Mitt Romney is Our Guy

I have never given a dime to any Presidential candidate until last week.

With both Thompson and Giuliani dropping out of the Republican primary, the field got much smaller. The only man on the ticket that I can’t bring myself to vote for is John McCain. I will do whatever I can to prevent him from winning our party’s nomination.

The Republican Party is about to rid itself of the legacy of Ronald Reagan and start wandering in the wilderness. In California, the pro-life plank of the party will almost certainly be deleted this year and traditional marriage is also about to be dropped from the platform. If McCain is the nominee, the same will likely happen to the national platform.

If the liberals in the Republican Party get their way, we are on the verge of a Stalinist purge of Conservatives. McCain and his ilk will try to trade those pesky conservatives for moderates in the “independent” or “decline to state” category.

Is Mitt Romney the savior of the Reagan Republicans? No! But he will be a candidate that we can get behind. Romney has been willing to embrace us and stand for our values. Hugh Hewitt has been proved right. Romney has emerged as the only clear choice for Republicans.

This epiphany gained lots of steam last Thursday and Friday in the talk radio world and it is clear from both polling over this weekend and the Maine Caucus yesterday that McCain stands a real chance of being buried on Tuesday.

The states up on Tuesday are the most liberal ones voting. If Romney can survive and get his delegate count near 500 he will be in good shape to win the nomination even if McCain gets more delegates. The longer the process goes the better for Romney. The better you know John McCain the more you will want someone else to be the nominee.

Top Ten Reasons to Support John McCain

10. One Term President
9. Strict Constructionist judges like Justice David Souter
8. What border fence?
7. 30-days of silence before election
6. Carbon tax
5. Favored tax cuts before he voted against them
4. Foot soldier in Reagan Revolutionadvance to general via Republican maneuver called Circular Firing Squad. *
3. McCain exists only to torment Rush Limbaugh
2. Makes me miss Bob Dole
1. Thinks Hilary Clinton would make a good president.

* Circular Firing Squad is moderate Republican formation where you wound or damage as many fellow Republicans as possible before unilaterally surrendering republican values and joining with Liberal Democrats for sake of bipartisanship.

Democrats Michigan Dilemma

The Michigan Secretary of State website has a document that summarizes the state’s legislative history and laws governing presidential primaries. In 1995, the highlights of the changes to primary voting include the following two paragraphs:

This action returned Michigan to an “open” primary system whereby a registered voter would be issued the ballots of both parties and the voter would select the party primary in which he or she wished to participate in the privacy of the voting station.

The potential candidates’ names on the combined lists prepared by the Secretary of State and the political parties would automatically have their names printed on the ballot under the designated party heading unless the named individual filed an affidavit indicating that he or she did not wish to have his or her name printed on the ballot or wished to be printed on the ballot under a different party heading.

This gives Michigan voters a free hand to vote for any candidate from any party in the primaries. Thus, in theory, Republicans can select the Democrat nominee while Democrats can help select the Republican nominee. This is one of the results when liberals run the show; anything to dilute the vote.

The Michigan sample ballot lists all Republican candidates but only a few Democrats.  Hillary Clinton is the only top tier candidate listed. Other Democrats include Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. If you support Barack Obama, you won’t even find him listed on the ballot! Obama is telling supporters to vote Uncommitted. Uncommitted is Michigan’s choice for those wishing to vote for none of the above.

The Democrats are on the horns of several dilemmas. First, they are crosswise with their national party. The official position of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is that any states holding a primary prior to February fifth will not have its delegates seated at the summer convention. Lucky for Michigan, this same threat also applies to the Florida primary. Michigan is rightly asserting that after the Bush v Gore fiasco of 2000, there is no way in hell that Florida won’t have their votes counted by Democrats. They assert that if Florida must be counted then their votes must be included also.

Ironically, it is due to the conflict with the national party that Obama asked to have is name taken off of the ballot! He followed the rules but Hillary decided that she was exempt.

Another dilemma is that it appears that in order to neutralize Clinton, the choice of Uncommitted must get more votes than she does. Should Uncommitted win, not only would this allow Michigan a way out of sanctions by the national party but it would be viewed as a victory by Obama. Delegates to the national convention would then likely be selected by the Michigan Democratic Party at a later date.

The third Democrat dilemma is the chance to tamper in the Republican primary. Democrats could cast votes for such Republican luminaries as John McCain or Mike Huckabee since they would be easiest to beat in November. Yeah, choose your opponent. What a country!

It is curious that no third party candidates are listed on the sample ballot. Where are the Greens, Constitution Party and all the rest? Apparently, they can be ignored because they don’t get a big enough percentage of the vote or they are chosen via a method other than a primary election.

Democrats have a mess on their hands. It may be the only thing that keeps Michigan in play for Republicans like Mitt Romney.

Iowa

Wow! The Huckster scored big tonight. I am surprised that he did so well. The question is was a vote for Huckabee really a vote for him or a protest vote against the elites in the Party telling us to pick Rudy or Mitt?

Huckabee has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of foreign affairs and economics. Evangelicals seem to be ignoring policy for values. As Rush Limbaugh calls it “identity politics.” This was the same irrational logic that gave Jimmy Carter the evangelical vote in 1976. Both 1976 and the current campaign were preceded by Republican failure inside the “beltway”—especially domestically.

Voters in both parties seem to be favoring Washington outsiders. (Yeah, Obama is a Senator but two years in DC is more of an outsider than Hillary Clinton. Ditto for Edwards.) I think the voters are sick of the gridlock in Congress. Can you say “where’s the Federal budget?”

Romney seems to have buried folks in Iowa with media and mail and a few folks that Fox News aired tonight said they we tired of the blitz by such a well funded campaign. I think Mitt is still stuck with a believability gap. His record does not match his rhetoric however well-crafted or targeted his message may be. Until Mitt can have a convincing story of why he had a change of heart on virtually every social issue and many fiscal ones as well, he will not win many evangelicals.

This leaves Fred Thompson and Huckabee to fight over most of the evangelicals and Rudy, Mitt and McCain to fight over the rest.

Rudy did worse than I thought he would. I thought he would at least score in low double digits. Rudy needs to show better in the next few contests or he may not survive until February.

McCain will start fading after New Hampshire. His support is not from the Republican base but independents. The real question is will anti-Hillary voting move people to boost Obama and end Hillary’s presidential aspirations. Such a move would hurt McCain. If McCain can’t deliver up to his expectations via many independent voters going for him, he will find his last ride on the “straight talk express” to be a short one.

The concept of a brokered convention has inched closer to reality; however remote.

Mike Huckabee and Tookie Williams

While no analogy is perfect, enough of the facts are the same to compare the cases of Stanley “Tookie” Williams and Wayne DuMond.

First, Stanley “Tookie” Williams was a street gang member who was convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death. While in prison, he had a born again experience and gave his life to Christ. As a result of his conversion, he began writing various articles and tried to encourage young people to avoid street gangs. Because of his anti-gang advocacy, many people thought that his sentence should be commuted and the death penalty should not be carried-out. Even many people that normally support capital punishment thought that the governor—Arnold Schwarzenegger—should pardon “Tookie”.

“Tookie” was finally executed about two years ago.

In 1985 Wayne DuMond was convicted of raping Ashley Stevens.

DuMond said that, while he was awaiting trial, masked men burst into his home, tied him up with fishing line and cut out his testicles. By the time Mr Huckabee became governor in 1996, he had met DuMond’s wife and was promising to release him. After advice from medical experts — thought to have told him that DuMond was still capable of rape — Mr Huckabee allowed the decision to be taken by the parole board, which released DuMond in September 1999.

In 2001 DuMond raped and killed Carol Sue Shields, 39, in Missouri and is also said to have been responsible for the rape and murder of Sara Andrasek, 23, who was pregnant. He died in prison two years ago of natural causes.

While the media doesn’t pay much attention to religion, Mike Huckabee’s faith was understood to be an issue in the decision to release DuMond. Many have speculated that Huckabee was convinced that DuMond had a conversion experience in jail and that facts surrounding his rape conviction were politically motivated. (Ashley Stevens-the victim of the rape-was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton.) The conversion, castration and Clinton connection were enough that many pushed for DuMond’s pardon.

The common thread in both cases is the claim of religious conversion as the basis for some type of preferential treatment for those convicted of crime.

I don’t fault the criminals for wanting to get out of incarceration. I do have a problem with ignorant but well meaning Christians that don’t understand the proper role of church and state. Below is a portion of an article that explorers these roles:

Forgiveness Requires Restitution
by David Chilton

The condemned man sat in his cell awaiting execution. James Morgan had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death under the justice system of 17th-century Massachusetts—the Puritan Colony par excellence.

The Puritans have often been stigmatized as narrow-minded legalists, unconcerned about the plight of “sinners” in their midst. To the contrary, the Puritans, as good Calvinists, believed that all people—themselves included—are depraved and sinful, in need of the grace of God and the mercy of fellow men.

Accordingly, the Rev. Cotton Mather and other ministers visited Morgan in his cell and urged him to pray for repentance and forgiveness. To their delight, Morgan heard them and soon gave evidence of a sound, sincere conversion.

The whole Puritan colony joyously responded to Morgan’s change of heart. They held a special worship service, where Morgan testified to his newfound faith. He was embraced and received as a brother in Christ, with all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the heavenly kingdom.

The congregation sang a psalm of praise, thanking God for His goodness to James Morgan, the sinner who had become a saint.

Then they took him to the gallows and hanged him.

Clearly Huckabee has either confused the roles of church and state or doesn’t know the difference. As a former minister, Huckabee clearly has the credentials of being an expert in the role of church in our society. Based on his actions in this case and statements that he has made during the campaign on other public policy issues one can only conclude that Huckabee lacks a core of conservative principles.

Can Evangelicals Trust Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney finally gave “The Speech” about his religious views. I read the transcript and thought it was a wonderful speech. The best line in it was:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

This is the same view expressed in the Declaration of Independence where we are reminded that our rights come from God not government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .

This is the watershed issue in our culture. Those that agree with the Founders are Conservative. Those who believe rights come from government are Liberals.

I think this speech will help Romney with evangelicals but I’m not sure that it will be enough. I think evangelicals are haunted by Jimmy Carter, George H Bush and Bill Clinton. We remember “reading my lips” and “never worked so hard for the American people” as preludes to broken promises and tax hikes. We remember Carter and Clinton gutting our military and trying to peacefully co-exist with terrorists.

Romney’s problems with evangelicals are not really theological but ethical. We are asked to trust that he is a conservative—one of us—but his track record as a politician and his words as a presidential candidate do not agree. What is his epiphany? What caused the change? Evangelicals happily acknowledge that God has the power to do this in the hearts of men but Romney does not credit God with the change. According to Romney he has been consistent the whole time to his faith in God. Both he and Harry Reid are LDS and they are polar opposites on political and social issues yet both in good standing with the folks in Salt Lake City.

Another reason that trust in Romney is thin is our experience in California with Arnold Schwarzenegger. We threw a known conservative—Tom McClintock—under the bus and went with Arnold because Arnold was a fiscal conservative that told us he could work with Democrats. Now Arnold is counted as the eighth most influential Liberal in the United States and has sold-out to the homosexuals and environmental extremists. Arnold has papered over the debt in California by transferring obligations to 30-year bond measures instead of correcting the structural issues that created the deficit spending. Furthermore, while Arnold Schwarzenegger has raised over 120 million dollars for his campaign coffers the Republican Party in California is bankrupt and two million dollars in debt!

Conservatives want to be charitable with Romney. We need converts to our cause to change the direction of our country. We need the children of the ‘60s to embrace the values of their fathers. Jesus told us to forgive our brother if he offends us even seven times seventy times. Conservatives went way beyond that number a decade ago and still we want to forgive. We just want a measure of assurance that Romney will govern with the same values he wants to campaign on.

Halting Hillary & Huckabee

I was browsing the Internet last night and happened to be at the main page of the Drudge Report when my three year old jumped into my lap. He asked me who was that lady in the photo. I answered that she wants to be President of our country. He then responded, “I don’t like her.” Wow! No wonder his middle name is Reagan.

As we enter the final stretch to Iowa, Mrs. Clinton is blasting Barack Obama on the wedge issue of how long Obama has wanted to be president. Why a kindergarten class in Indonesia counts I really don’t know. I bet there was a time when he wanted to be an astronaut too.

In the last several weeks, Hilary has repeatedly stated that she wants to be President again.

Meanwhile Obama is campaigning with all the enthusiasm of a child that is overmedicated with Ritalin. He doesn’t seem to want the nomination very badly.

On the Republican side, Mike I need a miracleHuckabee is being touted by the media as the new maverick of the party. I think the media really views him as a spoiler that is undercutting serious candidates that might have a chance of beating their favorite Democrat.

I have heard comparisons of Huckabee to candidate Jimmy Carter in 1976. Many evangelicals voted for this southern governor because he was a “born again” Christian. As we later found out with Carter, Baptists are notoriously antinomian and their faith rarely influences their views of government and public policy.

If elected, Huckabee would drift aimlessly from issue to issue buffeted by the trials and tribulations of a Democrat controller legislative branch until he was swamped by the maelstrom and had his administration smashed on the rocks. In other words, without core values and conservative principles Huckabee can never be an effective President because the Democrats will roll him at every opportunity and render him ineffective.

Obama and Huckabee Iowa Surge Dubious

In the latest polling for the Iowa caucus, both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee are moving ahead of the pack and challenging the long-standing front-runners in their respective parties. This sounds really interesting but is it hype or reality?

I think that polling is not the “science” that it used to be. Consider the obstacles to the modern day pollster.

First, most polling is done by telephone. It is the cheapest way to have two-way conversations with potential voters. From voter data such as that available from your county clerk, a pollster can know how often that you have voted in past elections and want your party affiliation is. This information coupled with the demographics of your neighborhood can give them a good idea of who you voted for in the past. There are many questions that they ask in the course of a poll to verify their guesses by comparing actual answers with their predictions.

Part of the challenge to pollsters is to get a statistical cross-section of the electorate. Their model assumptions about voters are important to the accuracy of the result that they get. Have you ever wondered how 1,200 people are polled and in a headline the next day we are told with certainty what 300 million Americans think about presidential popularity or Hillary’s latest healthcare idea?

The biggest challenge to this model is technology. A large percentage of people under age thirty have only cellular phones and not a landline. These folks are not listed in Ma Bell’s directory. People also have IP telephony and other means of communicating that are not listed. This coupled with traditional unlisted phone numbers on landlines makes contacting a cross-section of voters even more difficult. The only thing that is saving their models of the electorate is that many in this age group are not high propensity voters. Older, high propensity voters tend to have traditional phones.

Another challenge is who is actually answering the phone? Most times that a telemarketer calls my phone, we hang-up on them. Due to the number of polls done in modern political campaigns and the small population of a state like Iowa, I think many folks are burned-out answering their phones too. Are the results showing shifts in the candidate preferences of Iowa voters accurate or are the number on non-responding folks causing results to be weighted differently to keep the pollsters in business?

Most people made up their minds months ago and it would take a big event to change their preference. Neither Obama nor Huckabee can point to such an event. (Yes, some might argue that Hillary and driver licenses for illegals qualify but we will have to see.)

If given my assumption about the lack of a big event, the logical place to go to explain any shift in voter preferences is that the “undecided” are finally settling on their choice. My problem with this is two-fold. First we must ask is this “undecided” voter who up ‘til now has not been paying attention really firm in their commitment to a candidate and second, will they actually go to the polls and vote?

Lastly, going into the holidays will detract from campaigning. This is a season for family and the sacred not secular. This will result in committed people voting and those with little interested getting distracted and not making the extra effort to vote. I doubt anyone knows how to model this because it has never happened before. The timing of Iowa is an unquantifiable variable that should not be minimized.

I could go on but I think I have made my point. The polls are entertaining but should not be trusted. There are too many variables that make Iowa difficult to call prior to January third.

Dobson Should Embrace Rudy

Conservatives are once again poised to assemble their famous “circular firing squad” and should Rudy Giuliani emerge as the Republican presidential candidate, they plan on pulling the trigger.

James Dobson and a group of other evangelicals are threatening to throw their support to a third party candidate—to be named later—if Rudy is the nominee. This is the result of Rudy’s longtime support of legalized abortion. This smacks of the Ross Perot effort in 1992, which resulted in the election of Bill Clinton. Clinton won with 43 percent of the vote.

This presidential cycle will likely see a credible third party challenger from the Left due to the dissatisfaction of the anti-war fanatics. Dobson’s gambit will likely be a pale imitation of their efforts. If Dobson and company put up a third party challenger, it will be to the detriment of evangelicals and when it fails, it will justify the marginalization of social conservatives in future public policy debates.

Rudy is better on the war than any of the Democrats. If we are dead or in economic ruins, then all the social policies that we spend so much time fighting about won’t matter because we won’t be here to have the debate. Our national existence is on the line in 2008. Once the Sword of Islam is dealt with then we will have to time to look at these other issues.

Furthermore, should Rudy appoint the kind of judges that he says, we might end-up with Roe v Wade being gutted regardless of what Rudy said on the campaign trail. Why? Simple really. The kind of judges that support the War on Terror and law & order issues will tend to be the strict constructionist judges that would favor curtailing the overreaching intrusion of the courts beyond the limits of the Constitution.

Rudy certainly couldn’t pick any worse than did Reagan and Bush senior. Republicans have a terrible track record of picking justices for the Court. Picking judges reminds me of the old joke about marriage. It has been said that marriage is like fishing, you don’t really know what you caught until you get it in the boat. Ditto for Supreme Court judges.

The irony of Dobson’s position is that to get the result he wants, his best chance is to join with Rudy.

Short Sale and Taxes

(As you might recall mortgage is from two Latin rules “mort” meaning death and “gage” meaning grip.)

With all the mortgage troubles that folks are experiencing, some folks view a “short sale” as a way to get out from under their debt. However, you might be in for a surprise. The portion that the bank looses in the transaction might be considered taxable income to you by our friends in the Eternal Revenue Service. Yeah, you could be the astonished recipient of a Form 1099C from your lender.

There are IRS tax rules in place for when lenders are forced to foreclose because home owners have become delinquent in their mortgage payments. You will owe taxes on the difference between what the lender gets for the home and the outstanding mortgage loan balance. The same is true for a mortgage short sale. You will owe taxes on the amount of your loan or mortgage that the bank or lender has forgiven. That’s right, you are taxed even when you don’t receive any actual money.

IRS instruction for Form 1099C

If a federal government agency, certain agencies connected with the Federal Government, financial institution, credit union, or an organization having a significant trade or business of lending money (such as a finance or credit card company) cancels or forgives a debt you owe of $600 or more, this form must be provided to you. Generally, if you are an individual, you must include all canceled amounts, even if less than $600, on the “Other income” line of Form 1040.

Remember, the first rule of holes is stop digging. See a tax professional before you go down this path.