I took another one of those surveys to "find your candidate", courtesy of Below The Beltway. Here's my results from this quiz, which you can take at USA Today online.
1) Fred Thompson (no surprise here, the quiz shows my biggest agreements with him are on taxation, immigration, and global warming)
2) Rudy Guiliani (again, no surprise, he's my no. 2 pick anyway...mostly due to a shared view on taxes)
3) Ron Paul (I have moderate agreements with Ron Paul on most issues, but he takes things one step further than I would at this point...still, no surprise. Biggest agreement was on same-sex marriage and immigration)
Well, at least this quiz is pretty accurate, in my opinion. I don't know if I totally agree with Ron Paul at no. 3, but this is based on relation to the candidates on the issues...food for thought and a fun little quiz, nonetheless.
Here's an interesting note...if you take up all of the answers of survey-takers combined...the top 3 are as follows. 1) Mitt Romney, 2) Dennis Kucinich, 3) Barack Obama.
How in the hell did Kucinich get up there???????
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Podium on a Short Vacation...
I'm heading to the capital of one of the more politically odd states in our union. I'm heading to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
I say "politically odd" because no other state has Pennsylvania's track record of electing liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats into office like the state of Pennsylvania.
I'll be back by Tuesday, see you all then!
I say "politically odd" because no other state has Pennsylvania's track record of electing liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats into office like the state of Pennsylvania.
I'll be back by Tuesday, see you all then!
Friday, November 9, 2007
Post-Election Fatigue Can't Set In Yet...
We still have a Congressional District seat to fill!
Get this...tomorrow, both major parties will have conventions to nominate their candidate. 2 Democrats and 11 Republicans are vying for the seat held by the deceased Jo Ann Davis. A lot of GOP hopefuls trying to resume the work of Ms. Davis, I believe.
The Podium has endorsed James Atticus Bowden...although apparently Paul Jost is the current favorite for the GOP. Democrats say that Phil Forgit is the favorite for their nomination. I wonder how this will turn out, especially with the wide-open field on the GOP's side.
Get this...tomorrow, both major parties will have conventions to nominate their candidate. 2 Democrats and 11 Republicans are vying for the seat held by the deceased Jo Ann Davis. A lot of GOP hopefuls trying to resume the work of Ms. Davis, I believe.
The Podium has endorsed James Atticus Bowden...although apparently Paul Jost is the current favorite for the GOP. Democrats say that Phil Forgit is the favorite for their nomination. I wonder how this will turn out, especially with the wide-open field on the GOP's side.
The Libertarian in Me Coming Out
I love these people who get outraged due to the presence of an adult-themed store in their area.
Honestly..."Citizens Against Porn"...? I understand why SWACGirl and others were looking to place restrictions on the ability of adult-themed stores to be built in their community. However, I get the feeling that they would prefer that these businesses be banned outright.
This is where I split heavily with social conservatives. I can understand keeping an adult-themed store a certain distance away from schools, churches, and playgrounds...kids will find their own way to get pornography, we shouldn't make it easier or more enticing.
BUT, it's still a legitimate business. I don't see anything wrong with their existence. Many married couples use pornography to spice up their sex lives, too. Most of these businesses are discreet in their appearance (a good example of this would be either Pamela's Secrets or Hole In The Wall in Harrisonburg, you'd have to look two or three times to recognize what it is).
As I said, there's nothing wrong with keeping these businesses, and their adult themes, away from schools, churches, etc..., but to carry the opinion that they should all be banned and burned to the ground is a bit overboard.
Honestly..."Citizens Against Porn"...? I understand why SWACGirl and others were looking to place restrictions on the ability of adult-themed stores to be built in their community. However, I get the feeling that they would prefer that these businesses be banned outright.
This is where I split heavily with social conservatives. I can understand keeping an adult-themed store a certain distance away from schools, churches, and playgrounds...kids will find their own way to get pornography, we shouldn't make it easier or more enticing.
BUT, it's still a legitimate business. I don't see anything wrong with their existence. Many married couples use pornography to spice up their sex lives, too. Most of these businesses are discreet in their appearance (a good example of this would be either Pamela's Secrets or Hole In The Wall in Harrisonburg, you'd have to look two or three times to recognize what it is).
As I said, there's nothing wrong with keeping these businesses, and their adult themes, away from schools, churches, etc..., but to carry the opinion that they should all be banned and burned to the ground is a bit overboard.
My Discussion With Hunter Golden (Part 3)
This is part 3 in a series of back-and-forth commentary and question/answer sessions I've had with former Mitt Romney aide, Hunter Golden.
Phil Chroniger: "We all know who I'm voting for at the moment. However, you've pretty well kept your choice of candidate a secret, really. Let's say that today is the Massachusetts primary, and you're at the voting booth. Who are you voting for? Is who you're voting for based on your ideal candidate out of the group...or is it due to electability factor?"
Hunter Golden: "Right now.... probably leaning towards Huckabee. I think he's got a lot of things I like.
1.) Executive Experience-- It's not exactly an indicator of whether someone will perform well in office, but I think in today's trying times we really need someone who can run an administration responsibly. As a two term governor of Arkansas, the guy's got some quality experience running a light-purple state.
2.) How He lines Up with What's Important to Me-- This guys' resume in Education is pretty much unmatched. When Clinton left office, the Arkansas educational system was in shambles (who woulda thought..) and this guy's primarily responsible for a massive turnaround there. Second, he stays consistent socially, but really treats those issues as secondary to ones that are more important right now like National Security and ebbing government spending, which right now's utterly out of control.
3.) Can He Win-- Huckabee's a difficult match up for a lot of reasons for the Democrats. First, he can expose a lot of Clinton non sense from the pre-white house years. Second he's a southerner and will hold the base together to give him a solid place from which to work with. Money isn't a HUGE factor for him if he wins the nomination.. that will come. Right now it's hurting him, but over time it won't. Second of all, he's nearly impossible to attack. The Clintons are going to really struggle to dig much dirt up about him, which I think is Mitt's greatest strength, difference being that Huckabee doesn't come off looking like a car salesman. I think he's a far stronger candidate than most would think.
4.) Intangibles-- I dig the way they're presenting Mike right now. He's not mauling people in the debate and comes off like Thomspon should; a loveable, grandpa kinda guy. He's conservative, but doesn't allow that to define his candidacy like it has Romney or THompson's. It's a 'responsible conservatism' I really like and respect. Same with Richardson who gives a very similar aura as a guy that ain't gonna compromise his values, but isn't going to get sucked in by the nut roots of the part even though he might have a stance or two that might stray in that direction.
Mitt's running the best campaign right now. Of anyone. Hillary's running on her name alone and that's certainly not a bad thing, as 'Clinton' carries a lot of weight on the left hand side of things. Mitt though, is running as a conservative in a party that's desperately looking for one while keeping his campaign focused and targeted. Who gives a crap about Texas. If you win Iowa and New Hampshire it's almost always enough to carry the nomination. Either way, he's one of the last two standing.
What I DON'T like about Mitt is that he's far too insulated. I sensed that problem with Dubya early in the 2000 race and that's what made me flock to McCain. Why's it important? Because being an effective Governor or President is an ability to adjust to the political climate. Bush tried to make sure adjustments wouldn't ever have to be made and although he was wildly successful for five years or so, it ran out of gas and now he's as lame duck a President as i've seen yet.
I worry about Romney in that regard. He seems too tunnel vision for the job. Focus and resolve is good, but it can also lead to your undoing. The BEST and WORST quality about President Bush is his GENUINELY not caring about what people think about him or his decisions. He maintains his focus and his resolve, but when things hit a bump, they shouldn't turn the car over, and Bush, because he's been relentlessly unwavering on almost everything, it's hurt him. Adjusting your position doens't mean changing it. It can be a change in how you present it, a mix up of the cabinet for whatever, etc.
Sorry to stray for a brief moment but i'll express another frustration with the Bush White House and that's actually his relationship with Nancy Pelosi. The two, despite taking big digs at each other on Camera, have an incredibly fantastic relationship. He's maintanied an open door policy with her and the fact that he hasn't 'killed her with kindness' so to speak has been frustrating. Regan had a similar relationship with Tip O'Neill and would frequently turn entire poicy squabbles around by heading to the podium and saying 'hell, the guy has an open door policy. I respect his position, too. But, If he was sincere about fixing this problem, he'd be making more of an effort to negotiate with me'....
Anyways, I just don't see Mitt being able to do that. I dunno if you've met a lot of Romney folks Phil, but they're BRUTALY loyal. Mitt could kick a baby on camera and they'd rationally come up with a explaination of not only why he did it, but why it's so wonderful AND necessary. They're unbearable and totally stuck in an alternate universe. So again, if you don't like Bush, you'll loathe a Mitt Romney presidency.
I held the phone on Thompson. I knew the first two weeks were going to make or break things for him. If he had hit a hot streak, i'd have opened the wallet in a second, but he started rather meekly. He's been stuck in the polls and is now the Republican verision of Obama, a guy who says all the right things, but just isn't up to running a national campaign yet (if ever).
Rudy's going to be a melt down. Mark my words. He's starting to slip now even. McCain never even got out of the gate.
So that leaves me with Mike Huckabee, whose a guy who I like idealogically and like as a match up. I don't think he's a defacto GREAT candidate or anything, but of this lot (which sucks btw), he's the best bet I think. So i'm leaning towards someone for the first time."
Phil Chroniger: "We all know who I'm voting for at the moment. However, you've pretty well kept your choice of candidate a secret, really. Let's say that today is the Massachusetts primary, and you're at the voting booth. Who are you voting for? Is who you're voting for based on your ideal candidate out of the group...or is it due to electability factor?"
Hunter Golden: "Right now.... probably leaning towards Huckabee. I think he's got a lot of things I like.
1.) Executive Experience-- It's not exactly an indicator of whether someone will perform well in office, but I think in today's trying times we really need someone who can run an administration responsibly. As a two term governor of Arkansas, the guy's got some quality experience running a light-purple state.
2.) How He lines Up with What's Important to Me-- This guys' resume in Education is pretty much unmatched. When Clinton left office, the Arkansas educational system was in shambles (who woulda thought..) and this guy's primarily responsible for a massive turnaround there. Second, he stays consistent socially, but really treats those issues as secondary to ones that are more important right now like National Security and ebbing government spending, which right now's utterly out of control.
3.) Can He Win-- Huckabee's a difficult match up for a lot of reasons for the Democrats. First, he can expose a lot of Clinton non sense from the pre-white house years. Second he's a southerner and will hold the base together to give him a solid place from which to work with. Money isn't a HUGE factor for him if he wins the nomination.. that will come. Right now it's hurting him, but over time it won't. Second of all, he's nearly impossible to attack. The Clintons are going to really struggle to dig much dirt up about him, which I think is Mitt's greatest strength, difference being that Huckabee doesn't come off looking like a car salesman. I think he's a far stronger candidate than most would think.
4.) Intangibles-- I dig the way they're presenting Mike right now. He's not mauling people in the debate and comes off like Thomspon should; a loveable, grandpa kinda guy. He's conservative, but doesn't allow that to define his candidacy like it has Romney or THompson's. It's a 'responsible conservatism' I really like and respect. Same with Richardson who gives a very similar aura as a guy that ain't gonna compromise his values, but isn't going to get sucked in by the nut roots of the part even though he might have a stance or two that might stray in that direction.
Mitt's running the best campaign right now. Of anyone. Hillary's running on her name alone and that's certainly not a bad thing, as 'Clinton' carries a lot of weight on the left hand side of things. Mitt though, is running as a conservative in a party that's desperately looking for one while keeping his campaign focused and targeted. Who gives a crap about Texas. If you win Iowa and New Hampshire it's almost always enough to carry the nomination. Either way, he's one of the last two standing.
What I DON'T like about Mitt is that he's far too insulated. I sensed that problem with Dubya early in the 2000 race and that's what made me flock to McCain. Why's it important? Because being an effective Governor or President is an ability to adjust to the political climate. Bush tried to make sure adjustments wouldn't ever have to be made and although he was wildly successful for five years or so, it ran out of gas and now he's as lame duck a President as i've seen yet.
I worry about Romney in that regard. He seems too tunnel vision for the job. Focus and resolve is good, but it can also lead to your undoing. The BEST and WORST quality about President Bush is his GENUINELY not caring about what people think about him or his decisions. He maintains his focus and his resolve, but when things hit a bump, they shouldn't turn the car over, and Bush, because he's been relentlessly unwavering on almost everything, it's hurt him. Adjusting your position doens't mean changing it. It can be a change in how you present it, a mix up of the cabinet for whatever, etc.
Sorry to stray for a brief moment but i'll express another frustration with the Bush White House and that's actually his relationship with Nancy Pelosi. The two, despite taking big digs at each other on Camera, have an incredibly fantastic relationship. He's maintanied an open door policy with her and the fact that he hasn't 'killed her with kindness' so to speak has been frustrating. Regan had a similar relationship with Tip O'Neill and would frequently turn entire poicy squabbles around by heading to the podium and saying 'hell, the guy has an open door policy. I respect his position, too. But, If he was sincere about fixing this problem, he'd be making more of an effort to negotiate with me'....
Anyways, I just don't see Mitt being able to do that. I dunno if you've met a lot of Romney folks Phil, but they're BRUTALY loyal. Mitt could kick a baby on camera and they'd rationally come up with a explaination of not only why he did it, but why it's so wonderful AND necessary. They're unbearable and totally stuck in an alternate universe. So again, if you don't like Bush, you'll loathe a Mitt Romney presidency.
I held the phone on Thompson. I knew the first two weeks were going to make or break things for him. If he had hit a hot streak, i'd have opened the wallet in a second, but he started rather meekly. He's been stuck in the polls and is now the Republican verision of Obama, a guy who says all the right things, but just isn't up to running a national campaign yet (if ever).
Rudy's going to be a melt down. Mark my words. He's starting to slip now even. McCain never even got out of the gate.
So that leaves me with Mike Huckabee, whose a guy who I like idealogically and like as a match up. I don't think he's a defacto GREAT candidate or anything, but of this lot (which sucks btw), he's the best bet I think. So i'm leaning towards someone for the first time."
For The Last Time...
I want every Democrat who considers the general stance of the GOP against illegal aliens as "immigrant bashing" to understand this.
If a person immigrates to this country illegally, they are an ILLEGAL ALIEN. They are not simply an "immigrant".
To label them as such is an insult to people like my mother and my grandparents, who did not break any laws when they came to this country. They came here legally from Brazil. If anyone knows the struggle of Latino immigrants coming to this country, I do...it's very much in my blood. Most of these bleeding hearts could never relate.
By giving legitimacy to these illegal aliens, you're basically pissing on my family's legacy. Excuse me for the language, but that's what you people are doing. I will not stand for it. It's one thing to attack my ideology, it's another to insult my family's history.
If you doubt me, ask my mother...she'll tell you that she's insulted that you people want to piss on her doing the right thing, learning the English language on her own...because it was the language of the country, and becoming part of American society. Now, you people want to throw it all away by giving legitimacy to those who took the easy, illegal way out.
I normally don't get worked up like this, but you people are going beyond simple punditry on this with me...you're hitting at the core of my being and attacking my blood.
If a person immigrates to this country illegally, they are an ILLEGAL ALIEN. They are not simply an "immigrant".
To label them as such is an insult to people like my mother and my grandparents, who did not break any laws when they came to this country. They came here legally from Brazil. If anyone knows the struggle of Latino immigrants coming to this country, I do...it's very much in my blood. Most of these bleeding hearts could never relate.
By giving legitimacy to these illegal aliens, you're basically pissing on my family's legacy. Excuse me for the language, but that's what you people are doing. I will not stand for it. It's one thing to attack my ideology, it's another to insult my family's history.
If you doubt me, ask my mother...she'll tell you that she's insulted that you people want to piss on her doing the right thing, learning the English language on her own...because it was the language of the country, and becoming part of American society. Now, you people want to throw it all away by giving legitimacy to those who took the easy, illegal way out.
I normally don't get worked up like this, but you people are going beyond simple punditry on this with me...you're hitting at the core of my being and attacking my blood.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Bono Shows A Bit of Sense
And he does it in the face of a Rolling Stone reporter trying to make him do otherwise.
Bono: When I'm arguing for increased aid to Africa, I always say, "Isn't it cheaper and smarter to make friends out of potential enemies than to defend yourself against them later?"
Reporter: We seem to be headed in exactly the opposite direction. Maybe it was possible to think that way right after 9/11, but that opportunity was squandered.
Bono: When the French have you on the cover of their most treasured newspaper with the headline WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, something has been stirred! [Laughs]
Reporter: But this administration destroyed that. I know that you have to deal with a lot of these people. . .
Bono: There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.
Remember, Bono is revered by most for his music, and by the left for his political activism. After discussing his disagreement with the Iraq War, he says the following...
Bono: I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't.
He is right...national socialism was a serious threat, and it is becoming one here in America. Hence the reason why conservatives like me are against some of the socialist ideals put forth by many politicians, pundits, and college professors.
Read the full interview here.
(h/t blonde sagacity)
Bono: When I'm arguing for increased aid to Africa, I always say, "Isn't it cheaper and smarter to make friends out of potential enemies than to defend yourself against them later?"
Reporter: We seem to be headed in exactly the opposite direction. Maybe it was possible to think that way right after 9/11, but that opportunity was squandered.
Bono: When the French have you on the cover of their most treasured newspaper with the headline WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, something has been stirred! [Laughs]
Reporter: But this administration destroyed that. I know that you have to deal with a lot of these people. . .
Bono: There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.
Remember, Bono is revered by most for his music, and by the left for his political activism. After discussing his disagreement with the Iraq War, he says the following...
Bono: I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't.
He is right...national socialism was a serious threat, and it is becoming one here in America. Hence the reason why conservatives like me are against some of the socialist ideals put forth by many politicians, pundits, and college professors.
Read the full interview here.
(h/t blonde sagacity)
Obama Smacks Hillary, "60's Baby Boomer" Liberals
Barack Obama is good for a quote, that's for sure.
In a recent FOX News article, Obama made a statement that should definitely resonate with disillusioned voters who are tired of partisan politics as well as younger voters who feel that politicians don't recognize them or their views.
"There's no doubt that we represent the kind of change Senator Clinton can't deliver on. And part of it's generational," Obama told FOX News." Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done. And I think that's what people hunger for."
While I may not agree with him on many issues, I think there is quite a bit of truth in that statement.
Speaking of his stance on issues, I would like to see how he proposes to go through with this "American Dream" agenda that involves both increased spending and tax cuts...
According to his plan, Obama would offset payroll taxes for average Americans and remove taxes on Social Security for retirees now making less than $50,000 a year. He wants to provide tax cuts up to $1,000 for working families, expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, create a fund to prevent foreclosures, reform bankruptcy laws and enroll workers in portable retirement accounts.
Senator Obama, the floor is yours...
In a recent FOX News article, Obama made a statement that should definitely resonate with disillusioned voters who are tired of partisan politics as well as younger voters who feel that politicians don't recognize them or their views.
"There's no doubt that we represent the kind of change Senator Clinton can't deliver on. And part of it's generational," Obama told FOX News." Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done. And I think that's what people hunger for."
While I may not agree with him on many issues, I think there is quite a bit of truth in that statement.
Speaking of his stance on issues, I would like to see how he proposes to go through with this "American Dream" agenda that involves both increased spending and tax cuts...
According to his plan, Obama would offset payroll taxes for average Americans and remove taxes on Social Security for retirees now making less than $50,000 a year. He wants to provide tax cuts up to $1,000 for working families, expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, create a fund to prevent foreclosures, reform bankruptcy laws and enroll workers in portable retirement accounts.
Senator Obama, the floor is yours...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
