Did Ted Cruz Really Win Every County in Maine?

The Boston Globe and 2 local papers didn't give him a chance. He didn't win a single county in Massachussetts 4 days earlier. Did Cruz really win EVERY county in Maine?

By Cruz Camp's Own Admission, Heidi Should Be Thoroughly Vetted

The head of the Ted Cruz campaign has said Heidi is Ted's closest adviser. The FEC violations involve her current employer. No personal attacks, just a necessary professional evaluation of Heidi Cruz's role in the Cruz Crew.

How Ted Cruz Can Stop Immigration Abuse NOW!

As a self-described "constitutional expert" Canadian born Cruz could do us all a great service to stop illegal immigration by simply answer 4 teeny weeny questions...

The Complete Concordance of Cruz Corruption, Deceptions and Lies

Reagan was attacked by the Establishment, but people LIKED him. Cruz on the other hand is despised by mild mannered Huckabee and "sealed lips" George W. There is a reason. Here is an (almost) complete compendium of Cruz lies.

Why Isn't Anyone Discussing the SCOTUS Ruling on Natural Born Citizen?

There is a lie being told that "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. That's True. What's Not True is that it is NOT settled by the Supreme Court. (It has)

Why I'm Happy To (Now) Be A Texan

In honor of @pmbasse, a descendant of one of the original 300 Texas settlers, I want to tell you WHY I LOVE TEXAS. As they say, I wasn't born here but I got here as soon as I could. And for me that was 3 times.

Ted Cruz Takes More Wall Street Money than Hillary Clinton

When you see who REALLY is running Ted's campaign, you realize how "inside" this pretend outsider is. The top CIA, Goldman Sachs executives are LITERALLY running his campaign.

The PolitiJim Twitter FF List

The most rewarding and frustrating experience on Twitter has to be the concept of Follow Friday. I have a solution. See where PolitiJim gets his news, and twinteraction from.

Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Why Conservative Christians Sound Like Islamic Westboro Baptists to Non-Belivers

IslamicChristians

It’s about time we had a talk about how conservative Christians are not only screwing up conservative politics but the public image of Christianity.

For some reason in the past 2 weeks I’ve been drawn into multiple blogger battles with “Christian conservatives” on the issue of gay marriage, Joel Osteen, Mormonism and a church that is serving beer at church.  As anyone who has taken a nanosecond to check out my blog, Twitter or Facebook posts – I am a Jesus Freak, albeit a bit of an unconventional and non-“religious” one.  I am fiercely devoted to God but like the friends who lowered their sick buddy through the roof to bypass the line outside, I am largely uninhibited by convention.

So when I pointed out that Jesus’ FIRST demonstration of God’s power was creating alcohol at a religious event – you would have thought I denied the virgin birth or something.  These dear brothers and sisters in the Lord declared a fundamentalist Christian jihad against PolitiJim.

I don’t get shocked by much any more, but the overwhelming hateful tone by Christians responding to these articles just …. well … shocked me.  I’d estimate that well over 75% of the posts were condemning, hateful, scorning and mocking.  The disdain for homosexuals wasn’t much different from that I’ve heard against members of ISIS.  One normally intelligent blogger whom I follow regularly felt that somehow by repeating the word “demonic” about Mormonism he was actually “loving” Mormons so that they knew the errors of their ways.

You know what I’m talking about.  There is almost a celebratory glee in demeaning Democrats and frosting it with sarcastic and even vicious retorts.  “They’ll know we are Christians by our love” is now “They’ll know we are conservatives by our shove.”

Now those who’ve followed me for the past few years know that I enjoy a good row, and sometime have gotten a little to happy with biting sarcasm and ridicule of “the other side.”  Even some on OUR side.  One reason I quit doing regular political posts was the realization that it actually wasn’t DOING anything other than allowing to me blow off steam on whatever was riling me at the moment.  By lampooning and ridiculing the left, I was shocked to find they weren’t turning to our side in droves  Also I began to realize (as our Founders did) that prayer was also an effective as a weapon especially in unity.  I didn’t seem myself unifying anyone other than my fellow frustrated patriots.

Charisma News ran an article this week that Joel Osteen thought Obama was a Christian.  Never mind that the interview was TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO when Barry/Barack was running for reelection and finally made an appearance at the Washington DC Prayer Breakfast.   Answering the question on air to Wolf Blitzer, Osteen said that he heard Barry/Barack confess that Jesus was his Lord and talked in terms of redemption and other “Christian” understanding.

Like Billy Graham, Osteen has chosen to remain totally non-political in order to have access to people in power.   The Bible only lays out one criteria to become a Christian and it’s found in the book of Romans Chapter 10. 

if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…

Since NO ONE (and that includes you Twitter Christians) knows what people REALLY believe inside themselves accept God, someone confess Christ publically can’t be automatically dismissed.  Especially if your nature borders on a 1 Corinthians personality that “believes the best of all people” just like Jesus does.  (Funny how Osteen doesn’t attack his critics, is the biggest donor to his own church while not taking a penny from it – even for travel and yet HE is the one who is supposedly not a Christian while the critics don’t exhibit a rind shaving of the fruit of the Spirit.)

I have no idea if my pastor (yes, I go to Lakewood) believes that any more.  The comments on this “Christian” website claimed that not only was he not a Christian or a Man of God for not believing Obama was a Muslim, most quoted scriptures that he would burn in hell and would be judged in the last days.

Really?  At that time less than 20% of all Americans believed Obama was a Muslim.  And moreover – Joel Osteen’s business is in proclaiming the “good news” of Jesus Christ, not being the final judge of whether people are deceptive or lying about whether they are or not.  You may recall Billy Graham never got criticized for not criticizing Carter and hung out with Hillary without an all out attack by the moral majority.

Since when did it become acceptable to falsely accuse a pastor who ONLY talks about Jesus as the way to live life AND has directly been responsible for over 1 million documented salvations through his Night of Hope stadium events over the past few years?  That’s actually a better record than Billy!

The bottom line is that these ferocious Facebook Pharisees want a non-stop marathon of the condemnation of SIN.   No grace.  No hope.  No love.  (You know, the entire personification of Jesus.)  They want the Revelation version of judgmental Jesus despite the fact that when Jesus read in the synagogue (Luke 4) the following:

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

AND LEFT OUT

and the day of vengeance of our God;

They want fire and brimstone Jesus despite the fact that they couldn’t possible escape God’s judgments for THEIR myriad of sins beginning with taking their Lord’s name in vain all the way to even THINKING murder of another (which Jesus says is the equivalent to actually DOING IT).

What fascinated me about this Charisma article, is that at one point a MUSLIM commented on how these Christians and Muslims were not much different, and he invited them to read more of the Quran.

And you know what?  HE WAS RIGHT!

Contemporary conservative Christians seem to have this notion that “righteousness” comes from the proper conservative political beliefs and not committing homosexuality or voting for Democrats.

And their entire message to the world is comprised of either “you’re bad and we’re not” or “if you quit sinning you won’t go to hell.”

It is the exact same spirit of Islam and Westboro Baptist Church.

No wonder the world is confused about Christianity.  And why liberals distrust conservatives.   Whey the hell would they want to become a bitter, judgmental, self-righteous political snob like you?

Ever wonder why all the SINNERS wanted to hang out with Jesus?  I did.  It confounded me that the “religious” who actually were trying to obey the 10 Commandments couldn’t STAND Jesus, but the gluttons, drunkards and sinners not only flocked to him but kept inviting Him to their parties!

Do you know of any analy retentive religious a**hole YOU would want to invite to your July 4th BBQ?  (Hint: If you don’t know what I’m talking about, this is likely how others see you.)

It is the same tone and action of the men who found a married woman sleeping with another man and decided that they would “take action” to purge their town of such atrocity.

But then a bearded man (whom I guess most of these conservatives today would call a liberal today), stood in between the stone wielding posse and the naked humiliated woman.  And what’s ironic is that he didn’t even point out the hypocrisy of these men in ONLY bringing out the woman to stone and not the man they caught her in bed with.  He didn’t start yelling at them or even get angry.  He merely wrote in the sand and challenge the first “perfect” person to throw the first stone.  They left.

And even then, he didn’t turn to the woman and say, “what you did was bad, bad, bad.  And if you don’t REPENT you will burn in the eternal fires of hell!”

Instead He let her off SCOT-FREE.  No groveling, no “repentance,” not even a warning.  Just, “I don’t condemn you either.  Go and sin no more.”

What’s interesting is that the “sin no more” is actually in what is called present, imperative tense.  That means he did NOT say “don’t ever sin again” or even “stop sinning.”  It is more like, “you are not in sin from here on out.”

AND HE FIRST TOLD HER that he did NOT condemn her.  EVEN BEFORE she could have possibly said anything remorseful – let alone “confess” her sin.  We don’t even have a record of her REPENTING!!  [And “repent” by the way does NOT mean to confess your sin and determine that you won’t do bad any more.  The word in the Greek is “metanoia,” which is CHANGE (meta) your MIND (noia). So Jesus and John the Baptist were literally saying “Change the way you think” not asking for some kind of admission of all their past sins.]

Which most Christians – especially conservative ones – seem to overlook.  Our “righteousness” has nothing to do with our actions but our belief.  The 10 Commandments and the Law given to Moses (after the Israelites turned down God’s offer to relate to Him directly as we can now in Christ) demanded perfect action to rules.  In fact the Bible makes it even clearer that you make Christ’s death unimportant if you believe “keeping the law” is what God cares about.

I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
Galatians 2:21, NKJV

Instead, our “righteousness” comes from what we believe.  Trusting that Jesus lived perfectly so that our attention (or attention on others) isn’t focused on what we (or they) are doing right or wrong – but focusing and believing that Jesus gave us all of His righteousness, and He took all of our sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been revealed independently and altogether apart from the Law, although actually it is attested by the Law and the Prophets,

22 Namely, the righteousness of God which comes by believing with personal trust and confident reliance on Jesus Christ (the Messiah). [And it is meant] for all who believe.

Romans 3:21-24Amplified Bible (AMP)

It could not be any clearer.

And yet huge parts of Christians continue to want to focus not only the sin of sinners – somehow thinking they don’t know they are miserable and “missing the mark” (which is what the word “sin” really means), they also feel compelled to do it against OTHER CHRISTIANS!

Now everyone is not only Joel Osteen’s judge, they now are greater than God in pronouncing every celebrity, every politician and every TV personality worthy or not ignoring their own tax cheating, cursing, lustful thoughts, false accusations and speeding through school zones that no one will ever know about because of their anonymity.  Worse – you violate the direction Jesus gave for the same dilemma when the disciples complained that “one who is not following us” is casting out demons in His name.  Jesus said, “Do not stop them. For whoever is not against us is for us.”

“Politijim, are you saying that we should just accept gay marriage, unaddressed lies from the left and political corruption and do nothing about it!!???

No, not at all.  I’m just saying that there is a reason non-Christians are mean, divisive, judgmental and the last person they would want to be caught in an elevator with  - let alone a desert island, despite the fact Jesus people FLOCKED to Him.   Kids – always a great judge of character couldn’t wait to jump in His arms.  Sinners didn’t feel condemned around him and invited them to their gluttonous parties.  He wasn’t the kill joy that most Christians – indeed – are.

Jesus said,

By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

John 13:35 New King James Version (NKJV)

Notice the Creator of the Universe said that ALL (that means everyone including liberals), will KNOW that you are a Christian IF you have AGAPE love (that is selfless love) for each other.

Since Rush isn’t here, I’ll translate for those of you in Rio Linda:  “NO ONE KNOWS OR BELIEVES YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN IF YOU ATTACK, DEMEAN AND CONDEMN OTHERS WHO ARE SEEKING JESUS” 

(And I’ll add – they certainly want NOTHING to do with your God.)

And that holds true to our political enemies as well.

Mormons are not “against” Christianity.   Joel Osteen is not “against” what is best for this country.  Both may be naïve or clueless on things that are obvious to us – but that is no cause to berate and ridicule them.And if you ask me BOTH show more “LOVE” toward other Christians than any of those who want to spend their time attacking and ridiculing others.

There is a new documentary by Darren Wilson that came out this fall called HOLY GHOST.  (Purchase Streaming here.)  It is amazing.  He let the Spirit of God lead him on how to document the moving and power of God in people’s lives.

During this segment, the filmmakers followed a fire and brimstone preacher who told every Mormon he me met that they were going to hell.  He shouted scripture and handed out tracts that were written to scare the Bejesus to…well Jesus.  Over 10 years he had saved 3 people.

Then, we followed some young, joyous Christians, drunk on the Holy Spirit (like the Christians of Acts) who merely started praying for the needs of various Mormons they met.  In less than half an hour 4 who had actually EXPERIENCED the Power and Love of God had accepted repented of their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.  You know, just like Jesus used to do.

Paul said, “And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human[a] wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.  [ 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, (NKJV)]

But what do most evangelicals do today?  Try to the talk the sinner to death – mostly by harboring on how bad and evil and sinful they are.

When has that ever worked with you?

I can’t remember a single instance from teachers, parents, friends  - and CERTAINLY not strangers – where someone hammered me to death on something I was doing wrong and I suddenly just melted and did whatever they wanted.  Usually it drove me to the EXTREME of the opposite.

I wrote a booklet/essay years ago called “God Unplugged.”  I described my first encounter with this type of Christianity this way:

It started the day my momma turned on Billy Graham when I was 13. “Was I a Christian?” “Was I saved?”

She wouldn’t let up. I thought, who cares? Sure, I’d gone to Sunday School when I was 8 but no one made it out to be that much different from Cub Scouts or Little League.

While my biggest concern was the right sized bell bottom styles and trying to get my first kiss, mom suddenly morphed into Darth Vader. "What kind of music was I listening to?" "Are kids my age drinking?"

"Was I having sex yet?" (Like I’d talk about that with my mom!). There were more commandments handed down that week than Moses on Mt. Caffeine. I was just sure of one thing - I was no longer neutral on religion. I was now firmly against it.

Honestly, it wasn’t really until the past 5 years that I found out how totally forgiving, loving and non-judgmental Jesus is.  And it hasn’t made me want to sin more – it’s made me want to sin less – since my love for Him has grown exponentially. 

Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Romans 2:4 (NKJV)

I just finished a great book by Jason Clark which summarizes it wonderfully:

I used to try and love God, but now I just let Him love me.

This is why Jesus was so RADICAL to the “religious” community and why they wanted him killed!  What?  All I have to do is trust in God and tell people that and I don’t have to pay for my sins??

Didn’t Jesus let the adulteress off?  Didn’t he let Peter off when He had just told the public that if someone denies Jesus before people, Jesus would deny that person in front of GOD!?

THIS is why the Left can’t stand us and won’t listen to our ideas.  THIS is why we are called hypocrites.  Our “claim to fame” rests on our OWN righteousness – rather than that of Jesus’.  And Paul says that if you DO NOT KNOW that repentance comes from telling and demonstrating God’s GOODNESS (not His condemnation) then you “despise the riches of God!”

Paul is pretty adamant that this is NOT the way to live the Christian life. In fact, he calls those who try to put Christians back on the Law of doing right and wrong – versus letting Jesus and the Holy Spirit live inside you ACCURSED.

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 …8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed

Galatians 1

If you read the whole chapter (or book) Paul makes it clear that these Galatians are caught up with being “religious” rather just believing by faith they are righteous through faith. (Don’t take my word for it read it yourself!)

Going Back to How to Change People

Now lest you think I’m turning into John Kerry, who believes if we just quit antagonizing Muslims they will stop their jihad, let me talk about the difference between PERSONAL and GOVERNMENTAL responsibilities as a Christian.  Clearly Jesus said to render to CESEAR what is CESEAR’s and to render God that which is God’s.  When you are talking (or tweeting) an individual – your standard is far different from what we do as a society through government power.

PERSONAL SALVATION isn’t under the dominion of the government (unless you live in an Islamic or Communist state).  And all faithful Christians and Jews ARE required to be “good stewards” of that which is given them.  Jesus pointed out for instance that the person who sets out to build a barn without planning, and budgeting for it will be ridiculed.  Americans were given STEWARDSHIP responsibilities unlike any other government in history. 

So while I can personally pray for and “love” my friends who are gay or Muslim (I have both by the way), I can also advocate public policy that is responsible to oversee my responsibility as WE THE PEOPLE.  (Unlike other countries, WE THE PEOPLE have the authority over government – we just seldom talk about or enforce it).

It isn’t any more “loving” to let crooks steal goods or my cash from grocery store than it is to let those with no commitment to steal the wealth (or morality) of my country.

I just don’t have to be angry about it all the time.

Remember Jesus knit a bullwhip and DROVE the moneychangers from the temple.  But also notice that NO WHERE does it say he did this in anger.

Like a petulant 5 year old child of mine, I can firmly spank their little behinds with an attitude of complete calm  - and even caring – because I know that  - for where their maturity is – it is the best thing for them.

The concept to defend one’s self, family and country is also biblical.  But when we see our society, culture and government attacked with things that we KNOW instinctively are wrong (and even dangerous), it is natural to cry out in outrage.

But we already know the concept of “appropriate and proportional response” in law.  I will shoot dead an intruder in my home without a second thought to their wellbeing, but would (rightfully) be jailed and tried for shooting a politician who wanted to sign a law allowing the government to invade it electronically, or confiscate my goods without Constitutional due process.   Why?  Because of “imminent threat.”

We all know that releasing millions of illegal aliens into public – many that are dangerous criminals – isn’t just a theoretical political danger, it is a very real threat to our homes and communities.  (Just ask border town victims.)

Darryl Issa has been amazing in his professional, mature demeanor in Congress (albeit not strong enough in taking politically risky actions like actually calling for Holder’s imprisonment.)  And as such, many in the middle feel “safe” in standing behind his efforts as opposed to someone like Alex Jones.

But on one on one, interactions with other Christians and liberals – IF WE CLAIM TO FOLLOW CHRIST – we are besmirching Jesus’ reputation more than Obama is the Constitution when we keep demanding “performance” that Jesus never did.

I had one poster on the Charisma challenge me that Jesus said, “be ye perfect” and “if you love Me keep My commandments” inferring that it was all of MY responsibility to not sin and be perfect.  I find it funny he also didn’t tell me it was my responsibility to heal the sick and raise dead on my own too!  It is this false notion that somehow I can make myself become like Jesus - without Jesus!

The Bible is pretty clear:

…[because we] continued to behold [in the Word of God] as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are constantly being transfigured into His very own image in ever increasing splendor and from one degree of glory to another; [for this comes] from the Lord…

2 Corinthians 3:18, AMP

Why can’t we call sin “sin” without condemning people?

Jesus seem do OK by changing the hearts of the people and the entire world.  Muhammad seemed to do not quite as well, but OK too.  But in a very destructive way.

Islamists want to change the world by total control.   They want to DEMAND every one abides by what they think is RIGHT or WRONG, and if you don’t agree – they will kill you. 

Unfortunately this is PRECISELY how many conservative Christians behave.  “We demand you quit sinning and we are going to implement a law to make sure you do!”

Funny thing is  - all the laws in the world won’t change someone’s heart to WANT to do the right thing.  Only Jesus and the Holy Spirit can.

If conservatives spent HALF the time praying not just for our country – but for those who want to transform it into Sodom and Gomorrah, both in quiet and DIRECTLY, they might be surprised at how impact it would have.

Many say they believe in the Bible.  It’s about time they started ACTING like it including the part that says, “Love conquers all.”

And maybe then as we continue to try and elect godly men and women to government to continue to create Constitutional conduct, some socialists will be struck blind by the lack of anger, animosity and animus on their path to Destruction.  And we’ll frame our policies and positions with true sense of concern that might make the scales fall from the eyes.

The Bible is brilliant.  There is a clear guideline on how to deal with the rebellious.  It seems contradictory but isn’t.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.

Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Proverbs 26-4-5 NKJV

When we are given opportunities to dismantle their own “wisdom,” we have a mandate IF it does in a way that doesn’t reflect the “spirit” of selfishness, vindictiveness and pride that wants to exert power and disrespect to beat the other side into submission.

We do this in the right way, we will not only win over the secular right and many on the left, but we will win back the country our Founders envisioned.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

A Day at the Racists: What I learned About America Working a Voting Location

RonPaulSupporterPJRP 

I did something I've never done before.  I "worked the polls" for Ted Cruz.  It was funny, fascinating and frightening.  I was called a racist and a patriot; I witness joy and anger; and I learned some very valuable lessons about myself and this county. I now see why listening to your friends and reading the blogs is no substitute for “getting on the ground.”  In Texas, there is a revolution brewing.

For the whole story and video interviews, visit:

RantPoliticalLogo

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Morgan Freeman Comments Hurt Dolphin Tale Box Office

A poll was just released on how political perceptions impact Democrat and Republican moviegoers.  The results:
35 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Tea Partiers consider a celebrity's political position before paying to see their films, compared with 20 percent of Democrats.
The recent aspersion that Tea Party members were racists by Dolphin Tale star, Morgan Freeman is a prime example. The Hollywood Reporter admits it is difficult to calculate exactly how badly his comments impacted opening weekend but said they, "did have an effect."

THR further said,
"The timing wasn't ideal, considering Dolphin Tale had opened that day and the film was tracking particularly well among conservatives...  After the remarks, 34 percent of the conservatives who were aware of them, and 37 percent of Tea Partiers, said they were less likely to see the film -- but 42 percent of liberals said they were more likely.

For years Dr. Ted Baehr of MovieGuide has released a report to Hollywood analyzing the impact of films that ran counter to Judeo/Christian values.  In his 2010 report, he specifically drew the correlation between conservative values of Tea Party members and a film's box office revenue.
"...movies with conservative values averaged $84.76 million per movie in 2010 in the United States and Canada, an increase from 2009’s average of $83.11 million. Conversely, movies with liberal, leftist content and values such as socialism, communism, radical feminism, Anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, political correctness, and secular humanism or atheism declined from $25.85 million per movie in 2009 to only $17.94 million per movie in 2010."
2010 Political Content
Avg. B.O. 2010
All Conserv/Moral Categories
$84,756,932
All Liberal/Leftist Categories
$17,938,200

2009 Political Content

Avg. B.O. 2009

All Conservative/Moral Categories

$83.11 million

All Liberal/Leftist Categories

$25.85 million

The real kicker is that it holds true for overseas markets as well.  Dr. Baehr summarizes:

"...conservative movies with strong traditional moral and political values earn three to five times more money than liberal/leftist movies with strong non-traditional, secular humanist or statist values."

(Author's Note & Disclosure: I am a personal friend of Dr. Baehr and have worked with him on various projects. Also - PLEASE SUBSCRIBE AND SUPPORT Movieguide for the work they do.  Each opening movie is reviewed by both quality and content against values.)

Among other findings in the report:
► Democrats are bigger moviegoers This is likely fueled by Hollywood's reputation -- among both parties -- for churning out movies that promote liberalism (Avatar was named by the most moviegoers as having a liberal agenda). During the past six months, Democrats have seen on average 5.7 movies in a theater, while Republicans have seen fewer than four.
► Republicans are more likely to wait for home video Democrats are likelier to see movies on opening weekend, while GOP members prefer waiting it out. Republicans assume their values will be assaulted onscreen -- so why pay the big bucks? -- while Democrats embrace pop culture more and want to be "in the know," says Penn.
►  Republicans prefer family films; Democrats like edge From hundreds of Oscar winners and classics, Republicans were far more likely to name as favorites The Sound of Musicand It's a Wonderful Life; Democrats favored Bonnie and Clyde and The Silence of the Lambs. Among recent films, Republicans were likelier to choose Soul Surfer and Secretariat. Democrats? The Social Network, Bad Teacher and Easy A.
► Republicans tsk-tsk sex, violence and cursing While majorities of both parties think movies contain too much of all those, the numbers are greater for Republicans. A majority of Democrats think Hollywood films are generally inspiring and morally uplifting; a majority of Republicans don't.
► Democrats think America is portrayed well While 62 percent of Dems say Hollywood shows America in a positive light, only 39 percent of Republicans concur. And 44 percent of Republicans think Hollywood portrays the U.S. military negatively, but only 21 percent of Democrats agree. "Typically, when you see a movie, it will reflect a Democrat's values," says Penn. "Republicans aren't getting the films they want."
►  Not everything about movies is partisan Dems and Republicans say comedy is their favorite genre, popcorn is their favorite theater snack, Forrest Gump is their preferred blockbuster and Indiana Jones is their favorite action hero.

With 20 years of Movieguide data and annual reports to Hollywood, and the voice of their industry now publishing the same - it is certainly time for shareholders of these media companies to begin demanding more conservative films.
Movieguide published an article, "Tinsletown is on a Mission to Sexualize Young Girls." Why would an industry INTENTIONALLY take a course contrary to their own economic benefit?  And how selfish of Morgan Freeman to decide to use his free speech liberties at a time it would most hurt his employers and the shareholders that gave him the luxury of his vocation.

Read the full story and poll here:
Democrats vs. Republicans: Stars they Won’t Pay to See; Movies They Hate and Love (Poll) - The Hollywood Reporter

Full MovieGuide 2010 Political Content:

Content
Avg. B.O. 2010
Strong Anti-Communist Content
$138,874,274
Strong Pro-Capitalist Content
$86,165,368
Very Strong Biblical Morality*
$77,981,393
Strong Patriotic/Pro-American Movies
$66,169,777
Strong Anti-Capitalist Content
$13,764,104
Strong Anti-Patriotic/Anti-American Movies
$7,950,815
Strong Pro-Communist Content
$36,662,189
Strong Politically Correct Content
$22,655,583
Any Pro-Socialist Content
$30,479,077
Very Strong Pro-Atheism
$6,608,902
Very Strong Pro-Homosexual Content
$15,092,680
Very Strong Feminism
$19,594,537
All Conservative/Moral Categories
$84,756,932
All Liberal/Leftist Categories
$17,938,200

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

How to Pick A GOP Candidate Part 2

rhino_rhinoceros_swim_suit_swimming_pool_funny_humor_cool_haha_lol_rofl_smiles
You can put a thong on a a RINO but it still ain’t attractive
So this was supposed to be wrapped up in 2 parts and I hate to tell you - it's gonna be 3.  I just find I have more brilliant analysis than I thought I did and, of course, it would be a disservice to withhold that from you.  So this will be Part 2 - Policy, and Part 3 will be How they Manage.  In Part 3 I will grade candidates by ELECTABILITY, Policy Issues and actual Governing/Managing indicators.  There will be a bonus blog on the candidates spouses.


We ended up in Part 1 discussing what characteristics makes a candidate ELECTABLE.  We all agreed (whether you know you did or not) with my brilliant observation that we don’t just desire to get our candidate elected, but we want them to be able to MANAGE effectively.  Otherwise you get what the Dem’s got right?  “YAY! OUR GUY GOT ELECTED!  DONKEY! DONKEY! DONKEY! …oh sh*t…what the hell did we do!


I'm not sure any of the GOP candidates could screw things up as badly as Obama did for his Party of Ass.  But the issue is deeper than political disaster.  The future of the Republic really is at stake.  Imagine a President who looked good, talked conservative, cut taxes and stimulated the economy but only:
  • Marginally corrected the Social Security trust fund so it wouldn’t be bankrupt for 50 years instead of 25.
  • Scaled back some of ObamaCare but left the 159 new agencies in place.
  • Rolled back some executive orders and fired a few ‘czars’ (Again leaving legacy positions an authority for the NEXT president to shut down the internet in a "crisis," and permanently funded bureaucratic boondogles like this)
  • Did nothing on immigration that either closed borders, penalized companies hiring illegals or reduced illegal immigration to traditional norms. 
  • Didn’t address the liability the Federal Reserve put on the US by lending to foreign banks (or countries) that could default.
  • Did nothing to substantially change the reach of the EPA, DOE’s etc. EXCEPT to put new managers in and curtail some regulations.
This essentially is Bush 3 and would set the stage for someone like Hillary or worse to take a shot at big government liar #46.  GETTING ELECTED is not even half the battle.  To allow this country to prosper there are fundamental structure and policy issues that have to be changed - and in some cases eliminated, to protect against the government growth abuses going back to LBJ.

(With apologies to Rush) UNDENIABLE PolitiJim Truth #4577: During the primary, the base of the Party eliminates candidates who don't adhere to their core principles.  Giuliani couldn't make it past the pro-life base, and narrowed conservative options who split the vote in 2008 leaving us with McCain. 


UNDENIABLE PolitiJim Truth #4578:  The people who don't "tune in" until the last 10 seconds of the general election decide the close ones.  In 2008 - American voters ONLY heard the chatter of the mainstream media and the adoration for Barack in contrast to several serious McCain erratic fumbles during the economic crisis.  Obama sold that he was for tax cuts for the middle class, and was even better equipped to handle the economic crisis.  And, he wasn't George Bush.  Bush allowed himself (and by default his party) to be besmirched without ever truly defending himself or his policies against the unrelenting criticism of the left.  Much like Bob Dole who refused to do the same against Clinton, the public believed who was doing the 'splaining. The only way for someone whom the independents consider "extreme" to be elected in a general election is by either by: 
  • Lying (Barack Obama)
  • Charisma / Conviction explaining "extreme" positions as logical/moral (Ronald Reagan)
  • Being in the opposite party of a current disaster (see Carter (Ford-Nixon), Reagan (Carter), Obama (Bush-McCain)
What is an "extreme" position at first (ie, supply side economics or universal healthcare) CAN be sold to the public if it is delivery smoothly, by a charismatic presenter and your opponent is unwilling to effectively point out it's deficiencies.


So we look at the policy issues understanding WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE BASE may not be an asset in the general election, unless the candidate is adept enough to make it a winning policy. 

POLICY
It's all about "the economy stupid,” right?


The re-election of Bill Clinton amidst allegations of illegal campaign contributions, the sale of country secrets to China (see here), and even rape confirmed two things to me.  First, regardless of the noble characteristics of virtue we WANT in a candidate - or an electorate for that matter - ultimately US voters will vote what is in their own economic self-interest.  Secondly, we have no real leaders - spiritual or political - that are successful in calling America to a higher moral standard.


It is a huge conflict for many of us because we are sick and tired of subjugating the slaughter of millions of innocent children and the issue of Constitutional justice to economics.  But the cold, hard reality is that our Republic is more interested in our own economic well being than justice, morality and "doing the right thing."  (God help us.)


Voter Issues - Aug 2011
So ECONOMIC policy is by far the most important issue in ELECTABILITY.  But since nearly all the GOP Presidential candidates agree on cutting spending and balancing the budget to one degree or another - let's save that for last for strategic reasons.


What are the top issues so far in the election?  Let's run through what political stances our candidates must have.

ETHICS & CORRUPTION
Isn't it funny that Obama campaigned on cleaning up the terrible lobbying corruption and supposed ethical misdeeds of the Bush administration and it wasn't even a category of choice by pollster CNN or FOX (pdf).  In 2007 it showed up as a major issue but wasn't "owned" by either party. And yet, according to Rassmussen, it comes in number two behind the economy.  Although the Fast & Furious/Gun Runner scandal and Solyndra have gotten press the past few weeks, what possible 'ethics and corruption' issues could have possibly made voters put it in importance before healthcare, taxes or immigration?  Weiner wouldn't. Congress is at all time approval lows, but the current congressional investigations barely warrant mention in alternative media.  I don't really have a factual basis for knowing how many American voters actually understand how blatantly corrupt Pelosi and Reid were in forcing through ObamaCare and other legislation, but I can't imagine it would top the charts today. 


I also have no idea if a specific politician intentionally posted fraudulent birth certificates, falsified selective service registration and an ineligibility to be hired as a migrant worker under e-Verify due to a fraudulent Social Security number have anything to do with this. I couldn't find one single article this year explaining the breakdown of this issue rating.  However, I find it interesting that while lampooned, Trump soared into the lead in the GOP Presidential nomination polls with the birther issue front and center.  When Obama released the (fraudulent) long form version and BOTH conservative and mainstream media put out their gag order, his numbers fell.  Coincidence?


I understand some of you have not kept 'up' on this topic and don't understand the "birther" issue now has little to do with whether Obama was born in Kenya.  I agree it is too late to argue that with a Kenyan/British father - Obama is NOT qualified to be President.  But the overwhelming evidence of fraud, forgery, cover-up and misuse of power can not be swept under the rug without serious consequences to our future.  Justice is not revenge.  It is reinforcing our acknowledgement of what is right - so that future generations are not just deterred from wrongdoing, but inspired to uphold it.  Certainly the Fast & Furious and Solyndra scandals are an easier starting point for candidates to launch from as it reflects on responsibilities under Obama's authority - usurped or not. 


The field only boasts 3½ players who can point to a history of attacking corruption.  Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are the only two announced candidates. (Newt gets ½ credit for eliminating waste and welfare reform).  The two strongest candidates are yet unannounced.  Giuliani was a former Federal prosecutor and Palin did the unthinkable in breaking apart not only the oil industry corruption in her state, but dismantling the corrupt GOP party machine as a Republican.



Like many I've been unable to understand how Obama could be "liked" in the 50%+ range but disapproved of at the same time.  If they truly believed he broke tax law in his Rezko land deal used a fake SSN for 20 years and openly submitted a forged birth certificate - do you really think those "favorability" ratings would continue?  Of course not.  


A word of warning to my conservative friends who want to bury this issue: If the polling can be shown to support this presumption - responsible prosecution of Obama could actually be the winning issue for a candidate like Perry who is faltering or a Bachmann who is loosing steam.  But It is uninformed to accept the notion the issue is 'untouchable' if it is the second hottest issue with voters.  Why haven't ANY candidates mentioned this in three debates?  I can't imagine.  Race42012 - has an excellent overview on the broader ethics issues as well. 

HEALTHCARE
Bachmann gets a 100%, A++, Gold Star, Candidate of the Month award for explaining that a mere waiver for states, does not eliminate the 159 agencies or permanent tax structures put in place by ObamaCare.  I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she meant she would lead the effort to overturn it (rather than repeal it by royal decree), but she has been spot on as to the importance of this being a platform to grow government, spending and to be misused by future Presidents. Cain hasn't been as emphatic on the issue but has been consistent in asking for repeal.  Romney finally added "repeal" to his "Executive Order for states waiver" - but I hope he realizes that the whole "Executive Order" idea is a hot button on executive privilege misuse by many conservatives.  (We are paying for the deaf ear we turned to liberals who complained about Bush's misuse of it for sure.)


Romney is obviously the weakest on this subject and I don't need to repeat the befuddlement by other bloggers and journalists as to why Mitt continues to get very little pressure on this.  I hope it is not because our candidates are not aware of the complexities of it's dangers.  As the Administration has strategically buried the whole subject, I pray our candidates have not forgotten the fundamental arguments of HOW this is killing healthcare innovation, fee and drug rates, doctor recruitment and by default - the economy.  They MUST get sharp again on this issue as the campaigns move forward or it will become like that hazy confusion of why you broke up with that high school flame who reappears.


But aside from just repealing OCare, I've only heard Cain and Santorum talk about Health Savings accounts and how to let insurance companies compete across state boundaries to bring down costs.  Like many I am unsold that Romney and Huntsman will make this a "make or break issue" if they are elected but will say whatever to get through the primaries.  I am only 100% convinced by Bachmann she truly won't give up on it - as diligently as the opposition wouldn't give up in cramming it through.
2010 Gallup Poll of Voter Top Issues

TAXES - Hunstman had the scariest answer of all at the Fox/Google debate.  He said we should never raise taxes during a recession.  I have no doubt at the first growth numbers from the ThinkProgress he'd sign anything.  Dick Morris says it best. "He's running in the wrong party." The rest of the field all seem to understand this issue to one degree or another.  It is interesting that Rasmussen said most voters understand cutting taxes gets the economy going.  That should play well for all of our candidates. 


EDUCATION - Bachmann has one of the better pedigree's here and perhaps because this issue polls lower for conservatives (Not a Federal issue to us) it doesn't get a lot of air time.  If our candidates platform is to eliminate the Department of Education, having started a school would be a wonderful immunity offset.  With most apolitical Americans likely associating the existence of a Department of Education with BETTERING education, this is a great opportunity to educate the public on what kind of waste, inefficiency and LOWER test scores the DOE has gotten us.  "How can you hate the kids?" becomes, "How can you keep lowering their aptitude?"


SOCIAL SECURITY - Paging Rick Perry.  Once again Karl Rove and Mitt Romney needlessly complicated the campaign of a conservative cause (not just the candidate) with their arrogance and opportunistic blabbermouthing.  (If that isn't a word it should be.  I'm trademarking it).  If Milton Friedman, one of the conservative economics geniuses of our time called it a Ponzi scheme - IT'S A PONZI SCHEME!  Rove is still trying to steer a car by looking out the sideview mirror of polling, worried about perceptions than actually CHANGING political dynamics.  Cain did a brilliant job at both the debate and the StarWars bar afterparty (aka MSNBC interview) by not backing down on this at all.  Add in a little more understanding of HOW BAD it is and how bad it is is going to be in the future (ie, 140 people supported one senior when Social Security started and now 2.9 people do and it's heading lower,) and we will strip that third rail off of the Democratic Hyperbole Express.


Medicaid and Medicare are normally included and ObamaCare gives the GOP a huge hammer since Obamacare cut $500 Billion from it.  Conservatives dont' have to seem to endorse state run health care but again launching a package of tort reform, consumer driven (not insurance driven) payments, deregulation and medical savings accounts.  Hopefully a candidate will finally find a way to simplify a very complex solution.


IMMIGRATION. As perhaps the best positioned social conservative in the field just learned, being a border Governor doesn't give you a pass on immigration issues.  NumbersUSA has a scorecard for the candidates according to a very austere anti-immigration outlook, while Americans for Legal Immigration have declared Perry's run is over on this issue alone.  (NumbersUSA wants NO immigration lottery at all - a stance not supported by any of the candidates accept Ron Paul who gets an overall "F".  So this is the most extreme immigration position against which they are measuring.)  According to their scorecard - Bachmann is actually the strongest candidate in the current field. Cain and Romney tied for second.



In answering my liberal friends who ask the, "Why do Republicans hate minorities so much?" question, i liken it to a mixture of three things.  First, it is economic.  Annual waste of perhaps $100 Billion or more (plus stealing jobs for teens and unskilled workers) is ridiculous.  Our own SSA website declares you don't need a social security number to get "many benefits" as a LEGAL immigrant.  Of course they don't mention the new Obama "family plan" of benefits for illegal aunts and uncles who somehow have their own Social Security card.  


After emphasizing the admiration and promotion of LEGAL immigration (see below),  I explain to my liberal friends my second and third points to their ignorantly based question.  "You know the feeling you get at DisneyWorld when you've been waiting 2 hours for the FINDING NEMO experience, wondering if you will get in before it closes, and a family of 15 suddenly slides underneath the FastPass lane into yours in front of you?  Imagine instead the pimple faced Disney employees taking up a collection from everyone else in line to not just buy them a 3 day pass, but also a churro and soft pretzel for every cheater."  This is Rick Perry's blind spot.  Our immigration basket carries a wallets have nerve endings.


Republicans are missing the boat on not touting LEGAL immigration more which would enable them to not look like the mean, angry neighbor who doesn't want kids in the neighborhood - much less the lawn.


And I don't know about you, but Bachmann took a step back when she wouldn't answer Wolf Blitzen's question as to what she would do with resident illegals IF the border were shut and IF eVerify was passed.  (I know - it's my reindeer name for him.) She clearly avoided saying that she would deport wonderful American families who had lived here for 20 years illegally.  So this brings us to the issue which Perry apologists use by saying, "The GOP would never win an election in Texas (and by implication loose the Hispanic voter forever)."  Although Latino voters align more closely with Republicans on social issues, they put immigration reform as even more important an issue than jobs and the economy. How is this possible?  One reason is because 25% of Latino's have a family member who is an "undocumented American."  Over HALF of Latino's personally know an illegal and in Texas it's higher.  So if Rick Perry takes a hard stance on illegals - he's not just spouting a Conservative principle, he's talking about making Uncle Julio and Aunt Juanita homeless by sending them back to Mexico.  Or worse, they also serve as the day care service for the entire family.  This isn't an  easy thing to ask a culture that values family above almost everything to throw loved ones into the cold.


Failure to educate and inspire American values (truth, honesty, personal responsibility) that most Latino's share - is coming back to gouge us in the glutes.  But we've bought into this idea we can't talk about right and wrong for fear we will be pegged as "judgmental."  Stealing is wrong.  Is it so hard for a candidate to acknowledge the family dilemma for Latinos and explain how this is not just an economic disloyalty to our country but a demonstration of poor moral values to their children and ours?  Stealing, rebellion and lying are ok?  I trust the majority of ALL Americans, brown, yellow, red and green, they don't LIKE the nagging feeling they are stealing from their neighbors and are poor citizens.


Pew Hispanic Poll
Ultimately, the issue is how you frame it.  As you can see from the pie chart to the right, only 28% of Latinos don't believe illegals should be punished.  I wouldn't be shocked that those are mostly those who have illegals in the family and were already Democratic voters.  If you DON'T plant these ideas during the campaign - it is infinitely more difficult to get the attention of most of the electorate to educate and persuade them of the "just" course later.  Political capital is a REAL thing.  I think a majority of conservatives can live with a candidate that advocates building a fence, stronger border manpower, business penalties for hiring illegals and leaves how to deal with resident illegals with a "to be decided later," position AS LONG AS THAT DECISION WASN'T MADE UNTIL THE OTHER POLICIES WERE IN PLACE.  But the ultimate candidate would start asking Americans if we can really live with teaching our children that breaking the law is OK as long as you haven't gotten caught for a long time.  We are a nation of grace.  What conservatives don't want are more empty promises that if we just let these illegals stay it will all be fixed later.  That dog not only won't hunt, it's been buried under the stinky bush.


NATIONAL SECURITY / WAR ON TERROR
Off the radar by virtue of our false sense of security from no major domestic attacks, National Security can jump back to the top of the list with one piercing hole in our national armor.  it is clear that the MSM has aided Mr. Obama from any real understanding of the threat of Islamic Extremism even on our own turf.  It is tough to hide 13 dead at Fort Hood at the hands of an Army Major Psychologist, but there has likely been as many as 55 deaths due to Islamic extremist motivations SINCE 9/11.  We should be outraged that  a majority of the country is likely not aware that the shooter Nidal Hasan called himself a "Solider of Allah" on his business card and gave the traditional Islamic, "Allah is Greater," pronouncement before killing his fellow service men and women.  The war on terror IS on American soil, but our government and media are intentionally trying to hide it with hoaks and right wing fears.

Obama got cover with his national security "cred" through retaining Bush policies against the pressure of his base and the fortune of being on watch during the Osama bin Laden kill.  A GOP nominee weak in this area could get wiped out in the polls with one debate misstep and a national security crisis.   I suspect Perry's military background, Gingrich and Paul's legislative experience, Romney's national guard administration give them all a leg up on the field.  Santorum gave excellent foreign policy answers but whoever the candidate, they will need to eliminate any doubt that they can "handle it" while giving a Presidential stature in a time of crisis.  Say what you want about Obama but, to the uneducated observer, he maintains a calm demeanor even when he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.  Not great to manage by (as we know), but it takes away a "Dan Quail" argument of not being presidential. I'm not sure how Bachmann and Cain will be evaluated by either the GOP field or the public at large.  Visible foreign policy experts and a general or two wouldn't hurt to give them the illusion that they have a "team" already in place.  Because of his executive experience, Cain may have an easier time convincing "leaners" this won't be a problem area for him.

AFGHANISTAN / IRAQ
Conservatives are split on the wars. Unlike issues like immigration, there isn't an overwhelming position that will disqualify someone in a primary except, perhaps Paul's position on pulling completely out of the region.  Since Obama continued most of the Bush policies, I doubt that the general election voter will believe ANYONE. If they don't have a Dukakis tank moment they are likely safe on this issue.  Americans still want someone who looks like a Commander in Chief.  The myriad of images of Palin with a shotgun, Perry killing a cougar, Giuliani during 9/11 and Romney's rugged looks likely put them above question as long as they have a clear handle of foreign policy and managing our troops.


SOCIAL ISSUES
It was very interesting that The American Thinker (which you should subscribe to by the way) had two somewhat ideologically opposed articles.  One said (paraphrased) "Don't loose the election by taking your eye off of the ECONOMIC issues!"


The other said, "Conservative Social Issues are WINNERS!"  (Like Bob Turner in NY-9)  In general elections, conservatives who argued effectively and factually on gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc HAVE consistently won.  Conservatives who themselves aren't quite sure why they believe what they believe - can come off looking ignorant.  Sorry Ron Paul fans, you can NEVER win a conservative Republican primary by advocating the legalization of marijuana.  It's a "wall" issue (like abortion) for too many of the base of the party.  It's not an economic issue - it is a "principle" issue among people that actually STRIVE to be principled.


On abortion, many of us appreciate the public stances of Reagan and Bush.  It is incomprehensible to those of us around in 1980 - that with 22 years of Republican control of the Presidency, we are still allowing unborn children to be killed.  True, there is a small segment (I believe it is 12% to 15%) of single issue voters.  But we will surely make it farther toward our goal with someone who will appoint pro-life judges at every level. 


ECONOMY / JOBS
Mitt has 59 points in his economic plan.  Cain has 9 of em.  (Or 729).  All top tier candidates (including Palin and Giuliani should they run) agree on some form of the following:
  • Cut capital gains to some extent.
  • Cut the corporate tax rate making the US more competitive for attracting back businesses.
  • Kill as many regulations as possible to allow businesses to compete and grow.
  • Getting unemployment and GDP numbers correct the first time so the market doesn't have to guess at the real revision numbers.
  • Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment immediately.
  • Eliminate wasteful bureaucracies like the Departments of Energy
  • Drill, Baby Drill.
All of our candidates already agree with most of these in some form or fashion.  But it will take a great communicator to help the American public realize what worked for JFK and Reagan will work for us now.


So who's a RINO and who isn't on these issues?  Conservatives are not going to tolerate a non-committal candidate who can be doubted.  Each candidate has some serious doubt they HAVE to overcome in the eyes of the primary voter.  (Perry on Immigration, Romney on Healthcare, Cain on foreign policy, Bachmann on the "Aura" and Management thing.)  Everyone wants SuperReagan who wasn't all that successful on implementing a number of conservative principles himself. (The link is my rebuttal to someone who tried to say Reagan wasn't conservative.  Ignoramus.)


What we have here, is failure to communicate
In part 3, I will grade each candidate according to the PolitiJim scale and "weight" those things most important.  What I can already reveal is that it is HIGHLY likely in 2012, things will be so bad economically we could run Pat Roberson (of 700 Club fame) against Obama and win.  All of our candidates can win on the overriding issue of the economic policy, but again, as in Part 1,  I have to bring up the factor of communication.  It is one thing to HAVE the "right" policy.  It is another thing to communicate it.  Here is a quote from the Economist prior to the 2008 election:
...71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. (Economist 2008)
We ALL now know for certain he didn't.  But even his lies were better communicated than John McCain's truths.


GOP voters are tired of the Doles, Bush and McCains who they "settled" for in previous elections.  My bet is independents are feeling the same from their Obama-lash.  I think a key quality to contrast with the Obama will largely rest on two issues:
Trust + Authenticity
A friend of mine offered an unsolicited opinion that got me thinking about not just the importance of policy - BUT WHETHER WE BELIEVE THEY TRULY MEAN IT.  She said she would door walk for Palin, and no one else.  When asked why she volunteered, "because women can see through other women - and we know we can trust her." 


Some of you reading this could care less whether a politician goes back on their word.  "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES." was disappointing for you and sorrowful because of the weakness for the party or in passing more GOP positions.  (Those who mistrusted Bush 42 and voted for Clinton instead got, "I did not sleep with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" - odd huh?)


To others of us, the "Read My Lips" thing was a personal betrayal.  But because we've been waiting for someone to help us implement the true principles we know are good and right and will HELP everyone in this country including our children and grandchildren.


So what I WILL grade is the trust and authenticity of the candidates and prospective candidates below on A) Do they mean what they say and, B) Will they stand firm in their principles if elected.



SINCERITY PRINCIPLED
Impressions
Bachmann
B
A
Waffling on the deportation issue made me suspect if she can't say what she really thinks, she pretends the question is something else.  Standard politics - not a moral failure, but not completely sincere IMO. I have no doubt however she would do what she says.
Cain
A
A
Going on very limited information including from friends who have met him. He has shown in debates he isn't afraid to say "I don't know." Not great tactically, but that could be the #1 quality voters are looking for.
Gingrich
B
B
My experience tells me it is entirely possible Newt has unfairly been judged in his personal situations.  As Speaker he never wavered executing the plan he set forth.  I feel he has tried to be cute with the media and has been slow to admit mistakes. Could easily have been C's
Giuliani
C
C
I admire the leadership qualities of Rudy.  I believe he is a decent guy. But his church is pro-life and he isn't and the days as prosecutor make me wonder if he can be too much a politician.  Unlike Newt these could be B's but just my impression
Huntsman
D
D
The more I hear and know about this guy, the less I trust him. Very possible I don't have all the facts on him but my impression is that he is very shifty.
Palin
A
A
Those who have read my review of THE UNDEFEATED know I have evolved to greatly admire Palin. In interviewing those from Wasilla I admire and respect her even more.  Her fearlessness as Governor against the GOP and Big Oil make me believe that if she has been faithful in the small things, she will be faithful in much.
Paul
A
A
I have no doubt Ron Paul sincerely believes what he does and wouldn't budge an inch on his principles.  His long record as a Congressman have proven that over and over again.
Perry
B
C
I am fully persuaded Rick is faithful Christian.  However, he gave a promise to Texans he wouldn't run for President and he never asked their permission to do so.  The "faithful in small things" goes here as well
Romney
C
C
I suspect Romney is a faithful devoted husband and father and a decent human being.  Politically however he has gotten smoother and it has made me MORE suspicious not less.  His fumbling for months to explain RomneyCare gives me the impression of a willingness to not just admit mistakes but to try and cover them.  Just an impression.
Santorum
B
A
Rick has proven he is undeterred by the politically expedient positions he could have taken in a much more liberal state. His "B" comes from an impression he tries too much to gloss his record (not mislead) but I might have it all wrong.  It might be more personality and communication disconnect that character.



NEXT: Part 3: Gauging How They Will Govern


(Be sure to check out my previous blog on How Ideas Become Political Reality.)


Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More