by David L. Alvord DDS
Friday, February 11, 2011
by David L. Alvord DDS
Monday, April 12, 2010
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tolerance? We have a ways to goExact reprint of USA Today article located here.
Americans still have a bias against Republican Mitt Romney, according to a study conducted during last year’s election. Not a political bias, but a religious one. The good news: When people understood his Mormon faith, the bias melted away.
By David E. Campbell, John C. Green and J. Quin Monson
It's now official: President Obama's honeymoon is over. And right on cue the Republicans are gearing up to run against him in 2012. Sarah Palin's book could launch her campaign, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty just went to Iowa. But the smart money is on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney gaining his party's nomination.
Romney certainly has history on his side: Republicans prefer nominees who have run before.
His candidacy, however, faces a major obstacle that should concern all Americans: religious intolerance. Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormon church) clearly hurt him in 2008. Polls showed that anywhere from one-quarter to one-third of Americans openly said they would not vote for a Mormon candidate for president. Mormons are hardly the only religious group to face such overt hostility. Polls show that Muslims, Buddhists and people without a religion are all viewed more warily by Americans. And as America becomes more religiously diverse, we can expect still more candidates from faiths that might be unfamiliar to many Americans, or those who profess no religion at all.
The good news is that accurate information about such unpopular religious groups can help the cause of religious tolerance in America.
What we found
The importance of information is illustrated by a study we conducted during the 2008 presidential primaries and recently released. The study was an online survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of 3,000 respondents. We provided randomly selected respondents with different statements about Romney and then asked whether they would vote for him.
Some were given a boilerplate biography that did not mention religion; others were told that he has been a local leader in his church; others were told he has been a leader in the Mormon church. Still others were told, "Some people say Mormons are not Christians." By comparing reactions to these various statements, we could see how each one affected a person's willingness to vote for Romney, and also how different kinds of people responded to the statements.
The claim that Mormons are not Christians was particularly potent. Indeed, Romney tried to put this issue to rest with a much-discussed speech on religion delivered in College Station, Texas, in December 2007. In it, the presidential candidate said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance."
Despite these statements, the results of our study — conducted not long after Romney's speech — suggest that his religion was a liability. When respondents were told about the claim that Mormons are not Christians, nearly one-third said they were less likely to vote for him.
Interestingly, the claim that Mormons are not Christians had virtually no effect on those people who reported a close personal relationship with a Mormon. This news, though, is presumably small consolation for Romney's supporters. There is little they can do between now and 2012 to encourage closer friendships between Mormons and their non-Mormon neighbors.
Our results do, however, indicate that there is something Romney's supporters can do to assuage concerns about his Mormonism. People who objectively know a lot about Mormons — that is, those who scored 100% on a short quiz on facts about Mormonism — were much less likely to be bothered by the claim that Mormons are not Christians. In contrast, respondents who claimed they knew a lot about Mormons, but who actually did not, were bothered most of all by claims about Mormonism.
In other words, our study suggests that Romney's supporters would do well to encourage those who are troubled by his faith to become better informed about Mormonism.
Such a discussion would likely help Romney: Information helps and ignorance hurts his chances. More important, it would help broaden religious tolerance in America.
Romney was not the first and will not be the last candidate to suffer from a lack of knowledge about his faith. Even in 2008, Democratic presidential candidate
We take no position on whether Romney is right for the
We do take the position that the whole country will be better off if there is no "stained glass ceiling" in politics for members of any religion or no religion at all. A good way to break such a barrier is for all of us to really know the Latter-day Saints — as well as all the other kinds of "saints" among us.
David E. Campbell, John C. Green and J. Quin Monson teach political science at the
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.
by Mitt Romney
At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.
In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.
The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.
Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.
Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.
Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.
— Mitt Romney, formerly the governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
This article appeared in the National Review Online on April 21, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Follow me here. If an asset is toxic for a bank, it means that the bank made a decision to make a bad loan, and is now suffering the consequences of that decision by losing money.
But now the federal government comes in and says, "Oh no! You're having to deal with the consequences of your bad decision. It must be so hard for you, and it's hard on the rest of us too. So listen to us. We have a plan. We're going to pretend that you never made a bad decision. We're going to take away all the consequences so you don't have to feel any more pain. What we're going to do is force someone else to take on your pain, an innocent person who had nothing to do with your bad decisions. Now the innocents will have to deal with the consequences of your decision. You, on the other hand, are totally off the hook. Now just go back to being who you were before, and, by the way, don't worry. If you ever make a bad decision again, we'll be here for you.
Now the absurdity of the above situation ought to be obvious. It's exactly the same message we send when we legalize the killing of unborn children. We're essentially teaching people that the consequences of their actions don't matter, that they can do whatever the heck they want and not accept the consequences of their actions (90% of abortions are performed as a form of birth control; look it up).
Just as innocent children are the victims of abortion, the innocent American taxpayer is the victim of these absurd government bailouts. If the US government were a parent, they might be voted "worst parent ever." After all, what good parent would allow their children to escape the consequences of their bad decisions? It's just plain dumb. When you remove the negative consequences of a bad decision, the person is much more likely to keep making the same bad decisions over and over again.
This much ought to be obvious. But apparently the Obama administration doesn't get it, and the Bush administration didn't get it either. Since when has the free market functioned properly with heavy government intervention? The answer is...never. The only role the government ought to play in a free market is to ensure ethical behavior and create policies that keep government as far away as possible from business, so that the market can operate with as few restrictions as possible. It's that kind of thinking that allowed America to become the world's most powerful country in a ridiculously short amount of time, and it's that kind of thinking that will help get us out of the financial swamp that is now drowning us.
But the Obama administration seems hellbent on making sure we stay in this swamp. With each government bailout, with each company that is "rescued", the taxpayers of America are becoming the shareholders in some of the worst investments in history. I'll ask you, would you, voluntarily, buy stock in AIG right now? General Motors? Citigroup? But wait, YOU ARE buying stock in these companies. The Obama administration is FORCING you. You don't have a choice. You ARE a shareholder in these companies, and there's nothing you can do about it.
These bailouts, which the government is calling "public-private partnerships," are not partnerships at all. Last I knew, a good partnership was something into which both parties voluntarily entered for mutual benefit. Yet I see no benefit at all to the taxpayer in this "partnership", and make no mistake: nothing about this is voluntary. All we get is a bigger tax bill and horrible investment losses. On the other hand, the companies that caused these problems are making off like bandits. The government is telling them that it's okay for them to unload their toxic assets on the citizens, and is basically forcing us to take the blame for the banks' bad decisions. Now call me crazy, but that's no partnership.
But wait, aren't I missing the point here? Once our government forces us taxpayers to buy stock in these poorly-run companies, the companies will surely be in better health, right, and the country back on better financial footing? Not so fast. Who is to say these companies won't continue making the same bad decisions? You've heard the saying, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." Well believe it. When individuals or organizations don't face consequences for their bad decisions, the likelihood of them repeating the same mistakes is very high.
So here the government is, anointing themselves saviors of the economy, the knights in shining armor, when in fact all they have done is encourage the offending companies to keep up with business as usual. Just like the irresponsible individuals who continue to have unprotected sex, knowing they can easily get a government-approved abortion the next day, these poorly-managed companies will keep on making poor management decisions, knowing full well that big brother government stands ready and willing to bail them out, again.
God help us.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
If this bill were something minor it wouldn't be a concern. But we're talking about a bill that will saddle American taxpayers with debt for generations to come. Most Americans, and even the politicians who voted for the bill, did not even have time to read it. To me that's just inexusable. This is to mention nothing about the fact that Obama did not help establish clear criterion for what could qualify an expenditure as one that would truly stimulate the economy (remember how the first version of the bill requested millions for Head Start and other liberal wish list items that had nothing to do with stimulating the economy?).
Bottom line: Obama did not show good leadership in the way he managed this bill, and he broke important promises he made during the election. I like Obama. I want him to succeed. But in his first big test he failed miserably.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
I have been a frequent critic of the liberal agenda, the Democratic party, and occasionally Barack Obama himself. However, as Obama assumes the presidency today, I call on Americans everywhere to close ranks and unite behind him. Now more than ever is a time to put aside partisan bickering and ideological differences. Our country faces tremendous challenges in restoring our weak economy, cutting the deficit, securing Iraq, and healing our wounded relationships with other countries.
Barack Obama cannot do this alone. He will need the help of all Americans: Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, white and black, men and women. America, this is a time for us to stand together and focus our energies on solving the problems common to us all.
Although I strongly supported the GOP candidates in the primaries and the general election, I have always been impressed with much of what Barack Obama has to offer. As he is mostly untested at this point in his career, it is difficult to know what we can expect from him. However, I want him to succeed, and I want him to succeed fantastically. As Obama himself said after clinching the election, he is now everyone's president. So let us now throw our support to President Obama. Pray for him. Support him in our words. Support him in our deeds. Because he's going to need our help.
Barack Obama does indeed have a special aura about him. He seems to have the potential of a great, perhaps magnificent, leader. He is highly intelligent, sensitive to viewpoints that differ from his own, well-spoken, even-tempered, pragmatic, a solid family man, a person of strong character, and a hard worker. I pray to God that these traits which many of us perceive in him are in fact representative of who he really is, and that they will play a major part in how he governs these great United States of America. Obama is not now a great leader. He has not proven anything yet. But I, and I think most people, truly want him to become a great leader. God knows we need one right now.
Americans close ranks. Unite behind President Obama. Unite together to help him solve the serious problems we face. And if we disagree with him at times, let it be as part of the loyal opposition. We can disagree with some of his positions while still supporting and respecting him in his role as the president of our great country. In these perilous times, the need to support our leaders is greater than ever. It is patriotic to express divergent opinions, and we should continue to do so, but we must go forward with an eye focused on supporting those who are trying their hardest to do what they believe is in the best interests of the American people. Even if our support is qualified, it will go a long way toward uniting this country and giving President Obama the moral authority he needs to lead us out of these difficult times.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
In a few days we will say Goodbye to President Bush. His presidency will probably be remembered for the Iraq war. Obama's decision to extend the service of Robert Gates is encouraging to me and is a signal that America won't be rushing out of Iraq anytime soon. This must be very frustrating to the anti-war left.
When all things are considered, President Bush delivered on what he campaigned for. He promised to be a "compassionate conservative". When we conservatives first heard the word "compassionate", we worried that Bush was referring to a compassionate government. We worried because, as conservatives, the only compassion we want from the government is to be left alone. Had Bush not heard Reagan say "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"? Probably not.
I hope I speak for most conservatives when I say that we are for human compassion. We simply believe that families, churches, and communities are better at taking care of the poor than the government is. We believe that if the money is left in our hands, we will be more responsible with that money than the government will be. When a family gives financial support to one of it's own, there is accountability involved. The family knows if any individual is abusing the money and will make adjustments accordingly. The family will also encourage eventual self-reliance. Does anyone really think that a social worker knows as much (or cares as much) as the family does?
There may be some reading this who worry that there are some individuals who may not belong to a family who can offer any assistance. This is where churches, charities, and communities can step in. Ironically, one of the reasons families may not be able to take care of their own is due to the high tax rate we currently have. I believe that if you let Americans keep more of their own money, families will be empowered to take care of their own. And, the American people will be much more judicious with that allocation than any government agency can be.
When families have the money, it encourages a society to higher moral standards. For example, imagine a young college student who is considering experimenting with drugs and who is also considering getting body piercing, and tattoos. If Mom and Dad are paying for college, or helping etc, there will be the immediate thought that they may cut him off from that funding if he/she does not live up to the standards of the family. But if Uncle Sam/Uncle Obama is paying for school there will no immediate consequences. In fact, that college student will hit "decline"on his cell phone when Mom calls. After all, who needs Mom and Dad when the government is paying for things? What about the consequences of drugs and tattoos? Governments can run ads on TV warning of the consequences of drug abuse to a young person's body...but we are talking about people who feel pretty immortal. And the consideration of being able to earn a living? Won't those tattoos and piercings put a young person at a disadvantage? No worries...the government will be there for the young person if they hit "rock bottom". They won't have to go to Mom and Dad and hear their lectures, take out their tongue rings and get a job. No.... Pell grants, food stamps, public housing will all be there for them if they really screw up. The result? A decline in the character and morals of the society.
The Parable of the Prodigal Son. In the Parable, a son departs from moral living and spends his birthright on riotous living. When he comes to himself, he returns to his father who compassionately receives him. One of the essential elements of the parable is that the Son hit bottom. There was no government program to bail him out. He basically had no choice but to return and repent. The prodigal had to return to moral living in his father's house. The son is better off in his father's house than if he had continued in riotous living while being supported by some unfeeling sponsor. The father had the means to kill the fatted calf and put a ring on his son's finger because he was not overtaxed. The whole story doesn't work out if we get the wealth redistribution Obama is talking about.
I heard Obama say that if one of his daughters makes a mistake (gets pregnant), he doesn't want her to be "punished" with a child...therefore abortion should be an option. First of all, children aren't a punishment. And at the heart of all of this, is the notion that there should be no punishment for wrongdoing. When you try to take away the consequences of bad behavior, you are, in turn, likely to increase the opportunity for people to behave badly.
Conservatism offers a better way. Let the people keep their money. Empower families to take care of their own. Churches and communities can assist those who are disabled, the Elderly, or those who have made poor choices. There will be accountability when help is given.
Conservatism allows us to be compassionate. Our man Mitt understands this principle. It is my prayer that Obama will see it too.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Glenn Beck asks Romney to explain the financial crisis and the government bailout proposal. Read the entire transcript to see why Mitt Romney would have been the ideal President for us in these financially difficult times. We support Barack Obama wholeheartedly as our new President. But anyone who thinks Obama could speak as fluently about the economy as Romney is smoking something way too strong:
GLENN BECK: Explain a little bit of what happened last Wednesday [the bank closures and government seizures] in layman's terms. I don't know if America really has a handle on, we were talking about shutting the country off because of nobody was making loans to each other. Nobody trusts each other anymore.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, the challenge all started with exuberance on the part of Republicans and Democrats to give mortgages to people who really didn't have the capacity to pay back the money. Everybody hoped they would but, you know, it was just irrational exuberance as Greenspan used to call it and so all these mortgages were handed out and then the banks, investment banks and other institutions held onto these mortgages expecting to get paid back and when the inevitable happened, when it was clear that people couldn't pay it back and started defaulting, we recognized that these banks and investment banks didn't have as much money as they thought they had and therefore they had to stop lending to new people because they didn't have money to lend. And when you start seeing people having to stop lending, well, then you mean folks can't buy cars, the kids can't get loans for school, that people can't buy homes and you could slam the whole economy shut. And it was that that the Federal Reserve feared and that's why they are proposing such dramatic action....
To read the rest of this outstanding transcript click here.
Friday, August 29, 2008
By the Mitt Rockers
This is a high risk, high reward VP pick. It could be a brilliant move by McCain, or it could doom his candidacy since Palin is not vetted on the national stage. We would have strongly preferred Mitt Romney. But Governor Palin is a capable woman. We hope her graceful presence on the ticket is enough to push McCain over the top.
Romney is an extremely capable man and will certainly land on his feet. We think we can expect to see Mitt run for president again in 2012 or 2016.
Onward and upward!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
Evangelical Extremists Blackmailing McCain: Threaten to Boycott the Election if McCain Picks "That Mormon" Mitt Romney as VP
Now folks, let's put this in perspective. Imagine if a large voting bloc in the Democratic party (Jews for instance) were to threaten the Democratic nominee with taunts that they would sit home on election day if that nominee picked a Muslim as his or her running mate. See where where I'm going with this?
These evangelical extremists are trying to blackmail McCain, attempting to use their power as a voting bloc to force McCain to acquiese to their hateful anti-Mormon views.
Now is there anything more un-American than this? No folks, there isn't. This type of perverted ideology is exactly the opposite of the ideals on which America was founded. This ignorant, mean-spirited behavior is wrong. It is immoral. And it is most definitely behavior unbecoming of Christians. No...Jesus would not hate Mormons.
I hope that those in the mainstream media will be responsible enough to denounce this problematic trend among ultra-conservative evangelicals. However I doubt it will happen, because the mainstream media is dominated by intellectual elites, many of whom also seem to enjoy thumbing their noses at Mormons.
And so Mormons are forced to deal with this silliness. God grant them the strength to respond in love.
Monday, June 2, 2008
by David Alvord
It must've been hard for Mitt to swallow his pride and back the man who, only months earlier, called him a flip-flopper. It must have taken a great deal of humility for Romney to back McCain after he drummed up that fake story about Mitt not supporting the surge. Perhaps the hardest blow to Romney was when McCain won the nomination, not by being the conservative, but rather by being the moderate. The conservatives: Romney, Thompson, and Huckabee, all split their votes (Romney having won most of them). The split of the conservative votes left McCain as the last man standing but hardly the man who most Republicans wanted. It must have been hard...
But Romney has come out for McCain...and it is time that we follow his example. We back McCain not for the man, but for the principles and for how he'd govern.
Why did Romney back McCain? The cynical answer would be that Romney wants to be Veep. Perhaps this isn't necessarily a bad idea. After all, many question whether McCain, if elected, will seek a second term. Romney would be the next in line. Also, if Romney truly believes that conservative principles are what America needs, he would want to be next to the man who holds the nation's highest office. Romney must realize that a conservative Vice President could offer good counsel to the POTUS.
But to back McCain, Romney, and the rest of us, will have to ignore some deficiencies in our candidate. We will have to ignore McCain's global warming pitches. We will have to forgive him for screwing up campaign finance. We'll have to get over all the times he has been a thorn in the side of conservative lawmakers. And we'll have to forget how he treated our candidate of choice.
When in comes to taxes, abortion, gay marriage, guns, and health care, would we not have a better chance with a McCain presidency than with an Obama presidency?
The appointing of court justices are another big reason to support McCain. Between Obama and McCain, who would you guess would appoint the more conservative judge? And the President is not limited the appointment of court justices, he also appoints innumerable government positions. Would not our flawed candidate do better than Obama?
Romney's reason for supporting McCain is simple: we are at war. Whether or not you think that we should have gotten into Iraq, you should agree that we would be better off with a free Iraq than with an Al Quaeda-run Iraq. McCain has staked his whole political career on Iraq. You have to admire him for that. Iraq is a terrible problem! Any person who wants to take on that war deserves our respect. Can you imagine someone inheriting the civil war from Lincoln? Who would want that job? Yet, John McCain is not only willing to step up to the plate, he is also willing to finish the job the right way.
I urge all readers to carefully consider supporting John McCain for our nation's highest office...if our man Mitt can do it, so can we.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Why is it that every time a conservative commits a blunder it's played in the news over and over again until it becomes pop fiction lore (think: Dan Quail, potatoe).
But when a left wing liberal makes a similar mistake, for some strange reason it is buried by the media, and you never hear about it.
Do I see a double standard here? Hmmm... You can bet that if John McCain or Mitt Romney had made either of these statements it would be plastered all over the news networks.
Ladies and gentleman, witness the clear political bias of our "grand" US media institutions. Nothing, no nothing, that will hurt their left wing political agenda will ever appear in the mainstream media--even when it's really funny.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
In response to my last article about Sen. Obama, some comments that were posted may have mistakenly assumed that I found everything that Obama said to be wrong...but rather, I was really just pointing out that he was wrongly defending his pastor.
But his idiotic pastor is still running his mouth and now Obama is ready to throw him under the bus. Why didn't you just do that in the first place, Senator?
If the junior senator from Illinois is actually elected to our nation's highest office, all we can hope for is that the Republicans have some strong leadership that can steer the ship from afar. Senator Obama gave an inspiring speech about hope, but with a very limited voting record, all we can do is hope that his presidency would have a leadership vacuum, like that of President Clinton, and that the Republicans can once again fill that void.
McCain can pick Romney as his running mate and restore conservative confidence in the coming election. I think the only way I will feel any sense of security in the coming election is to have Romney on the ticket.
I would rather have more than "hope" that Obama isn't an elitist. I would rather not have to "hope" Obama doesn't agree with his wacko pastor. I need more than "hope" to say that Obama's pulling out of Iraq won't cause genocide and eventually a large regional conflict. Can I "hope" that a man whose middle name is Hussein will prosecute the war on terror effectively?
No, it is with more than hope that I want to vote this fall. I say we let Obama serve a few more terms in the Senate to see what kind of man he is, and just how he would govern. I want to vote with confidence for a McCain / Romney ticket. John, please make it so.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Several right wing Christian activists and prominent Mike Huckabee backers have published a full page anti-Mitt ad that will appear in cities McCain will be visiting in the near future. Among other things, this ad alleges (falsely) that Mitt is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. It concludes by threatening McCain, stating dramatically that "Willard Mitt Romney is a deal breaker."
Now it's one thing to criticize a person's positions. But it's entirely something else when that criticism is not true. Every single allegation in their ad is refuted by credible news sources. Also, many people in this group have in the past been guilty of unfairly criticizing Mitt's religion and personal character. This bigotry has been cloaked, of course, in the name of the fight for "conservative social values." Such agenda-driven bias makes the petition even more laughable--yet another hipocritical charade of Huckabee and his ilk.
The statement is posted online and contains a petition which supposedly will be sent to John McCain. I encourage Romney supporters everywhere to sign this petition using comments that expose this underhanded effort for what it is. To view the full text of the ad and to sign the petition click here.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama spent his entire speech making excuses for his pastor! It was pathetic. He added nothing to the national conversation about race or religion. His speech will never be cited or quoted. It just wasn't inspiring!
Here is a particularly uninspiring quote:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
Yeah...not so much Obama. I haven't heard anything from my church leaders with which I disagreed. I especially haven't heard anything with which I have strongly disagreed! Stop trying to assume that your weird situation is typical. The fact is, most of us go to church to hear the word of the Lord. Most of us don't hear controversial sermons at church. If we did, we may have to find another church!
I don't think that I will be able to handle hearing this guy give speeches for four years. Thank you Obama...I am now finding some passion for the John McCain campaign.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Exeter, NH — Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that former rival Mitt Romney has a “big role to play” in the future of the GOP and would be in contention for “a lot of different roles in a Republican administration.”
“I was very gratified by Governor Romney’s gracious endorsement, asking his delegates to support me, the way he received me after he dropped out of the race,” McCain said aboard his bus today in the Granite State–where McCain dealt Romney a major blow. “There is nothing but goodwill between myself and Governor Romney….(he) has a big role to play in our party. Millions of Republicans voted for him so obviously I think he would be in consideration for a lot of different roles in a Republican administration.”
McCain and Romney fought a bruising, heated battle during the early primaries but the presumptive GOP nominee said that is water under the bridge. “The lesson in politics is you go forward, not back…(once the primary is over) we share the same principles and values of conservative Republicans,” McCain said.
McCain added that he does not believe it is important to select a running mate he considers to be a close friend.
“I don’t think you have to be close friends as much as you have to share the principles, the values, the goals…but also the priorities,” McCain said. “I don’t think you have to have a personal relationship but you have to have a comfortable, professional relationship.”
The questions were prompted by Romney’s comments during a Fox News interview last night that he would be “honored” to be picked as McCain’s VP.
There has been a lot of buzz over the last few days about Mitt Romney for VP. Read this story from Fox News Hannity & Colmes, where Romney said:
"any Republican leader in this country would be honored to be asked to serve as the vice presidential nominee, myself included."
I, for one, think Romney would make an excellent choice, a good balance to McCain.
Romney has solid conservative credentials. His experience as Governor and in the private sector would help McCain and be a strong ticket. In any case, the national exposure as a VP candidate would be a significant boost to Romney for any future contests.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Americans Complain About Candidates' Lack of Executive Experience. But Who is to Blame for Mitt Romney Being Out of the Race?
Look at these two recent headlines from USA Today (from Feb 25 and 26, 08 respectively):
"Ready on Day One?: None of The Top Three Contenders Have Ever Run a Government or a Business"
And then this one:
"Obama Now Seen as Most Electable: Only 46% Say He Has Needed Experience"
The first article goes on to state:
"Each [candidate] has scored impressive achievements in life, but none has a run a city or state, a small business or large corporation--or any bureacracy larger than their Senate staffs or campaign teams."
Now folks, honestly, that so many Americans are complaining about this at such a late hour of the election makes me ill--and majorly peeved.
Although I feel sorry for America because we will be stuck with an inexperienced president, I absolutely cannot feel sorry for those of you who voice these complaints and yet failed to vote for Mitt Romney.
I mean seriously, you had the chance to elect Mitt Romney, an ethical man, an intelligent man, an articulate speaker, a financial wizard, one of the world's best executive leaders--and you passed on him. And who did you pass on him for? Candidates with long lists of ethical problems (Clinton, Giuliani, Huckabee). Candidates with dubious intellectual understanding of economic issues (Obama, Huckabee, Thompson, McCain). Candidates who cannot speak articulately (McCain, Thompson, Giuliani). Candidates with zero proven ability to manage and lead complex organizations with multi-million dollar budgets and thousands of employees (Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson).
The fact is, as the anointing hour draws closer, Americans are waking up to the dark realities we face: a brutal economic recession, a government deeply in debt, and a country divided over foreign policy. And if this weren't enough, the GOP is seriously broken, desperately in need of a leader who can unify its warring factions.
To get us through these problems we needed a leader with proven executive experience, solid leadership credentials, high ethical standards, a fix-it mentality, a sharp mind, an articulate speaker, and a touch of financial wizardry.
Folks, we needed Mitt Romney.
But it's too late now. Mitt is out of the race. And who is to blame for that?
When things get tough down the road, and it's obvious our president lacks the experience and skills to handle the problems successfully, I hope that those of you who didn't vote for Mitt Romney will be humble enough to admit that you are partly to blame for the problem.
Rather than whining to others about your case of buyer's remorse, I hope you will spend your energy by helping to get Romney elected in 2012 and 2016. Because when that time arrives, I can guarantee you that we will need Mr. Fixit to clean up the mess that our next Democratic or Republican president is about to cause.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
As many of you know, I am a dentist practicing in the South Jordan, Utah area. I have been helping people achieve oral health now for the past four years and will soon be opening my own office.
It has been my observation that there are two types of patients:
First, there are the patients who come in regularly for their semiannual exams and allow me to solve their problems while they are small and relatively inexpensive. My radiography and training allow me to detect and cure decay before the patient may even notice that there is a problem. By investing in dental care at regular intervals, these patients will spend far less money for their dental care than those who wait for the big problems to develop...which brings me to our second type of patient.
The other patients are those who wait to visit the dentist only when they themselves notice that they have a problem. In other words, they wait until they have pain, a tissue lesion, or have a hole in a tooth. In almost every case, when the patient themselves can diagnose their own problem, the solution is more expensive (most commonly a root canal and crown).
I think of Romney as a highly trained specialist when it comes to the strength of our nation. He has detected an assault on our families. He has warned us about the competition from foreign nations. He understands that our tax burden must be low and that government spending must be controlled at inflation less one percent. He knows that our military must be strengthened.
Why? Because he has spent his life in the economy. He has spent his life as a religious leader. Romney has also spent his life as a father of five sons. But more than any of these, Romney has spent his life fixing things.
So what kind of "patients" are Americans? Well, while Romney was still in the race, he had a consistent third of the Republican vote...not as good as McCain's thiry-four percent...but impressive nonetheless.
But, it is sad to report than the majority of Americans are the second kind of "patients" (speaking in terms of political choices). It would seem that most Americans did not believe Romney's warnings and would rather wait until they themselves can feel the problems. While there are some who would like to analyze how the Romney campaign could have done this or that differently, I place the responsibility of the election squarely on the shoulders of the voters. I think Romney's message was spot-on.
While I pray that it will not be the case, America may find herself in pain in the not too distant future. Depending on the choices that Americans make in their own families, as well as in the White House, there may come a time that our nation will know for themselves that there are problems to be solved. Unfortunatley, the problems will have grown and have become much more expensive than they would have been if we would have unleashed Romney in '08.
And like the people who wait until they are in pain to see their dentist, there are Americans who will wait until the strength of our nation is on the decline. And then, perhaps, Mitt Romney and conservatism will return when we need them most.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Even with Romney's endorsement today, I am still finding myself uninspired by McCain.
Romney is making the argument that since we are at war, now is not the time to symbolically retreat by electing a democrat.
I reluctantly agree. But as a new business owner, I feel like I will have to brace myself for the next four years no matter who is elected. I am left with the question: Would a President McCain employ conservative policies to keep our economy strong enough that we can afford the war?
I think that we need to finish the war, but in order to do so, America needs to be unfettered by liberal policy. We can't afford a war, entitlements, and universal health care. To try to be all things to all people is the sure way to bankrupt America.
Does John McCain understand this? Is he ready to embrace conservative principles? Obama would cause the war to end by retreating, but McCain may also cause the war to end, not by withdrawing troops but by killing our economy.
Maybe Romney can explain this to us...
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
1. Iowa and New Hampshire should NOT lead the process. There is no reason – other than history and big egos – that these states should lead us off each season. I hate to say it, but Iowa caucus-goers are not the sharpest tools in the shed. We can do better. New Hampshire voters, on the other hand, are possibly more intellectual, but suffer from an irrational desire for rebellion. We don’t want party outsiders picking our nominee. It just doesn’t make any sense. It's hard to think of any two lead-off states worse than these.
2. New states should be allowed to lead the process each election cycle. This could be easily implemented by scheduling election days in advance and allowing interested states to apply to be in a lottery. The lottery would then determine the matchup between states and dates. One of the stipulations for admittance into the “early state lottery” would be that only registered Republicans can vote in the primary and the registration process would need to have been completed at least 6 months before the date of the primary.
3. Our caucusing should look more like the Democrats'. We had way too many candidates in the race for way too long. It’s healthy for the candidates to undergo a weeding-out process wherein supporters of candidates with less than 10 or 15 percent of the caucus vote are required to either leave or affiliate themselves with another candidate. This would have eliminated the likes of Tancredo, Hunter, and T. Thompson early on, thus allowing us to focus on realistic candidates in debates and future primaries and caucuses.
4. Plan a couple of “frontrunner debates” during the cycle. Agree upon specific criteria beforehand and at key dates during the process facilitate a debate between the TWO frontrunners. This could happen once after 3 or 4 states have voted and again right before a major event like super Tuesday.
5. Let’s agree to a window of time wherein no elected Republican officials are allowed to endorse candidates. This would force politicians to actually do some homework and risk some political capital if they are going to endorse a candidate (instead of just sticking their finger in the wind like the creepy Governor Crist). Perhaps “endorsement silence mode” could kick in two weeks before the first state votes and would end after 50 percent of states have voted. Of course everyone is entitled to free speech, but this could easily be established as a party norm.
6. Reward caucus and convention states with additional delegates. Throughout the primary season it has been evident – with the exception of Iowa – that caucusing produces superior results than primary voting. This should not be a surprise. The average primary voter may not spend more than a few minutes contemplating and making their vote. A caucus-goer, on the other hand, must make a diligent effort and substantial time commitment to their candidate. This results in a more robust and carefully contemplated choice.
So these are some of my ideas that I believe would contribute to a stronger nominee in 2012. The current process is bad, but it can be fixed. A staged primary is much better than a national primary. A national primary would be so expensive and the electorate so ignorant that only rich and famous people would have a chance. It would be a terrible idea.
So let's stick with a staged process, but mix up the order. Above all, let’s allow Republicans and conservatives to determine the nominee. The idea of “open primaries” early in the process is absurd. Also, let’s not be religious bigots. We need to make sure that a person of any faith – as long as he or she is a full-spectrum conservative – can win the Republican nomination.
What are your thoughts?