Thoughts on the election

Now that B. Hussein Obama has completed his purchase of the Presidency, a few thoughts.

I was on the campus of William Jewell College yesterday. Melissa says that there must be a budget line-item in the Obama campaign's books for sidewalk chalk. Sure enough, every few feet on all the sidewalks I was on, there was another "Vote Obama" message. One said, "Want more green cars on the road?" Another, "Worried about finding a job?" And another said, "Want affordable healthcare? Vote Obama."

The problem is, that few people (and least of all college students) stop to consider the cost of those options. Putting more green cars on the road, giving people jobs, paying for healthcare ... they all seem like good ideas, but they all have a cost. By conveniently ignoring the cost, the tax-and-spenders can buy votes with promises of things, and the voters just eat it up and march in lockstep to the polls.

In some ways, the cut-taxes-and-spend crowd is worse, because they want to buy your vote from both ends: What you'll get, and it will even cost less. Every politician tells us they want to cut out the porkbarrel spending, but it's those very porky projects that buy re-election votes. If a Congressperson truly turned down everything of a porcine nature for the home state, he or she would be out of a job come the next election, no question about it.

But giving people who won't work a bunch of freebies paid for by those who will is precisely the wrong way to build or sustain a great nation. It encourages mediocrity, or worse. When asked, "What is wrong with the redistribution of wealth, which Obama talked about as far back as a 2001 interview?", Senator McCain said it very well:

That is a bold, left-wing view of how you help people that's been tried in other countries. In America, you don't take money from one group and give it to another. You create jobs, create opportunities, and give people the ability to accumulate wealth. We have Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance. But to somehow say that when "Joe the Plumber" reaches a certain income level, we're going to take money from him and give it to somebody else, that's a fundamental contradiction of what made this country the strongest and greatest nation in the world.
Business Week November 10, 2008, p.20

The UK's view of our elections

I love to read the BBC News ... and other foreign news outlets. They have such an interesting view of us.

Today's take on last night's speech by Hillary Clinton at the Democrats' convention is a lot of fun to read. Here are some relevant quotes:

After all, the winds of change should be blowing against the Republicans and their president. But, everywhere you look in Denver, you find nail-biting delegates, nervous surrogates, defensive campaign staffers.

The rest of the world thinks that Mr Obama will be America's 44th president but, at home, the Democrats are the worried party.

To some extent, this is their traditional role. Like Woody Allen in one of his earlier movies, the Democrats excel at fretting, agonising, navel gazing and over-analysing.

The opinion polls, which have Mr Obama and his Republican rival John McCain neck-and-neck, prove that they have reason to worry.

The senator from Illinois has had an arid summer. He needs to have a bountiful harvest season.

But the other reason for anxiety is the Lady who broods in the wings. Of late, Hillary and Bill Clinton have not uttered a single public word of apostasy. They are toeing the line, gritting their teeth and swallowing their pride.

They are also economical with their enthusiasm. I am told that senior Clinton people aren't even sticking around for Obama's big stadium speech on Thursday. This is damning with faint praise.

And what has to be my favorite quote:

If Barack Obama wins the 2008 election, this will be remembered as a gracious salute from a defeated rival; if he loses and Republican John McCain gets the White House, then we might just see it as the first speech of Campaign 2012.

Read the article here.

Mitt Romney's Top 10 list

Mitt Romney's Top 10 List of reasons for quitting the race for US President, as he gave them at yesterday's Radio and Television Correspondents Association annual awards dinner:

10. There weren't as many Osmonds as I had thought.

9. I got tired of the corkscrew landings under sniper fire.

8. As a life-long hunter, I didn't want to miss the start of varmint season.

7. There wasn't room in the campaign for two Christian leaders.

6. Word leaked out that nobody had bothered to search my passport files.

5. I'd rather get fat, grow a beard, and try for the Nobel Prize.

4. I wanted to finally take off the dark suit and tie and kick back, in a light-colored suit and tie.

3. Once my wife Ann realized I couldn't win, my fund-raising dried up.

2. I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.

1. There was a flaw in our campaign theory that as Utah goes, so goes the nation.



Source: Deseret News website, which cites youtube.com as their source.

Why I'm not running with Ryun

One of the darkest days in recent history was in 2006, when the 2nd District of Kansas elected Nancy Boyda to the US House of Representatives. Fortunately, we get a chance to undo mistakes like that every two years. When I heard that Jim Ryun was planning to run against her this year, I immediately put what little support I can offer behind him. Of course, my main consideration was that anybody was better than Boyda, and Ryun hadn't done anything too offensive in his years in the House.

At a recent meeting of Pottawatomie County Republicans, I got a chance to listen to Ryun give a talk, and also to his Republican challenger, Lynn Jenkins. After the meeting, I saw that she was between conversations, so I went up and introduced myself. I told her that I was mainly interested in defeating Boyda, but I wanted to know what differentiated her from Ryun. Her answer, from long practice answering the same question, was concise, well thought out, and made a lot of sense. I hope I do her justice when I try to put the gist of it in here.

Mainly, she said, we've had two schools of thought for the last few decades. The Democrats want to tax us more and spend more. The Republicans want to tax us less and spend more. Neither scenario is workable, as evidenced by our huge national debt and continued deficit spending. Jenkins is a CPA, and has been an excellent State Treasurer as far as I can tell. As a CPA, however, she realizes that the cycle of spending cannot continue. She wants to cut taxes and reduce spending, something that is unthinkable in Washington.

If she's elected, she won't last long. People (read: voters) love politicians who bring home the pork. Nonetheless, I'm supporting Lynn Jenkins for 2nd District US House of Representatives. I hope all my readers (both of them) will give her a good look and see if you don't agree.

Curses! Foiled again!

After months of saying, "This one ... no, that one ... no, the other one", I had finally come to a decision on who I would caucus for at the upcoming Republican shindig. I was honestly almost down to the "Eeeny, meeny, miney, moe" stage. Finally, last night, I decided that my choice had to be Mitt Romney.

Now comes news that Mr. Romney has dropped out of the Presidential campaign today.

Now what? My choices are down to Paul, Huckabee, and McCain ... unless I'm missing someone.

Paul is easy. I feel exactly like the editor of Go! Twenty-four/Seven who wrote, in this week's issue, "Ron Paul: Has some good ideas; is crazy as a loon."

I have some serious reservations about John McCain. And after reading what James Dobson had to say about him, my reservations are even stronger. But I'm not sure I can see myself caucusing for Mike Huckabee.

Well, back to the old "Eeny, meeny, miney, moe," I guess.

Pick a President like you'd pick a CEO

In the latest issue of Business Week (Feb. 4, 2008), Jack and Suzy Welch answer a question from a reader (page 88) asking, "What caracteristics would you say are most important when choosing a company CEO or the next U.S. President?"

They have long advocated six key business leadership characteristics, and they apply them to the problem of picking a CIC instead of a CEO. Most telling to me was the first one:

Take authenticity, the foremost quality business leaders must possess. It's equally crucial for a President, and for the same reason: trust. When President is trying to promote a major initiative or lead through a crisis, the nation can't be embroiled in a debate about his or her sincerity.

Well, there goes Hillary ... wiped off my list (still!).

Now I just have to look for that quality (and the other five) in the pool of candidates that are left. We're down to seven serious contenders now, and I honestly can't say I like any of them. I fully expect to enter the polling booth this November with my nose held, and vote more against one than for the other. I still haven't made up my mind which corner I'll stand in come caucus day ... and it's coming up quickly!

Nancy Boyda shows her true stripes

Nancy Boyda and the Democrats took over Congress promising to do things differently, better. Did any of us believe it for a moment? Well, apparently the thousands of people who voted for her did. But she's a tax-and-spend Democrat, like they all are. And she's been caught. You have to read the story the story to believe it...

But it gets worse! Turns out she originally asked for FAR, FAR more money than the $100,000! Like $1,800,000. For a project that doesn't have a budget, a plan, or anything. She just asked for money (my money! your money!) because "the mayor of Lansing asked for it." Here's that story.

We can be thankful that US Representatives are elected every 2 years. It won't be long until we can have Jim Ryun back where he belongs ... in the US House of Representatives.

More views on the US election

The BBC's Matt Frei always provides an interesting perspective on our political system, written to those who don't understand it. His latest post is here.

A couple of posts back he took a look at NASCAR and the election, so adding another American phenomenon that his readers don't understand well. It's here. Good reading, as always.

Dr. Dobson heads down a dangerous path

I could hardly believe it when I first heard it, but now Dr. James Dobson (founder of Focus on the Family has published his 2008 Presidential election plans in the New York Times.

Basically, he says that if the nominee from the Republican and Democrat parties are both not perfectly pro-life and pro-family, he'll vote for someone else. Can he not see that there are worse possibilities than having a President who doesn't line up squarely with one's position on a few issues? How about having one who lines up exactly opposite one's positions on a lot of issues?

Let's suppose that Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton are the nominees. So Rudy doesn't match Dr. Dobson point-for-point on abortion and family issues. He doesn't match me point-for-point, either. But refusing to vote for him simply gives her another vote. We must not allow her to become President, for that would be a far, far worse thing for this country than nearly any other alternative I can think of.

You can read Dr. Dobson's editorial here.

The real betrayers

Those foaming-at-the-mouth whiners at moveon.org published a newspaper ad the other day calling General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General of the Multi-National Foce-Iraq, "General Betray-us". They basically accused him of lying. More than that, they implicitly accused the whole military of lying. President Bush, for all his faults, called this one correctly when he said it was "disgusting". Agree with the President or the Democrats, agree with the war or disagree ... there's no reason to call into question the integrity or honesty of our military leaders without cause. Just because what they report isn't what you want to hear doesn't make them dishonest.

So, today, the US Senate considered an amendment to a bill. That amendment was "To express the sense of the Senate that [Petraeus] deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." Pretty cut-and-dried, right? Doesn't matter which side of the debate you fall on, surely you could support this one, right? Anyone who doesn't agree with this one is a traitor to the United States of America, right?

OK, here's the list, in all it's glory:

Akaka, Hawaii
Bingaman, New Mexico
Boxer, California
Brown, Ohio
Byrd, West Virginia
Clinton, New York
Dodd, Connecticut
Durbin, Illinois
Feingold, Wisconsin
Harkin, Iowa
Inouye, Hawaii
Kennedy, Massachusetts
Kerry, Massachusetts
Lautenberg, New Jersey
Levin, Michigan
Menendez, New Jersey
Murray, Washington
Reed, Rhode Island
Reid, Nevada
Rockefeller, West Virginia
Sanders, Vermont
Schumer, New York
Stabenow, Michigan
Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Wyden, Oregon

Notice the names of a few candidates for President in that list of traitors? Now, here's the real kicker: Mr. Biden of Delaware and Mr. Obama of Illinois simply failed to vote. They knew they couldn't go on record voting against this amendment, but they are so under the thumb of moveon.org that they couldn't vote for it. So skipping the vote saves their political careers for both the election and for the rabid left-wingnuts.

My respect for Ms. Clinton couldn't get any lower (except for that respect I have for a mastermind of crime ... how does she manage to get away with it, time after time?). But any shred of respect I had for the others on that list (Obama and Biden included) is now gone.

Don't Vote!

I've often said that these "Get out the vote" campaigns are a bad idea. If people care enough, and are educated enough, they'll vote. Those who don't care, don't vote, and that's a good thing.

So I was pleased to find this site:



You take a 30-question quiz, and it tells you whether you should consider voting or not, based on your cultural literacy.

I'll be honest, I didn't score very well. For one thing, it must be aimed at people who get their news from TV. The questions are simply a photograph of a person, and you are asked who it is and what his or her position is. It's multiple choice, so that helps. But to be honest, someone like me who gets most of his news from the websites (BBC, Google News, Deseret Morning News) hasn't got much of a chance. I know who Ehud Olmert is, but I don't know that I've ever seen a picture of him. Same with Mahmoud Amadinejad, Robert Gates, Nancy Pelosi. Actually, I got Pelosi wrong ... I mixed her up with Dianne Feinstein. I know who they both are, and I know the difference, but I couldn't tell you which one is which from a photograph.

They also put in some ringers. There were pictures of Paris Hilton and some other pop culture figures. I had no clue. I honestly think it was the first time I had seen a picture of Paris Hilton, and I didn't even know it was her until it gave me the answers at the end. As I was going through, I got a little mad ... after all, what does knowing who Paris Hilton is have to do with being able to vote? Turns out they've thought of that. If you get that one right, you get one point. It's nine points for knowing who Condoleezza Rice is, and ten for knowing George W. Bush.

And I found one mistake: It shows Tony Blair as the Prime Minister of the UK. It does say that the test was last updated in January, so it's almost forgivable, but they really ought to get their act together.

Anyway, if you watch a lot of TV, take the quiz. If you don't get your news from TV, take it anyway, but don't worry too much about the score.

The US minnows

An interesting take on the US Presidential campaign from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6725393.stm

The Gravel road has some potholes ... or one big crackpot.

The new Gravel HQ is up and running in SL. Astro has been working hard, it's obvious. About the time the last HQ was taken down, he had me make a sign for "Mike ... on the 2nd Amendment". Of course, second amendment rights are important to me, so I stopped by the new HQ last night to get the scoop on Mike Gravel's stand on that topic. Here's the full text of the notecard that is dispensed:

==Senator Mike Gravel==
==On the Second Amendment==
* While Senator Gravel fully supports the 2nd Amendment, he believes that fundamental change must take place with regards to gun ownership.
** The senator advocates a licensing program where a potential gun owner must be licensed as well as properly trained with a firearm before they may own one.

I'm not sure how one reconciles "fully supports" with the restrictions in the second paragraph. Politicians don't seem to have trouble with obvious logical impossibilities, but I do. Especially when they're this obvious.

I want to ask the good people of Alaska where they dug up this loonie, but they would ask me where we got Mr. Brownback, and I don't have an answer.

Update: After doing some checking, I found out that the people of Alaska didn't raise this goofball, they failed to stop him at the border. Turns out he's from (yup, you guessed it) Massachusetts, and he moved to Alaska specifically to get himself elected to the US Senate. He's no longer an Alaskan, either. Once they kicked him out of office, he moved back to a place that suits him better ... Arlington County, Virginia.

Post on Mormon Coffee

Excellent post on the "Mormon Coffee" blog today, referencing an article in today's online version of Christianity Today.

Here's the link to the post, which contains a link to the article:
http://mormoncoffee.blogspot.com/2007/06/really-what-is-mormonism-most.html

Mitt Romney and I may disagree drastically theologically, but he's probably closer to my feelings politically, culturally, socially and values-wise than any other Presidential candidate out there. Those who might vote for someone else solely based on Mr. Romney's religious views, (or even worse follow Dr. Dobson in his attitude toward Rudy Giuliani and skip voting entirely) have automatically given impetus to people who want to take this country in a very, very bad direction.

I especially liked the quote from Marvin Olasky: "If he faces Hilary Clinton, I'll vote for him in a Utah minute."

President Gravel?

From my Second Life work designing flags, yard signs and t-shirts for Presidential Campaigns, I was contacted by the man who is building the official Second Life campaign HQ for Mike Gravel, Democrat candidate for US President. I made some items for them, and was paid handsomely (although when it's converted to US dollars, it was a pittance). In the process of making these items, I had occasion to visit his website.

To put it bluntly, he's a nutcase.

Let's look at some of his stands on "issues":

• The War in Iraq: "Immediate and orderly withdrawal of troops followed by aggressive diplomacy." Does anyone believe that diplomacy will work with people who have the means to, and have vowed to give their lives to destroy the USA? Well, I suppose nutcases do.
• Iran: "Senator Gravel firmly opposes a military confrontation with Iran and advocates a diplomatic solution to the current situation." Instead, we must aggressively move to change the regime in Iran. Again, diplomacy (ala Chamberlain) will not work.
• A Fair Tax: "Eliminate the income tax and replace it with a progressive national sales tax." How, exactly, is a progressive tax "Fair"? A flat national sales tax (perhaps with a credit for those in poverty) is closer to fair, but there is no such thing as a fair progressive tax.
• Global Warming / Climate Change: "We must reduce America's carbon footprint in the world by passing legislation that caps emissions and improve [sic] energy efficiency while generating energy from low-carbon sources." Mr. Gravel has, like most other politicians, bought into the idea that global warming is some how the fault of humans, and can somehow be fixed by humans. It's a popular stance, and sure to get him lots of votes, but it's wrong-headed. Sure, we've got to protect our environment. On the other hand, it's wrong for humans to get so conceited as to think we have much to do with major climate change. The only good point in this statement is that he wants to promote the generation of energy from low-carbon sources. Guess what the best low-carbon source is? Nuclear. But he dare not say that word.
• Universal Healthcare Vouchers: "A National Health Care Voucher plan will provide health care for all Americans." This one is difficult for me, since I have excellent health care coverage at a minimal price. I do know that health care is a major problem for many Americans, but I'm not sure I want the federal government "fixing" it. Take a look at any program where the government has stepped in to "help". Agriculture, Welfare, Flood Control, Disaster Relief ... the list is nearly endless. You can count on the government to screw it up and then mire it in so many layers of bureaucracy and red-tape that it could never be "un-fixed". No thanks, nutcase.

Mike Gravel's big problem is name recognition. And that won't be fixed by him spouting the same crap as all the other Democrats.

When I was asked to do the signs for his HQ, the leader told me they would put up a sign acknowledging my help. I asked him not to. I pretended it was because I didn't want to give the impression that I was supporting any particular candidate while I'm trying to sell flags for all candidates. In reality, I didn't want to be seen as giving any support to Sen. Gravel's campaign. I don't mind making signs for a paying customer, but please don't let anyone think I agree with what the signs say!

UPDATE: I just got an e-mail from in-world that the Campaign HQ opens officially today. The note didn't include a SLURL, so I can't tell you where it is.

UPDATE again: Here's the SLURL for the Gravel HQ. http://slurl.com/secondlife/Digital%20Zion/112/110/26

James Dobson and the value of life

In the news this morning, it says that Dr. James Dobson has announced that he will not vote for Rudy Giuliani should Giuliani become the Republican nominee. Giuliani's stance on abortion is apparently so abhorrent to Dobson that he would rather vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, it seems. Dobson says he will actually abstain from voting if Giuliani is the nominee, but make no mistake: that is almost equivalent to voting for the Democrat.
I'm far from being ultra-right-wing, but I'm pretty much a conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. I'm fairly conservative on moral matters, but most true conservatives would consider me a raving liberal in that area, so I guess I come down in the middle somewhere. But I have a quirky point where I'm so right-wing as to deserve the title Dick Snyder used to hand out: "wing nut". That point is on the value of human life. I value human life so highly that I'm even opposed to the death penalty. So you can imagine how I feel about abortion.
Consequently, you might assume I'd be right behind Dobson, shouting, "Way to go!". But I realize that there are worse things than having a president who can't seem to make up his mind on abortion. And those worse things have names like "Obama" and "Clinton".
Quite often, in the voting booth, I'm figuratively holding my nose, and voting for the lesser of two evils. It happened in 2004. I didn't care for Mr. Bush, and I still don't. But I REALLY didn't care for Mr. Kerry. I still shudder to think what might have happened to this country if he had been elected. So, I held my nose and voted for Bush, and I'd do it again, if I had to.
I haven't decided who I'll vote for in November 2008, of course. I have a list of some people I won't vote for: Obama, Clinton, Gore, McCain, Brownback, Gravel (more about him in another post, coming soon), to name a few. And I may not particularly like who I finally do choose, but I plan to be there to cast a vote ... if not for a candidate, then certainly against one.