And we begin with MITT ROMNEY:

I'm fairly familiar with Mitt Romney. During the 2008 Republican primaries, he was the candidate I supported and voted for. I thought he was the most conservative viable candidate of the 2008 field. As it relates to 2012, I'm happy he decided to get back in it, but I take issue with the healthcare system he worked to put in place in Massachusetts, which is a much greater issue now than it was last time around.

(I tend to type too much at once. Pausing now to give you a chance to weigh in.)

From my experience, Romney seems like a very energetic fellow, which definatly appeals to his constituents surely. Though I wasn't old enough to vote in 2008, I feel that he has a strong chance to take (atleast the GOP) elections. How he stacks against Obama is rather difficult to say so early on, but polls do show that him and Obama are dead even (49% each) to win the 2012 election, of course that will most likely change due to some circumastances. Keep in mind that Romney does have some catching up to do to beat Obama, but like you said his healthcare plans in Massachusetts (which in my opinion are far more efficent than Obamas plan), as well as his carisma may indeed push him ahead. What really gets to me though is his Mormon faith, i'm unsure how many citizens will actually put that behind themselves in favor for his qualifications expecially in bussines, my guess would be that this could play a significant impact on his candidacy. Myself being primarily liberal (only slightly), I seem to feel that perhaps it would be dangerous having someone more associated with big bussiness (ala Donald Trump) than anything else, though I could probably be persuaded otherwise...

(edited for clarity)

I expect that economic issues will continue to be the primary issues shaping the 2012 race. If so, Romney, with his business experience, would certainly have a shot at both the GOP nomination and the general. I'd still consider Obama the slight favorite no matter who the Republican nominee is (unfortunately). Romney's faith was a bit of an issue even for him in 2008, but I don't think it's going to be the deciding factor on him. He did a pretty good job of explaining the faith factor in his 2008 "Faith in America" speech, which I'm sure he's likely to do something similar again if he believes his faith may become a liability.

Ok I have something to say about this topic!............screw all politics! If you ask me, I vote for Metallica for president! (The band Metallica) With them as prez, this coutury will be better! :D And the national anthan will be "No Leaf Clover!" :D

link XD

I do agree that Obamas handling of the economy can be seen as...well...sub-par, which is what a lot of voters are looking at surely. Though this is only my opinion, even if a conservative was elected in 2008, the situation probably wouldn't be significantly different than it already is; the economy runs on booms and busts, and it seems to me that the "bust" we are experiencing was inevitable due to it's "boom" state in the 90's. Controlling such circumstances seems nigh impossible by my standards whether you are a liberal or conservative. As far as Romney is concerned, this could almost guarantee him the presidency, as no president was ever re-elected with the ammount of unemployment Obama is under right now. Now that I think about it, perhaps it would be surprising to see Obama re-elected under such conditions, I know the rest of my family will be voting for Obama no matter what because they are strong (and I mean STRONG) supporters of the democratic party, but voters like that don't come around as often as they used to.

@metallica; I saw a vid of them "roleplaying" what parts of government they each would be, Kirk was unanimously elected president by the bunch. Kirk 2012? Would probably get my vote, hahah.

YAY! :D

It's true that the economy probably wouldn't be in terrific shape even if any Republican won in 2008, but I think Obama may have contributed to its worsening. The "stimulus" plan that was supposed to help reduce unemployment being just one example; now it's at 9.1% the last I heard. That plus all the bailout programs which turn the free market inside out, in my view.

I think most people in my family will vote GOP, though I've never surveyed my relatives.

(@Metallica1147: Um... thanks for your opinion, I guess. I'll listen to the song later.)

I actually agree that Obama may of contributed inadvertainly to the collapse of the economy through his numerous bailouts, which were for the most part failures (in my opinion the only one that worked as intended was the Auto), I don't want to play the blame game but I definaly don't blame Obama fully for the state of economy. When I get right down to it, it's congress and the senate that fumble the ball more often, not to mention their stagnant stance on just about everything relating to the other party. I was watching the news just the other day, and many everyday people blame the congressional branch for many of their hardships (they were in Toledo though!), also (again I don't want to point fingers) the Bush administration gets a slice of the blame as well, which drove Obama's election in the first place. It would be interesting to see a shift in administration, but as far as i'm concerned I expect to see the same old song and dance.

(I apologize if I'm taking a while to reply or if I'm just not at my peak. I'm trying to balance doing a few things at once.)

Congress controls the money, so you do have a point. What are your thoughts on the debt situation and the decision to not raise the debt ceiling (at least for now)?

Well personally I belive that the decision not to raise the ceiling can be both good or bad. Good in that the government is now forced to repay some of the trillions of dollars that it owes to other countries. At the same time though (im working off one class of Econ now, so excuse me if i'm wrong), if the nation is too busy repaying debt, many benefits that you and I enjoy today would probably be slashed in favor to lower the debt of the national government. Unemployment benefits would probably be reduced (of course peeving many people), banks of course wouldn't be able to support themselves without government involvement at this point, so savings and such could be in danger. With less money in peoples pockets, GDP would be down slowing the economy even further perhaps. In short deflation is a possibility but again i'm not too involved in Economics, seems slightly logical though.

Take your time, i'm working on a paper right now also hehe.

(For me, it's trying to reply to some people who have messaged me and trying to analyze/write portions of certain regulations.)

I think it's a good decision, though I suspect that the limit may once again be raised in the future without some sort of tradeoff. Give Congress enough time and it will be politics as usual.

Still, I would be a "no" vote on raising the limit. If cuts aren't made now, when will they ever be? A balanced budget amendment would be a responsible move in the right direction.

Economically, raising the debt ceiling is just putting off the burden for another day and perhaps another generation. Eventually, higher taxes would result from the need to pay a higher interest return on Treasury securities, along with other things. Also, barrowing money from foreign sources to pay the interest on other foreign debts is not sound either.

I agree that raising it will mearly "put it off for another day", but with the state of the economy now it might not be great idea to say the least, though it would be nice to see some kind of direction in the debt if it isn't raised. A balanced budget ammendment would be a good step, but if only it was so simple...lots of deadlock no doubt.

I think the best solution now is to remove ourselves, slowly but surely to avoid a power grab, out of Afghanistan expecially which is responsible for quite a significant chunk of our national debt (something like 10 billion a month). As far as I know, large steps have been taken to ensure our withdrawl by next year, but again easier said than done.

I recently read an article which mentioned, among other things, a few incidents in Afghanistan in which Afghan military or police officials, some trained by the U.S., went on to kill American soldiers and contractors. To me at least, this gives further evidence that the region is still unstable and makes it important to be sure that when we do leave Afghanistan, we leave it in the right hands. A slow exit would be best. The time estimate for such an exit should be determined by commanders who know the situation first-hand, not arbitrarily by those who have never stepped foot in the country or even out of Washington lately.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Afghanistan Saturday, and his interviews and such proved very insightful in understanding the situation over there. In a way I largely agree with him on certain strategies, one of which called for the removal of support troops while the heavily armed, or "front line" forces as I like to call them, stay and secure the area. It is indeed unstable, proven by the recent attacks the past several days which only increase as terrorists are no doubt seeking revenge for the death of their leaders, so pulling out is quite a segnificant challenge for the U.S. If you saw Obama's adress this morning where he was speaking to chancellor Angela Merkel from Germany, he stated on several occasions the kind of cooperation the two countries are going through, as German soldiers are now substituting Americans in the most dangerous areas. This kind of "switch" of authority is also a good method, but congressmen expecially have stated the need to "finish what we started", which could prove troublesome and hamper some efforts to contain the situation.

I didn't see the address, but it's definitely good to see support and relief coming from our allies. I wish there was more all along.

Switching gears for a moment, what motivated you to take an interest in the political world? Far too many people in this country, of all ages but especially among younger demographics, tend to be apathetic towards politics, which is a shame. For me, I got into it a handful of years ago when, after years of just watching the news, I wanted to truly understand what reporters meant when they talked of the different parties and of opinions being "conservative" or "liberal." So I did a few months of research soon after to see where I fit in.

(I'll wait for your reply, but this will be the last post for me for tonight, I'm afraid. I haven't stood up in a while and I'd like to feel my legs again.)

I got into politics about 3 years ago in High School. You'r unaware of the Center for Civic Education I know so I will try to explain as clearly as I can. There are several "programs" that the Center runs one of which was called "We the People", a national based competition where all 50 states (and then some), represented by the states respective "winner", participate in "Mock Congressional hearings" in front of several judges. I joined a few years ago, our team won the state competition (this is when I lived back in New Mexico, the standards were pretty high there), and we visited Washington D.C. We came in 11th in the nation which in a way bolstered my interest towards politics (that and many representatives saying that I knew more than most of their collegues, which was nice). Since then I have been pretty active in politics and though I don't really think I will be running for office (engineering is my major right now), the memories of my experiences in High School drive my political interest. Yeah it's been several hours and my computer is feeling fried as well, so thanks for the chat for now, hope to do it again soon, just message me if you ever feel like doing it again sometime. If I could shake your hand I would, but well...you know haha. Thanks again!

It’s been about a year and a half since the landmark case of “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” and ever since the decision has largely gone under the radar. Now that the national elections are starting to go full swing, it’s becoming apparent that this case might actually spark some serious debate for voters. No doubt the ability for large corporations to spend millions of dollars on a single candidate seems unfair at times, making any presidential campaign more about “who you know” rather than “what you stand for” which to me seems like a serious blow to democracy itself. I’m usually not one to argue against the decisions of the Supreme Court, but they have been wrong before on certain issues, and undoubtedly this might be the largest blunder they made since “Plessy v. Ferguson”. Should we treat entire companies like individuals? I say no.

I'm not too big on restricting political speech, and I think the Citizens United decision helps to undo some of the transgressions of perhaps well-meaning but ultimately rights-infringing federal legislation. Corporations and other groups are not and should not be seen as individuals in all regards, but to allow them to carry out First Amendment rights to free speech the same as any of us I cannot take issue with. Ultimately, citizens themselves must be given the chance to evaluate whatever messages they are seeing and judge whether such messages are appropriate in the political scene.

Similarly, if I may deviate a little, I disagree with both campaign contribution limits and taxpayer-funded campaigns. I have never made a donation to any candidate anywhere near the current federal $2,500 individual limit, though if I wished to freely spend $10,000 of my hard-earned dollars by making such a donation, why should it be that the federal government can tell me I can't? To say that expanding the limit or doing away with it entirely would corrupt the system is a fallacy; for every Republican millionaire/billionaire who would place exorbitant money into an election, there will likely be a George Soros-type able to counter their donation. As for being against taxpayer-funded (or publicly funded) campaigns, whether in presidential elections or more local as in Connecticut's Citizens' Election Program, I do not believe it is the role of government to provide candidates with election funding. Willing citizens will donate to their candidates; if one candidate is able to raise more money than another, this is ultimately a free-market occurrence and possibly also due to a poor or unpopular message expressed by the opposing candidate(s). I don't like the idea of my money going, indirectly, to pay for the campaign -- perhaps even the lawn signs and bumper stickers -- of someone I disagree with.

I see what you mean with the government-funded campaigns and I whole-heartedly agree. I don’t pay the government to possibly support a candidate that I quite frankly find unappealing especially when another candidate who’s less supported (that I agree with) is running at the same time. Personally, however, I do believe that there should be some kind of limitation on an individual’s ability to contribute financially to a certain campaign. Riding off of what you said, if a candidate is supported enough and holds a considerable amount of public approval why shouldn’t there be a limit, wouldn’t he/she still be ahead anyway? Think of it this way, if hypothetically two candidates are running against each other and one holds a 70% approval rating (let’s say out of 1000 people), and the other a mere 30% logically the one with the higher approval and popularity SHOULD be the one to take office if there are no outside forces influencing the campaign otherwise (which is what democracy should be!). Skipping ahead, when the candidate with 30% receives a considerable amount of funding from an outside source (say a corporation or some big-shot CEO) to bolster his/her campaign allowing him/her to advertise considerably more than his/her opponent, schedule massive rallies etc. the popularity starts to sway in his/her favor (well this is if the other candidate receives a much less generous offering in terms of contributions; and I can’t rely on certain contributors balancing each other out because most “big businesses” are usually persuaded towards the party that gives them the most benefits which in today’s world would probably be the Republican Party). Meanwhile as Election Day draws near the results show the originally popular candidate with 30% approval and the other 70% based almost completely on contributions bolstering their popularity, believe it or not the amount of advertising a certain candidate puts out persuades immensely the final voters decision as many simply go off a name rather than ideals. Now, if there had been a limit on contributions the other less popular candidate wouldn’t of been able to pull such numbers because of (rightfully so) less support, and the initially more popular candidate would of won (again rightfully so). To put it in a more modern perspective, Herman Cain another presidential hopeful is by all rights one of the more qualified candidates running right now for the Republican bid, but lulls in the polls because he simply isn’t as recognized as say Bachmann (to which he seems much more qualified than) or Romney is. In the end it’s the voter who elects a certain person into office, but allowing anyone, even companies, the ability to contribute massive amounts of funds to perhaps a substantially less qualified candidate seems to be a treacherous thing to do.

Yesterday was truly a historic day for resident New Yorkers such as myself; the legalization of Gay Marriage certainly sparked nationwide attention, as New York is now the largest state to legalize such a controversial issue. That being said, 44 states remain reluctant to accept Gay Marriage as a legitimate bond between two persons, which has many people (myself included) looking towards the National Government to take a stance. The issue of “separation of Church and State” certainly keeps the Government hesitant to act, seeing how marriage can be classified as a Church affair, but over the years there’s no denying the countless protests conducted by advocacy (or hate) groups for (or against) this very issue. I myself am neutral towards the subject, seeing how some of my friends are known homosexuals, but I can easily see why some wouldn’t support such conduct. If the Federal Government were to take a stance on the subject, I only hope that the words “equality for all” fits into the equation.

Edit: Oops, suffrage only pertains to voting.

As perhaps expected, I am a traditionalist on the marriage question and support defining/retaining it as a one-man, one-woman union. Marriage as such is a time-tested institution in both religious and secular environments, spanning a wide spectrum of religions and governments. I do not find it proper to redefine it, and I support such measures as the Defense of Marriage Act. I personally doubt that the federal government will take any substantive action on marriage anytime soon, especially with more important issues to consider which impact far more Americans.

For the time being, the issue seems best addressed at the state level, especially through direct votes of citizens in the several states which allow these practices in one form or another. This is far better than imposing something by judicial fiat, and reflects better the true wishes of the people, whether in support or opposition.

I reject the idea that "hate groups" and their supporters are the chief opponents of same-sex marriage. I don't deny the existence of such fanatical fringe opponents, but I do not subscribe to their message. I am simply tradition-minded, not hate-minded. I do support such same-sex benefits as hospital visitation privileges and the ability to make medical decisions for one's partner.

One article I read several months ago that I thought represented the traditional marriage view well was written by Sherif Girgis in National Review (link). A bit longwinded, but a thorough piece defending what he calls the "conjugal view" of marriage.

My apologies, the use of the phrase “hate group” did seem extreme, and I fully realize that not everyone who opposes same-sex marriage falls under this category.
You’ll be happy to know that I read the entirety for the article, but as for some of the arguments I can’t help but rebuttal several of them;
-“Same-sex marriage harms the common good, causing cultural ‘suicide’.”
Less than 1% of all individuals in America are claimed homosexuals. Such a small percentage really does not justify the degeneration of the ‘common good’, and I don’t see the numbers substantially increasing in the near future. And the first example of John Partilla and Carol Anne Riddell is an extremely rare case, hence the reason it made the news in the first place.
-“Same-sex couples cannot enjoy coitus the same way a traditional couple can.”
Who said marriage was all about sex? Love is love, and it’s difficult to suppress it. While sexual interaction certainly plays a major role in whether or not a relationship works, last I heard same-sex marriages end much less frequently in divorce than do regular married couples (but this may just be because there are so few married same-sex partners).
-“Why can’t they be happy with a non-marital relationship?”
It all revolves around the principal of things; if two individuals are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together, why not take in the benefit of marriage? Why should a spiritual bond be restricted only to those who follow the social norm? And who is it harming anyway? If anything it’s just putting money in the wedding planner’s pocket.
-“Same –sex couples cannot reproduce, which is what marriage is all about.”
Again, marriage, at least from my standpoint, certainly means something more than reproduction. This argument would be good if we were talking about, say, a rare breed of tigers. Rather than going back to Darwinian Theory, we should acknowledge that humans are the dominant species and we reproduce for pleasure, not survival (which we are way beyond). Additionally there are plenty of orphans who would love to be adopted by anyone.
-“But children only succeed when raised by their ‘biological’ parents.”
I had a friend in middle school that was adopted and raised by a Gay couple; last I heard he was pursuing a Physics degree at UCLA. I can’t speak for everyone, but the way a child is raised depends on how the parent acts rather than who they are. Ultimately it’s also up to the child to be motivated enough to succeed, which may diminish due to a non-biological connection but nothing proves that statement to be true. It’s like saying that “children who eat dinner with their families are more inclined to succeed”, but I rarely did so due to my attachments to my hobbies, and I certainly don’t think that I will become a “failure” just because I didn’t eat my meatloaf with my parents, and my grades would probably justify my reasoning.
I’m going to stop there in terms of the article.
Religiously I can certainly understand why people would be opposed to same-sex marriages, and if that’s what they believe then by all means they have the right to believe so, it IS their right after all. I do realize the government has bigger issues at hand, with August 2nd looming closer and closer, and this issue should probably not be addressed immediately. The U.N has addressed the issue however, and countless other nations across the globe have taken positions so why not America?

(I tend to overdo my answers sometimes, my apologies!)

Last week a friend and I got involved in a fairly lengthy debate over a topic I discovered on the internet, rather than go into extreme detail over the circumstances I’ll just post it here short and simple.

Given the recent events in Washington the past few months, would it be within America’s best interest to appoint term limits to all Congressional officials?

The question of term limits is a good question. To be honest, however, it is not one that I have ever formed an absolute opinion on in either direction -- I'm not expressly for them, nor do I oppose the idea. One reason I am hesitant to be completely for term limits is that they would prevent voters from freely re-electing incumbents who they have been long satisfied with. Without term limits, more of the decision on who goes and who stays rests with the people directly. However, on the other hand, I have never been completely satisfied with the congressional representation of not just my district, but the whole of Connecticut, both U.S. House and U.S. Senate. Even the Republicans that some districts have had in the House were RINOs on many matters, and one member of Congress, Democrat Rosa DeLauro, has been representing her district since 1991. I blame the voters in a lot of ways for electing or re-electing these people in sometimes knee-jerk liberal fashion, though Connecticut is hardly a bastion of conservatism and continues to trend bluer and bluer. But even though we're unlikely to elect a Marco Rubio or a Michelle Bachmann of our own (or even me when and if I run), it would be nice to see some fresh faces in the state's delegation -- and to finally see DeLauro playing shuffleboard. So all in all, I think that the idea of term limits is worthy of further discussion as a nation. Also worth considering might be a limit on the number of consecutive terms a person can serve instead, such as two terms in the House and then having to sit out for two cycles before being eligible to run again. Many states have consecutive-based limits with their governors rather than absolute limits.

(I always thought it was a tad ironic talking to a Republican from Connecticut; a dying breed if I ever saw one, seeing how not only Connecticut but the whole of New England is predominantly liberal.)

Term limits certainly can go both ways as far as debate goes, and each side has its strong points. As far as I’m concerned, term limits should remain exclusive to only the Executive branch and would be generally pointless to apply to Congress. While I feel your pain being underrepresented in your district (I lived in Texas for a year, how do you think THAT felt?), the idea of majority rule is something that we have to learn to live with especially in a Democracy. If a population feels that their representative, no matter what political affiliation, is sufficient in running and representing their territory it would be blasphemy to deprive them of that right by being forced to elect someone else into office. The reason Congress differs from the Executive (sorry, I’ve been asked this a lot so I’m just throwing it out there) lies in the principal of Democracy vs. Monarchy which as you may know was a huge subject post-revolution, but generally neglected until FDR in the 40’s with the creation of the 22nd amendment (one of my favorites behind of course the 26th). The power of a single man such as the president can easily be perverted to Tyranny whereas representatives simply do not have the capability to radically shift the countries ideals alone. That being said, representatives are (supposedly) the voice of the people and they wouldn’t be reelected if their constituents felt that they weren’t doing a spectacular job in doing so. It’s hard to disagree with consecutive term limits, as I generally think it’s a swell idea.

Before I forget, I’ll post a new subject that’s become quite relevant lately.

In recent years, America has witnessed some of the most violent shootings in history. From Virginia Tech. to the recent arrest of Jared Cano, there is no doubt that gun and weapon control is a huge issue today given our governments recent incorporation of the 2nd amendment just last year. Should we be more adamant about neglecting the right to bear arms to certain people, if not anyone without a license to use one?

While I support the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, I take no issue with prohibiting the ownership and/or possession of firearms of those convicted of felonies or deemed mentally incompetent. Even the NRA is generally on board with such restrictions. Those who use firearms in the commission of crimes should be prosecuted severely, as should those purchasing and selling guns illegally, particularly if the transaction involves gangs and the like.

As Virginia Tech is concerned, the perpetrator should not have been allowed to purchase a gun, and the incident did lead to legislation to more properly define which types of mental health records must be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. However, an argument can also be made that had there been legally armed students on campus, perhaps Seung-Hui Cho might have been able to have been taken down before he killed 32, stopping only by cowardly suicide.

Licensing of owners, permits to purchase, permits to carry, etc. are largely state-by-state issues. I think there should be more reciprocity between states in terms of things like concealed carry permits, in the way that a driver's license issued in one state allows one to drive, often for a set amount of time, in another. Where licensing and/or permitting is required, I support "shall-issue" issuance -- that those who apply should be approved unless there exists some disqualifying factor.

For me, prohibiting the right to bear arms for certain individuals is perhaps one of my strongest values and something I’ve been an advocate for before I even knew what the 2nd amendment was. To really understand what I mean, you need to look at the situation through my eyes; living in New Mexico for 10 years, it was (and I still think is) entirely legal for almost anyone besides convicted felons to carry a concealed firearm, and in the case of bars and pubs it doesn’t even need to be concealed to be legal. Licenses were issued and required as well, but this was very rarely enforced by the APD so it was very easy to lose piece of mind in public places with lax gun control laws the likes of that. Nobody in my family, as far as I know, owns a gun or has the license to use one, so I’m used to the notion that firearms aren’t necessary for security. Gang violence, at least in my area, was a major problem growing up; and living next to an area known only as “The Warzone” was incredibly disturbing to say the least. That being said, I’m probably one of the only people you would ever meet to say that firearms should only be granted to law enforcement officials and nobody else. Staying with the subject however, the fact that laws have indeed been enacted to restrict citizens with mental disabilities from purchasing a weapon and still see such brutish acts of violence such as the Gifford’s incident in Arizona (the man was schizophrenic, though I’m not 100% sure if he was diagnosed as such beforehand) years after more serious incidents such as Virginia Tech and Columbine, leads to the ultimate conclusion that America, as well as the individual states themselves, aren’t doing enough to control this problem. The incorporation of the second amendment, to me, seemed like a step backwards. The case in question, McDonald v. Chicago, was brought about by a city ordinance which restricted the sale of handguns and other firearms to non-licensed citizens, which to me seems like a perfectly logical and reasonable law to abide by. Consequently, the interpretation of the second amendment by the Supreme Court has remained its literal intent stance rather than adapting the words to a more current context, which brought about the dissent. Certainly the role of firearms has changed since 1787, and all I ask is for the Supreme Court to recognize that obvious fact. As closing, I do believe that firearms should be restricted to certain people, convicted felons and those with mental issues being the main minority affected, and it to be enforced more rigorously to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.


Next topic;

As you probably know, Rick Perry has come under fire recently for a certain state-wide law mandating that young females are required to take the HPV vaccine by the age of 11 or 12 to prevent cervical cancer from developing later on. Is this law really the "government injection" Bachmann believes, or is it just nit-picking at the frontrunner to gain that political edge for many of the other candidates?

When Perry signed his HPV executive order in 2007, I must admit that I did not take great issue with it at the time as the story rose in the national headlines. Given the far too high rates of teenage sexual promiscuity and the unlikelihood of substantial decline, I figured that the vaccine against the virus was for the better good even if encouraging abstinence was preferred. I have since moved to the view that the mandate was not appropriate, and while I certainly don't wish for individuals to become infected with HPV, my opinion is that risky behavior comes with inherent dangers and that those who fail to accept such dangers have brought whatever consequences that may result on themselves.

As for Bachmann's statement, it's likely a little of both. The vaccine itself having been required indeed infringed on parental liberties and gave off the impression of a culture in decline. However, it is also natural for a candidate lower in the polls to milk an issue which drives up the negativity of a frontrunner, and given the nature of politics, I don't think I can fault her for doing so.

While certainly undesirable, I do not believe that this controversy is a disqualifying factor for Perry, whether in trying to get my support or in the complete GOP primary contest itself. I'm personally more concerned with things like his support of in-state college tuition rates for illegal immigrants.

I realize I’m in the very small minority for this subject, but I’ll do my best to explain;

First off, I hold absolutely no biased opinion here. Even though Rick Perry is currently the candidate I support the most and Bachmann the least, I would probably have the same opinion if it were Huntsman behind the wheel; making that very clear.

I still retain the view you had in 2007 when this ordinance was passed, and certainly I don’t think it will go away soon. As far as I’m concerned, this law had the utmost best intent possible. Certainly HPV has become a common problem for many teenagers across the nation, and crucifying Perry for simply trying to save lives seems rather…silly. One of Bachmann’s main arguments against the drug included its side-effects which, as she explained, could include the development of mental retardation. I did research myself and found that the FDA, concerning the drug in question (Gardasil), listed no serious side effects and certainly none as severe as what Bachmann describes. The worst, as it says, concerns “slight discomfort in the injection site…lasting upwards of 3-4 days”, and other effects afterwards are simply listed as “coincidences”. I’ve had other people tell me, frequently, how the drug was potentially dangerous but I believe Harvard doctors far more than the general public. I’ll give them this however; “coincidences” does seem like a broad and generalized term that is certainly up for debate, but most reactions due to drug injections are not effects from the drug itself but allergic reactions to the materials commonly used during the process that the patient was oblivious to beforehand.

In dealing with parental consent, I’ve come to the conclusion that the role of the family concerning the health of their children should be left to a 3rd party. Teenage deaths due to disease are very commonly preventable given the right vaccines earlier, and expecting the parents to constantly keep track of their offspring’s medical record seems like a burden not many adults necessarily want to deal with. It’s common today to see parents neglecting their children of the proper care they require, and even though HPV is sexually transmitted (something, I hope, all parents try to prevent at a young age), allowing the State to simply offer that support to children who otherwise would of never acquired it under such conditions seems like the right thing to do, and this is what I think Perry had in mind in signing this order into law. Additionally, parents are able to opt-out of the program if it inflicts on their religious practices or if the child is known to react negatively to the drug beforehand. This is something many people forget, it’s not entirely “forced” onto the public, though many would prefer an “opt-in” instead.

As far as the political factor goes, you’re right. It’s certainly common for a candidate lagging behind to rub a particularly controversial issue in the face of a more popular one for their own benefit. This is exactly what I believe Bachmann did, and yes I can’t blame her either as I probably would of done the same thing if I was in her position. Perry is still going strong in the polls, so I don’t believe that this issue (especially now with new topics arising, one of which concerning a certain little place called Palestine; might discuss that later…need more research) will substantially affect him later on; if anything a different issue will.

I’m glad you brought that last sentence into the conversation, as we were just discussing that very thing in class! I’ll make this a duel-topic though, as both issues I have in mind intertwine, hope you don’t mind;

- In-state college tuition rates for illegal immigrants; I guarantee my opinion is different than yours regarding this.

-Affirmative Action; opinions.

For me, in-state college tuition rates for illegal immigrants simply falls into place as another issue in the much larger illegal immigration category, and I oppose it as I would amnesty or any other reward for violating the law. No doubt the primary argument in favor of allowing the practice, and one to which Rick Perry subscribes, is that those who have already been successful in high school should be rewarded for their educational ambition so that they can become productive members of society and bring their skills to the economy and the community. The feelings in favor of assisting these people are especially strong when an illegal immigrant student entered the country with or through their family at an age far too young to be responsible for their actions, and I admit that I feel a bit of empathy for those in such a situation. However, empathy does not pardon -- immigration laws were not written with emotions in mind. To grant some benefit or preferential treatment for illegal activity, no matter how justified supporters may feel the circumstances, is a disregard for all law-abiding citizens. And although the Supreme Court has ruled differently (Plyler v. Doe, 1982), I think the larger problem is the admission of illegal immigrant students into the public school system to begin with -- instead, immigration status ought to be checked at the time of enrolment.

As to affirmative action, I believe that reverse discrimination is as improper as any other form of discrimination would be. The race or ethnicity of an individual -- or sex, in some cases -- when factored into a decision to hire, admit, or otherwise select that person should be no more important than if they are right- or left-handed. To truly have a society in which all people are evaluated on their merits and intrinsic value requires a removal of any barriers which seek the inverse. The past sins of an intolerant nation should not be tacked on to that of the modern era -- the Bible gives an example to remember in this regard (Ezekiel 18:20, NIV): "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." Overall, I think the only discrimination that should ever go into a selection process is discrimination against the unqualified.

I know quite a lot about this issue and its true intent. How? New Mexico passed the exact same thing either shortly before or after Texas mandated it. It’s difficult to grasp the situation of illegal immigration unless you grew up in an economy virtually running on it like I have, and as a result this law makes perfect sense to me. First thing to note, illegal immigrants account for a considerable portion of every single border-state’s economy from Texas to California. Likewise, a considerable portion of every single border-state’s population also consists of illegal immigrants, many of whom are unemployed. Legal or not, there is no escaping the fact that immigration plays a massive role in our economy, though most people just don’t understand the extent. Hypothetically, if every single illegal immigrant were to be deported this very second like many wish, the economies of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and even California would plummet considerably, not to mention the impact other immigrant extensive communities (like New York and Florida). Because immigrants make up a substantial chunk of the work force in these states, it’s easy to see why someone like Perry or Richardson would like to integrate these workers into a more professional field. The economy being as sluggish as it has been, the need for more professionals in the workforce is something every single state has a mutual agreement with; that being said the substantial job growth in Texas, and New Mexico’s relative stability during the entire recession is in part due, either directly or indirectly, to this law. Allowing these individuals to become properly educated in a professional field is simply building up the economy further; now if the economy wasn’t like it is today, say we were booming, I can see why this would be unappealing as the job market would not require an influx of workers the likes of illegals. Unfortunately enough that’s not the case at all, so the need for more professional workers is crucial. Rather than spend countless dollars in taxpayer money struggling to identify and deport illegals, Perry made the smart decision in using these immigrants to his own states advantage, and rightfully so. The job growth in Texas over the course of Perry’s time in office, as you know, was one of the largest in the country because the accessibility of workers in medical, computer, and educational fields was higher; and it is these same fields that we see the demand for workers increasing exponentially. I would certainly say that the more ‘patriotic’ thing to do is help lift the country’s economy out of the pit we’re in like Perry has rather than enforce an immigration policy that quite honestly has no sense of direction as it is. In consideration of states who do not have such a dependence on immigration, implementations such as the IIRIRA does restrict undocumented immigrants from applying to public K-12 schools as well as colleges in a fair number of states.

In regard to Affirmative Action, I wish I held the completely optimistic view I have with the aforementioned topic. As a college student myself, Affirmative Action is simply an unavoidable inconvenience that I had to face when entering my own admission letters. On the one hand I do have a marginal advantage (being 1/3 Hispanic), but on the other someone with a much higher ethnic background can completely offset my application simply for that reason alone. GPA, test scores, and even income rates can be virtually overlooked by many colleges in favor of “ethnic diversity” on campus. Yes, I do believe academic merit should be considered first and ethnicity second; to take an example from my own life experience, a friend of mine (who is roughly 90% Hispanic) was accepted into quite a prestigious school in Central Texas and received an indefinite full-ride scholarship based primarily on his ethnic background as a First-Generation U.S Citizen. To put things short, however, his time spent at that college was little more than a semester before he ended up dropping out and returning to live with his family back in New Mexico. As much as I implored him to stay in school, he simply refused to continue any further. Now, had this particular school looked at academic merit instead of racial background, I assure you that whoever would of taken his place would (most likely) still be attending that college today, and even he admits that his acceptance brought about the loss of a more committed student that surely would of used his/her time there wisely. A similar scenario was brought to the Supreme Court with Grutter v. Bollinger, but to no avail against the idea that race is a make-or-break factor to certain schools and it simply needs to be accepted. This can certainly apply to all factors of Affirmative Action, especially in terms of employment where (to look legitimate in the public eye) many corporations hire racially and ethnically diverse individuals to hold positions of marginal or maximum authority. I certainly do not condone the actions either the admission offices or these CEO’s grant, as I do believe that someone’s work ethic and academic career should be taken into consideration first and foremost, or if anything a student’s family income rate/ salary.

I’ll post the next topic soon; feel free to offer a response if you wish.

Hectic week, sorry for the delay.

So you’ve probably heard of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the New Mexico born U.S citizen turned radical recruiter for Americas biggest threat al-Qaeda, and his controversial death that took place yesterday by a joint operation between American drones and Yemeni intelligence. While this was indeed a decisive blow against the terror cell, many U.S citizens are speculating the actual justification on the U.S Government’s part for killing a U.S citizen without due-process of law. Many constitutional experts questioned whether or not America went beyond its own code of conduct to secure peace. So, was the American Government justified in the neutralization of not one but two (the other being an American al-Qaeda journalist, Samir Khan) American citizens without due-process of law?

I probably won’t have time to reply for a while, so I’ll write my answer now.

It’s easy to get caught up with either end of this argument, as both sides have valid points to offer. In this case, however, I feel I should rule against the Government’s actions. The fact that al-Aulaqi was a born and naturalized U.S citizen should distinguish himself from the rest of the terrorist “hit-list”; with that I believe that America should have taken extra precautions to secure al-Aulaqi non-violently before making the call for his elimination. After all, al-Aulaqi himself never physically acted out against the government, so technically his rights were never considered void in the first place. Additionally, his messages against the Government through his website, as troubling as they may be, can be constituted as freedom of speech, a right fundamental to our democracy. As American citizens, we hold our own rights very dear to us, and perhaps one of our worst fears is the removal of those rights by our own Government, a fear that perhaps drove al-Aulaqi towards Yemen in the first place. Shifting from article to article concerning the subject, one term always repeats itself; “slippery slope”. If our Government is ready and willing to neutralize one of its own citizens without even the consideration of due-process, I fear that even less serious concerns to America’s national security may warrant death to an unsuspecting citizen in the (hopefully distant) future. While I personally don’t see this scenario playing out anytime soon, it’s always troubling to see the first steps being taken. If the American Government doesn’t recognize the seriousness of their actions that Friday, it’s easy to see how something the likes of this can be taken out of hand.

Due process is definitely an important thing; however, in the case of al-Awlaki, I think he got the process he was due. His swift elimination can be justified by his actions as an enemy combatant of the United States in a time of conflict; he signed his own figurative death warrant long ago by levying war against the United States and giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- the Constitution's definition of treason. Prior to the strike against al-Awlaki being authorized, the Justice Department concluded that al-Awlaki's status as a citizen did not shield him.

I can see how a possibly precedent-setting case such as this might make some individuals more leery of the government's actions and fearful of how far such actions may extend in the future. However, the case does not affect me in such a way, and I find that the concerns of those who see otherwise are generally overblown. America is too good a nation for its government to ever go down such a path, and I can't fathom a day in which dissidence short of participation in acts of war would lead to the death of a citizen, not even 100 years from now.

I already gave my two cents on the subject, but considering I was working on 2 hours of sleep I feel I could write a little more.

I see your points, what al-Awlaki committed can be constituted as treason against the United States. My concern however is this; if what he committed was treason, certainly an offence punishable by death IF convicted, why was he never allowed a fair trial in court like any other citizen would be under these circumstances? Because he was in a foreign country? We have several agencies whose jobs revolve around searching out and securing American fugitives across the globe. Because he was working for a terrorist organization? There are plenty of terrorist suspects in custody the likes of Ramzi Yousef who were secured peacefully without even being American citizens, and many of whom committed far more heinous crimes against humanity. On top of that, al-Awlaki himself was never directly linked to any terrorist attack against the United States; if he were then and only then would I say that the use of assassination was warranted 100% as this would certainly put him in the same classification as Bin Laden and other major terrorists. Because what al-Awlaki did only inspired certain individuals to commit crimes against America, not actually plot an attack himself, I strongly believe that America was too hasty to call for his elimination. If we were to send a missile to everyone who speaks out against the government and everything it stands for, needless to say most of American soil would probably resemble little more than the surface of the Moon. Giving fair trial to all citizens, no matter the odds for or against them, is something certainly I see as being fundamentally what America should stand for. I’m not entirely worried that America would stoop to the level of say Iran and arbitrarily eliminate its own citizens without repercussion anytime soon, but it’s situations such as this that truly test America’s restraint, and I’m not afraid to say that America failed on so many levels that it is certainly cause for concern. I certainly do not know the circumstances revolving around the entire operation (as Skipper would say, “that’s classified!” And it probably will be for quite some time), so perhaps I’m too quick to judge whether the use of drones was the only means necessary to decrease the volatility of the situation at hand. Until such information is given, I have no choice but to assume the worst.

EDIT: Discovered this quote in an article today, perhaps it was justified (but as the article further states ONLY if it was not possible to secure him peacefully, citing the executive order.)

“Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist — in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States — to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks.”

Full article here if you want to read it, quite interesting;

link


Next topic;

Given the recent event where an avid public supporter of Rick Perry blasted Romney for his Mormon faith, stating that the faith resembled a “cult” more than a legitimate religion, and Perry refusing to acknowledge the ordeal any further, should candidates and politicians hold themselves more accountable to controversies stirred by their supporters (if possible)?

I don't think that there is any cut and dry way candidates should treat divisive statements made by supporters. On one hand, a candidate may find it appropriate to completely repudiate such remarks in order to show that they do not agree with the comments and that they believe such remarks have no place in politics. On the other hand, if a candidate responds to something said by one of their supporters, the candidate may be inadvertently giving the matter more attention than it would have received if the matter was simply ignored.

That said, if I was in Rick Perry's position and the religion of an opponent was attacked, I would want to quickly issue some type of statement dismissing the supporter's comments as inappropriate. However, if a response by me would somehow further ignite the controversy or somehow give legitimacy to the divisive remarks, it may be best to simply dismiss the supporter's remarks in my own mind only and not react publicly.

The supporters of any candidate support their chosen candidate for different reasons. A candidate cannot be held responsible for the comments made by a few supporters who may hold fringe views. Candidates can only be responsible for their own comments, actions, and judgments.

Your guys's words are big on confusing and long! GAH! D: Another reason why I don't trust politicts and why my ploitical views are Rock@Heavy Metal. X3

^I’m going to take that as a compliment. It’s natural not to trust politics/politicians, but after a while it’s quite interesting to see how America is evolving almost every day through the political field. I certainly don’t expect everyone to have the same kind of interest in politics to the extent of me or SJF, but it would be nice to see new faces on this forum giving their insight as well (as unlikely as it seems now).

I’m fairly busy right now; I’ll try to type my response to the subject by tomorrow or Friday.

OK, back on subject;

There’s no easy way to say this, but if you or anyone else plans on going into politics you must also learn to take accountability and responsibility for actions that might not be entirely your fault. Legitimacy is key to winning any election and holding any office, and if legitimacy falters not only does your social standing with your constituents fall, but you can also expect a short stay in office as well. Consistently procrastinating and avoiding a particularly controversial issue is never going to help raise legitimacy in the public eye, so yes I believe (at the minimum) Perry made a fairly treacherous political move by holding off his repudiation for so long. Really all that needs to be done is to look to the past to prove this point; Obama with his church leader during his campaign, Anthony Weiner just this year, Nixon and the Watergate scandal in particular. Obama quickly and concisely addressed his controversy and it was forgotten within a week, Weiner consistently lied and meandered around the truth for weeks which only became fuel for the media fire until his resignation shortly thereafter (that is to say he probably would have lost his position anyway even if he had addressed the truth, but this was mainly his own doing), and with Nixon, who only threatened with the possibility of impeachment and imprisonment admitted his responsibility (even though it was mainly his administrations fault) thus being cleared of any charges by his successor Gerald Ford after his resignation. Putting off issues of these magnitudes only intensifies these controversies further, as people won’t stop addressing them until closure is found. Obama’s case in particular coincides Perry’s situation exactly, which makes it more difficult for me to understand why it took so long for Perry to repudiate his pastor’s remarks. Addressing the issue as quickly as possible will definitely receive media attention for several days, but seeing how this issue is still being referenced weeks after the fact shows that Perry was far too conservative in addressing these remarks. In political philosophy, it’s a well-known fact that the longer a candidate refuses to address slander made by a staunch supporter(s), the more inclined the public is to believe that the candidate endorses those remarks however absurd they may be. Of course I don’t believe that Perry agrees with him, but in situations like this it would certainly be within his best interest to distance himself as much as possible from his pastor both physically and ideologically as soon as possible. Even though the statement wasn’t in his own words, close supporters and cabinet members execute a considerable amount of influence on a candidate; most people know this, so it’s certainly not wrong to associate one person’s ideas with another. Addressing the issue quickly and suffering through a few days of media hounding versus weeks of thorough media intrusion by refusing to acknowledge the issue seems like a clear choice from my perspective; and though I hate to admit it, the old saying ”choose your friends wisely” has never been expressed any clearer than in politics.


Next topic;

This is a fairly obscure topic, but I believe it’s pertinent with today’s expanding technology access;

Network Neutrality.

My apologies for taking as long as I have to post a reply. I've been busy, but some of the things I do will lessen once the local elections are over next week.

Before addressing the new topic, I would first like to make two brief responses/clarifications regarding your take on the previous one:

-- Obama's "pastor problem" was much more severe than Perry's, and was an indicator of long-term poor judgment. Obama attended the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for more than 20 years, which implies that if he did not agree, at least to some extent, with Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons and other views, he probably would have found a new church decades earlier. Additionally, Obama did not "quickly and concisely" address the controversy in my opinion -- some of the information concerning the church and Wright had already been topics on conservative talk radio programs for many months leading up to when the mainstream media eventually began to play catch up. Obama could have addressed the matter much earlier.

-- You probably know, but it wasn't Perry's actual pastor who made the anti-Mormon comments. Rev. Robert Jeffress only endorsed Perry and introduced him at the Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C. There was never an Obama/Wright-type relationship.

Moving forward, network neutrality in itself is not an issue I'd put on my top 10 list, but my opinion on it is based on my general desire for the government to not regulate what is unnecessary or to overregulate where regulation is appropriate. With net neutrality, the most pro-consumer thing the government can do is stay out of the way and allow ISPs to fully and freely compete amongst each other, convincing consumers why they should access the Internet through their service rather than through a competitor's. Multiple pricing options are appropriate because consumers can make choices based upon their needs and/or lifestyles -- a higher rate for faster speeds seems just as logical as charging a higher price for a large soda from McDonald's versus a small. Consumers are also already protected by various antitrust laws, making ISP-specific regulation unnecessary and redundant. Not that unnecessity and redundancy have ever stopped government before.

Since my opinion was short, I may comment further depending on what you have to say.

I don’t really know how to say this but here it goes;

Good news: I’m finally living my life’s dream as a professional (session) musician!

Bad news: This is far more demanding than I thought, and as such I am unable to post here (or anywhere on this site) for extensive amounts of time (perhaps weeks on end if I’m called out of town).

Dilemma: I don’t know if you are willing to wait that long for a reply, I’m sorry but there simply is no way around it unless my schedule changes (which doesn’t seem likely seeing how I’m booked for work well into next year).

Proposal: Because I can’t post often, I’ll let you decide to delete this forum or leave it and wait arduously for my replies. It is, after all, your spot. Let me know.

If you decide to keep it, expect a reply perhaps (?) in the next week or two.

Congratulations on reaching your dream. Best of luck to you!

Forums as a whole cannot be deleted, only individual posts. That said, I wouldn't want to delete this forum anyway, as I think it's worth having for historical purposes. But since you'll be busy with your musical pursuits and I'll likely continue to be busy with the array of classified activities that make up my life, adjourning for now would probably prevent either one us from having to wait for extended periods of time. It's been good, and I thank you for sharing your opinions over the past several months.

I’m somewhat available the next few weeks so I might as well catch up here. Forgive me if I seem a little slow, haven’t been following the news as closely as I was before…and I’m…like…really tired.

-Not going to discuss Perry, his ship has sailed. Though yes, I was aware of their relationship in comparison to Obama. Wasn’t really the point I was trying to make.

-As for network neutrality, I believe that the internet is a privilege rather than a right. Allowing equal access to the internet is virtually the same as allowing equal access to food, water and shelter. While it seems like a perfect ideal world, it’s simply impractical and unrealistic in the grand scheme of things. Even though some very major players in the internet business (like the guys who invented it for one…forgot their names) staunchly support network neutrality, there’s a reason it isn’t as big of an issue as say ending world hunger. The internet isn’t a necessity. I use the internet mainly for recreational use, and very rarely for official business. If my internet was lost, I probably wouldn’t have a particularly hard time adapting without it. If I need it for important business, it should be up to my employer to provide it to me. The same probably goes for many of the more casual internet consumers. For people like me, I enjoy the option of paying what seems like the bare minimum for internet access, only using it for…say…writing my political opinions on a penguin-crazed fan-page…and looking up cat videos of course. Some people of course request more from their providers, and they also have that option open to them. Making the internet neutral to everyone would upset both ends of the spectrum considerably. For one, I might have to pay (like in the form of taxes) more than what I’m paying now under a government regulated internet provider for something that might not necessarily be better. And the other end gets upset for only having access to sub-par bandwidth regardless how much they’re willing to pay. This of course goes without mentioning the substantial steps government would have to go through to even provide internet access to some homes. I suppose if everyone needs to have access to the internet, they would also need computers to access it right? Treating the internet as anything other than a typical market product seems inane from my perspective.

Like I said before, I haven’t been following the news closely lately. I’ll let you start the next topic for a while if you want.

(I’m a little confused with the update thing on the side as well; says the last reply was 8 days ago but I don’t see anything new. Strange.)

Welcome back! I'll try to come up with a good new topic shortly.

As for the reason the site had indicated an update eight days earlier, that was my fault. I needed a place to quickly test some special characters produced with alt codes, and then I deleted the test post. Sorry about that.

I have two questions. The first I had actually partially written a while back and never used.

As I'm sure you know, the presidential primaries have begun and won't be over (at least not officially) until June. My question is about voter eligibility in primaries in general. Some states have "closed primaries," which restrict primary voting to members of the same political party that the nominee is being selected from -- thus, a Republican can only vote in a Republican primary and so fourth. Other states have "open primaries," which permit any voter to vote in any primary regardless of party affiliation, including those not affiliated with any party. And other states conduct "semi-closed primaries" or some variation thereof, which generally allow unaffiliated voters to vote in the primary of their choosing while barring those registered with actual parties from voting in each other's contests. There are advantages and disadvantages to all three systems. Which system do you think is the best one to have?

My second question is about the way candidates campaign for election to any office. Is it better for a candidate to be bold about how their vision contrasts with that of their opponent, or should candidates instead run to the middle and focus their campaign on courting independent and moderate voters?

I for one am not entirely fond of the closed primaries. Essentially these primaries force individuals that may be moderate or independent to “choose sides” to get their voice heard while being unable to flex towards other options that they should rightfully have. Currently, I’m registered as an independent. I follow both parties closely and I would indeed like the option to vote in the Republican primaries without being a bona fide member of that party. Though I may vote either way in the presidential election in November, having at least the option to see the politician I would actually want to see in office as opposed to others is something I hold in value. That being said, I don’t necessarily like semi-closed elections either. Independent voters certainly shouldn’t be the only affiliation allowed to be flexible during election time, and people have the right to change their stance on certain issues which may in turn change their party affiliation entirely. Though it’s fairly easy to re-register as a different party member prior to major elections, it’s during the heat of the moment where political issues are brought to the forefront that people’s opinions can change. Personally, I think elections shouldn’t deny anyone at any time due to their political affiliation, what’s the worst that could happen anyway? If anything, it gives a more clear understanding of how certain candidates appeal not only to their own party, but across the board as well. I understand why certain states offer only closed/ partially-closed primaries (keeping the voting record “clean” is what I have been told before), but an open system is perhaps ideal to running a fair democracy.

As for the second question, really the answer can already be seen in the way the current field of GOP candidates running their campaigns. In the recent Nevada caucuses, several interesting statistics arose; for one, Romney was voted as the best candidate to beat Obama among most voters but he was not voted as the most “conservative” of the bunch, that honor went to Ron Paul who ended up 3rd. Playing off that, the idea that Romney is closer to the middle actually plays an important role in how many votes he would receive; far more than if he proclaimed himself as a pure super-conservative. Many voters see a more moderate candidate as one more willing to compromise with the other party. Seeing how Congress has basically been the joke of the world with their recent bickering, this is strongly appealing to those frustrated by the constant dead-lock in the national government (which makes up a considerable proportion of the population). Acting simply as a “true conservative”, like Ron Paul, will only appeal to the small portion of individuals that consider themselves hyper-conservatives. Being a hyper-anything automatically puts you in the minority of most voters. Most voters tend to float around the moderate level, which is the audience Romney appeals to the most in this case. Whether you agree or not, Romney isn’t the most conservative candidate the GOP field has to offer, and this is exactly why he’s been sweeping most of the caucuses in more moderate-oriented states like Nevada and Florida. Independent voters are also a minority in most elections. However, that small portion of Independents can easily sway the election in their favor. Courting the Independent voter is a common strategy amongst most political candidates, and as it stands is almost equally as important as courting members of their own party. So in short candidates should, and very often do, display themselves are more lenient to their proclaimed party to attract the majority of moderate voters. Simply stating “I’m the most conservative/liberal candidate out there” will only appeal to a small minority of voters on Election Day.

I recognize the situation that independents and non-party-hardliners are in when they cannot participate in closed primaries, but I have always supported the closed system. For me, it is a matter of freedom of association, and a way to ensure that the candidate nominated by a party best represents the ideals of that party.

The problem with open primaries is that, while perhaps being more representative of general election voters, there runs the risk of diluting the votes of those who are actual party members (like me), and thus their freedom of association. An example of this that I can easily cite because I wrote about it during the 2008 primaries is the case of Mitt Romney and John McCain in the open New Hampshire primary, which McCain won 37 percent to 32 percent. According to CNN exit polls, only 61 percent of primary-goers identified as Republican. Among them, it was Romney who actually received the highest percentage -- albeit a difference of one percent -- over McCain, receiving 35 percent of the GOP vote. On the other hand, 37 percent of primary participants identified as independents, and voted a 40 percent plurality for McCain and just 27 percent for Romney. Thus, Romney lost New Hampshire because of the influence of non-Republicans, which doesn't exactly seem fair to and representative of those who actually chose to register with the Grand Old Party, at least in my view. Because if not for the right to vote in primaries (and possibly for identification and to run for office), why, then, bother to register with a party at all?

As for the other subject, whether candidates should concentrate on independents/moderates, I take a bit of a minority view. The need to appeal to moderate/independent voters is, in my opinion, too often overblown by both parties when what is really needed are stark contrasts. It is true that some middle-of-the-road voters may be turned off by strong ideology in either direction, but given the choice between two different paths, they're ultimately going to have to make a decision. Moderates do not motivate voters to stand up and cheer; one need only look at what happened to Bob Dole and John McCain to see this. But contrast their fates with Ronald Reagan, who articulated conservatism well to the whole of America against true liberal opponents in 1980 and 1984, and his back-to-back landslides.

I will support the Republican presidential nominee no matter who ultimately wins; I've never voted for a Democrat for any office. However, I think there would be a greater contrast between conservatism and liberalism -- and more enthusiasm in the race general -- if Rick Santorum was the GOP nominee over Romney or Newt Gingrich. With Romney, a contrast with Obamacare becomes more difficult, among other things; with Gingrich comes a record of supporting several non-conservative and/or big government ideas and being unpredictable. And Ron Paul is a cause candidate with no real shot at the nomination.

Anyway, I'll let you pick the next topic if you'd like.

(Reply to Matchmaker11)

These are questions I could fill volumes with, but I'll try to be brief here. I support Santorum because I, as a strong conservative Republican, believe he is the most conservative candidate running, and a consistent one at that. He is perhaps best known as a champion of social conservatism (pro-life, supporting traditional marriage, family values, etc.), but he has a lot of ideas to get the economy back on track as well and get the government out of where it doesn't belong.

As far as Obama, I pretty much oppose everything he's ever done. What Obama has done and continues to do, through so many of his policies, is to expand the role of government involvement in people's lives and thus create dependencies rather than allow people to make the most of their freedoms. This ranges from everything from Obamacare, which imposes a requirement that individuals pay a fine if they do not purchase health insurance, to using taxpayer money to bailout private companies (GM, Chrysler), to expanding entitlements, to engaging in class warfare by demanding higher taxes on successful individuals at the same time that close to half of earners pay no federal income tax at all. Put simply, there are basically two governing philosophies in America: one which strives to maximize individual freedoms with as little government intervention and intrusion as possible (which is the one I believe in), and another which believes that the elites in government know what's better for the people than the people themselves (which Obama and the Left subscribe to).

Okay, for whatever reason my multiple paragraph explaination was not posted so I have to start over. *sigh*

As for conservative beliefs, I am completely against them. I am pro choice since I believe woman should have the right to do what they want with their body. Most of the women who get abortions are teenagers who made a stupid mistake or was even raped. Also even if we make abortions illegal, women are going to go to back alley doctors and do it unsafely. We need to make sure they are done safely and without judgment. As for contraception, some woman can't afford to support a baby or already have enough kids to take care of. Plus while I personally believe that sex should be done within marriage, we shouldn't get involved in the personal lice of women who do it for...other reasons. As for gay-marriage, it's a stupid argument. Why do we care if some other person loves someone of the same sex? It's none of our business. Who are we to judge love? I find that these conservative beliefs are hypocratic. They say they want less government yet they are intruding on the personal lives of Americans.

As for Obama he has done great thing for this country. The economy has been slowly but steadily improving. He truly cares for the American people while many politicians are in it for the glory and fame. As for Obama care, he is trying to make sure every American is covered. It will keep everyone healthier and save us money in the long run. Many people get diseases and are screwed because they can't afford to pay the medical bills. As for the fine for people without minimum coverage, it is not for punishment but to encourage them to get coverage.

And people need a strong hand to guide them. We need a strong government.