Best selling author and conservative commentator Jerry Corsi won the January poll here at Conservative President 2008 with 47.34% of the 207 votes cast.
Republican new comer John Cox came in second with 24.64%. For third place Libertarian Christine Smith edged out Democrat John Edwards with 13.04% compared to Edwards' 12.08%.
Independent Daniel Imperato appeared for a second time in the polls here and he only received 1.93% compared to his November showing of 5.19%. The Green Party's Pat LaMarche also dropped in numbers this time around, winning only 0.97% compared to her November showing of 1.3%.
You may now vote in the February poll.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Constitution Party Speaks Out Against War
In an e-mail release the day after the President's "State of the Union" address the Constitution Party said this about the Iraq War:
"As to the constitutionally unauthorized war in Iraq, the Constitution Party reminds Americans that during his 2003 State of the Union address, the president said: 'If Saddam Hussein does not … disarm…we will lead a coalition to disarm him.' He said those words relying on intelligence information that we now know to be false. More than 3,000 U.S. soldiers have since died. Both parties in Congress abdicated their duty to either declare war or prevent engaging in war. The president should now be looking for ways to extricate the U.S. from the quagmire he and Congress got us into by making arrangements for Iraq to immediately assume the responsibility of stabilizing its government, and getting our troops out. Let us use the past as prologue for what could very well be justification for yet another war in the Middle East , this time in IRAN. What could be the purpose of calling for an increase in the size of the military, other than to engage in further excursions as world policeman? Has this president learned nothing from the Iraq debacle?
Unlike the Republican and Democrat parties, the Constitution Party remembers that our founders warned against such 'foreign entanglements'."
"As to the constitutionally unauthorized war in Iraq, the Constitution Party reminds Americans that during his 2003 State of the Union address, the president said: 'If Saddam Hussein does not … disarm…we will lead a coalition to disarm him.' He said those words relying on intelligence information that we now know to be false. More than 3,000 U.S. soldiers have since died. Both parties in Congress abdicated their duty to either declare war or prevent engaging in war. The president should now be looking for ways to extricate the U.S. from the quagmire he and Congress got us into by making arrangements for Iraq to immediately assume the responsibility of stabilizing its government, and getting our troops out. Let us use the past as prologue for what could very well be justification for yet another war in the Middle East , this time in IRAN. What could be the purpose of calling for an increase in the size of the military, other than to engage in further excursions as world policeman? Has this president learned nothing from the Iraq debacle?
Unlike the Republican and Democrat parties, the Constitution Party remembers that our founders warned against such 'foreign entanglements'."
Brownback On Social Issues
On yesterday's Fox News Sunday Sen. Sambrownback was questioned by host Chris Wallace on his conservatism.
Christ Wallace: "Senator, let's talk about your campaign for president, because you are now formally in the race as of this last week. You sent out a fundraising e-mail to fellow conservatives this week, and this was your central message.
'As the only tried and true social conservative seeking the Republican Party's nomination, I'm personally asking for your support. In fact, differing stands on social issues like life and marriage represent the main contrast between the candidates running for the Republican nomination.'
Since you raised it, Senator, what are the differences between you, on the other hand, and (John) McCain and (Mitt) Romney and now (Mike) Huckabee on the other?"
Sen. Brownback: "Well, as I pointed out, as a tried and true conservative, I've been in the Congress or the United States Senate since 1994. I've voted on these issues of life and marriage — many of the other social issues. I've been a leader on those issues.
I think it speaks for itself that I'm tried and true on these issues and many of the others have looked or been in different positions at different times. Those are going to come out during the race.
We point out at the outset of those that I've been a tried and true leader on these core issues to the base of the Republican Party and also core to America."
To read the entire interview, go here.
Christ Wallace: "Senator, let's talk about your campaign for president, because you are now formally in the race as of this last week. You sent out a fundraising e-mail to fellow conservatives this week, and this was your central message.
'As the only tried and true social conservative seeking the Republican Party's nomination, I'm personally asking for your support. In fact, differing stands on social issues like life and marriage represent the main contrast between the candidates running for the Republican nomination.'
Since you raised it, Senator, what are the differences between you, on the other hand, and (John) McCain and (Mitt) Romney and now (Mike) Huckabee on the other?"
Sen. Brownback: "Well, as I pointed out, as a tried and true conservative, I've been in the Congress or the United States Senate since 1994. I've voted on these issues of life and marriage — many of the other social issues. I've been a leader on those issues.
I think it speaks for itself that I'm tried and true on these issues and many of the others have looked or been in different positions at different times. Those are going to come out during the race.
We point out at the outset of those that I've been a tried and true leader on these core issues to the base of the Republican Party and also core to America."
To read the entire interview, go here.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Huckabee Prepares for Run
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee plans to announce an exploratory committee for a possible run for the White House on Monday.
"My brand of conservatism is not an angry hostile brand. It's one that says 'conservative' means we want to conserve the best of our culture, society, principles and values and pass them on," MSNBC reports Huckabee as saying last month.
Huckabee took the office of governor in July of 1996 after the resignation of Governor Jim Tucker and served in that office until January, 2007.
"My brand of conservatism is not an angry hostile brand. It's one that says 'conservative' means we want to conserve the best of our culture, society, principles and values and pass them on," MSNBC reports Huckabee as saying last month.
Huckabee took the office of governor in July of 1996 after the resignation of Governor Jim Tucker and served in that office until January, 2007.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Hunter Makes It Official
California U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter, who formed an exploratory committee this past October, has made his candidacy official.
"Let's begin this race for the American presidency and let's win," Hunter said at the end of his announcement speech.
The New York Times reports that "Mr. Hunter, 58, said his candidacy would emphasize his support for the war in Iraq, his opposition to abortion and his belief in free trade."
"Let's begin this race for the American presidency and let's win," Hunter said at the end of his announcement speech.
The New York Times reports that "Mr. Hunter, 58, said his candidacy would emphasize his support for the war in Iraq, his opposition to abortion and his belief in free trade."
Imperato Looks for Conservative Christian Backing
Independent candidate Daniel Imperato is reaching out to the conservative Christian Community, he recently met with Pastor Chuck Smith.
"Imperato, a spirit-filled Christian who studies the Torah, made only one agreement with Pastor Smith. He pledged his word that he would walk in the Word and restore US Christian morals, values, and principles to the White House," reports the USPRwire.
"Imperato feels he is the only choice for Christian Voters in 2008 because he is true to his faith and he endorses a pro-life stance," the article goes onto say.
"Imperato, a spirit-filled Christian who studies the Torah, made only one agreement with Pastor Smith. He pledged his word that he would walk in the Word and restore US Christian morals, values, and principles to the White House," reports the USPRwire.
"Imperato feels he is the only choice for Christian Voters in 2008 because he is true to his faith and he endorses a pro-life stance," the article goes onto say.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Hargis Response to "State of the Union"
Independent Presidential candidate Bob Hargis released this statement on the "State of the Union" address to the Conservative President 2008.
Bob Hargis' Response to the 2007 "State of the Union" address:
Although the President’s demeanor was calm, the reality of disunity, especially realized through rebuttals and commentary in the hours following his speech, was disheartening.
The United is States is grand with diversity. If foreign and domestic policy and social issues continue to divide our government, and cooperation does not increase among our leaders, then we will continue to go into a political tailspin. We must find common ground and cooperation to operate a smooth and effective government.
I would like to use an example, in this case a social issue. If you believe in across the board abortion rights for all cases, then you and I disagree. But I am not offended by that. I am against abortion, but I also stand strongly against those who try to burn abortion clinics, threaten physicians, or use their message as violent propaganda against the opposition. I believe violence fails to demonstrate faith.
So, while we may disagree on the topic, we could sit in the same room and discuss this without argument. Further, we could likely agree on some elements of the matter. We could cross the lines of indifference safely, if we simply do not get offended by differing opinion.
I think this style of cooperation is something our government needs to embrace, if it is going to work together on all matters, including social issues, economical issues and of course, in foreign affairs. This is the only way we will resolve issues like Iraq.
Bush and the congress have demonstrated through their words that they have no real intention to cooperate with each other. Bipartisanship is a far reality with this government. I am sad to say that this will likely not improve until January 2009.
Bob Hargis' Response to the 2007 "State of the Union" address:
Although the President’s demeanor was calm, the reality of disunity, especially realized through rebuttals and commentary in the hours following his speech, was disheartening.
The United is States is grand with diversity. If foreign and domestic policy and social issues continue to divide our government, and cooperation does not increase among our leaders, then we will continue to go into a political tailspin. We must find common ground and cooperation to operate a smooth and effective government.
I would like to use an example, in this case a social issue. If you believe in across the board abortion rights for all cases, then you and I disagree. But I am not offended by that. I am against abortion, but I also stand strongly against those who try to burn abortion clinics, threaten physicians, or use their message as violent propaganda against the opposition. I believe violence fails to demonstrate faith.
So, while we may disagree on the topic, we could sit in the same room and discuss this without argument. Further, we could likely agree on some elements of the matter. We could cross the lines of indifference safely, if we simply do not get offended by differing opinion.
I think this style of cooperation is something our government needs to embrace, if it is going to work together on all matters, including social issues, economical issues and of course, in foreign affairs. This is the only way we will resolve issues like Iraq.
Bush and the congress have demonstrated through their words that they have no real intention to cooperate with each other. Bipartisanship is a far reality with this government. I am sad to say that this will likely not improve until January 2009.
Phillies' Repsonse to "State of the Union"
Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies has released the following statement on the President's "State of the Union" address to the Conservative President 2008.
George Phillies' Response to the 2007 "State of the Union" address:
The United States is on the wrong track. The state of the Union is not good, and it is getting worse by the day.
Our brave men and women perish in Iraq. The trade deficit soars toward a trillion dollars a year. The national debt of the United States climbs three-quarters of a trillion dollars a year. The Federal government treats our Bill of Rights as a doormat. Our immigration laws are an unenforced joke. Some children receive excellent educations. Others face a dismal future with little studying or learning. Medical care costs are through the ceiling. Energy and environmental issues endanger our national safety. Take-home pay is stagnant. A third of young African-American men are someplace on their way through the justice system, in jail, on probation, or disenfranchised.
And what has Congress debated, the past few years? Gay marriage. Abortion. French Fries: Congress renamed them. Twice. Flag burning. Billions in corporate welfare subsidies.
It's time for a change. It's time for a new future, the Libertarian future of peace, freedom, and prosperity. What are some of our most serious problems. How would Libertarians solve them to bring you a happier report next year?
The War On Iraq was built on a pile of lies. Our armed forces in Iraq should be removed as rapidly as logistics permit. The major delays are moving equipment and supplies, not people. Until then, we should announce we are leaving, cease offensive operations, remove our forces from urban areas such as the Green Zone, and emphatically suggest to the Iraqis that they need a divorce: Iraq would be happier split into four parts, namely a Kurdish part, a Sunni part, a Shia part, and a part for the secularized Iraqis who 25 years ago brought Iraq to the standard of living of Greece.
There should be an Independent Commission of Inquiry, with complete access to all Federal records and full powers to force testimony (witnesses can always plead the Fifth), to determine what was being said behind the scenes as the War On Iraq was sold to the American people.Graft and corruption affecting the War effort should be most rigorously investigated and prosecuted, starting with the 18 billion dollars in cash that was flown to Iraq and disappeared.
Warrant less wiretaps and warrant less searches are crimes. Reading your email without a warrant is a crime. Kidnapping and torturing people are crimes. If you torture someone until they die, it's a death penalty offense. Generating legal justifications for kidnapping and torturing people is not an official duty: it's part of a criminal conspiracy.There are no legal exemptions for government officials who claim they are just following orders: That's the Nuremberg Defense, and it's invalid. I will ask Congress to create a Corps of Special Prosecutors to see that every single person who committed these and other crimes in the name of America is given a fair trial. Judges and juries will decide their fates.
Oh, and I have a message to anyone who tries 'gray mail' (Trying to block a trial by requesting secret documents.) Your alleged crime is more dangerous to America than the loss of a few secrets. I will happily declassify anything that you request.
Debt: We should end the national debt, the 'grandchild tax'. You spend,your grandchildren pay. That's immoral, and will be brought to a stop. I have offered a plan to discharge the national debt over 30 years,and will seek to put it into effect. For runaway budgets, I have a plan. Not the veto pen. If elected I will I gather be the first President to have a computer in my working office, and attached to it will be the 'veto-high-speed-laser-printer'. That's the real conservative approach: don't spend money you don't have.
Education: The No Child Left Behind Act bears no semblance to a legitimate activity of the Federal government. I will work for its repeal. In its place, I will ask Congress to phase in a tax credit,$5000 to each child, available to anyone or any company who contributes to the child's education. That's enrichment like computers, books in the house, and a daily newspaper subscription. That's tuition for private schoolers. That's teaching materials for home schoolers.
Health care costs to your insurance company can be cut by a quarter,almost overnight. Several years ago, Congress passed a law requiring hospital emergency rooms to treat anyone who reached their doors. They did not bother to pay for this requirement. They required hospitals to find the money. Hospitals found the money: they send the bill to your insurance company. In effect, they imposed a hidden Federal tax, the 'cost transfer'. When you go to a hospital, your health insurance is charged for the medical care of the uninsured. That's the cost transfer. It's a de facto Federal sales tax on your health insurance,and it's huge.
The Libertarian solution: Hospitals should not be forced to give 'free' medical care unless Congress pays for it. Remove requirements that hospitals give care when no one is paying for it. Charity stays legal. Make cost transfers illegal. Your insurance rates will fall a quarter or more. Also, all medical expenses should have the same tax consequence: they should be deductions. Whether your employer buys insurance, you buy insurance, or you pay out of pocket for costs, those costs should be treated the same way by the IRS America's dependence on foreign oil endangers our security. We can't solve our oil shortage by drilling here in the USA: American oil production is beyond its peak and will continue to decline, no matter whether or not we allow drilling in Alaska or Florida. The Bush Republican ethanol from corn program is a corporate welfare boondoggle:the energy in the ethanol is barely more than the energy in the coal burned to distill the ethanol up to fuel purity.
The most effective thing the Federal government can do to solve the long-term energy problem is to offer fixed-price contracts for buying electricity from private vendors, vendors who use renewable sources,wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, whatever. The contracts will offer at most a modest premium over current energy prices. The objective over some years, including energy trades, is to move the Federal government entirely to renewable energy sources. There will be no boondoggle construction projects with Federal guarantees: The Federal government only buys the electricity. Private enterprise does what it does best,deciding how to make that electricity.
The American people are entitled to decide for themselves how we want to handle immigration. Some people want more immigration. Others want less. Some want more people from the old country. Others want people from places that have not historically sent us immigrants. Those are political decisions, properly made by the people and Congress, not by the President. The current Libertarian Party platform represents a positive point of view here, as do Congressman Ron Paul's remarks. I offer one guiding principle: You can't have true open borders and a welfare system at the same time: You'll go broke. Indeed, given the bankrupt nature of our Social Security system, every time someone enters our work force, our long-term national debt goes up. A lot.
Finally, the national problem that gets ignored, because it's invisible to most Americans: A third of young African-American men pass through the prison and parole system, generally for criminal charges created by the racist war on drugs. Those people, many of them, end up disenfranchised and relatively unemployable. They remain in our inner cities, a sullen, disaffected population isolated from the vibrant life of our Republic. Americans should remember: Every so often, one spark is enough to transform a silently sullen population into a population that expresses its rage. In the 1960s, we had riots, massive episodes of looting and burning. This time, that population has watched the Iraqi resistance movement on television. This time, they may choose far more violent and disruptive approaches.
Here we have a challenging problem to solve. Admitting that it is the elephant in our living room is the first step. A vigorous application of the Presidential pardon pen may help. The Bully Pulpit of the Oval Office may persuade Congress that the racist War on Drugs is as ineffective as liquor prohibition, is as destructive as liquor prohibition, and like liquor prohibition should be brought to an end.
That's the State of the Union. We are on the wrong track. Matters are getting worse, not better.
Fortunately, the ship of state has not yet sunk.
There is still time for American creativity and initiative to turn us around.
There is still time for Americans to agree: Ask not what your government can do for you. Ask what you, freely and voluntarily, chose to do.
There is still time to choose the Libertarian future of peace, freedom, and prosperity.
George Phillies' Response to the 2007 "State of the Union" address:
The United States is on the wrong track. The state of the Union is not good, and it is getting worse by the day.
Our brave men and women perish in Iraq. The trade deficit soars toward a trillion dollars a year. The national debt of the United States climbs three-quarters of a trillion dollars a year. The Federal government treats our Bill of Rights as a doormat. Our immigration laws are an unenforced joke. Some children receive excellent educations. Others face a dismal future with little studying or learning. Medical care costs are through the ceiling. Energy and environmental issues endanger our national safety. Take-home pay is stagnant. A third of young African-American men are someplace on their way through the justice system, in jail, on probation, or disenfranchised.
And what has Congress debated, the past few years? Gay marriage. Abortion. French Fries: Congress renamed them. Twice. Flag burning. Billions in corporate welfare subsidies.
It's time for a change. It's time for a new future, the Libertarian future of peace, freedom, and prosperity. What are some of our most serious problems. How would Libertarians solve them to bring you a happier report next year?
The War On Iraq was built on a pile of lies. Our armed forces in Iraq should be removed as rapidly as logistics permit. The major delays are moving equipment and supplies, not people. Until then, we should announce we are leaving, cease offensive operations, remove our forces from urban areas such as the Green Zone, and emphatically suggest to the Iraqis that they need a divorce: Iraq would be happier split into four parts, namely a Kurdish part, a Sunni part, a Shia part, and a part for the secularized Iraqis who 25 years ago brought Iraq to the standard of living of Greece.
There should be an Independent Commission of Inquiry, with complete access to all Federal records and full powers to force testimony (witnesses can always plead the Fifth), to determine what was being said behind the scenes as the War On Iraq was sold to the American people.Graft and corruption affecting the War effort should be most rigorously investigated and prosecuted, starting with the 18 billion dollars in cash that was flown to Iraq and disappeared.
Warrant less wiretaps and warrant less searches are crimes. Reading your email without a warrant is a crime. Kidnapping and torturing people are crimes. If you torture someone until they die, it's a death penalty offense. Generating legal justifications for kidnapping and torturing people is not an official duty: it's part of a criminal conspiracy.There are no legal exemptions for government officials who claim they are just following orders: That's the Nuremberg Defense, and it's invalid. I will ask Congress to create a Corps of Special Prosecutors to see that every single person who committed these and other crimes in the name of America is given a fair trial. Judges and juries will decide their fates.
Oh, and I have a message to anyone who tries 'gray mail' (Trying to block a trial by requesting secret documents.) Your alleged crime is more dangerous to America than the loss of a few secrets. I will happily declassify anything that you request.
Debt: We should end the national debt, the 'grandchild tax'. You spend,your grandchildren pay. That's immoral, and will be brought to a stop. I have offered a plan to discharge the national debt over 30 years,and will seek to put it into effect. For runaway budgets, I have a plan. Not the veto pen. If elected I will I gather be the first President to have a computer in my working office, and attached to it will be the 'veto-high-speed-laser-printer'. That's the real conservative approach: don't spend money you don't have.
Education: The No Child Left Behind Act bears no semblance to a legitimate activity of the Federal government. I will work for its repeal. In its place, I will ask Congress to phase in a tax credit,$5000 to each child, available to anyone or any company who contributes to the child's education. That's enrichment like computers, books in the house, and a daily newspaper subscription. That's tuition for private schoolers. That's teaching materials for home schoolers.
Health care costs to your insurance company can be cut by a quarter,almost overnight. Several years ago, Congress passed a law requiring hospital emergency rooms to treat anyone who reached their doors. They did not bother to pay for this requirement. They required hospitals to find the money. Hospitals found the money: they send the bill to your insurance company. In effect, they imposed a hidden Federal tax, the 'cost transfer'. When you go to a hospital, your health insurance is charged for the medical care of the uninsured. That's the cost transfer. It's a de facto Federal sales tax on your health insurance,and it's huge.
The Libertarian solution: Hospitals should not be forced to give 'free' medical care unless Congress pays for it. Remove requirements that hospitals give care when no one is paying for it. Charity stays legal. Make cost transfers illegal. Your insurance rates will fall a quarter or more. Also, all medical expenses should have the same tax consequence: they should be deductions. Whether your employer buys insurance, you buy insurance, or you pay out of pocket for costs, those costs should be treated the same way by the IRS America's dependence on foreign oil endangers our security. We can't solve our oil shortage by drilling here in the USA: American oil production is beyond its peak and will continue to decline, no matter whether or not we allow drilling in Alaska or Florida. The Bush Republican ethanol from corn program is a corporate welfare boondoggle:the energy in the ethanol is barely more than the energy in the coal burned to distill the ethanol up to fuel purity.
The most effective thing the Federal government can do to solve the long-term energy problem is to offer fixed-price contracts for buying electricity from private vendors, vendors who use renewable sources,wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, whatever. The contracts will offer at most a modest premium over current energy prices. The objective over some years, including energy trades, is to move the Federal government entirely to renewable energy sources. There will be no boondoggle construction projects with Federal guarantees: The Federal government only buys the electricity. Private enterprise does what it does best,deciding how to make that electricity.
The American people are entitled to decide for themselves how we want to handle immigration. Some people want more immigration. Others want less. Some want more people from the old country. Others want people from places that have not historically sent us immigrants. Those are political decisions, properly made by the people and Congress, not by the President. The current Libertarian Party platform represents a positive point of view here, as do Congressman Ron Paul's remarks. I offer one guiding principle: You can't have true open borders and a welfare system at the same time: You'll go broke. Indeed, given the bankrupt nature of our Social Security system, every time someone enters our work force, our long-term national debt goes up. A lot.
Finally, the national problem that gets ignored, because it's invisible to most Americans: A third of young African-American men pass through the prison and parole system, generally for criminal charges created by the racist war on drugs. Those people, many of them, end up disenfranchised and relatively unemployable. They remain in our inner cities, a sullen, disaffected population isolated from the vibrant life of our Republic. Americans should remember: Every so often, one spark is enough to transform a silently sullen population into a population that expresses its rage. In the 1960s, we had riots, massive episodes of looting and burning. This time, that population has watched the Iraqi resistance movement on television. This time, they may choose far more violent and disruptive approaches.
Here we have a challenging problem to solve. Admitting that it is the elephant in our living room is the first step. A vigorous application of the Presidential pardon pen may help. The Bully Pulpit of the Oval Office may persuade Congress that the racist War on Drugs is as ineffective as liquor prohibition, is as destructive as liquor prohibition, and like liquor prohibition should be brought to an end.
That's the State of the Union. We are on the wrong track. Matters are getting worse, not better.
Fortunately, the ship of state has not yet sunk.
There is still time for American creativity and initiative to turn us around.
There is still time for Americans to agree: Ask not what your government can do for you. Ask what you, freely and voluntarily, chose to do.
There is still time to choose the Libertarian future of peace, freedom, and prosperity.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Cort Answers Questions
Republican Presidential hopeful Hugh Cort answered these questions for the Conservative President 2008.
1. Why are you running for President?
I did not make this decision lightly. A lot of thought and prayer went into this decision. In fact, I believe God has called me to run for the presidency to get America back to God so He can bless us and protect us, my campaign will carry His Christian conservative message.
2. What makes you the best candidate?
While many in this field of candidates have held elective office or are members of the business community, I am different. I am an internationally recognized counter-terrorism expert. I travel the country speaking about terrorism and how we must stop it. National security is the number one issue facing this country and I am the one candidate with the expertise to ensure the safety of you and your family.
Make no mistake, I am not a single issue candidate. Obviously, as a counter-terrorism expert that is of chief concern to me. I also believe we need to secure our borders to stop the illegal alien invasion of our country.
I'm a Republican because I believe in hard work, self-reliance, less government, the preservation of our Judeo-Christian values, and the free enterprise system that has made America the envy of the world.
3. Do you think that you could win the Republican nomination?
Yes, because as Saint Paul said in Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
4. Do you consider yourself a social and fiscal conservative?
Absolutely, I am far and away the most conservative candidate in the field.
5. In your opinion, what is one of the biggest issues facing America?
National security is the number one issue facing this country and I am the one candidate with the expertise to ensure the safety of you and your family.
6. If you are not able to win the GOP nomination, would you consider running as a third party candidate or supporting a third party candidate?
No, if I do not win the GOP nomination I will support the candidate of my Party's choosing.
1. Why are you running for President?
I did not make this decision lightly. A lot of thought and prayer went into this decision. In fact, I believe God has called me to run for the presidency to get America back to God so He can bless us and protect us, my campaign will carry His Christian conservative message.
2. What makes you the best candidate?
While many in this field of candidates have held elective office or are members of the business community, I am different. I am an internationally recognized counter-terrorism expert. I travel the country speaking about terrorism and how we must stop it. National security is the number one issue facing this country and I am the one candidate with the expertise to ensure the safety of you and your family.
Make no mistake, I am not a single issue candidate. Obviously, as a counter-terrorism expert that is of chief concern to me. I also believe we need to secure our borders to stop the illegal alien invasion of our country.
I'm a Republican because I believe in hard work, self-reliance, less government, the preservation of our Judeo-Christian values, and the free enterprise system that has made America the envy of the world.
3. Do you think that you could win the Republican nomination?
Yes, because as Saint Paul said in Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
4. Do you consider yourself a social and fiscal conservative?
Absolutely, I am far and away the most conservative candidate in the field.
5. In your opinion, what is one of the biggest issues facing America?
National security is the number one issue facing this country and I am the one candidate with the expertise to ensure the safety of you and your family.
6. If you are not able to win the GOP nomination, would you consider running as a third party candidate or supporting a third party candidate?
No, if I do not win the GOP nomination I will support the candidate of my Party's choosing.
McCain Losing Media Backing?
"When successful Republican presidential candidates talk about their base, they're usually talking about the GOP's social conservatives. When Arizona Sen. John McCain talks about his base, he's referring to the mainstream media," columnist David Reinhard begins his most recent article.
Reinhard goes onto say "Securing a traditional GOP base could come at the expense of losing his old media base.
"In 2000, his admirers in the mainstream media loved the tough-talking war hero of "Straight Talk Express." The Arizona maverick opposed George Bush and famously railed against "agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other conservative religious leaders. Since then, he's been a conquering hero of Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show," a Republican worthy of puff-ball questioning. But McCain has committed two unpardonable sins in the eyes of the media clerisy. He has backed Bush's Iraq war to the hilt and gone out of his way to make up with Falwell and religious conservatives. Sacre bleu!"
Reinhard goes onto say "Securing a traditional GOP base could come at the expense of losing his old media base.
"In 2000, his admirers in the mainstream media loved the tough-talking war hero of "Straight Talk Express." The Arizona maverick opposed George Bush and famously railed against "agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other conservative religious leaders. Since then, he's been a conquering hero of Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show," a Republican worthy of puff-ball questioning. But McCain has committed two unpardonable sins in the eyes of the media clerisy. He has backed Bush's Iraq war to the hilt and gone out of his way to make up with Falwell and religious conservatives. Sacre bleu!"
Adams on "State of the Union"
The following is Independent Presidential hopeful Steve Adams' response to the President's sixth "State of the Union" address, which he told to the Conservative President 2008.
Steve Adams' Response to the 2007 "State of the Union" Address:
A president can promise or propose anything in a speech, but can later blame anything that is undone on a Congress unwilling to listen to his plans. My overall view was “Not enough and why wait?” I will quote President Bush several times.
“I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years.” – Why not now? There is no reason to wait. Eliminate the deficit now and start working on the debt.
“In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to …nearly $18 billion. …cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.” – again, zero earmarks now. Use my taxes and your taxes for things the government must do, not pet projects of Congress. This is unconscionable.
Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid: “…yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now.” – Nice promise, but no details. These programs, as long as we keep them, must be part of a balanced budget.
Healthcare: “...standard tax deduction for health insurance…Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. [more numbers]” – Sounds like more confusing legislation on the way. What happens to those with healthcare with income over $15,000? Are they taxed more? Is this merely redistribution of wealth, punishing those who have healthcare? “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, Karl Marx?
“My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured…” – I agree that states should have more control as I prefer multiple local solutions rather than one huge federal mess. However it is important to note that insurance is not a right. Neither is healthcare, housing, utilities, food, a car to get to work, daycare, and everything else someone might need. We have the right to pursue happiness. The government is not required to hand it to us.
Immigration: “laws that are fair and borders that are secure…We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers – so there is no excuse left for violating the law.” – Agreed
Immigration: “Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border – and that requires a temporary worker program.” – A country that cannot secure our own border is ridiculous.
Energy: “For too long our Nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists… We must continue changing the way America generates electric …we must also step up domestic oil production…” – Agreed, but it must be immediate. We have to rebuild domestic oil discovery and infrastructure immediately and move to alternatives as soon as possible. Electricity generated by the continually changing, market driven, cheapest solution is our long term solution.
“To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, …helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy." – We must work for peace where it is possible, but we cannot modify conditions across the world to make people love or tolerate us. We must be ever vigilant for their attacks and be steadfast to isolate or attack those that threaten us.
“This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. … turn events toward victory… Our goal is a democratic Iraq … consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.“ – Our goal here has been ever changing; enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, and bringing democracy. We are a beacon of freedom, but we cannot force our style of government on others. Will we next tell King Abdullah of Jordan or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that they must abdicate their thrones to form democracies? Our goal must now become bringing our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers home. This means immediately changing the current rules of engagement to favor our troops over any politics; talking to the commanders in the field to create a careful and swift exit strategy for all our military; and making it blatantly obvious to the Iraqis that they will soon control their own destinies.
Steve Adams' Response to the 2007 "State of the Union" Address:
A president can promise or propose anything in a speech, but can later blame anything that is undone on a Congress unwilling to listen to his plans. My overall view was “Not enough and why wait?” I will quote President Bush several times.
“I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years.” – Why not now? There is no reason to wait. Eliminate the deficit now and start working on the debt.
“In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to …nearly $18 billion. …cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.” – again, zero earmarks now. Use my taxes and your taxes for things the government must do, not pet projects of Congress. This is unconscionable.
Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid: “…yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now.” – Nice promise, but no details. These programs, as long as we keep them, must be part of a balanced budget.
Healthcare: “...standard tax deduction for health insurance…Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. [more numbers]” – Sounds like more confusing legislation on the way. What happens to those with healthcare with income over $15,000? Are they taxed more? Is this merely redistribution of wealth, punishing those who have healthcare? “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, Karl Marx?
“My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured…” – I agree that states should have more control as I prefer multiple local solutions rather than one huge federal mess. However it is important to note that insurance is not a right. Neither is healthcare, housing, utilities, food, a car to get to work, daycare, and everything else someone might need. We have the right to pursue happiness. The government is not required to hand it to us.
Immigration: “laws that are fair and borders that are secure…We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers – so there is no excuse left for violating the law.” – Agreed
Immigration: “Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border – and that requires a temporary worker program.” – A country that cannot secure our own border is ridiculous.
Energy: “For too long our Nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists… We must continue changing the way America generates electric …we must also step up domestic oil production…” – Agreed, but it must be immediate. We have to rebuild domestic oil discovery and infrastructure immediately and move to alternatives as soon as possible. Electricity generated by the continually changing, market driven, cheapest solution is our long term solution.
“To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, …helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy." – We must work for peace where it is possible, but we cannot modify conditions across the world to make people love or tolerate us. We must be ever vigilant for their attacks and be steadfast to isolate or attack those that threaten us.
“This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. … turn events toward victory… Our goal is a democratic Iraq … consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.“ – Our goal here has been ever changing; enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, and bringing democracy. We are a beacon of freedom, but we cannot force our style of government on others. Will we next tell King Abdullah of Jordan or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that they must abdicate their thrones to form democracies? Our goal must now become bringing our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers home. This means immediately changing the current rules of engagement to favor our troops over any politics; talking to the commanders in the field to create a careful and swift exit strategy for all our military; and making it blatantly obvious to the Iraqis that they will soon control their own destinies.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Libertarian on 2008 and More
T. Lee Horne is running as the 2007 Libertarian candidate for Governor Louisiana. Mr. Horne took the time to answer these questions for the Conservative President 2008.
1. Why should someone join the Libertarian Party?
I can answer this question with my primary reason. The Libertarian Party is the party of limited government. Throughout the history of the United States there have been two dominate political trends. The labels applied to the trends have varied, from Federalist and Anti Federalist in the early days, to in the recent past Democrat and Republican. Throughout the history of our country as the two major trends became more and more alike in policy, as a natural result of attempting to maximize their voter base, a new group would form that represented what was lacking in the now homogenized major parties. Today that new group is the Libertarian Party.
2. Where do you see the two major parties headed?
I see the current parties both headed to radically expanded federal control and regulation of the individuals and the states. That is not what I want. I want local policy and decisions to be made at the local level. I want my community to determine what is taught in my local schools. I want to determine how my children are raised with input from my family, church and local community. I do not want someone far removed from the realities of my daily life to make laws and regulations about how I raise my family.
3. What would you say is the most important issue the Libertarians will have to focus on in order to win offices?
To win office the Libertarian message of individual responsibility and freedom needs to be made plain.
4. Who would you like to see become the Libertarian's 2008 Presidential candidate?
Ron Paul, but I know he is seeking the Republican nomination. At this point I am looking at all of the Libertarian Presidential candidates. I have made no firm commitments at this time.
1. Why should someone join the Libertarian Party?
I can answer this question with my primary reason. The Libertarian Party is the party of limited government. Throughout the history of the United States there have been two dominate political trends. The labels applied to the trends have varied, from Federalist and Anti Federalist in the early days, to in the recent past Democrat and Republican. Throughout the history of our country as the two major trends became more and more alike in policy, as a natural result of attempting to maximize their voter base, a new group would form that represented what was lacking in the now homogenized major parties. Today that new group is the Libertarian Party.
2. Where do you see the two major parties headed?
I see the current parties both headed to radically expanded federal control and regulation of the individuals and the states. That is not what I want. I want local policy and decisions to be made at the local level. I want my community to determine what is taught in my local schools. I want to determine how my children are raised with input from my family, church and local community. I do not want someone far removed from the realities of my daily life to make laws and regulations about how I raise my family.
3. What would you say is the most important issue the Libertarians will have to focus on in order to win offices?
To win office the Libertarian message of individual responsibility and freedom needs to be made plain.
4. Who would you like to see become the Libertarian's 2008 Presidential candidate?
Ron Paul, but I know he is seeking the Republican nomination. At this point I am looking at all of the Libertarian Presidential candidates. I have made no firm commitments at this time.
IL CP Leader On Obama Candidacy
Randy Stufflebeam is the chairman of the Illinois branch of the Constitution Party and was their write in candidate for Governor in the 2006 election in which he won 0.5% of the vote.
Mr. Stufflebeam answered these question concerning the candidacy of Barak Obama and effect the Constitution Party may have in the 2008 election.
1. What do you think a Barak Obama Presidency would be like?
In a word, “Scary.” I’m afraid for this country with any Democrat in the Presidency. With the Democrats in control of the house and Democratic President, it will spell certain disaster for our freedoms and liberties. We’ve just witnessed the recent push to curtail our freedom of speech with section 220 of Senate Bill 1, which Obama supported.
I believe that what strides we’ve taken to protect the unborn and traditional marriage, with a President such as Obama (or any other liberal), all of that will be undone.
We’ve seen how damaging it has been to our country with a Republican House and a Republican President. I can’t imagine what it will be like with liberals in complete control.
2. What do you think will have to be done in order to stop Obama from becoming the next President?
I suspect that Senator Hillary Clinton will take care of this one for us. While Obama is certainly the Media’s darling, I just don’t think he packs the clout that Clinton does.
3. Could the Constitution Party run a candidate that could beat Obama?
Yes! Especially if the Republicans give us as liberal a candidate for President as they did for Governor here in Illinois.
With my position as Chairman of the Constitution Party of Illinois, Chairman of the Midwestern United States Region and a member of the board of the Veteran’s Coalition of the Constitution Party, I will be working to ensure that our Presidential Candidate is elected.
4. Who do you think would be the best Constitution Party candidate for President and why?
I believe that my choice would have to be one of my heroes, the man who was indirectly responsible for me becoming a Constitutionalist, Chief Justice Roy Moore. His moral courage and constitutional understanding (among his many other qualifications), eminently qualify him for the position of President of the United States.
Three others that I would have no problems in supporting would be Chuck Baldwin, Michael Peroutka and Alan Keyes. Though I know that Constitution Party National Committee is looking at Jerome (Jerry) Corsi as a possible candidate, I wasn’t at the last committee meeting in New Hampshire and did not have the opportunity to meet him and I know very little about him other than he co-authored the book, “Unfit for Command.”
Mr. Stufflebeam answered these question concerning the candidacy of Barak Obama and effect the Constitution Party may have in the 2008 election.
1. What do you think a Barak Obama Presidency would be like?
In a word, “Scary.” I’m afraid for this country with any Democrat in the Presidency. With the Democrats in control of the house and Democratic President, it will spell certain disaster for our freedoms and liberties. We’ve just witnessed the recent push to curtail our freedom of speech with section 220 of Senate Bill 1, which Obama supported.
I believe that what strides we’ve taken to protect the unborn and traditional marriage, with a President such as Obama (or any other liberal), all of that will be undone.
We’ve seen how damaging it has been to our country with a Republican House and a Republican President. I can’t imagine what it will be like with liberals in complete control.
2. What do you think will have to be done in order to stop Obama from becoming the next President?
I suspect that Senator Hillary Clinton will take care of this one for us. While Obama is certainly the Media’s darling, I just don’t think he packs the clout that Clinton does.
3. Could the Constitution Party run a candidate that could beat Obama?
Yes! Especially if the Republicans give us as liberal a candidate for President as they did for Governor here in Illinois.
With my position as Chairman of the Constitution Party of Illinois, Chairman of the Midwestern United States Region and a member of the board of the Veteran’s Coalition of the Constitution Party, I will be working to ensure that our Presidential Candidate is elected.
4. Who do you think would be the best Constitution Party candidate for President and why?
I believe that my choice would have to be one of my heroes, the man who was indirectly responsible for me becoming a Constitutionalist, Chief Justice Roy Moore. His moral courage and constitutional understanding (among his many other qualifications), eminently qualify him for the position of President of the United States.
Three others that I would have no problems in supporting would be Chuck Baldwin, Michael Peroutka and Alan Keyes. Though I know that Constitution Party National Committee is looking at Jerome (Jerry) Corsi as a possible candidate, I wasn’t at the last committee meeting in New Hampshire and did not have the opportunity to meet him and I know very little about him other than he co-authored the book, “Unfit for Command.”
Monday, January 22, 2007
Would a Paul Candidacy Go Over With CP Members?
Republican Presidential hopeful Ron Paul is already backed by two Libertarians who have either sought the LP nomination for President or has been its candidate for President and is a Republican who 2004 Constitution Party Vice Presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin.
But, if Ron Paul would become a nominee of the Republican Party would Constitutionalists really go for Paul? In 2004 he voted against a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. His stand on abortion could also prove to be unpopular. Although he has a pro life record he does not think that the Constitution should ban abortion and this issue should be left up to the states.
But, if Ron Paul would become a nominee of the Republican Party would Constitutionalists really go for Paul? In 2004 he voted against a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. His stand on abortion could also prove to be unpopular. Although he has a pro life record he does not think that the Constitution should ban abortion and this issue should be left up to the states.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Brownback Announces Candidacy
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, calling himself a "full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative," made his campaign for the White House official today.
"My family and I are taking the first steps on the yellow brick road to the White House. Search the record of history. To walk away from the Almighty is to embrace decline for a nation. To embrace Him leads to renewal, for individuals and for nations," said Brownback.
"My family and I are taking the first steps on the yellow brick road to the White House. Search the record of history. To walk away from the Almighty is to embrace decline for a nation. To embrace Him leads to renewal, for individuals and for nations," said Brownback.
Clinton Is In
This morning Senator Hillary Clinton announced that she has formed an exploratory committee. Therefore it only seems to fit that a couple of her quotes be mentioned today. As you will notice both of them are similar.
"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian."
-Feb. 6, 1997 at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.
"I wonder if it's possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time."
-June 21, 2004, on a C-Span Broadcast from VA.
"I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian."
-Feb. 6, 1997 at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.
"I wonder if it's possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time."
-June 21, 2004, on a C-Span Broadcast from VA.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Dobson Opposes McCain
Lou Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, has spoken out against Republican front runner Senator John McCain.
"In a radio interview with KCBI, a Dallas Christian station, Dobson argued that McCain didn't support traditional marriage values and complained that the campaign finance legislation he co-authored hurt Christian broadcasters," Jim Davenport of the Associated Press reports.
Dobson was quoted as saying this on the program, "Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances."
"In a radio interview with KCBI, a Dallas Christian station, Dobson argued that McCain didn't support traditional marriage values and complained that the campaign finance legislation he co-authored hurt Christian broadcasters," Jim Davenport of the Associated Press reports.
Dobson was quoted as saying this on the program, "Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances."
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Former LP Candidate for Ron Paul
2004 candidate for the Libertraian Presidential nomination and film maker Aaron Russo has endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy as Steven Yates reports:
"Last weekend, Aaron Russo, filmmaker extraordinaire and creator of America: Freedom to Fascism, pledged to work on Dr. Paul’s behalf despite some rather serious health problems. Dr. Paul, of course, appears prominently in A:FTF pointing out that “the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express” and expressing worry about our expanding Brave New Police State."
"Last weekend, Aaron Russo, filmmaker extraordinaire and creator of America: Freedom to Fascism, pledged to work on Dr. Paul’s behalf despite some rather serious health problems. Dr. Paul, of course, appears prominently in A:FTF pointing out that “the Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express” and expressing worry about our expanding Brave New Police State."
Gingrich Takes Third Place
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has been making gains in recent polls. In a poll among Republican voters from Iowa Gingrich won 13%, beating out Condi Rice (9%) and Mitt Romney (5%), he also received 12% in a Georgia poll.
Gingrich came in third place in polls held in New Hampshire (14%), South Carolina (15%), Nevada (22%) and another Iowa poll in which he won 18%. Romney never reached the double digits in these polls.
Gingrich came in third place in polls held in New Hampshire (14%), South Carolina (15%), Nevada (22%) and another Iowa poll in which he won 18%. Romney never reached the double digits in these polls.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Badnarik Out For 2008
2004 Libertarian Presidential nominee Michael Badnarik will not be seeking his party's nomination for a second shot at the Oval Office.
Third Party Watch editor,Austin Cassidy, reports that he received an e-mail sent by Badnarik to his supporters which says, "Many people have been wondering if I will be running for President in 2008. The answer to that is an emphatic NO!"
Badnarik goes onto give what looks like a weak endorsement for Ron Paul when he says "However, yesterday I discovered that a candidate far more popular than me is considering a run for the White House. If haven’t heard the “rumor” yet and you’d like a hint, please visit http://uc8.net/l/h4y9mxn6j4cf/cs4k7t5t36/."
Third Party Watch editor,Austin Cassidy, reports that he received an e-mail sent by Badnarik to his supporters which says, "Many people have been wondering if I will be running for President in 2008. The answer to that is an emphatic NO!"
Badnarik goes onto give what looks like a weak endorsement for Ron Paul when he says "However, yesterday I discovered that a candidate far more popular than me is considering a run for the White House. If haven’t heard the “rumor” yet and you’d like a hint, please visit http://uc8.net/l/h4y9mxn6j4cf/cs4k7t5t36/."
Pataki "More Liberal Than Clinton"
In the January, 2007, issue of NewsMax magazine the feature story is on Hillary Clinton's possible candidacy for the White House.
In this issue it gives possible Republican challengers to Clinton. Columnist John Mercurio says that potential candidate George Pataki, the Governor of New York, is "arguably more liberal than Clinton on social issues like abortion and gay rights."
Mercurio also said that if former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani were to become the candidate he "could draw heavily from Hillary's base of social liberals." This article also suggests that Hillary could gain support from social conservatives if Giuliani becomes the candidate.
In this issue it gives possible Republican challengers to Clinton. Columnist John Mercurio says that potential candidate George Pataki, the Governor of New York, is "arguably more liberal than Clinton on social issues like abortion and gay rights."
Mercurio also said that if former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani were to become the candidate he "could draw heavily from Hillary's base of social liberals." This article also suggests that Hillary could gain support from social conservatives if Giuliani becomes the candidate.
Tancredo Joins Field
Congressman Tom Tancredo has joined the growing field of Republicans candidates by announcing that he has formed an exploratory committee.
"I am writing to you as a fellow believer in the cause of securing America's borders. My purpose is to obtain your support as I embark upon a path that may lead to the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States," Tancredo says in a letter to the American people, which he put on his new campaign site.
He goes onto say, "I am also considering this campaign because I believe the Republican Party and its leaders must recommit themselves to limited, smaller government; fiscal responsibility; and honesty in public office."
Tancredo has been given A ratings from conservative groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council.
"I am writing to you as a fellow believer in the cause of securing America's borders. My purpose is to obtain your support as I embark upon a path that may lead to the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States," Tancredo says in a letter to the American people, which he put on his new campaign site.
He goes onto say, "I am also considering this campaign because I believe the Republican Party and its leaders must recommit themselves to limited, smaller government; fiscal responsibility; and honesty in public office."
Tancredo has been given A ratings from conservative groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Ron Paul Is Running
Congressman and 1988 Libertarian Presidential nominee Ron Paul has announced he will be forming an exploratory committee for the 2008 Republican nomination.
"There's no question that it's an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog, but we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide," the Associated Press reported Kent Synder, chairman of the exploratory committee, as saying.
Paul has served nine terms in congress as a Republican but, is not very popular withe national Republican Party. As the AP said, "he describes himself as a lifelong Libertarian running as a Republican."
Paul's candidacy could attract members of both the Constitution and Libertarian parties to go to the GOP to vote for the Congressman in the primaries.
"There's no question that it's an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog, but we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide," the Associated Press reported Kent Synder, chairman of the exploratory committee, as saying.
Paul has served nine terms in congress as a Republican but, is not very popular withe national Republican Party. As the AP said, "he describes himself as a lifelong Libertarian running as a Republican."
Paul's candidacy could attract members of both the Constitution and Libertarian parties to go to the GOP to vote for the Congressman in the primaries.
Romney on 1994 Kennedy Debate
Mitt Romney went on to a radio program recently to talk about his 1994 debate against Senator Teddy Kennedy.
"Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I'm not embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have.
"If you want to know where I stand by the way, you don't just have to listen to my words, you can go to look at my record as governor. Frankly, in the bluest of states. Facing the most liberal media in the country. I've led the fight to preserve traditional marriage. I've taken every legal step I could conceive of, to prevent same sex marriage.
"I have also taken action to protect the sanctity of life. I vetoed bills that authorized embryo farming, therapeutic cloning, Plan B emergency contraception, and of course a redefinition of when life was going to begin as well.
"I've also fought for family. I've promoted abstinence education in the schools," Romney said.
"Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I'm not embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have.
"If you want to know where I stand by the way, you don't just have to listen to my words, you can go to look at my record as governor. Frankly, in the bluest of states. Facing the most liberal media in the country. I've led the fight to preserve traditional marriage. I've taken every legal step I could conceive of, to prevent same sex marriage.
"I have also taken action to protect the sanctity of life. I vetoed bills that authorized embryo farming, therapeutic cloning, Plan B emergency contraception, and of course a redefinition of when life was going to begin as well.
"I've also fought for family. I've promoted abstinence education in the schools," Romney said.
Keyes: "Major Parties Are Betraying Us"
In this short video shot during the December, 2006, Constitution Party National Committee meating, Alan Keyese attcks the two major parties.
Thompson Looking for Iowa Win
Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, who has formed a Presidential exploratory committee, believes that he is in the best position to take the Iowa caucus in 2008. "I think I'm in the best position. I'm the closest to Iowa," The Pioneer Press reported Thompson as saying.
Thompson campaign is focusing his campaign on reforming health care and energy independence.
Thompson campaign is focusing his campaign on reforming health care and energy independence.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
What is the Correct Stand on Abortion?
Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in America. So, what is the correct stand a candidate should have on abortion?
Many Republicans run as candidates that are opposed to abortion except in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother while Democrats, while there are some pro-lifers in the party, tend to be 100% pro-choice.
Then there are the third parties, the Greens are like the Dems. on this issue, the Libertarians tend want the support of both pro-lifers and those who are pro-choice. In 2004 Libertarian Michaek Badnarik listed reasons why people that are pro choice and people that are pro life should vote him. The Constitution Party is falling apart over this issue, as there is a fight within the party about allowing state affiliates to stay in the National Party even though they support abortion in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
So, what do you think? What is the right stand to take on abortion and how does this issue effect your voting?
Many Republicans run as candidates that are opposed to abortion except in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother while Democrats, while there are some pro-lifers in the party, tend to be 100% pro-choice.
Then there are the third parties, the Greens are like the Dems. on this issue, the Libertarians tend want the support of both pro-lifers and those who are pro-choice. In 2004 Libertarian Michaek Badnarik listed reasons why people that are pro choice and people that are pro life should vote him. The Constitution Party is falling apart over this issue, as there is a fight within the party about allowing state affiliates to stay in the National Party even though they support abortion in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
So, what do you think? What is the right stand to take on abortion and how does this issue effect your voting?
Friday, January 05, 2007
Giuliani Worries About Relationship
In Rudy Giuliani's secret papers that were leaked (or stolen) about the 2008 election it tells of his worries about the 2008 campaign.
Giuliani, like Newt Gingrich, also has a past of bad relationships, his marriage ended in divorce. The papers also show that he is concerned about his stands on social issues and that he may "drop out of (the) race," and that idea would be the best for the Republican party.
Giuliani, like Newt Gingrich, also has a past of bad relationships, his marriage ended in divorce. The papers also show that he is concerned about his stands on social issues and that he may "drop out of (the) race," and that idea would be the best for the Republican party.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Romney in the Running
Mitt Romney has formed a presidential exploratory committee. Political experts say that Romney has advantages as a candidate, "He is a polished communicator with an actor's good looks. He gained national attention for rescuing the 2002 Olympics and earned degrees from both Harvard business and law schools before going on to make millions in business," the Washington Post reports.
But, there is also a negative side, where he stands with conservatives, as the Post says "...as a one-term governor from a state with a liberal reputation, Romney still has hurdles to overcome among conservative Republicans, who are a major force in the party's nominating process. He has no foreign policy experience and has made conflicting statements on some social issues."
But, there is also a negative side, where he stands with conservatives, as the Post says "...as a one-term governor from a state with a liberal reputation, Romney still has hurdles to overcome among conservative Republicans, who are a major force in the party's nominating process. He has no foreign policy experience and has made conflicting statements on some social issues."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Visitors Since 9:16 PM EST. 12/11/2006:
free web counter