The Conservative Purity Test.

“When a guys on the ground and another is dancing around the ring with his hands in the air, the guy dancing is the winner.” -Unknown

Like most people I like to win. Which is why I have always been troubled by the Conservative Purity Test so many who vote Republican feel they must apply to their candidates. It’s a scenario I call the “Take my ball and go home” method of choosing our leaders.

Rush Limbaugh - Caricature

Rush Limbaugh is a very vocal enthusiast of this flawed manner of leadership. The mega-popular radio host is almost as tough on Republicans that fail his Conservative purity test as he is on Democrats.  And he is tough on Democrats. (BTW – Side note- Why is it that Democrats don’t recognize that Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh are in the exact same business? Entertainment? Hello!) He says too many Republicans “settle” for what he terms “moderates” because we’ve been told we have no other choice. He says nominating a “true” Conservative is the only way to win. Limbaugh is not the only one who feels this way. It gives me no joy in saying that these people are idiots. By Limbaugh’s standards the only true Conservative nominated by Republicans in the past 30 years is Ronald Reagan in 1984 when he was re-elected President. No one since has passed the Conservative purity test.

This Purity Test has the following requirements of the candidates:

1. Be Pro-Life; NO EXCEPTIONS!

2. Never once raise taxes, ever.

3. Be anti-Gay marriage.

4. Never make a deal with any Democrat at any time.

5. Be a devout Christian (Mormons not included).

6. Don’t be a flip-flopper; never change your mind at any time in your life.

There are probably a few others that I’m forgetting. But these six are the hard-core rock solid minimum requirements necessary to pass the Conservative Purity Test.

Česky: Oficiální portrét amerického prezidenta...

I got news for you Conservative ideologues…Ronald Reagan would not have passed this test. And more significantly neither would ANY of the current GOP Presidential candidates. Mitt Romneyis a flip-flopper.

November 8: Republicans gain control of Congre...

Newt Gingrichembraced health care mandatory requirements AND endorsed Cap & Trade.

, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.

Rick Santorum has voted in favor of tax hikes. Ron Paul is an idiot (while true…more significant than he’s an idiot is the fact that he’s irrelevant).

The nominee of the Republican party will be Mitt Romney. Simple math tells us this. So I felt it was time to get something straight about our next President, whom I have chosen to support. He is a panderer. The more politically damaging term “flip-flopper” may apply to Romney but I choose to look at the simple fact that he is pandering to his electorate for votes. SHOCKING! No politician has ever done that before have they? Obviously I jest.

Congressman Poe and Governor Mitt Romney

What ought to concern those considering voting for Romney, especially as it applies to the Conservative Purity Test, is who or what is the TRUE Romney? Is it the Massachusetts’ Governor who had previously taken positions that were not purely Pro-Life and passed a health care law that include a form of the individual mandate? Or is it the rock-hard Conservative who now professes an entirely Pro-Life stance and claims he would repeal Obamacare? Who is he specifically? Well, I tend to believe he’s a lot like Bill Clinton only Conservative. Bill Clinton never seemed to have a conviction that couldn’t be swayed by the latest opinion poll.

Still, giving Romney the benefit of the doubt and keeping my eye on the ball…I want to win…I just have to employ a little common sense. What’s more likely that this life long Mormon with a family heritage that goes back to the beginning of the LDS Church is really a liberal rejecting nearly all the tenets of this church;OR that while serving as a Republican Governor in the most Liberal state in the Union and dealing with a legislature that was 70% Democrat he had to bend or twist or possibly ignore the Conservative Purity Test in order to…1. Get elected…and 2. Govern effectively? Isn’t it obvious? Say what you will about the LDS Church but their dogma is most definitely Conservative.

Come November I want to be dancing around the ring with my hands in the air. And since neither Gingrich or Santorum pass the stupid Conservative Purity Test either; and since Romney will be the GOP Presidential candidate I strongly suggest the “my-way-or-the-highway” Conservatives realize that the ultimate Championship Belt isn’t found in the nominating process. The hands are raised and the champion’s belt is rewarded in November. So come on board. And lets win.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

A Brokered Convention? Why be Afraid?

English: Obama-Clinton rally in Orlando. Barac...

President Obama with former competitor Hillary Clinton

Do I really need to remind you that only four years ago Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama fought tooth and nail through the Democratic Primaries before Obama emerged with his party’s nomination? Do I need to remind you that Obama went on to win the Presidential election rather handily against a weakened Republican party? Do I need to remind you that the Tea Party activism wave that swept Republicans back into leadership in the House of Representatives and severely cut into Democrat leads in the Senate didn’t start gaining momentum and news coverage until the Summer of 2010?

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney

I ask these questions because you would think the state of the Republican presidential contest were in free fall the way “pundits” are discussing recent polls on the cable news channels and talk radio. There is increasing discussion of a possible brokered convention for Republicans thanks to the surge in popularity by

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and the subsequent fall in popularity of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

First of all polls are not news. Though the news agencies do their best to tell us they are. Second the reason you are hearing so much about this stuff is because there is so little else to report right now. Their have been no primaries for over a week, and there won’t be any for another week. No news on who has momentum, no news on who is going to secure the nomination and by when. The news media is like a hungry dog. If you don’t give it something to chew on, they’ll find your slippers and have at-it.

Republicans have no cause to worry about a brokered convention. Romney still has the money and the expectation of getting the nomination and I think he will. Santorum has too many quirky little missteps in his past to survive the scrutiny he is only now undergoing for the first time in the political process.

English: Newt Gingrich at a political conferen...

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich isn’t even trying to win in upcoming primaries in Michigan and Arizona; pinning all his hopes on a good showing Super Tuesday March 6th in numerous southern states. Gingrich has only one win under his belt, in South Carolina. Not running in all the states, like Romney is, is a sure way to give up the state during the general election. And giving up swing states like Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona, none of which Gingrich competed in, shows you are not prepared to lead the whole country.

Those who cling to fantasies of Sarah Palin

English: This is an alternate crop of an image...

, Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie stepping forward at the Republican National Convention in August and then sweeping into the White House are smoking too many Florida Chads or something. Had these Republican luminaries had the belly for running for President they would have done so. But they didn’t. So that settles that. Even if Romney or Santorum fail to reach the 1,144 delegates to secure a nomination, you can expect some wheeling and dealing between what candidates hold delegates to come up with a nominee from among the three remaining. (Yes, three. Paul doesn’t count. Paul has never counted.)

My money and currently my vote remain with Romney. And Republicans don’t need to hurry up and get to where I already am. They can take their time. In the end, November is what counts. Beat Obama.

Barack Obama

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Please Share if you found this interesting.

You CAN Judge a Book by It’s Cover. Look at our kids.

Fashions

It's not just black men.

The above picture was posted by a Friend on Facebook. This friend is a college educated black woman from Texas. I would estimate her age to be in her late 30s-early 40s (Context is King as always). Her Facebook post went on to lament the loss of self-respect so many black men have undergone in the past several decades. I couldn’t agree more. But I think the problem extends beyond young African-American men.

What do you see in the photos above. The men on the left are young and wearing clean modern (at the time) clothing. They would be well received no matter where they went; the exceptions being the well documented racists that prohibited all blacks from entry or use of “White Only” facilities back in the era depicted.

The “men” on the right would be looked upon with suspicion no matter where they went. As they should be. They are clearly trying to look “Gangsta” or “tough”, if you will. And it’s not just the underwear. It’s the whole look…the tats, the bling, the attitude.

For the record I don’t “blame” the guys on the right for trying to present a “tough” image. I did too when I was younger. I’m a big guy. And when I was in my 20s I had a marvelous long black leather overcoat. I always had a moustache and frequently a thick goatee (as I do now). I wore my hair long, but not dangling below my shoulders. And I was often attired in cowboy boots. I thought I was quite the tough guy in a sort of

Man with No Name

The man with no name

Clint Eastwood” sort-of way. So I know the tough guy mentality. Having a sense of intimidation about you just by the way you look is kinda cool.

But these guys don’t bring Clint Eastwood to mind, or John Wayne

John Wayne

John Wayne

, or Sylvester Stallone

Rambo (film)

as Rambo, or Indiana Jones either.

Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark

Indiana Jones

All tough-guy characters from my youth I would have been happy to be compared to. They bring to mind criminals, hoods, gangsters. They look much more like Morgan Freeman from “Street Smart

Cover of "Street Smart"

Cover of Street Smart

than “Se7en”; Denzel Washington from “Training Day” not “The Pelican Brief“. Society has gone too far. Instead of admiring the good-guy tough guy, we’ve gone to the bad-guy street smart, gun-toting tough guy as the model so many of our young people admire and want to emulate, both white and black.

Ten-to-twelve years ago my then teen-age white brother did his very best to disappointment our mother by wearing the baggy pants with underwear showing and hat turned backwards. He looked ridiculous, as everyone who puts on that sort of image does.

The baggy pants fashion-look stems directly from one source…criminals, more specifically prisoners. Prisoners would remove draw strings from sweat pants in order to have a ready choking weapon available whenever they needed. Then they would pass through the prison with one hand on their pants to keep them from falling down. On the streets the fashion gained popularity for similar practical reasons. The space created in the crotch of the pants was handy for storing guns, or drugs and not having a bulge in your pockets for all to see.

If, like me, you don’t want your kids to emulate criminals you, as a parent, have no one but yourself to blame if your boys wear such outrageous clothing and then act the part. As parent YOU buy the clothes most of the time. And even if you don’t you can tell your kids and even your young adults what you will tolerate. Tell them you will not tolerate them looking like hoods. A parent has so much power that too many of them fail to wield. And too often its in the false name of freedom, letting the kids learn and do what they want. But if you raise your kids to do what they want and they do bad and they hang with the wrong people we all know that they’ll be limited in their lives economically and socially as adults. So how is that freedom? Isn’t it best when they’re young to steer them to a set of paths that will expand their choices and thus their freedom when they’re older, when it matter’s most?

Santorum Drops By Iowa State Fair

Santorum Drops By Iowa State Fair (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has mentioned research studies that reveal three things people can do that virtually guarantee a life devoid of poverty. First- work; get and keep a job. Second- graduate high school. Third- avoid having children until you are married. According to Santorum, and the studies he’s siting, do these three SIMPLE things and only 2-percent of us will spend any time in our lives in poverty. Don’t do them and you’re virtually guaranteed of struggles in your life, including some period spent in poverty.

Contrary to a dumb old saying you CAN judge a book by its cover. You can’t judge everything…but you can tell if it’s a used book, well-worn, well-read, old book, new book, long read or short read. If it’s a paperback or has a jacket cover on it you can see images that project what’s happening within the inner pages. In fact a lot of the images on paperbacks and book jackets reveal an awful lot about the story’s climax. You CAN judge a lot by a books cover.

So don’t blame the punks on the right for wanting to look “tough”. Blame them for not wanting to emulate tough guys that also happen to be good guys. And blame their parents and our society for not providing enough of them AND for being far too tolerant of the “bad”.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

If you like this blog please do me the honor of sharing it.

The more I look, the More I like Mitt.

English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA

Our next President?

I thought (and wrote) that the Washington Republican caucuses for President of the United States would come and go this March 3rd with a GOP nomination fully secured for Mitt Romney and that my choice would be largely irrelevant. My home state rendered largely irrelevant again. And while I still think Romney will win the Republican nomination to take on Barrack Obama, I’m less sure. Newt Gingrich‘s win in South Carolina and his surge in national polls, irregardless of Florida, have me thinking I must take a stand, make a choice, and help my choice win.

While I’m not ALL there yet, I do like Mitt Romney more and more. I like Newt Gingrich too. And for the record I increasingly like Rick Santorum. But I’m probably going to vote for the former Massachusetts Governor.

Newt’s bombast is not a turn off for me the way it is for so many others. I was raised with a strong and often angry father, who yelled and was not afraid to show that he was upset. So I’m quite used to this character trait of Gingrich that turns off too many people and will probably be his undoing in the remaining nominating contests. I like Newt’s big ideas, and I like that he pisses off mainstream politicians of both parties. Wouldn’t you agree that going away from the politicians of Washington D.C. is not a negative?

But I said a couple of years ago that I’m not a one issue voter, but if I were, the one issue that is most important to me is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. So much of what challenges us as Americans today is completely wrapped up in this one issue: race relations, jobs, drugs, terrorism. We absolutely must secure our borders. As best I can tell Mitt Romney comes the closest to my views on this subject than any of the remaining candidates. For instance, I do agree with him that if you make it nearly impossible for illegals to get jobs, and you remove so many of the other magnets that draw these people to illegally cross our borders many will return to their own homes. Why wouldn’t they? Why would they stay if they can’t feed themselves or their families.

And as a side note, don’t believe Barrack Obama for a second when he positions himself as tough on this subject. In the State of the Union he claimed there were fewer illegal border crossings now than there had been in years. True or not that has nearly nothing to do with anything he or his administration have done. It has more to do with the economy. Why illegally come to the U.S. now? There are no jobs to be had (which further advances Romney’s assertion that no jobs means they will go home).

Secondly, I like Romney’s plans to waive the Capital Gains tax for those making under $200,000. This idea was panned when it was first introduced. Romney’s opponents claiming that such a tax is not paid by people making under $2ook, but instead by people like him. Wrong! I know. I’ve had to pay this tax and I didn’t like it one bit. I wrote a check to the Federal Government for $12,000 after selling my families first home, which we had moved from and kept as a rental for 7 years. The threat of having to pay it again was the primary reason we sold our second house after keeping it as a rental for nearly 3 years. It is a disincentive tax for me and for many other potential investors. I think less-so for those with higher incomes.

Eventually I’d like to see the high-end Capital Gains tax equal the high-end income tax rate. Because it is wrong for wealthy people to pay a much smaller rate than what the rest of us pay. And since they make a large majority of their income through capital gains rather than through salary, naturally they will pay the lower tax rate. When Ronald Reagan reformed taxes in 1986 he agreed with Democrats to make the Capital Gains tax rate 28%, equal to the highest income tax rate. Like Gingrich has said, I’d rather see the income tax lower and expanded to more people than raise the level of the Capital Gains tax rate.

Lastly, if you consider the only negatives on Romney are that he is wealthy and that he is a “flip-flopper”, you really seriously need to re-examine your priorities. After all when making an argument isn’t the idea to bring people to your way of thinking? And for Conservative Pro-Lifers hasn’t Mitt Romney come toward your way of thinking? Isn’t that a good thing?

So those are my reasons. My mind could change. But for now I’m with Mitt. What are your reasons?  Who do you support and why?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

If you find this blog interesting I would be honored if you would share it. TY.

The Republican I will vote for is…?

Republican presidential candidates are picture...

Who we gonna pick

It’s getting down to crunch time and I haven’t fully determined in my mind who it is I would vote for in the GOP race for President of the United States. By crunch time I mean…weaker ineffectual campaigns are getting crunched and eliminated from even appearing on the ballots of upcoming primaries and caucuses, and they are dropping out. In my case I can’t actually vote for a candidate until March 3rd when Washington State has its caucuses and by then it’s not likely to be a contest at all. But since my decision has never been fully made I thought I would ruminate about the remaining five candidates.

Let’s start with who I won’t vote for.

Ron Paul taking questions in Manchester, NH

Crazy Ron Paul

I won’t vote for Ron Paul. The Congressman from Texas last night during the South Carolina debate looked every bit the crack pot that I’ve maintained he is for four years. His foreign policy is a dangerous joke. And what is really offensive is the fact that his ardent followers have actually compared Paul to Jesus. I’m not making this up. I’ve seen it on Facebook. If by some miraculous disaster Paul actually did win the Republican nomination I would have to vote for Barrack Obama.

When Governor Rick Perrymade his late entrance into the field of Presidential hopefuls I was very enthusiastic and hopeful.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas speaking at the R...

Perry came in too late.

His long record of success in Texas and his strong Christian beliefs had me thinking he could really be something special as President. But unfortunately he got such a late start in the race that he was clearly unprepared and overwhelmed at first. He has clearly improved his debate performances. Last night I thought he was terrific at articulating some strong Conservative ideas, and he didn’t look like a moron when he went after Mitt Romney about release of his tax records. His early gaffes I think I can comfortably say can be attributed to lack of preparedness. And in a way there is something endearing about the fact that Perry hadn’t been thinking he would run for President for years like some (Romney); and as such his entrance to the race, later than any of the candidates we’ve seen these last 7-8 months, left him flat-footed and ill prepared. Alas, it’s all gonna be moot soon. I strongly suspect Perry will drop out of the race following Saturday’s primary in South Carolina; as he probably should for the good of the party and the Conservative movement.

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

Mitt Romney

That leaves Senator Rick Santorum, Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Governor Mitt Romney. I could happily vote for any of the three. I think Romney will win the nomination. I don’t believe Santorum can hang on for much longer, perhaps dropping out after Florida at the end of the month. Money being what it is. I think Gingrich will stick around for a good while primarily because he seems to have a multi-billionaire sugar-daddy who will keep feeding his Super PAC money. But by the time March 3rd and Washington’s caucus comes around…Gingrich may be gone at worst or completely ineffectual at best.

So ultimately I don’t think I’ll have to decide. I think the decision for me and most of the rest of the country will be decided no later than the Nevada caucuses on February 4th. Nevada has a strong Mormon population and Romney is expected to win there handily. Certainly we’ll have no doubt come this year’s Super Tuesday elections March 6th when 10 states have primaries or caucuses. And if I’m right, and I am, and Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee and it will be firmly determined that he is by February 4th and at that point only 5 of our fifty states will have voted…how sad is that?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Rick Santorum’s compassionate conservatism

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum

A well written column explaining the difference between Santorum’s responsible conservatism and Ron Paul’s irresponsible, selfish libertarianism.

Opinion | Rick Santorum’s compassionate conservatism | Seattle Times Newspaper.

One thing is for certain. Santorum is starting to get shellacked. He is starting to be scrutinized by the media and his opponents like all the temporary “front runners” that preceded him. What bothers me most is the Liberal attacks he is facing on his social views; calling them “extreme”. Well, they are only “extreme” if the history of the world and everyone in it were born in the past 10-15 years. Santorum’s views aren’t extreme. They’re Catholic; of which he is a devout practitioner. And the claims of his extremism are nothing more than good old fashioned Catholic bashing.

Thanks for visiting. Your comments are welcome.

Cranky Grandpa Paul: Gingrich a “chickenhawk” « Hot Air

So the cranky Grandpa from Texas finished third in the Iowa Caucuses his supporters claimed he would “shock the world” and win. So what does he do? Does he take aim at Iowa’s winner’s Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum and prepare himself for other states where his chances of winning are considerably less than what they were in Iowa? No. He has a temper tantrum and lashes out at Newt Gingrich as you can read in this Blog below:

Paul: Gingrich a “chickenhawk” « Hot Air.

The author, Ed Morrisseywas far to easy on Gingrich. Gingrich has been petulant in his campaign in recent days; complaining endlessly that he has been unfairly attacked. Well, welcome to the NFL Mr. Speaker.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.