weight on the Republican side. To do so, I will remove Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul. We also have to remove one who is moving up to viable status, Mike Huckabee. You may argue with my choices for elimination, but let's be serious; none of these guys have a chance to win their respective parties nomination, not even Mike Huckabee.

As for the major candidates on the Republican side, a haggard John McCain has only been marginally significant at the debates until late. McCain has taken a stronger stance on a few key issues. This has made his agenda line up with the conservative party's mentality. Unfortunately, I fear it may be too little too late for him change his mind. To come out and say, (paraphrased) 'yeah I was wrong on immigration and NOW I am listening,' is not good enough for me. I feel that when he addressed his change of heart, McCain forgot to add that he is listening because you are not voting for him. As of late, McCain has been looking livelier on stage. He is now pushing the conservative agenda. Yet when we look back at his recent record and we see that McCain has gone completely in the wrong direction for the heart of the conservative party. McCain has also changed the game plan in his bid for nomination. He has decided to deflect the flip flop allegation by moving the heat to Mitt Romney. McCain has gone to great lengths to show Romney as a foe conservative by Mitts actions as Governor of Massachusetts. Mitt had to work with liberal legislators in Massachusetts, but in the senate you have to push the agenda of your party, not the agenda of the opposition. McCain seems to have forgotten this as evidenced by campaign finance reform, Illegal immigration, and gay marriage (you have to go back to early 2005 to find this one). I am not saying one should not make concessions in the senate, but rather push bills that are aligned with the party mindset.

Fred Thompson landed with a thud. The poor boy hit the ground, but forgot to start running. He was wholly unimpressive with his first debate being fairly vague yet comical. Fred threw out a few comedic one liners without taking any major stands. Thompson was using the January dodge maneuvers of the early primary candidates. At his point in the game, he should be taking the bull by the horns and talking about the specifics that voters are looking. Thompson has been better with specifics, but not with his charisma. I have been reading article that tell about crowds that didn't even know when Thompson was finished with his speeches. I saw Thompson here in Nashua, and was not moved by anything he said. If Fred had not have spoken he would have received a better reaction. To be honest, every time I have heard him speak, or read a transcript, he loses points in my book. If Fred was not on Law and Order, I do not believe he would be any higher in the polls than Tom Tancredo. In another strange twist of events, Thompson seems to think he should be picking apart Giuliani. If I was speculating as to Thompson's game plan, I would say he is going after Giuliani to make headway in his stalled campaign. By attacking Giuliani, he is making himself relevant to the voters and media outlets. His speeches and debates do not seem to resonate with conservatives; therefore attacking Giuliani will get the headlines he can not generate on merit alone. I am not sure if this is the right move, but he is getting more air time, and sound bites.

The man who shows the most promise in the Republican race is Mitt Romney. Romney has been solid from day one with his family values, conservative mindset, and his ability to work with both sides of the aisle. His record shows parts of liberal legislation as he worked together with the heavily Democratic legislature of Massachusetts. Romney used the line item veto to cut out excessive spending and to bring forth a fiscally conservative bill to the populace of his constituents'. The legislature did over-ride many of his vetos, but keep in mind that Massachusetts has a legislature that is 85% liberal. You must also note that when a Governor veto's a bill, you can not count it against the Governor when a veto is overridden. To put this in perspective, if your car is stolen, and involved in an accident, it is not your fault. Sometimes you need to make concessions to get what you want. Hyper partisanship causes a log jam for legislation and Romney knows this. In other words, Romney has the conservative values that conservatives crave, he can work with both sides of the aisle to the elation of the independents, and he also will allow a concession which appeases the liberals. We need Romney now because he can work legislation though, and he would work the hardest to get the job done. Not to say the others would not work their hardest, but the others candidates hardest is Mitts easy pace. The man never breaks a sweat because he thrives on pressure and success. Romney has the record to show he would be effective as president. Unfortunately, I have not predicted Mitt as the nominee, though he would be the best candidate and President. If nothing changes, Mitt only has a 49% chance of becoming the nominee for the Republicans. Even though Mitt can, and would, mop the floor with Hillary Clinton, Rudy has a very good chance of winning the nomination. Though I know Romney should win hands down, in the contest of Romney VS. Rudy, I can't say Romney would win.

… And the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani …

The Next President of the United States of America Part 1

2007-10-30T08:55:00.001-04:00

Around the middle of August, I made my first prediction about the presidential race. When I decided to post my thoughts on the election, I assumed you would be more interested in who I think will win and why. With that in mind, I had to weed out two viable candidates from the vast fields and make a final choice. This is not an easy task as there are some real strong candidates on both sides. Considering the length of my analysis, I decided to cut down the level of detail I used to explain my positions, and split this into a few different posts. The hardest part was eliminating the top tier candidates on both sides. In once case it was almost impossible to eliminate a candidate as he could, and more importantly, should get his parties nomination.

In this post, I decided to eliminate the candidates that we should not waste time with. I also decided I should reduce the major contenders on the Democrats side. Except for one candidate, I feel all of the Democrats are second tier material. Therefore I will not waste time with most of them. Let's start by removing Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd. In all honesty, there is no chance that any of these men can compete with the front runners for the Democrat nomination. Moving on…

Now we can weed out the other major Democrat contenders starting with Barack Obama. Barack just does not have the experience needed to be successful in a general election, never mind the Presidency. He seems to have a major issue with the stress related to public forums such as debates. Though he is great at rallying people while giving a speech that does not include feedback, he does not seem to handle direct questioning well. Barack gets flustered and losses his eloquence when he is faced with a difficult question. How can you lead the "free world" if you can not handle the lime light of a debate? Further, he seems to know what issues he should talk about, but Barack does not seem to have a solid answer to anything. I have frequently listened to him highlight some major political issues without giving his solution. On the rare occasion that he give a solution to a problem, his ideas reek of inexperience. He has often retracted his statements by altering his viewpoint or stating that he did not mean what he said. On the other hand, if Barack is going to make a serious run for the nomination, he needs to change his approach. Unless Obama starts chipping away at Hillary and her policies to weaken her stance, how can he compete with the "Clinton Machine." As of late, Obama has been more aggressive with Hillary, but I can't help but wonder if it is too little too late. Obama may have enough time to get a good foot hold on the nomination, but he may be cutting it too close. This is not to say Obama does not have potential at this moment, but I do not think his potential is going to blossom during this election. He may have staying power, but he is not a great threat to Hillary or, more importantly, the Republicans. Obama is going to be a force to recon with in a few years, but for now, he needs to get his political legs beneath him so he can stand against the Republican in the General election.

As far as John Edwards, I don't really know what to say except that his voting populace seems to be a very specific type of Democrat that is a bit further to the left than independents feel comfortable with. I may be wrong, but he doesn't seem to know where the middle is and Democrats need the independent vote as much as the Republicans. Obama and Clinton are the only two that I can see who could sway the independent vote, each for different reasons. I wish I could be more descriptive with John Edwards, but there really is not much to say. He does not have any realistic strong standpoints, no viable policy, and can not compete with Hillary (or Bills) charisma. My final point is the most important; Democrats are intelligent, no matter what a Conservative says. Therefore, John Edwards will not win the nomination because Democrats know he can not win a general election.

… and the nominee is … Hillary Clinton

Welcome To My Mind

2007-10-27T13:12:00.001-04:00

On a small scale, I have been wowing people with my bold assessment, and general grasp of the political world for about two years now. After some of my more famous (or brazen if you will) predictions and analysis have proven to be reliable, people have asked me to put my thought into words. I have been asked by many people to start a blog, yet it never seemed interesting to me. About a month back I predicted the next President while I was talking to a local radio personality, one who I have been talking with for quite a number of months. He rejected my ideas and protested slightly before asking me to "hang on the line." Once the commercials began, the host came on and told me I needed to start writing my thoughts down and "get them out." Later in the week, while this was floating in my head, a friend of mind reminded me about my Mitt Romney prediction. Back when Mitt Romney looked like he was fairly comfortable presiding over Massachusetts, I raised eyebrows by saying that he was going to run for the Presidency in 2008. This was not so surprising considering people have been speculating such actions for a few years except I said it with absolute certainty. Suddenly, Romney announces he is running for President, and all eyes turn on me.

In the past, I have made some reckless predictions with varying amounts accuracy. More often than not, I try to stay away from predictions and work more with the analysis of the events that are at hand. My intention is to address weekly an event that I see in the news or something that has been on my mind. I will editorialize, and you will disagree with me. I hope you will disagree with me; otherwise this will be a very boring side project for me. I like differing views, but be forewarned, I do not dabble with quibbling, and will not tolerate ignorant personal attacks. I will try to address any comments, questions, and the likes there of in a timely fashion, but please remember, my postings and time spent here with commentary is a side project to my life and family. Further, if you can not be respectful, your posts will not be listed, nor responded to. You may disagree with me, and I hope you do. I would love to have a debate at any respectable level you wish so long as we can agree that we will be adults. We also have to agree to disagree at time. (Lord knows my wife and daughter disagree with me frequently!)

With that said … Welcome to my Mind … It's a very scary place.