Ann Coulter: Hillary over McCain

In an interview on Glenn Beck's show on Headline News, Ann Coulter stated that she'd rather have Hillary Clinton in the White House than John McCain.



I'm not sure I totally agree - just hearing Hillary's voice gives me a headache, so just listening to the State of the Union every year would become a major undertaking.

Coulter definitely has a point, though: of the three candidates, Hillary looks to be the most conservative. It's a close call (and a bit frightening to any conservative who may be wondering what the U.S. will look like in 2012), but there it is.

John McCain has tried pandering to the conservative base of the Republican party, but in doing so, he seems to have forgotten that conservatives aren't fools - real conservatives aren't mind-numbed Republican robots - we remember McCain-Fiengold. We remember McCain-Kennedy. We remember the "Gang of Fourteen." And we know that's not who we want in the White House.

One other important point that Coulter brings up in her column: one of the things that has endeared McCain to Republicans is the fact that he's a Vietnam Vet. So is Duncan Hunter, and he would've made a much, much better choice for president.

Personally, I can't say that I'd rather have Hillary than McCain - any of the big three (Clinton, McCain & Obama) would be horrible choices for America, and I wouldn't vote for any of them.

At this point, given the choice of Clinton vs. McCain or Obama vs. McCain, I think I'll probably write in Ann Coulter.

The Woman Versus The Black...And The Evangelical Red Herring

The Democrat primary has heated up. With the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries now done & over with, the candidates have moved on to South Carolina, and the race between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama is becoming quite entertaining as both candidates fall back on their same-old liberal playbooks.

With Martin Luther King Day just a week away and the first southern primary coming up, Clinton and Obama have both attempted to inject race into the debate. When it comes to playing the race card, though, Hilary has one big factor going against her: the vast majority of South Carolinians can see. Let's face it: it doesn't matter that Hilary is married to "America's first Black president." No matter how much Hilary plays the race card, she's still white...and her commentary thus far hasn't helped her campaign any among black voters, especially since she has been crediting Lyndon B. Johnson with fulfilling Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream by signing the Civil Rights Act into law. Meanwhile, her husband has been touring black radio stations trying to do some damage control.

Personally, I couldn't care less about which candidate on the left is more racially sensitive - political correctness rarely (if ever) impresses me. It is fun, though, to watch the white woman try to out-PC the black man on racial issues.

What really bothers me about the Democrat campaign is that Obama has been doing quite well...and frankly, I believe that if Obama gets the nomination, our next president will definitely be a leftist wacko. Obama is young, charismatic, and presents a fresh, new face...everything Hilary is not. Put Hilary up against any of the Republican candidates, and the Republicans may actually have a fighting chance. Put Obama up as the candidate, and it's four years of excruciatingly PC news reports about America's first black president.



Meanwhile, the Republican side is turning into a two-man race...and unfortunately it's between the wrong two men. Huckabee has continued to be strong in the polls, with McCain close behind him. Personally, I wouldn't vote for either of them - I'd much rather have a conservative in office. However, if I had to choose, I think I'd rather have the war hero than someone as willing to use religion to get votes as Huckabee has shown himself to be.

Frankly, Huckabee's transparent use of his religious views to get votes is a bunch of bunk: Huckabee's record shows that he is not a part of the so-called "Religious Right," but is in fact a leftist in "Religious Right" clothing. The problem for Republican conservatives is that McCain isn't much better, what with McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, the so-called "gang of fourteen," and the recently defeated amnesty bill. McCain has shown himself to be on both sides of the aisle...about the only thing he has going for him is his stance on the war.

My candidate of choice is still Duncan Hunter...but unfortunately he doesn't have a prayer of winning the nomination. My second choice is Fred Thompson, and thankfully Thompson has been showing some passion (FINALLY). Thompson came out strong against Huckabee in the last Republican debate, and now his supporters are urging him to stay strong throughout the rest of the campaign.

Thompson has had a couple of things going against him from the beginning: first, he came into the campaign on time...about when presidential campaigns normally start. Everyone else started early and already had some momentum going. Second, Thompson has tried to run a rather laid-back campaign, which the media has taken the opportunity to either ignore or translate into a lack of passion. In times as partisanly-charged as these, candidates need to be recognized, and no one wants a dispassionate candidate, so these have been major stumbling blocks for Thompson's campaign.

I believe Fred Thompson could really make a comeback if he continues to address the issues strongly and call Huckabee out for what he is: a Republican liberal using religion to woo voters. So many on the right are looking for another "Reagan Revolution" - an injection of true conservatism into the debate, and Thompson is the candidate who could bring conservatism to the forefront...he just needs to get his face and his name out there as strongly as possible so that the true conservatives can know that he's serious, he's for-real, and he's the best candidate on the Republican ticket this primary season.

Huckabee: Liberals' Dream, Conservatives' Worst Nightmare

Ann Coulter has written yet another fabulous column, this one about the dilemma presented to conservatives by the seeming popularity of Mike Huckabee. Personally, I've never been a fan of Huckabee - it's been quite obvious to me that there are other candidates on the Republican side who are both more qualified and more conservative. As Huckabee continues to stick his foot in his mouth, however, it amazes me that his popularity has yet to wane.

Huckabee has run largely on his image as a Christian conservative...but that's all it is: image. He may be a Christian; I'm not going to judge his religion (though it is worth pointing out that seemingly every time Huckabee opens his mouth on religious issues he promptly sticks his foot in it). However, conservative he definitely is not. Huckabee has come down on the side of liberalism on everything from taxes to big government to the Supreme Court's decision that sodomy is a Constitutionally protected right...and when it comes to illegal immigration, Huckabee is every Democrat's dream.

Personally, I'd rather vote for Hillary than Huckabee - at least Hillary is open and transparent about her desire to turn the US into a socialist state, and her feeble attempts at religiosity on the campaign trail fall flat enough to merit a chuckle or two...but if the election comes down to Hillary vs. Huckabee, I'm definitely going third-party.

Huckabee is not what the Republican party needs, and he definitely is not a conservative candidate. The Republicans need to get a clue: Giuliani is failing in Iowa for a reason: he isn't conservative enough. Huckabee has remained strong in the polls for a reason: the media is his friend (go figure: the lib media will befriend a lib Republican).

As the primary season edges ever closer, it is important for voters to stop listening to what the media is feeding them and start looking into what the candidates actually stand for. Huckabee is a liberal who is trying to use his religious views to mask himself as a conservative. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear should be able to see through Huckabee quite easily: he's the wrong choice for conservatives, the wrong choice for Republicans, and the wrong choice for America.

Noonan Sizes Up The Campaign

Peggy Noonan has written an excellent column this week sizing up the presidential primary this far, and offering some great insight into each candidate.  Noonan's slogan should ring true for each and every American who believes in their nation: Reasonable Person for President.

According to Noonan, the candidates who are both reasonable and experienced are: Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Bill Richardson.  Noonan classifies Barack Obama as a reasonable candidate, but lacking in the experience needed to be a good president - too much potential for the young politician to treat the presidency as a stage for political theater.

Hillary Clinton won the distinction of being classified as unreasonable, and personally, I agree with her assessment.  During his presidency, Bill Clinton showed himself to be a political opportunist, triangulating on issues, playing on opinion polls to do whatever would make him most popular at time.  Hillary, during her time as First Lady, Senator from New York, and her current presidential campaign, has shown quite clearly that she is willing to do the same, playing both sides against whatever will be most advantageous for her quest for political power.  

The positive side to this is that as the campaign drags on, more and more Americans can see her opportunism for what it is.  

The drawback is that this seems to draw Democrats to Obama, whose youthful charisma makes him look like a very good choice.

As I see it, the problem with this campaign is twofold: it has drawn on way too long, to the point that many people are just sick and tired of it, and the campaign has largely become media-driven, with the news media choosing who will be the frontrunners and who will remain obsolete.  This still does not prevent any given candidate from surging in the polls or from shoving a foot down their throat, but giving the media this kind of power in a presidential campaign is inherently dangerous, especially considering how polarized the media is - even the supposedly conservative Fox News Channel has been found to be left-of-center, and the media's leftist bias definitely effects which candidates get reported on more often.

Of all of the candidates that are out there, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson still look like the best choices to me...and while conservative candidates don't seem to do very well in the polls, I'm still holding out hope that the voters will know better than to continue America's march to the left.  Many Republicans have grown tired of seeing their party become more and more liberal - the problem is that a conservative party has not yet risen far enough to effectively oppose the Democrats.  All is not lost, though: I have faith that the American people will not give in to the appeal of leftist bribery politics that feed the power-hungry but do little to advance our nation.

Last Time It Was Vote or Die...Now It's Vote or iPod?!?

A survey taken at NYU found that 2/3 of students would trade their vote in the next presidential election for a year's tuition. Frankly, given today's tuition prices, that's not all that surprising.

20% said they'd trade their vote for an iPod Touch.

66% said they'd trade their vote for a free ride at NYU.

Half said they'd trade their vote for $1 million.

This is very interesting, considering that 70.5% of those surveyed said that they believe their vote counts...including 70% of those who said they'd trade their vote for tuition.

My question is this: if you really do believe that your vote counts...why would you sell it? The franchise is either vitally important or totally unimportant. There is no middle ground.

But, then, as one student put it: "It's easy to convince myself that my vote doesn't count...after all, I'm from New York, which will always be a blue state." An interesting point, but irrelevant. After all, if all conservatives in blue states just stayed home, there would never be a prayer of eventually reforming those blue states into places where common sense actually exists. There would be no counter-vote to show liberal politicians that they should tread lightly.

As another student put it: "I would be reversing history — a lot of people fought so that every citizen could be enfranchised." Your vote makes every soldier's death throughout the history of this great nation matter.

And finally, the tour de force: "Anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported." After all, millions of people try to immigrate to the United States every year, with the dream of becoming citizens. They work hard so that someday they or their children will eventually have the right to be called Americans and participate in the process that makes the United States the freest nation on the globe. If you're willing to throw that right away, then it's a right you don't deserve, because it's a right that's been bought and paid for with the blood of heroes.

They're Conservative Now....But How About After The Election?

Republican presidential candidates held a presidential debate last night. Much of the debate centered around criticizing Hilary Clinton, but before they got to Hilary, they spent some time arguing over who is more conservative.

My problem is this: listening to them in the debate, all of the candidates sound good.

I know that Giuliani is too liberal on too many issues to earn my vote.

Romney, as the former governor of the liberal haven of Massachusetts gives me pause if for no other reason than he was elected in Massachusetts. I've heard many things from Romney that make me think he would be a good president - better than Giuliani, anyway (or anyone the Democrats are running).

Thompson looked good...then he actually entered the race, at which point it became hard to tell just what he stands for. He may make a good conservative candidate, but that has yet to be seen for sure.

I've heard some good things from McCain during the campaign that make me wish he were consistent enough to earn my vote. However, he co-sponsored the McCain Feingold Act, as well as the recently defeated immigration bill. I have a lot of respect for John McCain - it takes a lot of courage to go through what he went through in the Vietnam War...but his record just isn't conservative enough to earn my vote.

Duncan Hunter looks like the best candidate to me...the primary problem is that he's largely an unknown: he doesn't generate the type of press that big names like Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney do. Hunter has been consistently conservative on a range of issues, and I believe that he would make an excellent president.

Personally, I have a problem with what has been going on in the conservative camp. The candidates are trying to out-conservative each other, each trying to pass himself off as the most conservative candidate. Basically, they're trying to out-Reagan Reagan (whose name was mentioned multiple times during the debate).

Ronald Reagan was a man who stood for conservative values in the face of harsh criticism. He stood up for his beliefs, unafraid and unashamed to stand up for his beliefs. This is what America needs in a president.

But this election is not just about having a candidate who knows what he believes and will stand up for it. This election is about America's future, and just what course the nation will take. Will we become yet another bastion of socialism, a nanny state destined for failure, or will we stand up for the true value of the individual, knowing that the feel-good option is not always the right one...or will we opt for the status-quo of straddling the fence, halfway between what we need and what feels right?

I think Duncan Hunter is what America needs. He will stand up for conservative values in the face of criticism; he has shown this in the past. In order to successfully move forward, we need to look at the values and the policies that have made the United States the world's superpower. Socialism didn't get us to where we are today. The United States of America got to where it is today through what is known as the American spirit: the willingness to buckle down and work hard, knowing that through hard work and perseverance you can be successful.

What's Happened to American Politics?

The '08 presidential campaign started earlier than any other presidential campaign in US history. Recently, it's been losing some steam, probably because most people are just plain tired of the political sniping and mud-slinging...and there's another year to go before the actual election.

But looking at the platitudes being put forward by today's candidates, it's a wonder just how far US politics has come.

As America began, debate was fierce, and the political process was heated. However, the debate was over which policies would be better for the nation, the assumption being that the candidate with the best ideas would win the most votes.

Today, US politics has been reduced to candidates offering bribes to the people in an attempt to buy votes: welfare, nationalized health care, social security entitlements, amnesty for illegal aliens - all designed to bribe people for votes. And the politicians who speak out against these measures are automatically villanized, depending on the issue: politicians who are against socialized health care "hate the poor." Those who are against social security "hate the elderly." Those who are against amnesty for illegals are "racists."

America's political process used to be about which candidate's ideas would most benefit the nation as a whole, but over time, it has become nothing more than a contest to see which politician can offer each American a larger bribe. The truly sad thing is that all too many Americans have bought into the entitlement mentality, believing that they truly are entitled to welfare, social security, and "free" health care, and that Mexican poor are entitled to come to America illegally and enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of US citizens. It isn't about what's right anymore, it's about what individuals can get from the government. And if this trend continues, the US will end up like the former Soviet Union: bankrupt, with citizens living in poverty because the government has to take so much of their money in taxes to pay for social programs.

Florida moves primary, Dean throws fit

Florida has jumped on the bandwagon of states who are moving up their primary elections in the hopes that they will be more important in the scope of presidential politics. Basically, everyone wants to be Iowa & New Hampshire. In response, Howard Dean has come out saying that if Florida doesn't move its primary back, its votes won't count in the choosing of a Democrat party presidential candidate.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this trend of states moving up their primary election dates...it's basically high-school style one-upmanship writ large: each state wants to thumb their nose at the other states & say "HA! I'm more important than you!" So, on one level, I agree with the DNC's pronouncement.

On the other hand, Florida is the 4th largest state in the nation, and no matter when their primary, Florida's votes definitely count. Threatening to remove Florida from the process shows to me that the DNC is more concerned with their rules & regulations than with actually choosing a candidate who truly represents America.

Personally, I think we should move to a single national primary...this way we wouldn't have to worry about the candidate being chosen in Iowa or New Hampshire...we could actually choose a candidate based on their merit, rather than basing votes on who has the most "momentum."