Analysis of the Scott Brown Victory in MA

Could anyone have ever dreamed of a more unusual scenario? The seat held by Ted Kennedy for over 40 years has now been replaced by a Republican in Massachusetts.

The Stage was Set

Let’s rewind to 1994. In the midst of a surge sweeping across the nation against the Democratic majority after a Clinton victory in 1992, in Massachusetts, a man named Mitt Romney dared to challenge the lion of the Senate himself: Ted Kennedy. But while Romney managed to lose by the second smallest margin in Kennedy’s nine elections, the score was a 17-point difference: 58 to 41.

By 2004, Romney was governor of Massachusetts. In an effort to avoid a Romney-chosen senator should Senator John Kerry win the White House, the Democratic majority of the Massachusetts state senate passed legislation that would keep the governor from being able to appoint a U.S. Senator until a special election was held.

But in 2009, with a Democratic governor in place, the Democrats reversed the legislation to allow a Democrat to be appointed to replace Ted Kennedy after he died. Before his death, Kennedy had even requested the reversal himself. After Kennedy’s death, Paul Kirk was appointed to replace him. The seat remained in the hands of the Democratic party.

On November 3rd of that year, GOP candidates Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. Both states had Democratic governors.

That same month in Massachusetts, Democratic candidate Martha Coakley led Republican Scott Brown by as much as 31 points. The Kennedy family endorsed Coakley to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. At that point, it appeared obvious that the seat will continue to be in Democratic control.  After all, in Massachusetts, Democrats outnumber Republicans by as much as 3 to 1. But independents outnumber Democrats in the Bay State. And the hypocrisy of the Democratic party had worn down the respect of their constituents.

The Meteoric Rise of Scott Brown

Through a series of gaffes by Coakley herself, Scott Brown began to rise. Coakley’s numbers started to drop. Whether it was the pointless sparring with Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling or the arrogant and elitist opposition to schmoozing with hockey fans at Fenway Park, Coakley couldn’t seem to keep her mouth shut. If that wasn’t bad enough, her claim that terrorists no longer reside in Afghanistan certainly didn’t buy her any foreign policy points.

But in spite of Coakley’s best efforts to sink her own campaign, it still seemed unlikely that a Republican would be the one to replace Ted Kennedy. However, in early January, a Rasmussen poll revealed that Coakley’s lead narrowed to a single digit margin, albeit a 9 point margin.

In a debate with Coakley, Brown was asked how he could sit in Ted Kennedy’s seat and vote against the healthcare legislation that Kennedy had fought so hard for in his career. Brown responded, “With all due respect, it is not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It is not the Democrats’ seat. It is the people’s seat.”

For some reason, the wind was suddenly at Brown’s back. Perhaps even to the surprise of some Republicans, Brown was gaining momentum. Rasmussen’s next poll had him losing by only 2 points. A Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll had him up by 1. Coakley’s lead was vanishing before her very eyes. In the latter polls of the campaign, it was fully erased, replaced by as much as a 15 point margin of victory for Brown according to PJM/CrossTarget.

On the night of January 19th, Coakley delivered her concession speech. Brown had won 52 to 47.

Is Brown the New Face of the GOP?

Perhaps it’s a bit early to say that Brown is the face for the GOP brand. Typically, Republicans require dues to be paid before its leaders are rewarded with a  higher status. It took Ronald Reagan several years to become a major voice in the party, having lost to Ford in 1976 before winning the nomination in 1980. But if there’s one politician whose own meteoric rise could provide Brown a pathway for an early entry into the presidential fray, it would be none other than Barack Obama.

Obama was  still a state senator in Illinois back in 2004 when he delivered the keynote address to the Democratic National Convention. He was elected as a U.S. Senator later that year. By February 2007, he had declared himself a candidate for the White House.

Brown was also a state senator when he won his U.S. Senate seat. While it may seem the least bit unlikely, Brown could very well be among the names floated for the 2012 GOP nomination.

But even if Brown did find himself amidst the field of candidates in the GOP primary, he would probably not win the support of many social conservatives. While Brown remains to the right of most Democrats on abortion, he is still essentially pro-choice. This would prove to be a rather difficult hurdle to overcome should Brown have loftier aspirations.

An Unusual Victory, A Glimmer of Hope

To say that Brown’s victory is historic would be an understatement. The Bay State has not had a Republican U.S. senator since 1978. Kennedy’s seat hasn’t been held by a Republican since 1952.

If he is seated soon, Scott Brown will bring a screeching halt to the Democratic supermajority in the U.S. Senate, thus being the one man who can dissolve the liberal dream of Obamacare.

It seems evident that there is a trend in America towards the right. A trend towards smaller government. A trend towards fiscal responsibility. A trend against runaway spending. A trend towards transparency in government.

Last night, the people of Massachusetts spoke to the nation about the kind of government they want. If this type of sentiment is displayed there, in the bluest of blue states, it will not end with them.

Finally, it seems that America may be correcting its course.

Romney vs. Palin: A Quasi-Rift That Should Not Exist

We’re hearing a lot about division in the Republican party these days. The mainstream media loves to point out how weakened they are due to their back-to-back losses in 2006 and 2008. However, they seem to ignore how Americans are beginning to trend towards Republicans near the close of Obama’s first 100 days according to current Rasmussen polling. At any rate, I find it silly that such squabbling is going on in the GOP. Rush Limbaugh said this. Mitt Romney says that. Sarah Palin says this. Michael Steele says that. It’s childish. Can’t I like all these people and share the majority of their collective viewpoints without having to pit them against each other?

A lot of this stemmed from a CNN interview that Romney had in which he was asked about the fact that Time Magazine’s World’s Most Influential People list only included two Republicans: Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. So in response to that, Romney said “I think there are a lot more influential Republicans than that would suggest.” Many took this as a jab at Palin. I tend to disagree. Keep in mind that the question was about how few Republicans made the list. Romney was simply stating that there should’ve been more that made the list like perhaps Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Eric Cantor, or even Michele Bachmann. So to say this is an attack against Palin is really being a bit disingenuous.

Rush Limbaugh has also attacked Romney and Jeb Bush for conducting their “listening tour,” claiming that instead, they should be conducting a “teaching tour.” Okay Rush, I agree. The American people, by and large, do need to be educated on what Republicans can do (or at least, should be doing) for this country. But isn’t that what you’re on the air for? Would it not be a good to at least listen to the American people and find out why they voted for Barack Obama? Or even better, would it not be good to listen to conservative Americans and find out why many of them didn’t vote for John McCain? I guarantee you that most of the Ron Paul crowd didn’t vote for McCain.

It’s ridiculous for this infighting to be going on. For the most part, we agree on the same basic principles. Granted, I will say that John McCain was definitely not a true champion of those principles and that’s why many conservatives didn’t support him. But we need to band together. There’s no reason for these little skirmishes. Personally, I think a Romney-Palin ticket in 2012 would be a dynamic force that could defeat Obama. Who knows? This could be the biggest kiss-and-make-up since Reagan and Bush in 1980.

 

Romney and Palin campaign for McCain

For example, I think that for the most part, Romney and Palin agree more with each other than Palin and McCain did in 2008. Both are pro-life. Both oppose gay marriage. Both support drilling in Alaska (unlike McCain). Neither of them support the FairTax. Economically, they’re generally the same although Romney is much more experienced. Both of them take strong immigration stances.  I’d being willing to say that they generally line up on the majority of the principles and values that conservatives hold dear. Both of them are worthy of carrying the Reagan banner. So let’s not beat each other up too bad. We’re going to need all the help we can get in 2012.

Why I’m Voting For Mitt Romney and You Should Too

Back in March of last year, I announced my support for Governor Mitt Romney as President of the United States. I did not come to this decision lightly. I researched the records and platforms of all that were involved at the time including Senator John McCain, Governor Jim Gilmore, Governor Mike Huckabee, Senator Sam Brownback, Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Duncan Hunter, Governor Tommy Thompson, Senator Fred Thompson, and Governor Romney.

Despite what many felt was a lackluster field, I found hope in Mitt Romney. His turnaround experience as CEO at Bain Capital, CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, and as Governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the union, impressed me. And unlike many who felt like his conversion to the pro-life position was less than genuine, I was proud to see a man who had the conviction to reverse course and stand up for the cause of life.

I admired the fact that Mitt Romney had championed the cause of families as governor of Massachusetts. Throughout his career, he fought against gay marriage, cloning and embryo farming. He even fought to define life as beginning at conception. As a result, the Massachusetts Citizens for Life gave Governor Romney the leadership award for his efforts in the fight to protect human life.

I’ve always been a fan of lower taxes and effective managment. I was pleased to find out that in the face of a multi-billion dollar deficit, Governor Romney managed to balance the budget in Massachusetts for every single year of his term without raising taxes.

As a member of the NRA, Governor Romney fought for the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. Having spent a lifetime around guns, I considered Governor Romney’s support of the 2nd Amendment to be quite reassuring.

Unfortunately, most Republicans seem to ignore the problems that Americans are facing in healthcare. Mitt Romney is the only candidate in this race, Republican or Democrat, who has successfully introduced an effective market-driven healthcare program based on private companies, not government control.

As I watched the GOP Presidential debates throughout the course of the past year, I was continually amazed by the well-researched knowledge that Governor Romney had in foreign affairs. I believe his wisdom will keep America safe while exhausting every form of diplomacy necessary in order to avoid future conflicts abroad.

Out of the candidates left in this race, Mitt Romney is the clear viable conservative. He’s unquestionably the best candidate for President in 2008.

Other candidates:
If you’d like to know why I oppose Senator McCain, Congressman Paul, or Governor Huckabee, just click on the links provided. But for a quick note on each, I oppose McCain for a variety of reasons, but he has recently stated that he does not care about social issues. Congressman Paul has some wild votes in his career and he is unelectable. Governor Huckabee’s FairTax policy is unrealistic and he is no longer electable at this point.

Alabama for Mitt Romney

The concept of a Republican governor in a Democratic state is not lost on most Alabamians.

In 2002, Alabama elected a Republican governor despite having a Democratic legislature in hopes of bringing fiscal responsibility and lower taxes to a state government plagued by the corruption of a previous administration.

That same year, the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts elected Republican Mitt Romney to be its governor with similar hopes of fiscal discipline for a state that faced a $3 billion deficit. In spite of such a daunting predicament, he managed to balance the budget in every year of his term without raising taxes.

For the past six years, Alabamians have been able to witness the progress that a Republican governor can achieve. This, among several reasons, is why Alabama should select Governor Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Despite being the governor of a northern state, Mitt Romney shares the same values that Alabamians hold dear. These values can be reflected in three major areas, which comprise what Romney calls the three legs of the Republican stool: a strong military, a strong economy, and strong families.

Since 9/11, most Americans understand the need to address Islamic terrorism on a global scale. Mitt Romney believes in achieving a safer country by increasing the size of our military and by confronting radical jihadists in the Middle East. In a state that houses the likes of Redstone Arsenal and Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabamians, like Mitt Romney understand the importance of a strong military.

There’s not a single candidate in the field this year, Republican or Democrat that has more experience in the economy than Mitt Romney. From his career as CEO of Bain Capital in Boston to his tremendous success in turning around the embattled 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, Romney knows the ins and outs of the American economy.

In Montgomery, we need only look to our own backyard for proof that Asian markets are becoming a force to be reckoned with on a global scale. While the Hyundai plant has had a positive presence in our state, it’s important to remember that it represents a growing influence on the global economy in competition with American goods and services. Mitt Romney understands that and as President, he will work to make sure America can continue to compete with Asian markets in the greater global economy.

If there’s one thing Alabamians crave, it’s lower taxes. This makes Governor Romney a perfect fit for us. His domestic agenda includes eliminating taxes on savings for middle class families, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, permanently eliminating the death tax, and making healthcare expenses tax deductible, all of which are initiatives that Alabamians long for.

As citizens of Alabama, we are known for our strong family values. Having been married for nearly forty years to his wife Ann, with whom he raised their five sons, Mitt Romney is also known for his family values. He supports a constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution that would define marriage as the institution of one man and one woman. He also believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned in order to let the American people decide the issue of abortion. In his career as governor of Massachusetts, he fought to ban cloning, to ban embryo farming, and to define life as beginning at conception. The Massachusetts Citizens for Life even gave Governor Romney the leadership award for his efforts in the fight to protect human life.

In a state where our motto is “We Dare Defend Our Rights,” we firmly believe in the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment. Mitt Romney strongly supports those rights as well. As a member of the National Rifle Association, he believes in the distinction between law abiding gun owners and the individuals who use firearms to commit crimes.

Based on these reasons stated above, I believe Mitt Romney would be the ideal choice for the citizens of Alabama, as well as the United States of America. I urge all conservative Alabamians to vote for Governor Romney on February 5th.

New Hampshire: The Last Hope for Conservatism in 2008

Needless to say, I was dismayed at the results of Iowa last night. I think when it really came down to it, evangelicals felt like they had to vote for someone who shared their exact religious beliefs. After all, who wants to vote against a “pastor” who claims to be a “Christian Leader?”

Mike Huckabee is not a well-rounded conservative. Many people in Arkansas believe that as governor, he ruined the conservative movement. And now, many across the nation feel that Huckabee’s victory in Iowa has been a major step backward for conservatism nationwide. He’s a fiscal liberal. When it comes to foreign policy, he is utterly clueless. Besides social issues, there’s little difference between him and most Democrats. He must not win this nomination.

 If John McCain wins Iowa, it will help Huckabee in South Carolina and in other states. It could even help Rudy Giuliani in Florida. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. He wants to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. He must not be allowed take New Hampshire.

Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee are what I like to call fracture candidates. They are not well-rounded conservatives. Instead they have pieces of conservativism that fracture the wide conservative base of Defense Conservatives (DefCons), Social Conservatives (SoCons), Evangelicals, Fiscal Conservatives (FisCons) and Moderates. Rudy appeals to fiscal conservatives and defense conservatives. McCain appeals to moderates and independents. Mike Huckabee appeals to social conservatives and evangelicals.

 There are only two whole conservatives in this race: Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Both appeal to the entire base, capturing what is known as the Reagan Coalition. They appeal to the variety of conservatives across the base. Keeping this base intact is the only way to win in 2008.

A stand must be made in New Hampshire for conservativism. There, voters must choose a candidate that reflects the wide range of principles the Republican party stands for. If not, I fear that we are headed towards defeat in 2008.

Embracing the Evolution of Mitt Romney

Besides his religion, what’s the number one reason people are opposed to Mitt Romney? Is it his “slick, salesman-like demeanor”? His too-perfect hair? His record as Governor of Massachusetts?

Ironically enough, the number one problem people have with Mitt Romney is his conservative positions…and how he arrived at them.

Whether it be on abortion, gay rights, gun control or signing tax pledges, many of Romney’s critics are quick to call him a “flip-flopper,” a term synonymous with John Kerry in 2004.

There’s no doubt that Romney has changed his positions. Romney himself has admitted that. But typically when I think of the term “flip-flopper,” I think of someone who changes back and forth, not simply in one direction. And in the case of Mitt Romney, his evolution has progressed in the conservative direction.

One of the first attacks I ever heard on Romney was that back in 1994, he was pro-choice as a candidate for U.S. Senator. Of course, it was true. His critics will gladly show you that infamous YouTube video where he claims that he will support the establishment of Roe v. Wade.

But in 2005, Romney claims to have changed his mind when faced with a decision on human cloning. At that point, he said he became pro-life. However, the common critique of his conversion is that it was for political gain, instead of being based on a change of heart.

Along with that, in his U.S. Senate race against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said he would be more of a champion for gay rights than his opponent. But now, Romney is running on a platform of supporting an amendment that would outlaw gay marriage on a federal level.

Also as a Senatorial candidate in 1994, Romney said that he didn’t “line up with the NRA,” in the area of gun control. But in August 2006, Romney became a lifetime member of the NRA.

In 2002, Romney refused to sign a “no new tax” pledge as governor of Massachussetts. But in 2007, Romney signed a similar pledge as a candidate for President. Keep in mind that one was for Massachussetts, the other is for the nation. However, some have pointed to this as a change in position.

Note the common thread in all these changes. Romney has become more conservative on all of them. He hasn’t gone back and forth as the “flip-flopper” label would indicate. Instead it was always the flip, never the flop.

As conservatives, if we don’t embrace people who are willing to share in our values, then we are declaring defeat in our attempt to change the hearts and minds of those who do not agree with us. We are surrendering to liberalism if we won’t accept those who have converted to conservativism.

And before I hear another “back in 1994,” comment, I’d like to point out some changes in myself and in America since 1994:

In early 1994, people thought that Kurt Cobain was going to be the biggest rock icon since John Lennon. And he may have been, had it not been for his death that year.

In 1994, Ace of Base was my favorite band. Needless to say, things change.

In 1994, there were less than 40 million users on the Internet. Let’s just say the amount of users has increased since then.

In 1994, a major attack on U.S. soil was over 50 years ago. In September of 2001, America changed.

In 1994, we had a Democratic president, but the Republicans won back Congress.

Folks, things change. People change. America has changed. This is something we have to understand. But in case you’re still not convinced, let me politicians who have been able to change with very little opposition.

Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and Jesse Jackson were all once pro-life.

Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Henry Hyde were all once pro-choice.

And we know how they all turned out. Did they ever revert to their original positions? I don’t think so. Do people still criticize them for their old positions? No, unless you consider this to be criticism.

When it comes to Mitt Romney, I’m glad he has changed his positions. He has changed them so that they match mine, along with a lot of other conservatives out there. With each issue, he becomes more and more conservative, which I think is wonderful. Who am I to criticize that? Why should I feel the need to complain that he is developing the same values that I am?

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t feel the least bit alarmed by the fact that Mitt Romney has become more conservative. I invite his relatively newfound conservativism. And I will gladly embrace anyone else who is willing to share my conservative values. If you’re going to harp on Mitt Romney, find something else besides his so-called “flip-flopping.” That monacre just won’t stick with me.

Romney Nails the Religion Speech

I think it’s hard to deny how good Mitt Romney’s speech on “Faith in America” was.

Granted, I’m not sure it was perfect. But I think it was as close to perfect as it could have been.

He appealed to religious liberty, the liberty that America was founded on. He pointed to what a lack of religious freedom can lead to. And I think he did an excellent job of showing Americans that he is indeed an ally in the fight for the collective faith of all Americans and the religious freedoms we too often take for granted.

Support him or not, it’s hard to disagree with anything he said. He’s a true patriot and an important part of the conservative movement in this nation, as was demonstrated in his speech.

I support Mitt Romney more now than ever before.

For a transcript of the speech (prepared for delivery), you can go here.

Romney’s Religious Speech: It’s Coming!

I don’t usually brag about anything. And I suppose I’m not bragging about this because I didn’t quite call that Romney would make the speech per se. I did however, call for the speech. However, I will say that even though what I write has virtually no influence on the Romney campaign, it’s nice to know they followed some of the same advice I advocated in an earlier post.

As we all know, Mitt Romney is a Mormon. As a conservative Christian that could be classified as “evangelical,” I’ll admit that I haven’t always been comfortable with a Mormon president. I do not agree with many of the religious doctrines espoused by Mormons at all. However, I find their moral standards to be virtually flawless, perhaps even enviable. That’s where Mitt Romney and I are on the same page.

But this speech is not about Mormonism. And Romney doesn’t need to make it about Mormonism. We don’t want to hear what Mormons believe from him. This should not be a defense of his beliefs. Mormonism is simply incidental to this situation.

Romney needs to ascertain himself as being in a similar situation to that of John F. Kennedy in 1960. JFK found himself in a similar predicament when America was skeptical about the prospect of a Catholic president. But he delivered a speech that let America know that as President, he would answer to Americans, not the Roman Catholic Church. And from what I understand, Romney and his staff have studied this speech very closely.

If Romney patterns his speech after Kennedy’s or even quotes from it, he will do well. If he lets us know that he answers to America first as President of the United States, he will do well.

This is a turning point for Mitt Romney. If this speech is everything I hope it is, he will effectively take the spotlight off of Giuliani and Huckabee and it will allow him to surge towards the nomination. If this speech is too vague, too specific, or just plain disappointing, this could sink him.

I must say that I am very optimistic about this. This speech could open the doorway for more evangelical support. This is a chance for America to see a more personal side of Mitt Romney.

The speech will be delivered in College Station, Texas (Texas: the same state as JFK delivered his historic speech) on Thursday, December 6th at the George Bush Presidential Library. I hope that this is a speech that makes history.

GOP Debate Analysis (11/28/07)

Ah, YouTube. These debates are always interesting because you never know what to expect. I’m still not sure if I like it or not. It’s like communism: an appealing theory on paper but once you put it in action, it’s a little disappointing.

Sure, Huckabee had a good night. He’s intelligent, he’s got a certain degree of charm. He probably would’ve made a better actor than Fred Thompson! But let’s face it: who wouldn’t do well if they were lobbed softball questions all night? The only difficult question he received was the “What would Jesus do?” when it comes to the death penalty. That’s a difficult but definitely loaded question. 

For the sake of being side-tracked, let me answer that in my own way: Romans 13:1-7. Verse four says “for he [ruler/governing authority] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant an of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” God struck people dead, folks. This “what would Jesus do?” nonsense when it comes to the death penalty is a faulty premise. And in case you weren’t aware: the federal government is not Jesus!

Huckabee answered it well with his “Jesus was too smart to be a politician” reponse. However, even though it was a very clever dodge to the question, it was still a dodge nonetheless. But since long and reasoned responses don’t make good soundbytes, the dodge works just as well.

Romney got tripped up on gays in the military, which was a direct torpedo from the Hillary campaign due to the fact that the questioner was working for her. While he did get tripped up, I must ask: who wouldn’t? On the big totem pole of Republican issues, gays in the military ranks pretty low. This was a swipe from the Hillary camp, which makes me think that Hillary’s people are afraid of Romney.

When it came to the immigration sparring match between Giuliani and Romney, Romney easily won. The “sanctuary mansion” comment from Giuliani was cheap and smart, but Romney’s explanation blew Rudy out of the water, especially when he pointed out that the illegal immigrants in New York had already broken the law by simply being illegal immigrants. In reference to illegals working for Romney’s lawn service, Romney asked Rudy if he was supposed to ask them if their workers were all legal. I can see Rudy right now: “excuse me sir, put down that weedeater and show me your green card!” Yeah right.

McCain was….good ole McCain. I have to say, he’s had consistent debate performances: he hasn’t gotten any better and he hasn’t gotten any worse. He went toe-to-toe with Romney on torture and waterboarding, a match that neither seemed to win. Both had well-reasoned positions but I agree with Romney’s more. Personally, I don’t see a problem with waterboarding. They tried it on a Fox News correspondent for crying out loud! Besides, if we know for certain that the enemy has information we need and they aren’t willing to give it, we should do whatever is necessary to save American lives, as long as we don’t do any permanent physical damage. However, I have to ask: is waterboarding specifically condemned by the Geneva Convention? If so, McCain has a valid point. If not, I say we have every right to do it.

I did agree with what McCain said to Ron Paul about his version of isolationism causing World War II. That was a good point and I’m glad somebody finally said it.

Thompson was a translucent figure on the stage. He didn’t really stand out or make waves as usual. He is such a dud when it comes to debates. It’s really sad. No wonder he put off joining the race as long as possible. Maybe he should’ve waited until late December before declaring his candidacy.

Ron Paul did say a few things that I agreed with. But this was not his strongest performance. The fact that he couldn’t name the Kurds to the North in Iraq is pretty sad. Even I could do that and I’m not a presidential candidate. I kept saying “Kurds, Ron, Kurds!” in my head, almost feeling sorry for him. It doesn’t matter, he won’t lose any supporters over it. But he definitely won’t gain any.

Duncan Hunter’s complaining about a gun being tossed to the guy in that gun question video was just a little bit lame. It was done for effect, Duncan! Yes, of course you should hand the gun over to somebody, but let’s face it: that just doesn’t look as cool as catching it. Obviously, the guy in the video didn’t look very bright for doing it that way, but it’s not a good idea to point that out to him on national television. I’ve said this before: Duncan Hunter should drop out of the race immediately. I agree with him on a lot of issues, but he’s just not pertinent to this race.

Tancredo is still irrelevant. I didn’t quite get his “out-Tancredo Tancredo” remark. Maybe he thinks that other people are copying him on immigration. Okay, Tom. Think about this: other candidates have platforms. And their platforms have planks in them. One of their planks is immigration. You, on the other hand, are just walking the plank.

When it comes down to real candidates in this race, Huckabee and Mitt had the best night; Rudy and Ron Paul had the worst night. I’m just wondering how this debate will affect the rest of the race.

The Selling of Pat Robertson’s Soul

Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani today, which actually surprised me. I figured the same guy who said that Muslims were worse than Hitler would pull for someone other than the most liberal man in the GOP race.

Robertson is supposed to be a champion for evangelical ideals. It seems only right to me that he would support a pro-life candidate that takes a hard stance on gay marriage. Instead, he does the exact opposite. Is this because he’s afraid that Giuliani is the only one that can beat Hillary? If so, that’s a poor excuse.

Pat Robertson has officially and publicly compromised the very principles he is supposed to support. How can anyone take him seriously now when he touts the pro-life cause?

I honestly didn’t even expect Robertson to support Giuliani in the general election, much less the primaries. At least James Dobson still has some sense of scruples. Apparently, Robertson will toss his principles out at the drop of a hat as long as Hillary Clinton isn’t in office.

Of all the people he could have endorsed including Mike Huckabee (the Baptist preacher), Mitt Romney (the Mormon with the exceptional family life), or Fred Thompson (member of the church of Christ with a great pro-life voting record), or even Episcopalian-turned-Baptist John McCain, he endorses Giuliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay mayor of New York City.

I guess it just goes to show that in the realm of presidential politics, even the most prominent of evangelicals have a price on their souls.