Ok, all three of my loyal readers are probably wondering how I did in our Extreme Pinewood Derby. Drum roll please... I lost. Horribly. I was in three races total. The first one I lost because the string (see pictures from previous post) attached to the rear axle broke at the starting line, so my "4 mousepower" engine ran down the track in neutral. I lost.
The second race wasn't much better. The trap went off too early and the car just spun its wheels at the starting gate. By the time the race began, my car (again) hobbled down the track with no go-power. I lost again. Very frustrating.
The third race was much better. The string held as it should and the trap released at precisely the right moment. Unfortunately, by this time most of the slower cars had been weeded out, and I was racing against cars powered by rocket fuel or nuclear fusion. Yet again, I lost.
The winning car this year was basically a slingshot design. The designer cut a 6" PVC pipe in half lengthwise, and attached surgical tubing to it for elasticity. This launching device propelled a simple block-design car down the track at an amazing speed. Very clever. Every year there's always a new rule added banning some sort of "innovation". The rule is typically named after the designer, which is almost a badge of honor per se. I have a feeling a rule will be added so that the cars must be self-contained with no launching devices. I have already begun planning my car for next year now that I know that a mere mousetrap will not suffice. My goal is to be the guy next year who has a rule named after him...
If there is any consolation, I am winning in all three of my NCAA bracket pools. Historically, I'm awful at bracket picks, but this year I'm doing pretty well. My objective was to beat Shannon this year. She has beaten me the past two years, and my ego can't take another loss to a person who chooses teams according to Jersey color. If I can claim victory here, everything else is a bonus. I have Memphis and Kansas going to the final game, with Kansas winning 70 to 68. In retrospect, my margin of victory may be about right, but both of these teams are runners, so the scores may be higher. We'll see.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Extreme Pinewood Derby
Tomorrow the Elder’s Quorum of our Ward is hosting an Extreme Pinewood Derby- a modification of the popular Cub Scout activity. It’s an opportunity for (not so) grown men to tap into their childhood and play with little cars. Hey, do you ever TRULY grow out of that?
Anyway, what makes this fun is that that there are very few rules. Here they are:
1. You must use official BSA (Boy Scouts of America) wheels and axles.
2. Your car cannot touch another car on the track
3. Your car cannot extend beyond the starting mark
4. You cannot damage the track with your car
5. No open flame
6. “The Fox Rule” aka- no CO2 cartridges
We had this activity last year, and most of the rules stem from last years entrants. For instance, “The Fox Rule” was adopted on behalf of Bill Fox. When the CO2 cartridge that propelled his car came loose and flew across the gym, it almost decapitated his eldest daughter.
This year’s race is going to be a lot of fun. In true NASCAR style, we’re tailgating in the parking lot beforehand. I’m sure the root beer will flow like a river. You know how those crazy Mormons are! The part that I like most about the activity is seeing the imagination that goes into creating the perfect car. We have many men of intellect from our ward, so it’ll be fun to match wits with them. My car is called the Rat Racer. I chose that title because it’s “powerplant” is a mouse trap. This baby cranks out a MASSIVE 4 mousepower. Not really sure about that figure, but when I bought the mousetrap, it came in a pack of four, so it seems logical.
As you can see, I took the “Use BSA wheels and axles” rule a little liberally. The rule doesn’t say how MANY wheels and axles to use, so I used them on the front end of the car. On the back, I made wheels from an old radio I cannibalized. They were part of the mechanism that operated the tape deck. They are made of a heavier metal material, which turned out to be necessary with this type of car. I learned the hard way that using a mouse trap to move a small car generates problems. Here they are along with my solutions:
1. The mouse trap makes the car jump when it goes off. Hence the use of the heavier wheels. It helps to keep the car on the track.
2. The spring action of the car is so strong, it either bent or snapped my axles. I was using thin aluminum tubing at first, but I had to re-mount the axles using pieces of heavy gauge wire and parts of a coat hanger clip.
3. Spooling the pull string. The mouse trap pulls so hard that it would break or fray the pull string. I finally was able to use a woven type of dental floss and make it work for repeat races.
4. Leverage. You get a very short burst of speed from the trap since the spring mechanism only has a travel range of about 4 inches. I was able to multiply this by adding a pulley-like extension on the back of the car using a twisted up piece of coat hanger.
5. "Spin outs". The pull of the trap is so sudden that the wheels would just spin the car in place, giving it no forward propulsion. I had to wrap the rear wheels in double-sided tape in order to give it a little grip. You can see that they are tow-tone in appearance. I had fun with a black Sharpie.
Don’t know if I’ll win or not- after all they are predicting 36 cars this year, but it will be fun. I learned last year that it’s not necessarily the FASTEST car that wins, but the one who can handle the most races. We’ll see what happens. Wish me luck.
Anyway, what makes this fun is that that there are very few rules. Here they are:
1. You must use official BSA (Boy Scouts of America) wheels and axles.
2. Your car cannot touch another car on the track
3. Your car cannot extend beyond the starting mark
4. You cannot damage the track with your car
5. No open flame
6. “The Fox Rule” aka- no CO2 cartridges
We had this activity last year, and most of the rules stem from last years entrants. For instance, “The Fox Rule” was adopted on behalf of Bill Fox. When the CO2 cartridge that propelled his car came loose and flew across the gym, it almost decapitated his eldest daughter.
This year’s race is going to be a lot of fun. In true NASCAR style, we’re tailgating in the parking lot beforehand. I’m sure the root beer will flow like a river. You know how those crazy Mormons are! The part that I like most about the activity is seeing the imagination that goes into creating the perfect car. We have many men of intellect from our ward, so it’ll be fun to match wits with them. My car is called the Rat Racer. I chose that title because it’s “powerplant” is a mouse trap. This baby cranks out a MASSIVE 4 mousepower. Not really sure about that figure, but when I bought the mousetrap, it came in a pack of four, so it seems logical.
As you can see, I took the “Use BSA wheels and axles” rule a little liberally. The rule doesn’t say how MANY wheels and axles to use, so I used them on the front end of the car. On the back, I made wheels from an old radio I cannibalized. They were part of the mechanism that operated the tape deck. They are made of a heavier metal material, which turned out to be necessary with this type of car. I learned the hard way that using a mouse trap to move a small car generates problems. Here they are along with my solutions:
1. The mouse trap makes the car jump when it goes off. Hence the use of the heavier wheels. It helps to keep the car on the track.
2. The spring action of the car is so strong, it either bent or snapped my axles. I was using thin aluminum tubing at first, but I had to re-mount the axles using pieces of heavy gauge wire and parts of a coat hanger clip.
3. Spooling the pull string. The mouse trap pulls so hard that it would break or fray the pull string. I finally was able to use a woven type of dental floss and make it work for repeat races.
4. Leverage. You get a very short burst of speed from the trap since the spring mechanism only has a travel range of about 4 inches. I was able to multiply this by adding a pulley-like extension on the back of the car using a twisted up piece of coat hanger.
5. "Spin outs". The pull of the trap is so sudden that the wheels would just spin the car in place, giving it no forward propulsion. I had to wrap the rear wheels in double-sided tape in order to give it a little grip. You can see that they are tow-tone in appearance. I had fun with a black Sharpie.
Don’t know if I’ll win or not- after all they are predicting 36 cars this year, but it will be fun. I learned last year that it’s not necessarily the FASTEST car that wins, but the one who can handle the most races. We’ll see what happens. Wish me luck.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Mitt Romney Back in Business?
I don't know if it has anything to do with Romney's recent interview with Sean Hannity, But Mitt's website is up and running again. Shortly after his concession at CPAC, www.mittromney.com was reduced to a single page expressing thanks. Now it has various links to the issues he espoused during the campaign, speeches from the trail and even a contact link. Weird.
As you may know, Hannity and Karl Rove have been pushing a so-called "M&M" ticket. I don't know what to think about that, and I am highly doubtful that it will happen. Romney stated several times in the Hannity interview that there are no hard feelings between he and McCain since the primaries. Maybe this is true. After all, McCain was quick to support George W. Bush after a dirty and humiliating defeat in the 2000 primary.
Is it a good idea for him to consider Romney? Possibly. There are at least four things McCain and his advisors are asking themselves right now. ALL of these take a back seat to #1 listed below.
1. Who is best going to help me to beat my opponent in November?
2. Who is going to align with me on policy issues?
3. Who is going to fill in the gaps where I need additional strength?
4. With whom do I feel comfortable entrusting the Presidency if I cannot serve?
Maybe Romney is the guy to answer these questions, maybe not. If I were McCain, here would be my pro and con list about selecting Romney:
Pro:
-Romney has economics in his bloodstream. This is an admitted McCain weak spot.
-Romney has a solid conservative following, and it would help draw in voters that rejected McCain previously.
-Name recognition. The primaries have given Romney a lot of street cred
-He’s young. There has been nervousness within the party about McCain’s ability to serve long term.
-He’s good looking. This is probably the silliest reason, but hey, all those women who were “sMITTen” have votes too.
-Solid supporter of Iraq war and the surge. The two men favor staying in Iraq until victory is achieved.
-He is known for offering market-based solutions for the healthcare crisis, and could be a foil for a key Democrat issue.
Cons:
-Well known perception that the two men don’t like each other. May appear to voters as a union of expediency.
-Mitt’s “flip-flopper” tag. There’s some cannon fodder for the Dems.
-Even though Romney has a lot of conservative support, he does not have concrete backing by the southern evangelical voter, a must-have for the Republican nominee. If McCain wants to repair the damage in this voting bloc, Mitt’s probably the wrong guy.
-Mormonism. See previous bullet point.
-“Mr. Perfect” persona. Romney failed to connect with some voters because of this.
On a purely selfish level, I don’t want to see Romney hitch his wagon to McCain. No matter who the VP is, at the end of the day, you’re still voting for the guy at the top of the ticket, and I still see McCain losing this year. If McCain is going to go down in flames, I don’t want to see Romney attached to the fallout and thereby weakened for 2012. You don’t have to look any farther than John Edwards to realize that voters don’t like a loser.
However, I have cooled down enough from February 5th to admit that I will probably vote for McCain in November. I will do it while stifling a gag reflex and telling myself that I’m not so much voting FOR him as AGAINST the Dems. In the unlikely event that Mitt is chosen as McCain’s #2, It’ll take out some of the sting, but I still don’t know if I’d be happy about it. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject...
As you may know, Hannity and Karl Rove have been pushing a so-called "M&M" ticket. I don't know what to think about that, and I am highly doubtful that it will happen. Romney stated several times in the Hannity interview that there are no hard feelings between he and McCain since the primaries. Maybe this is true. After all, McCain was quick to support George W. Bush after a dirty and humiliating defeat in the 2000 primary.
Is it a good idea for him to consider Romney? Possibly. There are at least four things McCain and his advisors are asking themselves right now. ALL of these take a back seat to #1 listed below.
1. Who is best going to help me to beat my opponent in November?
2. Who is going to align with me on policy issues?
3. Who is going to fill in the gaps where I need additional strength?
4. With whom do I feel comfortable entrusting the Presidency if I cannot serve?
Maybe Romney is the guy to answer these questions, maybe not. If I were McCain, here would be my pro and con list about selecting Romney:
Pro:
-Romney has economics in his bloodstream. This is an admitted McCain weak spot.
-Romney has a solid conservative following, and it would help draw in voters that rejected McCain previously.
-Name recognition. The primaries have given Romney a lot of street cred
-He’s young. There has been nervousness within the party about McCain’s ability to serve long term.
-He’s good looking. This is probably the silliest reason, but hey, all those women who were “sMITTen” have votes too.
-Solid supporter of Iraq war and the surge. The two men favor staying in Iraq until victory is achieved.
-He is known for offering market-based solutions for the healthcare crisis, and could be a foil for a key Democrat issue.
Cons:
-Well known perception that the two men don’t like each other. May appear to voters as a union of expediency.
-Mitt’s “flip-flopper” tag. There’s some cannon fodder for the Dems.
-Even though Romney has a lot of conservative support, he does not have concrete backing by the southern evangelical voter, a must-have for the Republican nominee. If McCain wants to repair the damage in this voting bloc, Mitt’s probably the wrong guy.
-Mormonism. See previous bullet point.
-“Mr. Perfect” persona. Romney failed to connect with some voters because of this.
On a purely selfish level, I don’t want to see Romney hitch his wagon to McCain. No matter who the VP is, at the end of the day, you’re still voting for the guy at the top of the ticket, and I still see McCain losing this year. If McCain is going to go down in flames, I don’t want to see Romney attached to the fallout and thereby weakened for 2012. You don’t have to look any farther than John Edwards to realize that voters don’t like a loser.
However, I have cooled down enough from February 5th to admit that I will probably vote for McCain in November. I will do it while stifling a gag reflex and telling myself that I’m not so much voting FOR him as AGAINST the Dems. In the unlikely event that Mitt is chosen as McCain’s #2, It’ll take out some of the sting, but I still don’t know if I’d be happy about it. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject...
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
New Addition to the Blog
You may notice that I took down the link to http://www.mittromney.com/. This was done with tremendous sadness. I quickly noticed that without a picture there, the blog looked a little sparse. To remedy this, I'm adding a "Photo of the Week" in its place. This week's lucky winner is Hillary and her finger pistol. Enjoy.
Hillary's Last Stand?
Now that the magic number of 1191 has been surpassed by John McCain, it’s all about the Dems. Last night was very exciting. Along with everybody else, I was expecting to hear the Clinton death rattle last night. Boy was I wrong! I have to admit, I was pulling like crazy for Hillary. The more turmoil in the Democrat party the better! TX, OH and RI were largely symbolic victories for her since she didn’t chip away at Obama’s delegate lead. Even with her three to one victory, she remains more than one hundred delegates back- a fact that did not escape Obama in his concession speech last night.
Clinton did say something in her “Thank You Ohio” speech that may be “THE story” as the nomination unfolds. Amid the many thank yous and platitudes, she rattled off the states where she has been victorious- Florida and Michigan included. Everybody knows that there has been behind the scenes work by Hillary’s camp to have these delegates here reinstated. Surely, if talk becomes serious, the Obama camp will protest. The compromise may be a “do-over” in these states. If so, Hillary will have a built-in advantage in both. Michigan is enduring a similar economic crisis to that in Ohio, and Florida should play well for her with its large Hispanic and New York snowbird population. Whether or not we do see a redux in FL and MI, it should be fun to watch the cat fighting over the possibility.
All I know for sure is that I don’t want to be Howard Dean (DNC Chair) right now. I wonder if he got a call at 3:00 this morning…
Clinton did say something in her “Thank You Ohio” speech that may be “THE story” as the nomination unfolds. Amid the many thank yous and platitudes, she rattled off the states where she has been victorious- Florida and Michigan included. Everybody knows that there has been behind the scenes work by Hillary’s camp to have these delegates here reinstated. Surely, if talk becomes serious, the Obama camp will protest. The compromise may be a “do-over” in these states. If so, Hillary will have a built-in advantage in both. Michigan is enduring a similar economic crisis to that in Ohio, and Florida should play well for her with its large Hispanic and New York snowbird population. Whether or not we do see a redux in FL and MI, it should be fun to watch the cat fighting over the possibility.
All I know for sure is that I don’t want to be Howard Dean (DNC Chair) right now. I wonder if he got a call at 3:00 this morning…
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Ugh.
Just when Shannon and I were starting to crack on our “I will not vote for John McCain under any circumstances” position, he gives me yet another reason to distrust him. I’m sure you’ve heard the buzz about his supposed inappropriate relationship with a certain female telecom lobbyist (see inset). Let me start off by saying that nothing has been proven, and all the sources have not been vetted, but it does look awfully salacious. Even if the allegations prove to be false, his responses in the Toledo press conference this morning were parsed and evasive. When asked specifically if there was an inappropriate relationship between 
he and Ms. Iseman, he said, “"At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor any one or any organization." Very Clintonian indeed. As he said repeatedly to Mitt Romney when prodding him about his supposed Iraq withdrawal timetables, McCain said of Romney, “The response should have been simple. No.”
His close ties to this lobbyist also speak to the heart of the leading problem in Washington- too many people with their hands in the cookie jar. McCain has run a campaign based upon cutting pork barrel spending and turning deaf ears toward lobbyists. More do as I say and not as I do politics. This will undoubtedly be cannon fodder for the Democrats in November.
What bothers me more about McCain is a different story that is getting only moderate airplay. It’s a little nerdy, and there’s no sex appeal to it, but I believe that it has far weightier implications. We all know that in the summer of 2007, McCain’s campaign was hemorrhaging badly. In order to keep the campaign afloat, he took out a loan against his list of contributors, and even backed it up with a life insurance policy. Here’s where it gets tricky- the FEC could view this as an illegal move since the contributor list is bound by privacy laws. What would’ve happened if the loan was actually called and his collateral- the list, was turned over? Nobody knows. There would have been a lengthy court battle over the use of the list, and McCain likely wouldn’t have cared since his failed Presidential candidacy would have been a doomsday scenario anyway. My point? It shows a flagrant disregard for law and the names of the people who support him.
I want so badly to be able to support this guy, but he’s making it very difficult.
he and Ms. Iseman, he said, “"At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust or make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor any one or any organization." Very Clintonian indeed. As he said repeatedly to Mitt Romney when prodding him about his supposed Iraq withdrawal timetables, McCain said of Romney, “The response should have been simple. No.”His close ties to this lobbyist also speak to the heart of the leading problem in Washington- too many people with their hands in the cookie jar. McCain has run a campaign based upon cutting pork barrel spending and turning deaf ears toward lobbyists. More do as I say and not as I do politics. This will undoubtedly be cannon fodder for the Democrats in November.
What bothers me more about McCain is a different story that is getting only moderate airplay. It’s a little nerdy, and there’s no sex appeal to it, but I believe that it has far weightier implications. We all know that in the summer of 2007, McCain’s campaign was hemorrhaging badly. In order to keep the campaign afloat, he took out a loan against his list of contributors, and even backed it up with a life insurance policy. Here’s where it gets tricky- the FEC could view this as an illegal move since the contributor list is bound by privacy laws. What would’ve happened if the loan was actually called and his collateral- the list, was turned over? Nobody knows. There would have been a lengthy court battle over the use of the list, and McCain likely wouldn’t have cared since his failed Presidential candidacy would have been a doomsday scenario anyway. My point? It shows a flagrant disregard for law and the names of the people who support him.
I want so badly to be able to support this guy, but he’s making it very difficult.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
1960 All Over Again...
Ok. After a self-imposed exile from the blog for a few days, I’m back in the saddle. Same as you, I’ve been watching the race, and it is becoming evident that we’re going to have a McCain/Obama matchup in November. I can’t imagine a scenario more tempting to the Democrat party. In March, the press will begin the comparisons to the 1960 race between Nixon and Kennedy- Nixon: the VP and "Old Establishment" candidate, and Kennedy: the “Fresh Faced Golden Boy” of politics. We all know how that ended up. Below is a transcript from Erika Tyner Allen of the Museum of Broadcast Communications recounting the aftermath of the debate between the two.
“Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin.”
This was the first televised debate between Presidential candidates. It was one of a series of four, which have come to be known as “The Great Debates”.
Why do I bring this up? This is one of the first documented cases of style winning over substance. I can’t stand either candidate, but McCain wins in the resume department. In terms of sheer magnetism, Obama has the same je ne sais quois that drew people to JFK. I have to admit, he is a very charismatic guy. If I didn’t have strong convictions for conservative values, I would be drawn to him myself.
Most of the people I know who like Obama can’t tell me the specific reasons why. I have yet to hear a substantive defense of his stance on the issues. As the debates between McCain and Obama unfold, McCain will charge hard with policy driven rhetoric. Obama will parry with nebulous comments of change and will preach of Bush’s third term in the personage of John McCain. It’s not even going to be close- 1960 all over again…
“Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin.”
This was the first televised debate between Presidential candidates. It was one of a series of four, which have come to be known as “The Great Debates”.
Why do I bring this up? This is one of the first documented cases of style winning over substance. I can’t stand either candidate, but McCain wins in the resume department. In terms of sheer magnetism, Obama has the same je ne sais quois that drew people to JFK. I have to admit, he is a very charismatic guy. If I didn’t have strong convictions for conservative values, I would be drawn to him myself.
Most of the people I know who like Obama can’t tell me the specific reasons why. I have yet to hear a substantive defense of his stance on the issues. As the debates between McCain and Obama unfold, McCain will charge hard with policy driven rhetoric. Obama will parry with nebulous comments of change and will preach of Bush’s third term in the personage of John McCain. It’s not even going to be close- 1960 all over again…
Friday, February 8, 2008
The Difference between Men and Women
A brief respite between political diatribes- We all know that there are vast differences between men and women. I was reminded of this yesterday. Last night, we got a new laptop computer. My employment requires the strenuous use of a computer, so I burn through them pretty quickly. My plan was to give the new computer to Shannon and to use her old laptop for work. Luckily, we had a warranty on it so it was replaced free of charge. I went to Best Buy and selected a replacement. Upon bringing it home, I said to my beloved, "Shannon, you're gonna love this! It's got an Intel Core Duo processor, 3Gb of RAM, a 250 Gb hard drive, HDMI ports and an HD monitor!" Her response? "Oooh, it's pretty!"
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Governor Romney Concedes
You've probably all heard the sad news. If not, here it is. Governor Romney has decided to step aside in his quest to gain the White House in 2008.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Don't Pass Me the Kool Aid
My wife tells me today that Rush came out and asked Republicans to rally around McCain if he receives the nod. He says to hold your nose and call it an “Anti-Hillary vote”. Hugh Hewitt says that regardless of the nominee, we should jump in with the nominee because there are 6 Supreme Court Justices over the age of 68. Otherwise stalwart bastions of conservatism are cracking under the trite phrase “Party Unity”. I don’t buy it.
Yes, I am a fervent Romney backer, and no, I don’t think he will receive the Republican nomination. I know that this will be viewed by some as a sour grapes defeatist position to take. I will be called “a wasted vote” or worse- a “Republican Saboteur”. Do I take this position out of spite and hatred for the party? No, quite the contrary. I will not vote for John McCain in November because he is the living, breathing archetype of what is wrong with the Republican party. I love the ideals behind conservatism- free market economics, strong national defense, small government, low taxes, etc. John McCain has proven through his voting record that while he does share some of these ideals, he differs on enough of them that he has earned my vehement mistrust.
In my view, a vote for McCain does nothing to solidify the party. It further fractures what is already broken. McCain’s mantra is that he will work across party lines for the common good. In his own words, “I am a proud conservative, but I will put my country over my party every time.” On the surface, this sounds magnanimous and appealing. However, implicit in his statement is that Conservatism does not have the answers. This is unequivocally false. Every time McCain reaches across the aisle, he does it at the direct expense of conservative principles. Case in point- the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance bill. Clearly this flew in the face of the First Amendment and Conservatism. The Democrats worked with McCain because it suited their goals. If McCain were to go to Russ Feingold today and ask him to support a Republican bill promising tax cuts, what would Feingold do? He would vote lockstep with the Democrat party. Yes, Reagan worked with Democrats, but he convinced them that his way was correct, not by compromising core principles. A vote for McCain is adding gasoline to the fire devouring your home. The bottom line is that any movement left toward the Democrat party is not rewarded with consensus. They just ask for more compromise. What you get is a blurring of the party lines, and the left wing of the Democrat party edges ever closer to Socialism.
The blame for this lay squarely at our own doorstep. We Republicans did not band together and tell Washington what we expected out of Congress and the Presidency when we maintained majorities. We allowed them to placate us with platitudes on Iraq and they accomplished nothing with the mandate. Spending skyrocketed, government grew and we lost faith. Yes, Iraq and the war against radical jihadism is vitally important, but we have to keep our financial house in order as well. We cannot be lulled into complacency because an elected official has an “R” beside his name. True conservatives must be ever vigilant.
That is why I can’t vote for John McCain. How can I look my three children in the face and know that I voted for a man in whom I have no respect? If I do that, how can I teach them to stand for what they believe? Should I tell them to follow their beliefs only to the point where it is easier “to go along to get along”? I was taught long ago that the only person who can sell your integrity is you.
Back to the practical side of the points raised by Limbaugh and Hewitt in the first paragraph. Rush says that I should cast my vote to stop Hillary Clinton. This is a faulty argument. It is becoming increasingly evident to me that Obama will be the man to beat. McCain is a supremely poor match-up against him. Obama can easily cast him as the old Washington guard- the very reason change is needed. The independent vote on which McCain has so heavily leaned will not support him against Obama. Hewitt says that Supreme Court Justices slots are what matter most. I can’t trust McCain to nominate constructionist judges. He openly criticized Justice Alito for “wearing his conservatism on his sleeve”, and now that it is politically expedient to do so, McCain praises Alito for his performance. And he calls Mitt the flip-flopper!
Also, consider this, Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hewitt. Let's assume that McCain does win the Presidency. He will likely push for a slightly revised version of the McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill. If he does, rather than push against their (Liberal) Republican President and commit political suicide, a Republican congress will go with the tide. The end result is horrible legislation with Republican names all over it. However, if a Democrat is elected President, it is much easier to rally the troops in a fight.
The Republican Party will very likely lose in November. This may not be a bad thing. For four years we will be subjected to Democrat majorities in congress and the Presidency. My only hope is that someone emerges in 2012 to help to give the Republican Party and Conservatism a clarion call. Sometimes we must taste the bitter to truly appreciate the sweet. I am waiting for that knight in shining armor. I am a member of the Party of Lincoln. The Party of Ronald Reagan. I will not vote for a candidate who cannot legitimately claim the same.
Yes, I am a fervent Romney backer, and no, I don’t think he will receive the Republican nomination. I know that this will be viewed by some as a sour grapes defeatist position to take. I will be called “a wasted vote” or worse- a “Republican Saboteur”. Do I take this position out of spite and hatred for the party? No, quite the contrary. I will not vote for John McCain in November because he is the living, breathing archetype of what is wrong with the Republican party. I love the ideals behind conservatism- free market economics, strong national defense, small government, low taxes, etc. John McCain has proven through his voting record that while he does share some of these ideals, he differs on enough of them that he has earned my vehement mistrust.
In my view, a vote for McCain does nothing to solidify the party. It further fractures what is already broken. McCain’s mantra is that he will work across party lines for the common good. In his own words, “I am a proud conservative, but I will put my country over my party every time.” On the surface, this sounds magnanimous and appealing. However, implicit in his statement is that Conservatism does not have the answers. This is unequivocally false. Every time McCain reaches across the aisle, he does it at the direct expense of conservative principles. Case in point- the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance bill. Clearly this flew in the face of the First Amendment and Conservatism. The Democrats worked with McCain because it suited their goals. If McCain were to go to Russ Feingold today and ask him to support a Republican bill promising tax cuts, what would Feingold do? He would vote lockstep with the Democrat party. Yes, Reagan worked with Democrats, but he convinced them that his way was correct, not by compromising core principles. A vote for McCain is adding gasoline to the fire devouring your home. The bottom line is that any movement left toward the Democrat party is not rewarded with consensus. They just ask for more compromise. What you get is a blurring of the party lines, and the left wing of the Democrat party edges ever closer to Socialism.
The blame for this lay squarely at our own doorstep. We Republicans did not band together and tell Washington what we expected out of Congress and the Presidency when we maintained majorities. We allowed them to placate us with platitudes on Iraq and they accomplished nothing with the mandate. Spending skyrocketed, government grew and we lost faith. Yes, Iraq and the war against radical jihadism is vitally important, but we have to keep our financial house in order as well. We cannot be lulled into complacency because an elected official has an “R” beside his name. True conservatives must be ever vigilant.
That is why I can’t vote for John McCain. How can I look my three children in the face and know that I voted for a man in whom I have no respect? If I do that, how can I teach them to stand for what they believe? Should I tell them to follow their beliefs only to the point where it is easier “to go along to get along”? I was taught long ago that the only person who can sell your integrity is you.
Back to the practical side of the points raised by Limbaugh and Hewitt in the first paragraph. Rush says that I should cast my vote to stop Hillary Clinton. This is a faulty argument. It is becoming increasingly evident to me that Obama will be the man to beat. McCain is a supremely poor match-up against him. Obama can easily cast him as the old Washington guard- the very reason change is needed. The independent vote on which McCain has so heavily leaned will not support him against Obama. Hewitt says that Supreme Court Justices slots are what matter most. I can’t trust McCain to nominate constructionist judges. He openly criticized Justice Alito for “wearing his conservatism on his sleeve”, and now that it is politically expedient to do so, McCain praises Alito for his performance. And he calls Mitt the flip-flopper!
Also, consider this, Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Hewitt. Let's assume that McCain does win the Presidency. He will likely push for a slightly revised version of the McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill. If he does, rather than push against their (Liberal) Republican President and commit political suicide, a Republican congress will go with the tide. The end result is horrible legislation with Republican names all over it. However, if a Democrat is elected President, it is much easier to rally the troops in a fight.
The Republican Party will very likely lose in November. This may not be a bad thing. For four years we will be subjected to Democrat majorities in congress and the Presidency. My only hope is that someone emerges in 2012 to help to give the Republican Party and Conservatism a clarion call. Sometimes we must taste the bitter to truly appreciate the sweet. I am waiting for that knight in shining armor. I am a member of the Party of Lincoln. The Party of Ronald Reagan. I will not vote for a candidate who cannot legitimately claim the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
