CommenTerry

Are You Inconsiderate at the Gas Pump?

Among my pet peeves is the practice that some drivers have of stopping at the first gas pump on their left or right when the one directly in front of them is open. I believe this is very inconsiderate, especially when there is someone behind them. What’s so hard about just continuing on up to that next one? It makes things easier on everyone. The driver moving up to the next pump instead of stopping at the first one no longer has to worry about backing up when they get done. Any driver who might be behind them doesn’t have to go around them to get the gas pump in front. It’s win-win situation, yet there are drivers who seem completely oblivious to it.

Suddenly, Romney Doesn’t Look So Inevitable

Wow, how quickly things can change in the world of politics! Just a couple of days ago, it seemed all but certain that Mitt Romney was headed toward a coronation by the GOP as its 2012 presidential nominee. He was the frontrunner, cruising along as the odds-on favorite to capture the nomination. Many viewed him as the presumptive nominee, even at this early stage. And was it any wonder that he was in such a position?

He had recently made history by becoming the first non-incumbent Republican candidate to win the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the same year. In the polls, he had a huge lead nationally and was ahead by a sizeable margin in the upcoming South Carolina primary. His principal rival for the moderate vote, Jon Huntsman, had dropped out this past Monday and endorsed him. The social conservative vote was splintered among three candidates, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry. Everything seemed to be breaking his way.

Now fast-forward a couple of days. Romney’s historic distinction in winning Iowa and New Hampshire has suddenly been snatched away. On Thursday, it was revealed that Romney is no longer being declared the winner in Iowa. The certified final results showed that Santorum actually finished in the top spot by 34 votes, erasing Romney’s previous 8-vote “win”. After first stating that it will officially go into the books as a tie because there were a handful of precincts that could not be accurately counted, the Iowa GOP reversed itself and declared Santorum the winner.

Romney’s fortunes in the polls are also starting to reverse. After having held an 18 to 20 point lead over Gingrich nationally, the two most recent polls of likely Republican primary and caucus voters nationwide now show Romney’s margin at three and seven points, respectively. In South Carolina, where Romney’s margin is also starting to shrink in most of the polls, Gingrich has actually moved ahead of him in the only three polls (so far) that do not include any samples prior to Wednesday, by margins of three, two, and six points, respectively. All the other available polls of South Carolina voters include samples from Tuesday and before.

But it gets worse. On Thursday, Perry bowed out of the race and endorsed Gingrich. Now, the social conservative vote is split only two ways, and could consolidate even more behind Gingrich by Saturday, when the voters go to the polls. With Gingrich now battling Romney for first place in South Carolina, and Perry having dropped out and endorsed Gingrich, some of Santorum’s supporters might switch to Gingrich to block Romney from winning the primary. Santorum, currently floundering in fourth place and showing no positive movement in the polls, would appear to have little or no chance for victory in South Carolina, anyway.

Romney may indeed weather this sudden storm and win South Carolina, and ultimately the nomination. It would still be foolish to bet against him at this point. After all, things changed quickly, so they could just as easily change quickly again, next time in his favor. Like they say, a span of a few days is an eternity in politics. However, now that Romney’s air of inevitability has been shattered, he appears to have his work cut out for him.

Is There an East Los Angeles Baptist Church in Virginia?

What if you were driving through the countryside of Virginia and happened upon East Los Angeles Baptist Church? Wouldn’t you think that was a strange name for a church that was located three thousand miles from East Los Angeles? Yet we have plenty of churches in the United States that are named for places in Israel and other parts of the Middle East, and no one bats an eye. For example, I have come across many iterations of “Mount Carmel Baptist Church” in the U.S. Now granted, there are places in the U.S. that actually called Mount Carmel, such as Mount Carmel, Illinois.

But the churches I’m referring to are in locations that are nowhere near any place called Mount Carmel. Obviously, they are named after Mount Carmel in the Holy Land. More specifically, it is a mountain often referred to in the Scriptures that is located near present-day Haifa, Israel. Perhaps those congregations believe such names confer some form of piety upon their churches. But it still seems weird to me to name a church after a geographic entity that is thousands of miles away.

How SC Social Conservatives Can Consolidate

Social conservatives in South Carolina are on the verge of shooting themselves in the foot – again. In the 2008 South Carolina Republican primary, supporters of the two social conservative candidates, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson, easily had John McCain’s supporters outnumbered. However, McCain, a moderate, still won that primary, and ultimately the GOP nomination, because social conservatives split their votes between Huckabee and Thompson. And it looks like history is about to repeat itself four years later.

This time, we have moderate Mitt Romney who has won the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, becoming the first non-incumbent Republican to win both in the same year. Now we come to South Carolina where Romney is also leading in the polls, but not by an overwhelming margin. There are three social conservative candidates, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry, whose combined South Carolina poll numbers currently exceed those of Romney. The problem for social conservatives is that they seem headed towards splitting their votes again, giving the state’s primary, and likely the nomination, to Romney.

The only way Romney can be stopped at this point is if these social conservatives decide to consolidate their votes before it is too late. If Romney wins South Carolina, most political experts agree that he will be virtually unstoppable in his quest to win the GOP presidential nomination. Therefore, the time for consolidation is running out. But with the clock ticking, South Carolina social conservatives appear to be more splintered than ever. Gingrich is currently far exceeding Santorum and Perry in the South Carolina polls. However, a group of influential social conservatives meeting in Texas this past weekend chose Santorum as their man. And Perry, although still in single digits in South Carolina, continues to campaign vigorously.

So what can the good South Carolina social conservatives do to effectively consolidate before the clock strikes midnight on their dreams of stopping Romney? Well, here is my humble suggestion, for all it’s worth. They should stick with the candidate of their choice, until Saturday morning, when the primary voting begins. At that point, they should check the Real Clear Politics average of polls for their state and vote for whomever among their three candidates is polling the best. While I’m not normally an advocate of pragmatic voting, I frankly don’t see any other way to stop Romney from winning this primary.

Will GOP Conservatives Have to Settle Again?

Many conservatives like myself are tired of always having to settle for less than our ideal candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, just so a more “electable" person can be nominated. However, once again the snobbish GOP elite and insiders, in tandem with many so-called conservative columnists and talking heads, are telling us it's necessary to coalesce around such a candidate because we must stop some big bad "evil" Democrat like Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama from getting elected or re-elected, or else it's going to be the end of world! This time, the candidate we are supposed to settle for is GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney, even though his conservative credentials are rather suspect, to say the least. Even the mainstream media seems to be rooting for this guy to win the nomination.

Anyway, the argument in favor of Romney, even by so-called conservatives, goes something like this (and this is something a local GOP partisan actually told me): “We must nominate someone who is both electable and presidential, who can defeat Obama this fall. That’s because, if Obama wins a second term, this nation will suffer irreparable damage from which it may never recover. Now next time, once the Obama threat is out of the way, then … well … maybe we can get a nominee that we really want.”

Well, I’m tired of waiting for next time. Why can't we just pick the candidate we like the best right now and let the chips fall where they may? What would the consequences really be if we lost, anyway? Obama has been president for nearly three years now, and Bill Clinton was president for two entire terms, and the world did not end.

Besides, that “next time” never seems to come. For illustration purposes, let’s suppose we bite the bullet again and support Romney, and he ultimately becomes the nominee. If he wins, then we’ll have to wait until 2020, because we would undoubtedly run for re-election. If he loses this time, then the Democrats would likely nominate either Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton in 2016, to which we would have to respond by nominating another “electable” candidate, for fear that Biden or Clinton would further exacerbate the irreparable damage that Obama had already done. But even after two Romney terms in 2020, we would then be coaxed into supporting his running mate, no matter how moderate, or some other “electable” candidate to prevent some yet-to-emerge, but diabolical, Democratic candidate from taking back the White House, and so on, and so forth.

It reminds me of the Peanuts cartoon in which Charlie Brown always believes he’s going to be able to kick the football that Lucy is holding for him, only to have her yank it away at the last second every time, resulting in him lying flat on his back with stars spinning around his head.

Also, please note that two of their so-called "electable" candidates from the past were President Bob Dole and President John McCain. And I don't buy their argument that we need to nominate/elect someone who is "presidential". Haven't we had enough "presidential" presidents already? Look where that has gotten us. I think it's high time we try one who’s not presidential. He or she probably couldn't do any worse. At any rate, I'm supporting Newt Gingrich to the bitter end. I will support a third party candidate if Romney is nominated, just like I did in 2008 when McCain was nominated. I decided then that I was not going to settle anymore.

Hypocritical GOP Attacks Newt for Fighting Back

Hypocritical GOP insiders, columnists, talking heads are now rallying around frontrunner Mitt Romney and attacking New Gingrich for criticizing Romney’s activities at Bain Capital. But where were they when Romney was blasting away at Gingrich in Iowa, while hiding behind those PACs? They stayed on the sidelines and didn't say a darn word. Now that Gingrich has returned fire, they are screaming bloody murder. I don't blame him one bit for reacting the way he has reacted. I would have done the same thing. I don't care what those turncoats are saying about him right now. I'm still supporting Gingrich to the bitter end.

Here’s what makes these folks so hypocritical. As Chuck Todd of NBC recently pointed out, back in 2008, John McCain and Mike Huckabee, two of Romney’s opponents for the nomination that year, both criticized him harshly for the same thing for same behavior at Bain Capital that Gingrich is criticizing him for now. And both McCain and Huckabee are among Gingrich’s biggest critics now. Yet there was no such hullabaloo made about it then.

So why was it okay last time and not okay now? Well, it has to do with politics at its worst, in my opinion. Last time around, Romney’s prospects of winning were not nearly as good as they are now. He was just another candidate. This time, he’s the frontrunner and odds-on favorite to win the nomination. He’s now a political asset to the GOP machine in its quest to defeat President Obama, and therefore must be protected at all costs. Is it any wonder that so many people are turned off by politics?

Watching Movies on Handheld Devices: Don’t Your Arms Get Tired?

I’ve always wondered about those people who say they enjoy watching movies on handheld devices such as iPads and Smartphones. Don’t their arms get tired? The average movie is about is a about an hour and a half in length. I just can’t imagine holding something in front my face for that long. It would be entirely too uncomfortable for me, as my arms would be worn out before I got halfway through watching it. Am I that much of a weakling? And what’s wrong with watching movies the old fashioned way, such as at a movie theater, on TV, or even in front of desktop computer?

My Answer to: When’s the Last Time You Stood Up for Gay Rights?

During a GOP presidential debate last weekend, some of the candidates were asked: “When was the last time you stood up for gay rights?” Each candidate who was asked that question responded with an uncomfortable expression and a little song and dance about how he has never discriminated against anyone and did not condone such discrimination. However, had I been one of those candidates, I would have provided a succinct, one-word answer: “Never.”

They Do Have a Choice to Not Shoot an Armed Suspect

“We had no choice but to shoot him.” That’s what you’ll often after police open fire on an armed suspect. But is this always true? I don’t think it is in all cases. When a suspect brandishes some kind of weapon, and/or refuses to drop it, the police do not automatically have to fire at him. This is especially true when he is armed with a something like a knife instead of a firearm.

If he is threatening no one else but the police, then why can’t they just back away from him and leave the scene? Do they ever consider that? This would prevent a completely unnecessary loss of life – the suspect’s and one or more the police officers’. That doesn’t mean he would be getting off the hook. The cops could always keep a watch on him and nab him later at a time when was unsuspecting and unarmed.

How Voters Can Make Virginia GOP Primary Irrelevant

As of this writing, only two candidates, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, are scheduled to appear on the Virginia GOP presidential primary ballot on March 6, also known as Super Tuesday. They are the only ones who qualified under Virginia’s rigid requirements. In addition, Virginia law does not allow write-in candidates in primaries. Rick Perry has filed a federal lawsuit to get on the ballot and has since been joined in his suit by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. The courts have yet to decide on this case.

I believe Virginia’s requirements to get on the ballot in primaries such as this one are extremely difficult and tedious to comply with, more so than almost every other state. Therefore, only the most well funded well organized candidates have a chance to qualify. And this is further complicated by the fact that no write-ins are permitted. I believe the court should immediately invalidate Virginia’s restriction on write-ins, and order the state to make its primary ballot qualification process easier to comply with in the future.

However, if the courts decide to leave things as they are, then the voters should step in and make Virginia’s 2012 primary irrelevant. Any voter who supports Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or Huntsman should vote for Ron Paul in protest. Despite what his legions of devotees might say, Paul has no serious chance to become the nominee. If enough backers of those other candidates join Paul’s supporters in voting for him, he would likely win the primary. This would keep the majority of the delegates away from frontrunner Mitt Romney and diminish Virginia’s say in selecting a nominee.