Tuesday, December 04, 2007

I could not agree more...

Posted By: John Tabin
Tuesday, December 04, 2007 @ 10:38:59 AM

I've been turning this over in my head for a while, as remarks on Mike Huckabee's charm and likability have become de rigueur: Am I the only one who finds Huckabee viscerally unappealing? There's nothing endearing to me about a cross between a diet guru and a televangelist selling condominiums in Heaven, which is how Huckabee strikes me. The guy's so full of crap I can smell it wafting out his ears. He's running on a quirky-at-best tax plan that has no chance of passing, and gets a free pass from some of the same people who harp endlessly on the alleged phoniness of Mitt Romney (whose left pinky is better qualified for the presidency than Huckabee). I don't get it.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

All Hail Huckabee!

Well, everybody does seem to love Huckabee these days. After watching tonight's Republican debate on CNN, I can certainly see why. I'll admit, he's articulate and funny. And, according to recent polling, he actually threats Romney's dominance in Iowa.

But, to all zero Iowa voters that I expect to read this blog post, I want to say something:

A Vote for Huckabee on January 3rd is actually a vote for Giuliani

Now, if that is what you are going for, that is fine by me. I just want to make sure you KNOW what you are voting for. Here is my rationale:

1) Despite Huckabee's amazing rise in Iowa, he remains stagnant in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida. Romney and Giuliani both have impressive organizations in all of those states and have built support the old fashioned way.

So, even if Huckabee does pull off a win in Iowa, he has neither the time nor the money to put together a significant organization to win on February 5th. Granted, he will make a big splash if he does win Iowa, but not a big enough splash to become the Republican Nominee.

Conclusion: Huckabee does not have a chance of becoming the Republican Nominee.

2) A Huckabee win in Iowa benefits only one candidate: Rudolph W. Giuliani. Rudy gave up on Iowa a long time ago, and has not bothered to campaign there at all. In fact, him and McCain both conceded Iowa to Romney a long time ago. The one thing those guys will PRAY for is for Romney to lose to anybody else. It cuts off his momentum right at the start.

If Huckabee wins Iowa, it gives Giuliani the cover he needs to survive the early states and try to make a play on February 5th to secure the nomination.

3) Mitt Romney's strategy is to win early states and establish momentum going into bigger, more contested states. Right now, he is in a good position to win Iowa and New Hampshire. But, the mainstream media has declared him the easy winner of both. Why? Because if he LOSES in those states, it hurts him much more than winning helps him. They are raising expectations and hoping he breaks them.

If Romney can win Iowa and New Hampshire, then use that momentum to take Nevada, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida... he can win the Republican nomination. But, if he trips right out of the gate, the media will instantly declare him the loser. Thus, Giuliani will have an unobstructed path to the Republican nomination.

Conclusion: If Huckabee wins Iowa, Giuliani will be the Republican nominee.

4) Huckabee knows this. He isn't stupid. But, I'm starting to learn that he is not nearly as nice as he seems on TV (what with all the push polling and bigotry coming from his camp). He is looking at the field, and his only chance for power is to kill Romney in Iowa. I repeat: his ONLY chance to one day work in the White House is to beat Gov. Romney.

Huckabee is now waging a dirty campaign in Iowa to unseat Romney. And, it's going to get UGLY.

Conclusion: Mike Huckabee has his eyes firmly set on Vice President under Rudolph Giuliani. Can you imagine trying to get your kids to pronounce Giuliani-Huckabee??

From an entirely strategic perspective (as a pretty strong Romney supporter): Mike Hucakbee scares me.

And, he scares me from a deeper point. If he wins, we will have a social liberal and a fiscal liberal

Friday, October 12, 2007

No Longer the Noble Nobel

Today, the committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize announced the newest winner: Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

Now, when they announced that James Earl (Jimmy) Carter, Jr. had won the 2002 prize... I thought it tarnished the award. Now, with Al "THE PLANET HAS A FEVER" Gore receiving the prize, I think it has entirely discredited the award. It has gone the way of the Oscar to become nothing more than a cheap political statement.

I mean, Al "Where your heart is, there's your treasure also" Gore and good ole' Jimmy share the prize with Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Muhammad Yunus (a man who has helped millions come out of extreme poverty), Elie Wiesel, UNICEF, The Red Cross, the IAEA... these latter people are all ones who have done great things for peace in the world.

All Al "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore has done was make a mediocre propaganda film, passed it as a Documentary (a very loose term to get an Oscar these days), and try to convince everybody that the sky is falling.

And, in the midst of this, scientists have called his conclusions faulty, judges have determined the film to be partisan and biased--yet people still think this man should be President of the United States???

Give me a break people.

I once thought the Nobel Peace Prize was an amazing accomplishment and honor. I thought it recognized people who had promoted peace and prosperity in the world. But, to my uttermost sadness, I am discovering that it is nothing more than a way for a small group of people to make partisan statements.

Jimmy Carter and Al Gore only got the million bucks and a gold coin because they whined about politics... and happened to please a small group of liberal activists known as the Nobel Prize committee.

Very sad. Very sad indeed.

That is all.


PS: Those quotes in the middle of Al "A zebra does not change its spots" Gore are actual quotes from Mr. Gore. And, people really call our current president "stupid"?

Friday, September 07, 2007

Bobble-Head Fred

So... Fred Thompson has finally declared he is a candidate for President. And, so far, I am really unimpressed.

Take a look at his first TV ad (announcing his announcement):

To quote a good friend of my family (who is more actively conservative than I):
"I just looked at the ad. ...Thompson's head movements are so distracting, I don't know what the dickens he said. I watched it twice.

I guess you can call him bobble-head Fred."

The man that is supposed to be the next Ronald Reagan seems to have a really interesting nervous tick. Beyond the fact that he was a mediocre senator who didn't really accomplish much and he has absolutely no executive experience... he doesn't seem to be that good of a natural actor!

It gets even worse--his announcement video was a continuation of the same thing. You can watch it here.

Are you asleep yet? Do you realize that the video is FIFTEEN MINUTES LONG!?!?

So, yes... Fred Thompson is now in the race. And, so far, he is as lackluster as we had expected him to be. Ladies and Gentlemen who tend to vote Republican: THIS IS NOT THE REINCARNATION OF RONALD REAGAN.

I'm sorry... I know we hate to hear this. But, Bobble-Head Fred is not the guy I want running this country.

That is all.


Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Pure Brilliance... to brighten your day...

Inmates at the Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center in the Philippines... dancing to Michael Jackson's "Thriller."

Add that to the list of funniest things I have ever seen...

That is all.


Tuesday, July 10, 2007

I couldn't have said it better... even though I tried...

Back in September, I wrote a post called What Kind of Person Will I Vote For basically outlining the qualities I am looking for when I seek to hire the next President of the United States.

I'll admit, I was a little long-winded, but I got out some important ideas. And, that is when I concluded that I would be supporting Mitt Romney for President (barring some huge revelation to change my mind... which has NOT yet come). I suggest you go back and read it... if you have any thoughts, please let me know.

When Mitt got asked a very similar question in a town hall meeting, and here is the answer:

I rest my case.

That is all.


Saturday, July 07, 2007

The Presidency is Not an Internship

One more reason to vote for Mitt... from the Lion's mouth:

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Thursday, June 07, 2007

No Straw Poll Woes for Mitt

So, yesterday Giuliani announced that he would not participate in the Ames Iowa Straw poll, heretofore one of the best predictors of caucus success in Iowa. Not to be outdone, John McCain announced that he will not participate either.

What does this mean?

My first impression was annoyance. I mean, the initial reaction is: If Giuliani and McCain pull out, the Straw Poll will be meaningless!! Woe be unto us! But, I think there are a few deeper issues here. And, the more I read, the more positive I am that this is a GOOD thing for Mitt Romney, the only top-tier candidate to stay committed to the poll.

I mean, it would certainly be best for Mitt to BEAT McCain and Giuliani on August 11th… but it is almost as nice to spin this so that “the two conceded 2 months earlier than we expected” and that’s exactly what Romney’s camp is doing.

The Ames Iowa Straw Poll is 95% about your organization in Iowa… with the 5% going to your actual message connecting with Iowans. Giuliani has been waffling like crazy about building a ground crew in Iowa, and hasn’t done anything yet. So, he basically decided it is not worth his time. But, he has a decent way to spin it: he is running a “different” type of campaign. Ok… for Giuliani, that may work. It's risky... but it might work.

But, McCain HAS a pretty good Iowa team (maybe that should be in past-tense). In fact, one group said McCain had the best ground team in Iowa. So… why did he turn his tail and run the minute he had Giuliani's move to cover for him?

This is from a memo from Romney strategist Alex Gage:
Gov. Romney’s ratings are extremely favorable in the state—78% of caucus-goers have a favorable impression of him with only 10% having an unfavorable impression. The Governor’s favorables have increased by 10 points over the past two months. By comparison, Giuliani’s favorability rating has decreased by a net of 15 points since March, and McCain’s has dropped by a net of 11 points.

McCain has a 58 percent favorability rating. Giuliani's fav rating is 71%.

So, the conclusion from Kevin Madden (Romney press Secretary) was this:
“Our plan all along has been to play in the Iowa straw poll, and that hasn’t changed. Campaigns that have decided to abandon Ames are likely doing so out of a recognition that their organizations are outmatched and their message falls flat with Republican voters in Iowa. It looks as if we just beat those campaigns in Iowa two months earlier than we had planned on beating them.”
The Politico recorded Mitt Romney's reactiont:
"You won't believe this," Romney told hundreds of activists gathered for a party fundraising dinner. "Today, both Sen. McCain and Rudy Giuliani have withdrawn from the Ames straw poll. And the head of the Republican Party of Iowa said, 'I guess they saw the handwriting on wall.'"

"Well," Romney continued, "they're going to see more handwriting on the wall like that."

"We're going to win this nomination and the presidency," he said to loud applause.

"Handwriting on the wall" eh? How do you think the Romney camp is doing with their spin? I'll bet they were a little disappointed at first. But, then they realized: Christmas came early this year.

In response to the withdrawal and subsequent statements, the Iowa Republican Party released this statement:
The Republican Party of Iowa appreciates the Romney for President Campaign's statement regarding the Iowa Straw Poll. Governor Mitt Romney clearly understands the importance of the Straw Poll and the role the event and its voters play in the political process. In light of today's news, we are glad to hear Romney is keeping his word to participate in the Straw Poll and that he has made the wise decision to stay in the race.

In short, Giuliani and McCain conceded the straw poll to Romney... even the Iowa GOP agrees! Both campaigns think the opportunity cost will be worth it. Giuliani had a decent excuse, but I think McCain was just trying to save his campaign. He has no chance of winning the poll, so why spend all the money to come in 2nd or worse? Even so, I think such a blatant statement of weakness will just bring his campaign to a quicker end. Hey may not even survive August!

But, they just handed Mitt Romney a whole LOAD of free press, and even more goodwill among Iowa voters. That is exactly what he needs right now. From Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

No matter who announces what, there's going to be a straw poll. The results will be widely reported. The winner gets a big shot of momentum, just as in years past. Announcements of "skipping" may be a giant head fake, though I doubt very much if the Romney organization in Iowa will let up in its efforts at all, or it could be an attempt at deflating expectations early on.

So, the victory in Ames won’t be quite as sweet, but it will also be a LOT cheaper for Mitt than it would have been otherwise. They can still make an impressive showing in Iowa, interact with voters, get interviews, and be covered by the press. It won’t be the sweetest victory, but it will still be a victory.

And, in the meantime, he has a perfect way to say ‘My opponents are scared of me’ without being unkind.

As Hugh Hewitt said: “You don't win nominations by not winning contests--whether key straw polls, caucuses or primaries.”

That is all.


Wednesday, June 06, 2007

The Talk Clock

My piece on why Mitt Romney CAN win is still in the works (I need some time to prepare for a real good rant).

But, in the meantime, I watched my TiVO'd version of last night's Republican Debate. It was pretty normal. I think Giuliani did a good job, and McCain is on his way out. Outside of his excellent answer to the silly Mormon question (Wolf Blitzer needs a life), Mitt Romney did well, but not outstanding. Hey... I'm Ok. He didn't hurt himself, right now... that's what matters.

But, this was interesting (And I will give props to Democratic Candidate Chris Dodd's campaign for publishing this for BOTH parties):

Besides making entirely idiotic statements, Wolf Blitzer talked WAY too much. I mean, he spoke FAR more than any other candidate. And, he was clearly biased. Like Chris Matthews before him, he couldn't help but present his ideological leanings through the contempt in his voice and questioning.

Overall... it was a ho-hum debate. I am really looking forward to a rumored debate in July... with ONLY THREE CANDIDATES! It will be nice not to watch Paul, Brownback, Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Tancredo, and Hunter. I might miss Huckabee, however.

Speaking of which, how does Ron Paul have such a vocal internet audience? I mean, every story I read has some idiot making some comment about how Ron Paul should be given more press time. Sheesh... the man makes a fool of himself every time he starts talking. Why would I want to hear MORE from such a one-dimensional candidate??


The only person who had a more difficult time than Wolf Blitzer admitting his narrow-minded political biases was Dr. Ron Paul. He's a Doctor... shouldn't he act more like he is intelligent?

That is all.


Thursday, May 31, 2007

Is Edwards Drunk?

In my glorious cameo return to the 100 Hour Board I promised a discussion of why I think Mitt Romney CAN win the Republican Nomination.

For now, that promise will have to stand. I mean, it is 11:40 PM and I just returned from the office, so I'm not in any mental state to opine.

But, I did see this today...

People are reporting that Edwards contradicted himself in this piece. But, I have a more important question:

Is this man inebriated? Seriously... he seems like he just woke up from a nap. Do we really want someone like this leading our country?

That is on top of an interesting article in Time Magazine today about John Kerry picking Edwards as his running mate. It is a very interesting read, and an interesting perspective on the man who fake-smiles so much I think he's missing a central nervous system.

Regardless, when Kerry offered the job to him, Edwards shared a memory that "he'd never shared... with anyone else." It was a rather disturbing story about John cuddling with his dead son on the embalming slab. Odd. But, the interesting thing was this quote: "Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else."

How many times can you share a disturbing memory that you have never shared with anyone else before you happen to come around and share it with someone you barely knew before he chose you as a VP candidate? I mean, I ALWAYS have that problem.

I once thought of John Edwards as a semi-respectable guy. Now... ugh... just get away from me.

Go get a $400 haircut... and make your campaign pay for it.

That is all.


Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Mitt: Another Good Point.

If you didn't notice, Mitt Romney won the first Republican Presidential Debate last week. He was great. And, in the aftermath, Mitt went on Hannity and Colmes last night.

"Hannity & Colmes"
Fox News
May 7, 2007

FOX NEWS' ALAN COLMES: "Can you help us understand what specifically it was that made you change your view on that?"

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "First, what I found interesting is, had I been pro-life and then changed to pro-choice, no one would ask the question."

FOX NEWS' SEAN HANNITY: "That's a great point."

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "But it's – if you go in the other direction, as I have and as Ronald Reagan did and Henry Hyde and George Herbert Walker Bush, it's like the media can't get enough of how – why did you change?"

COLMES: "People think because it's an election year conversion."

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "But no one ever asks that if they go the other way. There's always, like well, you've come to the side of light. The truth is, being governor and before I was governor, this is something I thought about, we discussed as a family, I discussed with my staff. We talked about the concerns.

"And the point where it sort of went over the edge for me and, of course, it's not just – didn't just come up for the first time but went over the edge is we were having this debate on cloning. And I could see where the Roe v. Wade devaluation of human life had led. It had led to a point where people were beginning to say, 'Hey, now we're going to start cloning embryos.' It's like wait a second. This really is going too far."

I spoke recently with one of my friends who was IN THE ROOM when Governor Romney had that meeting about cloning--when he decided to become politically pro-life (since he had always been personally pro-life). She spoke about the moment with great respect and reverence. This was a man who realized he needed to change, and then did so based on his concrete values.

Don't we want that in a President?

Apart from being the worst interviewer on television, Alan Colmes is just amazingly bitter about his perception of conservative fallacies. Why does Colmes care if Romney flip-flopped on Abortion??

That is why I love Romney's quote: "had I been pro-life and then changed to pro-choice, no one would ask the question."

Welcome to the wild world of intellectual dishonesty. It happens in both parties. And, one of the reasons I like Romney, is that I think he is intellectually honest.

I mean, who else would cite "Battlefield Earth" as their favorite book?*

That is all.


* Incidentally, I spoke with Mitt's brother-in-law on the phone a few days later, and he assured me that "Battlefield Earth" really was a rather compelling fiction. I'm not sure if it qualifies to be added to the stack of books on my night stand (Current read: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln). But, it is funny that his family seems to really enjoy that book.

Hey... if I were running for President, I wouldn't want people to know that one of my favorite movies is Drop Dead Gorgeous or A Pyromaniac's Love Story. That doesn't make them any less-brilliant movies!

Friday, March 30, 2007

Funny... a Candidate who Knows what he is talking about...

For the last 8 years, people have been railing on President George W. Bush about how "stupid" he is and how he doesn't come across as if he knows what he is talking about. Now, I have defended President Bush in other places. He is honestly one of the more impressive men I have ever met. But, that is not my point today.

If we have spend the last 8 years whining about a President who doesn't seem to know what he is talking about... shouldn't we be looking for a President who DOES know what he is talking about?

Mitt Romney, this week, spoke at the Club for Growth--a Political Action Committee that promotes growth-friendly policies. Romney not only came to speak, but he brought a full PowerPoint presentation--including Graphs, numbers and outlines of his ideas.

The Romney Campaign posted three videos from this speech. If you want to see a Presidential Candidate who knows how to communicate and who really knows what he is talking about, watch these three videos:

Reigning in Federal Spending:

Tax Philosophy:

On Fighting for Lower Taxes (and winning):

I love the story he tells in that last video. It is fun to watch elected officials get reminded who is really in charge.

Yes, I may seem like a Romney fanatic... but the more I watch him and compare him to the other candidates, the more I want this man to be the next President of the United States.

Let's compare his discussion of economic growth with this:

Wait... listen to that again: Ms. Clinton is advocating the SEIZURE of private corporate profits to pursue a government mandate. Wow... viva socialismo.

Will someone tell her what creates jobs? PLEASE?!? Yes, Ms. Clinton, PROFITS create JOBS. Profits yield investment and profits increase the velocity of money. If you seize profits, you are socializing industries. And, hundreds of years of history show that is a stupid idea.

In the words of Ronald Reagan: "It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ladies and Gentlemen, I want a President who knows what he (or she) is talking about. Because, that is a President who will lead us to the future.

That is all.


Wednesday, March 28, 2007

"Calm Down"?!?!?!?!?

Ok, so I just saw a video on the news of Nancy Pelosi telling Bush to "Calm down... there's a new congress in town!" She was chastising Bush for threatening to veto her silly amendments to the Iraq Emergency Spending bill. But, Bush has every right to be a little irate. There are two issues with this bill:

1) The democrats tacked about 80 billion dollars in pork spending--for stuff like fishery hatching and compensation for failed crops--on to a bill that was designed to help our troops. What happened to cleaning up spending???

2) Both the House and Senate drafts of this bill include a DATE when the US will withdraw from Iraq. Wait a minute... that isn't the congress' JOB! They do not run the Pentagon, they just FUND the pentagon. And, if they are going to fund the war, they need to let the generals RUN the war.

This brings a bigger problem that the current Democratic leadership does not seem to get:
We NEED to win this war!

Ok... let me change the emphasis for effect:

We need to WIN this war!

Honestly, it doesn't matter how we declare ourselves the winners, but we must win. Because, the long-term costs of ever saying we have "lost" the Iraq war are greater than we want to bear.

Let's take a quick history lesson. Democrats like history, don't they? Well, actually... not really. They seem to live in a perpetual now, without any historical reference or foresight.

In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to stomp out a civil uprising. It seems that some young, well-funded Muslim activists were starting to overthrow the existing communist government, and the USSR didn't like that.

Well, after a long, protracted, awful, guerilla warfare battle with the "Mujahadeen" in Afghanistan (which the CIA was supporting... very quietly), the Soviet Union said to themselves:

"Da! This silly opium-filled country just ain't worth it no more." And, in a flurry of indifference, the Soviets withdrew and left Afghanistan to their own devices. For the Soviets... they didn't win, they didn't lose... they just didn't care.

Well, in the vacuum created by Soviet Indifference, the young Mujahadeen declared themselves the victors! "Yay, we won! Yippie, hooray! Obviously that means that our religion and god is more powerful than you heathen Soviets! I wonder what else we can do with this new-found religious power?"

Among those fighters (providing them with both fanatical ideas and lots of money) was a young bearded man named Usama Bin Laden. Because these young violent islamists could declare a "victory" they decided that their cause was divine and, therefore, invincible.

Thus begins a chain of events that led us to the 11th day of September, 2001. Yep... the first seed of 9/11 was planted the day the Commies pulled out of Afghanistan.

Fast-forward to today. We face a similar situation where we ask: "Is Iraq worth it??" I mean, Pelosi and Murtha would love for us to pull out right now and just leave Iraqis to their own devices. It doesn't matter if we win or lose to them... we just need to be out of the fight.

I declare to you, with history on my side, that it DOES matter whether we win or lose in Iraq.

We must win.

I don't really care what day we leave Iraq. I will leave that choice up to the Generals and people who actually KNOW something about warfare (I am not one of them). But, when we leave, we must depart with our heads held high. We should parade through the streets of Baghdad triumphantly waving the Iraqi and American flags together:

(like this picture... which I took in Utah a few years ago. The two in the car are Iraqi Government Officials waving gratefully to Americans in a Parade).

We must leave Iraq as victors!

If we do not, with one voice, declare that we have done a great thing in Iraq, then someone else will decide who was victorious. And, we do not want to breed another Usama Bin Laden through our pettyness and power-mongering.

The partisanship of this bill, forwarded by Madame Pelosi, just screams "we don't want to win." You are giving people a date when we will leave, without consulting with generals and people who actually KNOW what they are talking about (rather than the weirdos over at MoveOn.org).

I cannot say this enough: We must leave Iraq as victors.

If we do not, the same thing will happen in Iraq as happened in Afghanistan: the small lunatic fringe of Islam and the violent insurgents they support will declare that they won. And, another young Usama Bin Laden will grow to be the next great leader of a terrorist organization. It won't be because America lost... but because America didn't stand up and say: "We won, and if you EVER come back to usurp democracy, we're going to come kick your #$?@&$ again!"

We have done a great thing for the Iraqi people, and it sounds like the surge plan is working as planned. And, hopefully in a few months, we will stand up and say "Mission Accomplished: We gave Iraq a new chance to thrive."

So, I really wish politicians would buck up and agree on one thing:

We MUST win in Iraq. I don't care how we define victory, but we must stand up with a unified voice and claim that victory as ours.

Otherwise, I fear for the future.

That is why I'm annoyed with this bill. It is short sighted, and it doesn't tell people that we plan on WINNING.

So, Madame Speaker, CALM DOWN and start working toward victory.

That is all.


Monday, March 19, 2007

Crazy Horatio Podcast

I am starting to formulate the ideas for a podcast. I think it may be easier to present some of my rants with my own voice. But, I haven't quite decided if I am up to it.

SO, I'm wondering... would there be any intereste in HEARING the infamous (self-declared) Horatio present his rants in his actual voice? Of course, I would probably write them all out at the same time, just to be anal. But, what do you think?

Post in the comments for me... if Horatio had a podcast, do you think you would listen?

That is all.


(I await your comments)

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Good Ole' Normal Romney: The Qualified Candidate

Mitt Romney really impresses me in candid moments like these. At the Conservative Political Action Conference, he stopped at blogger's row and answered questions like this:

He is so down to earth and comfortable, yet is careful to present a message.

Of course, on that note, I should now tell you to contribute something to his campaign. Political fundraising is a very democratic process, and it is an opportunity for us to vote long before the election day.

Seriously... go make a contribution, large or small. It does make a difference!

1) Go to http://www.mittromney.com/ and click "Contribute Now"
2) Fill in the information requested (you must put an employer/occupation if you give more than $200)
3) Under Fundraiser ID put the number 285000 (so I can keep track of how much we've raised).
4) Submit your contribution, and get a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside.

I have never been this involved in a political campaign before, and I never realized how important fundraising is. And, contrary to popular believe, political fundraising is a very populist and democratic process. No matter how many millionaire friends a candidate has, they still have to raise money $2,300 at a time.

In that case, even the smallest donation makes a difference.

I'm sorry for my political kick for the day. But, seriously... contribute to Romney... he's worth it.

That is all.


Saturday, March 03, 2007

A Waste of Gold and Plastic

Honestly, I have never been a big fan of Awards shows. I mean, really... all we do is watch the ugly "beautiful" people of the world strut down the Red Carpet and get lauded for their ill-defined "wonderfulness". I mean... whatever.

I can remember when I USED to consider these awards shows useful. But, that was also when I thought the movies they were honoring were actually worth seeing. The most recent version was 2004 when Best Picture was between Million Dollar Baby, Ray, Finding Neverland, The Aviator and some other movie about wine and sex.

Honestly, I thought those were the four best movies of the year. So, while I would have voted for Finding Neverland, I was perfectly happy when Million Dollar Baby took the prize.

2003 wasn't half-bad either. You had Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Master and Commander, Seabiscuit and two other immoral movies. And, that year, Lord of the Rings clearly deserved the nod.

And, the last time U2 put out an album... that was the last time I cared about the Grammys. Before that... things are kinda hazy...

So, what happend. This year, the entertainment industry finally reached the event horizon of self-gratification.

Let's start with the Oscars. Actually, I don't know why I even care, but I'm going to rant about it anyway.

An Inconvenient Truth. Suddenly Hollywood has accepted Al Gore's silly excuse for a documentary as actual "science." Never mind the fact that the scientific community (unless subject to political influences) is less-than-equally divided AGAINST Global Warming. Never mind that this was the coldest winter on record for most of the United States. Never mind that the polar ice caps are GROWING. The only thing inconvenient about Al's lauded documentary is its loose relationship with truth and science.

Global Warming is a FAD, ladies and gentlemen. It is Hollywood's newest attempt to do something "moral" and save the planet. As Ann Coulter said yesterday, if Global Warming is a moral not a scientific issue, what about abortion? But, I'll rant on that subject later (I apologize for invoking Ann Coulter... but it was a funny line).

But, really, I was resigned to accept Al Gore receiving an Oscar. Of COURSE Hollywood was going to give him the gold statue. And, they had to put icing on the cake by giving Melissa Etheridge the "Best Original Song" Oscar. Of course, she had to make comments about how great it was to be gay. She kissed her partner passionately in front of the camera, then made a stupid comment about how the naked gold statue would be the only naked man in her bedroom. Madame, I didn't want to know that.

Please, don't get me wrong. I am all in favor of reducing pollutants in the air and finding alternative fuels. But, I will not have such agendas thrust on me like the end of the world is coming. Tell me to reduce Carbon in the air simply to improve the quality of living in urban areas. I'm all for it! Let's find more efficient and clean ways of producing energy. But, I refuse to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to reduce "greenhouse gasses" just because Hollywood says it's good. After all, to make any real difference in greenhouse gasses, we'd have to get cows to stop digesting food and releasing their gaseous byproduct into the air. STOP THE METHANE!!!

But, the award that REALLY made me mad was "Best Animated Feature". The nominees were Cars, Monster House, and a propaganda movie about environmental activism vaguely disguised as a children's film. WIthout a doubt, Cars should have won. Once again, Pixar (now fully owned by Disney) revolutionized animated films and computer animation. The entire piece was a work of art. And, even if the Academy passed it over on the basis of mediocre story line, Monster House was innovative in its own right.

But, the winner was.... Happy Feet. EXCUSE ME?????? That was the last straw. My tolerance for the Oscars and Hollywood idiot-politics just broke completely. Yes, this film was made by an Australian company, but it was nothing but an environmental message. The Penguins spent the entire movie wondering why there was trash in the water or commenting on the other great farce in environmental activism: the ozone hole.


Then there was the Grammy Awards. If you are looking for an awards show that makes the Oscars look semi-legitimate and socially redeemable, it is the Grammy Awards. Of course, in relative terms, that isn't saying much.

Remember the Dixie Chicks? Yeah, they were cool back in the day. But, after the Primal Chick made a comment disparaging President Bush, they got one of the greatest lessons any musician should ever learn: YOUR FANS MAKE YOU POPULAR. THEY CAN MAKE YOU UN-POPULAR TOO. Only former Governor of California Gray Davis has ever gotten a lesson in democracy like this. People boycotted the Dixie Chicks for their anti-American and anti-Bush remarks. In a simple show of popular rage (thought: doesn't the liberal side usually thrive on popular rage?) the fans of the Dixie Chicks rebelled. They called on radio stations to ban their music, and held demonstrations inviting people to destroy their Dixie Chicks albums in protest.

Dear Chicks, you forgot who makes you popular. You forgot your fan base. You forgot that you do have a responsibility to the people who buy your CDs. Why? Because when you bite the hand that feeds you, you get slapped.

Fast Forward to 2007. The Dixie Chicks made a pity-documentary called "Shut up and Sing" in late 2006. It was Rated R and came out with a stunning wide release of 84 theaters nationwide. The sad part, it put a million dollars into the Dixie Chicks' pocket. It was their pity party story of how the Bush Administration was responsible for their fall from Country Music grace. It was all George W's fault that their music wasn't good enough to drown out their politics. HUH?

Yet, somehow, they got out an album. And, somehow that album won FIVE GRAMMY AWARDS. And, that is no the worst part! Somehow, the Dixie Chicks are convinced that Five Grammy Awards vindicates them against Bush and their fans.

She had the audacity to say: "To quote the Simpsons: 'heh-heh'"

To quote the Simpsons again:
Homer: Oh, why won't anyone give me an award?
Lisa: You won a Grammy.
Homer: I mean an award that's worth winning.

In fact, I'd have to guess that the Grammys have been mocked on the Simpsons more than even other award shows. And THAT is saying something.

Maybe I'm getting bitter in my old age (I mean... I just turned 26 after all) but I'm really annoyed at people who are worth NOTHING sitting around and patting themselves on the back. We watch with apt attention as people who never grow up--yet have more money than any of us--make complete fools of themselves. And we BUY this crap! We pay for Britney Spears to go crazy and shave her head (and you know she's really gone nuts when Kevin Federline has a valid case for sole custody of their offspring). We PAY for these people to pat themselves on the back.

For me, the nominees for Best Picture of the Year should have followed box office lines:
1) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
2) Cars
3) Night at the Museum
4) X-Men: The Last Stand
5) The Da Vinci Code

Those were the movies we paid to see. Shouldn't they get recognized by the Academy? After all, they are what REALLY pay the bills. There were great movies this past year, even among the non-blockbuster category. Unfortunately, none of them won awards.

America is about so much more than what Hollywood and the entertainment industry claim. Now, we just need to figure out how to promote the REAL America. Sadly, politics is offering little hope of that either.

That is all.


Thursday, January 25, 2007

Romney on Iran

On Tuesday, Governor Mitt Romney addressed The Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference in Israel. It was one of his first prominent Foreign Policy speeches. He was the only probable presidential candidate to attend the conference and make his speech in person (others addressed the group by satellite). In the speech, he outlined his ideas on Iran:

Governor Romney's Five Step Plan of Action to Prevent a Nuclear Iran: (as prepared)

"First, we must continue [to] tighten economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severe to the sanctions imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from the international community today…. (…)

"Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran's Government. Ahmadinejad should not be provided the trappings, respect, and recognition of a responsible head of state as he travels. In fact, when former Iranian President Khatami traveled to Boston last year to lecture at Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. The real question is: why was he invited in the first place? Ahmadinejad is even more strident than Khatami. He should neither be invited to foreign capitals nor feted by foreign leaders. This would have important symbolic significance, not just to Ahmadinejad, but to the people of Iran. (…)

"Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do much more than wring their hands and urge America to act. They should support Iraq's nascent government. They can help America focus on Iran by quickly turning down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict – stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah…thawing relations with Israel…and telling the Palestinians they must drop terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.

"Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear material that falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.

"Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world. I agree with our friend, former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, that a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam. I believe this has two critical dimensions. The first is an unquestionably capable military. This will mean a greater investment by the United States as well as other nations. The second is a global partnership which includes NATO and other allies. Its mission would be to support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. They need secular public schools, micro credit and banking, the rule of law, adequate healthcare, human rights, and competitive economic policies. In the final analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. And we can help."

He concluded his speech saying:

“In those previous global wars, there were many ways to lose, and victory was far from guaranteed. In the current conflict, there's only one way to lose, and that is if we as a civilization decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, our values, and our way of life.

“It is time for the world to plainly speak three truths:

One, Iran must be stopped.

Two, Iran can be stopped.

“And three, Iran will be stopped. [Applause]

“Thank you so much.”

In response to the speech Ronald Lauder, former US Ambassador to Austria, said:

"I just want to say that you have heard one of the most comprehensive, direct, clear strategies on Iran. I must say I have heard many different statements on Iran. This was as good as it gets, as straight as it gets, and I for one am very, very much impressed. I think Governor Mitt Romney has it all together."

You can watch the conclusion on video here.

This is truly one of the best Iran policy speeches I have heard… from anybody (let alone an exploratory candidate. I liked it.

That is all.


Saturday, January 06, 2007

Same Sex Marriage: Re-Framing the Issue to take back the moral high ground

In response to Malach the Merciless and his rather odd rant about Gay Marriage on the Wand of Wonder (another blog to which I occasionally contribute)


First of all, Massachusetts did not make gay marriage a law. A panel of judges decided to interpret the constituion in such a way to allow marriage between two partners of the same sex. They left it up to the elected body to amend the constitution to clarify it (as was proper). The legislature (which seems to have become more and more radical over time) has balked and refused to even consider the amendment. So, Romney did something else allowed by the constitution: he went to the people.

It doesn't matter who the 170,000 signatures were... they were in favor of constitutional action so that Boston didn't become the homosexual Las Vegas. The funny thing about democracy is: the majority still has a say.

As for the Gay Marriage issue, it is not a matter of civil rights. Same-sex marriage should not be framed as an adult civil right... because marriage is about family and child rearing. Studies over and over show that for a child to develop properly, he needs the influence of both a Mother and Father. Same-sex couples have been successful parents, but statistically they are no more effective than single-parent households at raising well-adjusted children.

So, legalizing Gay marriage is not just about civil rights. It is about protecting a centuries-old successful instituion that has been the basis of society... um... forever. This is not about descriminating against people who choose to practice homosexuality. It is about protecting the fundamental group unit of society (according to the Universal Declration of Human Rights): THE FAMILY. And, it is about protecting children by not legalizing and accepting a less-effective form of child rearing.

As for your reference to the civil rights movement for African Americans, that issue was not decided by the courts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was past overwhelmingly by both parties. Opposition to the act was regional (with a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the south). It WAS decided by popular vote. And, so far, the same-sex marriage issue has been decided by a majority of states that have brought a measure to the ballot... decided in favor of traditional marriage.

The problem with secular humanists these days is that they haven't been able to convince the masses that they aren't raving idiots. They sit in NY and LA and DC and MA and assume that everybody agrees with them. Well, I'm sorry: a loud minority is still a minority.

I'm sure you dislike Romney on this issue... but I can't agree with him more. I am all for basic human and civil rights for people who practice homosexuality. But, I will also stand firm that marriage is a basic and fundamental unit that should not be diluted or broken. Not only do I agree with what Romney was doing in Massachusetts, I agree with the way he frames the arguments: in terms of Child rights.

I'm glad the MA legislature finally fulfilled their duty and voted on it. If you hate the law, get out and try to convince people WHY you are right. But, don't go after Romney because he walks the walk.

That is all.


Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Why Donate to a Political Candidate?

Dear Fans and Friends,

Today, my personal favorite to become the next President of the United States of America took his first campaign steps. He filed with the FEC for an "exploratory committee". What is an "exploratory committee"? It is just a way for a candidate to raise money while he waits to make a big public announcement.

Now, I invite you all to do something very important: Donate Money to Mitt Romney for President

Yes... money is a precious thing for all of us. But, I'd like to tell you WHY I think we should donate to good political candidates. Each of us has a right to vote every election in a ballot box. But, who chooses the person who makes it on that ballot? Such decisions come in Primary Elections. And, to win a Primary election, you need money. Money lets a candidate buy TV time to express his or her ideas to more people. It lets him travel to listen to voters so he can represent him fairly.

For a citizen, donating money to a Political Candidate is an opportunity to VOTE for that candidate, long before everybody else does. You can say: "This is the man for the job." And, a donation helps him get on that ballot and into the job.

Now, I really think that Mitt Romney is THE man for the job. Unless something crazy happens, I think he has a chance to win. And, no man deserves it more.

So, as your friend and trusted omniscient, I invite you to visit Mitt Romney's Fundraising Website and make a donation to his campaign. Now matter how rich or poor you are, the maximum you can donate to a candidate during a campaign is $2,100. Considering Bush '04 raised almost $275 million in individual donations (each under $2000 at the time), it is important to get many people involved.

It is easy:
1) Go to http://mittromney.com/contribution/form
2) Fill in your contact information.
3) In the section "Were you referred by a friend?" click on the "Yes" button and type 285000 (that is my donor number... so I get credit for referring you to Mitt)
4) Using your credit card, pick an amount you would like to donate to the Mitt Romney campaign.

Don't fret if you can't donate $2,100... because every dollar makes a difference. Donate as much as you can.

I promise you that the return on this investment will be worthwhile. You have my guarantee!

That is all.

Horatio the Fundraiser... who believes in a candidate for the first time in his life!

PS: If you want to learn more about Mitt Romney, you can now visit his official campaign website: http://www.mittromney.com/ for more detailed information on who he is and what he believes. I think you'll like what you see!!