Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

“I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”

I’m not a Mitt Romney supporter, but I can’t believe anyone with common sense would be bothered by this comment. Sure, progressive Democrats are going to seize upon it, but the last time I checked, they lacked any semblance of common sense. Let’s take a look at what Romney was saying, shall we?

First, the wealthy don’t need any help. They have all the money they need. That’s simple enough. As for the poor, that’s going to take some explaining, especially for those who are accustomed to government sponsored hand-outs.

If you’re poor, you’re eligible for welfare payments, subsidized rent, childcare, heat, utilities, food stamps, free college, free healthcare, and lots of other breaks. These programs are all established at the state or federal level, and are (overly) generous. How many more handouts and programs should be created for those who have a track record of bad decisions? We have a safety net, and Romney said he would fix it if need be.

The middle class? That’s a different story. They’re usually too “wealthy” to qualify for help, and can be a layoff away from economic chaos. Again, this chaos could very well result from bad decisions, but the truth of the matter is that the middle class tend to work harder, and have a track record of better decisions. I don’t have hard numbers to back up those assertions, but I do feel comfortable making them.

With that said, I think we all know that Romney’s interest in the middle class is due solely to their large numbers. Mitt cares about whatever group has the most voters who will turn out at the polls on election day..

Nevada Senator Harry Reid would support Jon Huntsman over Mitt Romney.

Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman has made it official: He’s running for President. I know some people are excited by his candidacy, but I think I’ll pass. After all, I don’t want to be on the same side as Harry Reid. In case you missed it, Huntsman received Reid’s stamp of approval. “If I had a choice in that race, I’d choose Huntsman over Romney,” said Reid. On top of that, Huntsman’s family members are big Reid supporters.

In addition to the Reid endorsement, Huntsman doesn’t have much room to criticize Barack Obama, since he accepted an appointment as ambassador to China. Of course, you could argue that his appointment could cause a problem for Obama during a campaign against Huntsman, but I doubt it will get that far anyway. Think about it: If someone is absolutely terrible at what they do (like the GOP will argue), do you really have credibility if you agree to work for them? I don’t think so.

Jon Huntsman’s campaign can’t be taken seriously, and his chances are about as good as Rick Santorum’s. Actually, they might not even be that good.

Sarah Palin: Biker chick

Sarah Palin is currently engaged in a tour of “enemy territory,” also known as the Northeast. Her first stop was the Rolling Thunder motorcycle event in Washington, D.C. Her next stop will be…she’ll be going to…where will she be going? If you check out the map on her site, it’s blank. I wonder if she even knows where she’s going.

I think Sarah Palin seems like a nice person and is very likable. There are lots of nice, likable people, but those traits don’t qualify them to be President of the United States. Intellectually, she’s unimpressive, plus she has a thin resume, and for me at least, fails to instill confidence in her leadership skills. Even her campaign/publicity tour looks like it’s unorganized. Plus, if Katie Couric of all people can make you look like an idiot, how can we trust her to interact with world leaders? I don’t think we can.

By the way, I just thought I would mention that I’m a long-time Republican. I’m not being critical of her because of her views, I’m being critical because of her lack of skills for the potential task at hand. If Sarah Palin were to win the GOP nomination, the likelihood of a second term for Barack Obama would rise exponentially. I don’t want that. I want him to face the best candidate possible, and Sarah Palin isn’t that person.

Katie Couric interviews Sarah Palin

What are the chances Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels will run for President? Zero

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels will not be running for President, and I don’t particularly care. It’s nothing against Mitch Daniels. After all, he would be much better than declared candidates such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, or potential candidates such as Sarah Palin.

The problem is that Mitch Daniels seemed to be the darling of GOP insiders. That’s not what the country needs. The United States needs someone who isn’t afraid to step in and make bold decisions. We need someone who has little regard for the way things have always been done, and will try to do the right think, regardless of how many people it upsets, or how unusual the solution may seem.

To this point, I’ve only seen two candidates who seem to possess these traits: Ron Paul and Herman Cain. As far as I’m concerned, they are America’s best hope.

Alabama gubernatorial candidate Tim James has a novel idea. Rather than offer the state’s drivers license exam in 12 languages, it should be offered in just one: English. Tim James cites the amount of money that could be saved because of this change. I have no doubt there would be some modest savings in printing costs, but there are even more important reasons to make the change. The most important is to ensure the safety of everyone on the road.

Road signs are written in English. Some signs are easy to recognize, such as stop signs, but what about those that are seen less frequently, such as those related to road construction? How will someone who can’t read English understand warnings and directions?

Individuals can speak any language they wish in their homes and social situations. Is it really too much to ask that when one makes a conscious decision to come to the United States that they be expected to conduct official business in English? I wonder if Japan, Russia, Mexico, Iran, Romania, Pakistan, China, or Germany would offer their drivers license exams in over a dozen languages?

“One of the things that concerns me is that in the United States there is real talk of maybe we need to have this big tent and accommodate every view,” Huckabee said. “That will kill the conservative movement.”

I’m not sure if Mike Huckabee realizes it or not, but the United States only has two major parties. When you have only two parties, you should have a “big tent” to accomodate a broad cross section of the country. If not, your party will get decimated in elections. Of course, if Mike Huckabee really believes in having total agreement on a wide variety of social and fiscal issues, it might lead the GOP to become a powerhouse…among second tier parties. That’s right, it will probably be able to dominate the Libertarian, Green, and Socialist parties in elections. Sure, the Democratic Party will continue to pick up seats at a rapid pace, but at least the dwindling membership of the GOP will be homogenous and won’t have to put up with dissenting voices. You know, those pesky people who contribute to a lively debate.

What I don’t quite understand is the inconsistency displayed by “conservatives” like Mike Huckabee. Here’s an example:

“There are some things I believe true, genuine conservatives believe are essential to the liberty of each individual, and those are not negotiable,” he added.

Mike Huckabee talks a good game. He throws the word “liberty” around and pretends to be conservative, but his claim is hollow. Many people would characterize me as a moderate, yet I consider myself a conservative. People like Mike Huckabee claim to favor small government, less spending, lower taxes, and state’s rights, which I agree with, but then they contradict themselves on social issues. They want to work through the government to make abortions illegal, tell people who they can or can’t marry, and throw people in jail for victimless crimes, such as marijuana possession. Basically, they are creating more government rules, which are then used to interfere with the individual’s right to make a personal decision. How can you reconcile that with being a small-government, liberty-loving conservative? In my opinion, you can’t.

Many people are confused by the idea of a conservative who truly values liberty and individual rights. What happens is that there is a disconnect between wanting liberty and respecting others personal decisions. Just because I don’t agree with a behavior doesn’t mean it should be made illegal. There’s no reason why we can’t all have have our own set of morals and acceptable behaviors, yet live in a society where a wide range of lifestyles and behaviors are allowed. If you don’t agree with this, then you probably don’t value individual liberty as much as you thought.

Historians also faulted Mr. Reid’s curious reference to the Senate civil rights debates of the 1960s. After all, it was Southern Democrats who mounted an 83-day filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. The final vote to cut off debate saw 29 Senators in opposition, 80% of them Democrats. Among those voting to block the civil rights bill was West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who personally filibustered the bill for 14 hours. The next year he also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Byrd still sits in the Senate, and indeed preceded Mr. Reid as his party’s majority leader until he stepped down from that role in 1989.

Imagine that. 80% of the Senators who opposed the Civil Rights bill were Democrats. I think Senator Reid should “slow down” and read some history so he doesn’t make a fool out of himself again.

Do you oppose the health care bill? If you’re concerned about taking a step toward a single-payer system, using tax dollars to pay for abortions, or rationing, you’re not a concerned citizen, you’re a racist. Oh, I almost forgot: You’re also a sexist. If you’re thoroughly confused, don’t worry, so is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

In a sign that he realizes his house of cards is falling in around him, the Senator made a vicious attack on Republicans who oppose the health care bill. Here is his statement:

Reid started by mimicking Republicans whom he claims have said: “‘Slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.”

“You think you’ve heard these same excuses before? You’re right,” he continued. “In this country…there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it’s too early. Let’s wait. Things aren’t bad enough’ ” – about slavery.

When women wanted to vote, he went on, opponents said, ” ‘Slow down, there will be a better day to do that — the day isn’t quite right.’ ”

He finished with: “When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

Of course, Harry Reid conveniently ignores the role played by the Republicans in ending slavery, and the inconvenient fact that a Democratic Senator filibustered a civil rights bill. I find it hard to believe that Senator Reid wasn’t familiar with these facts. Since we can rule out ignorance, we can just make the assumption that he is an intellectually dishonest hack who sees the writing on the wall.

There was a lot of criticism over Joe Wilson’s behavior when he shouted “you lie” during the President’s speech. How about this display of ignorance? How can you stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and call your colleagues racists and sexists because of their opposition to a health care bill? If his Democratic colleagues don’t insist he apologize, they are hypocrites.

Fiscally, I’m about as conservative as you get, and I favor limited government. The stimulus bill, bank bailouts, cap-and-trade, and socialized medicine all nauseate me, I oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, and I’m a strong proponent of 2nd Amendment rights. That seems fairly common for a Republican, doesn’t it? It is, until you consider that I support gay marriage, I’m prochoice, and support the decriminalization of marijuana. Some would find these positions inconsistent with the Republican party, but I don’t. If someone truly believes in limited government, then they should stay out of its citizen’s private lives.

My concern is that a “purity” test would contradict the small government message that Republicans rely on and stand for, while favoring social conservative views at the expense of those with libertarian leanings. Fortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The list is filled with core tenets that most Republicans should agree with, and does allow for some disagreement by only requiring agreement on 8 out of 10 items. Here’s the list:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Basically, this looks like a reasonable list. It will ensure that those seeking funding from the party and its donors actually deserve the funds. After all, why should a party and its donors fund an individual that will fight against the G.O.P.’s goals?

It’s understandable that Ms. Scozzafava wouldn’t want to endorse Conservative candidate Douglas Hoffman, due to their differing political beliefs, but the same should be true of Bill Owens. I’m one of those rare people who seems to think a political pary in a two-party system needs to have a wide umbrella with some core issues that bring people together. One of those core issues should be increasing the number of GOP House seats to help Republicans gain control of the House and attempt to bring fiscal restraint. By offering an endorsement ot Bill Owens, Ms. Scozzafava has offered her support to Nancy Pelosi. That is unacceptable. Unlike other Republicans who quickly rushed to Hoffman’s side, she would have been better served by staying neutral and quietly casting her vote on election day. Instead, she betrays her party.

We could be at the beginning of an exciting time for the Republican party. Republican candidates seem to have a strong chance of winning gubernatorial races in both Virginia and New Jersey, along with a Conservative candidate in NY23. Unfortunately, it looks like there could be the makings of a civil war among conservative/GOP voters. For those conservatives who don’t care, ask yourself this question: Will a divided GOP be able to win back control of the House and Senate, and defeat Barack Obama in 2012? As long as we continue to marginalize moderate Republicans, and members lose their identification with the party, our chances seem slim.