Maybe Huckabee should consider a career in comedy instead of politics!

This guy is a walking joke! He is making a complete fool of himself, as well as a mockery of issues that are important to Americans. The guy must think that this election is to become student body president of an elementary school that only bases their votes on popularity and clever little slogans. Check out his latest add portraying his revolutionary new idea on how to keep the border safe.

That's right, Chuck Norris is the answer! What an absolute tool! Watch him next week when he does an add wearing a T-shirt that says "Vote for Pedro", and possibly even graces us with a Napoleon Dynamite-esque dance routine at the next major debate. After his little joke he didn't even explain what his actual plan to secure the border was, he just left it in the hands of Chuck Norris. I can't even begin to fathom why anyone would vote for this guy. I think I need an Advil. He has no real appeal to any logical, sane and honest person (but, hey he's not Mormon so he must be good right?). The sad thing is that America has real issues that need to be dealt with and people are actually considering voting for a guy who obviously takes them lightly. Here is a good joke that Mike Huckabee could use to get mathematicians on his side (it took me as long to think of as it did to form his campaign platform).

Huck + Chuck = Sucks (Clever I know, but about as funny as Mike Huckabee's sad attempt at winning an election through high school popularity contest tactics). I only think it's fair that if Mitt Romney has to address his religion that Mike Huckabee should address his lack of tact and stupidity. If Huckabee wins, I'm moving to Mongolia!

By the way, here is Romney's rebuttal to this ad:

Read more!

Will Evangelicals play checkers or chess?

I remember about half a year ago when I was forced to watch American Idol with my wife (who loves it), I noticed something interesting. Towards the end of the show, when only a few contestants remained, there were three African-American women who all had absolutely powerful and captivating voices, and in my opinion, were miles ahead of the bulk of the other singers in terms of raw talent. Despite their superiority in singing ability (again, in my opinion), all three of them were voted off the show in almost sequential order. I was flabbergasted by this trend that, to me, seemed unfair considering their ability and style that was a cut above the rest. The more I thought about it, the more I realized what had happened. Even though they were clearly talented, they all possessed a similar style, and therefore the viewers that enjoyed that particular style and type of voice were forced to choose which of the three to vote for. Obviously when the vote of a segment of the population is split three ways, it looses out to a segment that votes for a style and voice that is represented by only one singer. It makes me wonder if the winner of the show would have been different if those who voted for the three women previously mentioned had voted unanimously. This would have obviously taken a lot of organization and collaboration, but it would have produced a powerful influence and outcome. Logically, these voters would have had to decide which of the three women would be best to vote for. In doing so, I think that the most sensible criteria upon which they would base their decision would be to ask the question “which of these women will pull the most amount of votes from the rest of the population?” Evidently, this criteria would maximize the potential that their singer would win the whole competition.

So what the heck does this have to do with Mitt Romney?! As I see the pre-polls in Iowa, I am shocked that Mike Huckabee has surpassed Mitt Romney in popularity, and I think back to American Idol. To me, this sudden rise is popularity is due to the shift in votes from Evangelical Christians, which have significant representation in Iowa. This assumption is based on the fact that Huckabee is playing the “if you’re Evangelical, you should vote for an Evangelical” card, instead of encouraging voters to elect the best person based on pure merit. Apparently this strategy is working, but Evangelicals are making a huge mistake. In light of these recent happenings, the remainder of my post is especially meant for Evangelical voters.

This election must become a game of chess for Republican voters, not a game of checkers. In checkers, you try to jump over your opponent’s pieces as they become vulnerable. The game is basic and involves little strategy (some may argue with me!). However, in chess, the amount of strategy used in high-level games is mind-boggling. They say that a world-class chess player will think 17 moves ahead. Likewise a smart voter must think many moves ahead before making a rash, checkers-like, decision. The object of the game of chess is to put your opponent in “checkmate”. To Evangelicals, “checkmate” in the election is putting a President into office who will represent them, their morals, their views, etc. Some of the issues that deeply concern them are abortion, gay marriage and preserving family values (just to name a few). Just like the three similar sounding African-American women in American Idol, there are a few candidates that represent the moral opinions of Evangelicals running for the Republican nomination. Currently, the foremost of these candidates is Mike Huckabee, a former Evangelical minister, who is getting many votes because of the fact that he is Evangelical, just as Mitt Romney is losing votes because he isn’t. The irony of Evangelicals voting for Huckabee is that in doing so they are indirectly voting for Giuliani. This is like taking the opposite side’s queen in chess and thinking you have won the game, but what you have actually done in the bigger picture is given the opponent an easy opportunity to put you in checkmate (in this case being represented by nominee/president who does not stand up for any of the morality issues that you deeply value). Let us examine two “chess moves” that Evangelicals can make when they vote in Iowa (and later in other states) and then look ahead at the ensuing impact these moves will have on the big picture.

1) Move # 1- Voting for Mike Huckabee.

Admittedly, he would probably take Iowa and therefore get increased media attention that will help him in other states and allow voters to get to know him better.

His victory in Iowa and the resultant media attention will be deflated when Mitt Romney takes the second primary in New Hampshire, but he still may take North Carolina.

He will do well in states where Evangelicals form large portions of the population.

However, since Republicans vote on many issues besides morality and which religion someone belongs to, such as economic and social, for example, Huckabee will lose in many other states (including some of the bigger ones), where people don’t necessarily care if he was a Evangelical minister or not. Since he lacks a broad appeal and the experience to be an effective president, he will lose out to Giuliani, who doesn’t side with the Evangelicals on morality issues.

If by some miracle he wins the Republican nomination, he is too extreme to appeal to the masses in the presidential election and will almost certainly lose to the democrats.

2) Move # 2 – Voting for Mitt Romney

He will take Iowa and get a lot of much needed media attention. This will allow voters that don’t know how feasible a candidate he is to get to know him.

He will take New Hampshire and with the momentum from winning the first two states will have a great shot at taking South Carolina. With the momentum building, Republican voters will take a closer look at Romney, including Evangelicals, and see that he has what it takes to be president.

Admittedly it will be close between him and Giuliani, simply because of Giuliani’s overwhelming popularity as the mayor of NYC during 911. However, at this point Evangelicals, which have significant sway in the vote will realize that it boils down to someone who supports their views (Romney) and someone who does not (Giuliani) and this could give Romney the edge to win in the race for Republican nomination.

If Mitt wins the Republican nomination, it will be a tight battle, most likely with either Clinton or Obama, to become president. However, since Mitt has experience serving as governor in the bluest of blue states, has an unprecedented business background, amazing speaking abilities culminated with a presidential demeanor, has huge amounts of money behind his campaign for advertising and PR, experience fixing tough situations (Olympics, Massachusetts debt, failing businesses), and performs well on television and in debates, he will have a very good shot at becoming the next president of the United States of America.

This will undoubtedly be one of the most important elections in US history. China is surpassing the US economically, there is a mortgage crisis among other threats to the economy, the war on terror still rages, and the family unit of society is breaking down rapidly. In my view there is no other candidate who can effectively tackle these issues besides Mitt Romney, and he has the track record to back up this claim. However, without Evangelical support, it will be a lose-lose situation for him and them. He will lose to Giuliani and the Evangelicals will shoot themselves in the foot by electing a man who will not represent them well. To anyone who reads this, especially Evangelicals, remember that it is not about putting your opponent in “check”, it’s about putting him in “checkmate”.

Read more!

It Appears Mitt Will Give "The Mormon Speech"

Michael Luo of the New York Times reports that it appears that Mitt Romney will give "The Mormon Speech" that is to be titled "Faith in America". Luo notes that it is scheduled to be given this Thursday at the George H.W. Bush Library in College Station, Texas.

And this from the Romney camp.

“Governor Romney has made a decision to deliver a speech titled “Faith in America.”“The governor has been invited to The George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas to deliver this address on Thursday, December 6.“This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected.“Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.”“Governor Romney personally made the decision to deliver this speech sometime last week.“While identifying a venue for this address, the campaign consulted with President George H.W. Bush’s office last week about Governor Romney’s decision. President Bush was gracious enough to extend an invitation to deliver the speech at the presidential library.“The invitation to speak at the presidential library is not an endorsement of Governor Romney’s campaign.-Kevin Madden, Romney for President campaign spokesman

This should be interesting!

Ken.

Read more!

Winter is upon us and the Mitt snow balls grows!

It's been a while since I've blogged, so I thought it was time to make a few more comments. With a very busy schedule, it is often hard to keep on top of politics, even though it is one of my hobbies. However, tonight I had some free time and was able to watch a few of the republican debates on the net and read a bit. Here is what I got from them (and also from recent articles and publications I have read):

1) Mitt Romney is the best candidate for the republicans in the 2008 election. He clearly won all of the debates that I saw, showing an extremely presidential demeanor, answering all the questions with powerful responses, and showing respect for his fellow candidates despite some of them personally attacking him. I think he is what the republicans are looking for in terms of morality, yet also possesses many views and strategies in his platform that will appeal to democrats. There is no other candidate, republican OR democrat who has such a general appeal.

2) The Evangelical Christians will eventually have to decide on who they will vote for as a majority. In the past, they have had so much influence in placing presidents in the oval office because of their unanimity in voting. They understand politics and realize that their votes spread out over several candidates will weaken their influence, so they must decide who their moral majority will support. As I see it, this can only logically be Mitt Romney. Giuliani is a liberal in republican's clothing in many cases, McCain does not have the funds to run a serious campaign, Thomspon is too lethargic and boring, and the other candidates are not serious threats. Mitt Romney is the only candidate that shares their moral views that also has the funding and a serious appeal to democrat voters (being the governor of the bluest blue state). When it comes down to it, they will not want to waste their votes on those who will not fair well against the democrats in a national election. This is part of why Mitt Romney ratings are steadily rising; voters are realizing that he is the only serious choice to potentially make a winning run for the presidency.

3) Mitt has experience as a business man and is the only candidate that I believe can truly help the economy in it current plight. While democrats want to raise taxes (a big 'no-no' when the economy is on the brink of recession), Mitt has an amazing and unprecedented plan to boost America's economic condition. His idea is to eliminate the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains on those who make $200,000 or less. This is HUGE! That basically means that Americans will no longer be penalized for saving their money. I can't think of a better way to encourage saving, investing, and infusing billions of dollars into American business than this. Plus this will increase Americans' ability to save for retirement, recession, and other needs, therefore decreasing the amount of money the government will have to put out for welfare, old age benefits, etc. This is an idea that eliminates problems rather than simply solving them temporarily. In an empire laden with mind-boggling consumer debt and a deplorable national savings rate, Mitt offers a light at the end of the tunnel with his strategies.

4) Mitt understands the need for better health care, but unlike the democrats, wants the private sector to run it to increase efficiency (as everything the government touches gets messed up). He has already put his ideas into practice and has seen the fruits of his labor in Massachusetts, unlike other candidates (including Hilary Clinton) who only talk and have very little to no experience in the matter.

5) Mitt looks the most presidential. Not that this should matter, but some people that vote can be shallow.

6) Mitt is leading in many of the early states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I truly believe that this is because the most informed voters currently reside there, as much of the advertising, debates, etc. have taken place there. Mitt does not have the natural fame of a Clinton, Obama or Giuliani, but as people get to know him, they are very apt to support him. Once American is truly exposed to Mitt Romney on a larger scale we will see support for him at the polls grow remarkably.

These are just some of the observations that I have noted from my most recent study of 2008 election news. In conclusion, the more I read, hear and see about Mitt Romney, the more solid my belief becomes that he is the best man for the job.

Dave

Read more!

Big, Big News

The Brody File from the Christian Broadcast Network is reporting that Paul Weyrich, the former co-founder of The Moral Majority has endorsed Mitt Romney for President. According to Brody this is really big news for team Romney. As Brody himself reports in his editorial “Plus, by getting a social conservative guy like Weyrich on board, it gives the Romney campaign a big leap forward to be able to say that Romney is serious about moving a pro-family, traditional value agenda as President. It’s not about the amount of influence Weyrich has today. It’s about how his name is synonymous with traditional values conservatism. That’s the payoff more than anything else. What a way to start off the week. That three legged stool Mitt Romney keeps talking about just got sturdier.”

Hopefully, we will start to see more and more conservative leaders line up with Governor Romney.

Ken.

Read more!

Wouldn’t It Be Nice

Wouldn’t it be nice if we all could put aside all the things that divide us and look at the things that bond us and thus makes us stronger? The attacks on all candidates on both sides are astonishing. Let’s imagine for a moment that we could filter out all the negative information real and fictitious about all the candidates and looked at just the things that should really matter. What kind of person are they, what good things have they done to make America a better place… Most importantly, WHAT can they bring to the presidency that will help the country during the tough times now and in the future and help improve the lives of all her people?

How are the American people going to be able to make an educated decision when the time comes with all the mis-information, half truths, distortions of facts…? This is not about electing a class president; we’re talking about The President of the United States here.

Although my opinion is biased, I believe it to be true that Governor Romney is still the best person for the job based on the type of person he is, what he has done and what he can do. It is time for people to quit knit picking and get behind Mitt and put the best person in the oval office. The coming months and years are going to be tough times for all kinds of reason, too many to list here. We need a person of action, a thinker, an achiever…

Mitt Romney is that person!

Ken.

Read more!

Governor Romney Is Now Leading In All Three Early States

The Boston Globe reports today that a new poll by the American Research Group shows that Mitt is leading in all three early States. This is great news. The numbers listed are from October 26-29 and the numbers in parentheses are from September.

Republican Iowa Caucus
· Romney - 27% (22)
· Huckabee - 19% (4)
· Giuliani - 16% (21)
· McCain - 14% (11)
· Thompson - 8% (16)
· Tancredo - 2% (1)
· Paul - 1% (2)
· All others - less than 1%

New Hampshire Primary
· Romney - 30% (24)
· Giuliani - 23% (20)
· McCain - 17% (20)
· Huckabee - 7% (3)
· Thompson - 5% (8)
· All Others - 1% or less

South Carolina GOP Primary
· Romney - 29% (26)
· Giuliani - 23% (23)
· McCain - 13% (15)
· Thompson - 10% (10)
· Huckabee - 5% (1)
· Paul - 4% (2)
· Hunter - 2% (1)
· All others - 1% or less

The polls for each State were conducted amoung 600 likley Republican voter with a margin of error of 4%.

Ken.

Read more!

Big Endorsement in New Hampshire

The Romney campaign has today sent out a press release that New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg has announced his endorsement of Governor Romney for President of the United States. This is big in a State where Mitt already has a lead in polls but, where nothing should be taken for granted. Perhaps in the coming weeks we will start to finally see more and more of these types of announcements as people realize the time is now to choose where and with whom they stand.
Congratulations Team Romney!

Ken.

Read more!

Things Are Happening

Hi Folks, sorry for the lack of postings but, here is an update as to where things are now that the Ontario election is over and it doesn’t appear there will be a federal election we can concentrate on what is happening south of the border.

In recent weeks Mitt has had some notable endorsements including Bob Jones III and Robert Taylor of Bob Jones University among others such as Connie Mack in Florida and just today Collier County Sheriff Don Hunter.

Last weekend he won a straw poll held at the socially conservative Values Voter Summit. Things are really starting to get interesting.
Rudy leads nationally with F. Thompson second but Romney still leads in the early primaries of Iowa and New Hampshire.

While the news about the economy seems bleak, the candidate from either party best suited to tackle the economy issues is clearly Mitt Romney. With his success in business, the Olympics and as Governor of Massachusetts his resume is impressive.

Romney continues to talk about his vision for building a stronger America with a stronger military, stronger economy, and stronger families (the three legged stool). His whole career he has faced extraordinary challenges and has always been able to find a solution. He was instrumental in turning around many companies, as well as the 2002 Winter Olympics, and the state of Massachusetts that he governed so well for four years.

With the exception of his failed attempt to defeat Ted Kennedy in the 1994 Senate election, Mitt has succeeded at every challenge he has faced. America needs and deserves a leader with a proven track record and executive experience.

Here’s to the coming weeks where the race really begins.

Cheers!

Ken.

Read more!

Update

Well, Governor Romney won the Iowa straw poll on the weekend as he had planed. While many say it was insignificant, that is not the case. Mitt won this over a month or so ago when Giuliani and McCain realized they didn’t stand a chance and would rather forfeit than loose outright. Mitt showed he and his campaign can develop a plan, implement it and follow it through to the finish.

Today, the Rasmussen Report shows that Mitt is moving up in the chart for the Republican Presidential Nomination with Giuliani at 24%, Fred Thompson at 20% and Mitt at 16%, while McCain is at 11% and Mike Huckabee has moved up to 5%. In other good news Romney continues to lead Republicans in polling for the New Hampshire Presidential Primary with 32% of the votes in the most recent Rasmussen report. He is followed by Rudy Giuliani at 20% with Fred Thompson and John McCain both getting 11% in the phone survey. Of note the New Hampshire survey was conducted before the results of the Iowa straw poll.

Fred Thompson’s appeal seems to be waning. Politico.com has an article today talking about how Fred’s lobbing for a nuclear project cost the American taxpayers $1.7 billion and left them with little more than a large hole in the ground. It seems Fred’s past is coming back to haunt him and the heat hasn’t even been turned up yet as he still has yet to officially enter the race if he ever does. There is even talk that he may not even enter the race. It is yet another indication that Fred just doesn’t want the job.

Lastly, as Rich Lowry from National Review Online so eloquently put it, it is “quittin’ time” for Sam Brownback. His campaign started off as values based one but, in the last month has turned to a negative campaign of attacking his fellow Republican candidates, with Mitt Romney being the target of choice for his venom from him and his bloggers. Some of the bloggers attacks border on hate and bigotry. With his disappointing finish in Iowa the time has come to pack it in.

Mitt, keep up the great work you and your team are doing. We need change and we need leadership. We need Mitt!

Ken.

Read more!

A Mormon (gasp) In The White House?

The following is an article from Guest Contributor Joshua Lawson.


I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic. -- John F. Kennedy

The recent poll that revealed that more than 40% of Americans would not vote for a presidential candidate simply because they were Mormon is shockingly appalling.Governor Romney received his B.A., with Highest Honors, from Brigham Young University in 1971. In 1975, he was awarded an MBA from Harvard Business School , where he was named a Baker Scholar, and a J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School .Romney first gained national recognition for his role in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics. With the 2002 Games mired in controversy and facing a financial crisis, Romney left behind a successful career as an entrepreneur to take over as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. In his three years at the helm in Salt Lake, Romney erased a $379 million operating deficit, organized 23,000 volunteers, galvanized community spirit and oversaw an unprecedented security mobilization just months after the September 11th attacks, leading to one of the most successful Olympics America's history.

In 2002, he was elected governor of Massachusetts. Romney then presided over a dramatic reversal of state fortunes and a period of sustained economic expansion. Without raising taxes or increasing debt, Governor Romney balanced the budget every year of his administration, closing a nearly $3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office. At the beginning of Governor Romney's term, Massachusetts was losing thousands of jobs every month. By the time he left office, the unemployment rate was lower, hundreds of companies had expanded or moved to Massachusetts and the state had added approximately 60,000 jobs from the low point of the recession. By eliminating waste, streamlining the government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to stimulate growth in Massachusetts, Romney got the economy moving again and transformed deficits into surpluses. (From www.mittromney.com)

So what on earth does Mitt Romney’s personal religion have to do with his qualifications to be president? Certainly his faith should have absolutely nothing to do with it. The people of America are voting for a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief. Do I want Romney to pastor my church? Heck no. Do I think he’s the best hope for the United States and all those who love freedom? Would I vote for him in a second? You better believe it.

After all, the last two presidents who were evangelical Christians – Jimmy Carter (D) and George W. Bush (R) – are considered to be, almost resoundingly, the two worst presidents in modern history. Carter and Bush were elected are large part because of evangelical, conservative Christians who wanted socially traditional, “family values” policies. Then Carter and Bush did precisely the opposite when in office. So the argument that only evangelical Christians will follow a conservative agenda when elected can be thrown out the window.The best presidents in America’s history (Ronald Reagan aside) were not practicing Christians who belonged to a certain denomination. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were all Deists. That is, they believed in a “creator” but not necessarily the Christian God. All three were at times fairly skeptical of the divinity of Jesus. Jefferson even rewrote the Bible, taking all of the miracles, and “supernatural” stuff out if it! Should Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln have been elected? Where they not some of the greatest leaders in political history?Regarding the 'Mormon question' during a GOP debate in New Hampshire Romney said, “Some pundits out there are hoping that I’ll distance myself from my church so that that’ll help me politically. And that’s not going to happen.”

It is bigoted for some Americans to say they will not vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon. In fact, its downright blasphemous to the founders of America. Remember, the colonists who founded America were Pilgrims, Puritans and Quakers, all of whom were considered religious extremists back in their home nations. If the United States was founded by 3 groups considered by the vast majority of Europe to be cults, then why should a candidate lose the general election (or the party nomination for that matter) more than 350 years later? Is there any religious litmus test to become President that lies in the Declaration, Constitution or Bill of Rights that I’m not aware of? The Wall Street Journal also put it nicely: "Any expression of religious bigotry should be roundly condemned as not fit for the public square in a religiously tolerant country."America is a country where you should be able to come and practice your religion free of discrimination or persecution. It is the people we are fighting who kill and persecute those who do not obey and follow their religion. America was founded on the principle that all men and women are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; and yes, believe it or not, that applies to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints just as it applies to atheists, Catholics, Jews and those who believe in “The Force”.

Many people are scared of Mormons because of its past practices of polygamy (which is now only practiced by an insignificantly small minority of Mormons). It's extremely amusing then that Romney is the most monogamous of the leading Republicans having been married to his high-school sweetheart for over 30 years! Besides, in its1890 Manifesto, the LDS church renounced the practice of polygamy calling it a sin. Today, the LDS church strongly rejects the practice and excommunicates members who engage in it.The electorate should be looking for the candidate which best represents their platform of political beliefs -- not religious beliefs. They should be voting for the best candidate for the job, whether they're white, black, male, female, transgendered or polka-dot skinned. Someone's private and personal religious beliefs shouldn't even enter the equation and the defense of the nation against terrorism doesn't hinge on whether the President is Penacostal, Buddhist, Sihk or Hindu -- it hinders on their courage, their intellect and their resolve.If Americans choose to not vote for Romney because they think he isn’t qualified, then so be it. (they should -- however -- check out his website first: http://www.mittromney.com )If Americans choose to not vote for Romney because they don't like his social, domestic and foreign policies or don’t buy his recent conversion to the pro-life movement, then so be it.But if the electorate rejects Romney just because he isn’t a member of a major religious denomination, then the United States will have taken a step back 400 years. And frankly...I'd be embarrassed to call myself an American.

Thanks Joshua. Excellent article!

Ken.

Read more!

Happy 4th of July

First off, Happy 4th of July to all our American friends. So, what has been happening in Mitt’s quest for the Republican nomination for POTUS. Well, a poll last week showed that if Canadians were voting for president, that 32% would vote for Hillary Clinton while only 1 % would vote for Mitt. If this isn’t a classic case of name recognition I don’t know what is. I would like to think we Canadians are much smarter than to want Hillary as the U.S. President. I pictured us as more of an anyone but Hillary country. Anyway, what does it mean? Not much since we can’t vote anyway but, again there are up to half a million Americans living in Canada that are eligible to vote. And if they don’t take the time to research and they rely on the Canadian media coverage to base their opinion on we could be in trouble. Please take the time, look at the candidates and their records. I’m sure you will see that Governor Romney is the right person for the job. Visit on of our friends at My Man Mitt or Elect Mitt Romney in 2008 or Evangelicals For Mitt…

So, what else has happened besides the usual hits by the biased liberal MSM? Now even PETA is getting into the act with this ridiculous storey from 1983 about his method of transportation for his dog on his summer trips to Ontario. Is this the best they can come up with, I mean really! Let’s talk about the issues, I mean I love dogs and have one. But we are talking about an election that is probably the most important and crucial of our time. War on terror, economy, health care… These are the issues that our Americans friends need to worry about when the pick the next President to lead them in the coming years!

Ken.

Read more!

Why Mitt?

Speaking as an american living in Canada it is refreshing to see that there are canadians who take an interest in our politics that runs deeper than bandwagon US bashing.
As for my feelings on Mitt I will be the first to say I have not made up my mind at this point. There is still a lot of time before that decision needs to be made, and due diligence requires I keep my eyes, ears, and my mind open until next november...
However, this brings me to why I am leaning so strongly towards Mitt at this early point. It has nothing to do with my eyes, ears, or mind. It is my heart. I believe that the feeling one gets when they interact with candidates from afar plays a stronger role in our decision making than any one comment or decision a candidate has made in their career. When it comes down to it we all know to be wary of politicians playing the game. We know these guys are coached beyond belief, every word, every body posture, all scripted to make us feel like this or that guy is a good choice, notice I only mentioned guys :)
So how do we judge? Based on who puts on the best front?
I belive we sift candidates based on the comfort we get when we can glimpse who we think is behind all the machinations, who we think the real guy is. Overwhelmingly my feelings point me towards Mitt.
I am not put off by a guy who can change his mind when he has a change of heart motivated by what he believes is right. I highly value critical thinking skills. I am, however, put off by guys who vacillate back and forth on issues at what seem to be politically opportune times.
I am not bothered that a guy will possibly make decisions shaped by his religious beliefs, at least I can predict what he will do if I understand his religion.
I do know thatI am comforted by a guy who seems to be level headed and thoughtful. I am inspired by a guy I feel could have a discussion around the dinner table with me with no fear he would try to browbeat me into opposing views. Finally, I feel like I could get behind a guy who just makes me feel good aside from all the politics...and isnt that really what its all anout anyway? A leader that you feel good about, not just one who agrees with all the stuff you say?

Read more!

Why Canadians support Mitt - Part 2

Ken mentioned several reasons why Canadians are interested and influenced by American politics. Anyone who understands macro-economics from a Canadian perspective will undoubtedly realized that Canadians have a vested interest in what goes on south of the border. First off, the U.S economy has an unprecedented effect on Canadian GDP. Approximately 80% of Canadian exports are to the United States, and likewise, Canada is America's largest trading partner. U.S trade arguably has just as great an influence on the Canadian economy as the Canadian government's use of fiscal and monetary policy. With globalization emerging as a dominant trend in today's world, countries are coming together to form trade blocs, customs unions and even economic unions, such as the European Union. With the advent of NAFTA in past years North American countries have become much closer and statistics have proven the free trade area beneficial for all involved. The future only promises more of a union between North American countries and even possibly South America as well. This is due to the fact that individual countries and markets (even the size of the U.S') will not be able compete with larger economic unions such as the E.U and emerging economies like China (forecasted to outgrow the U.S economy by 2020). As much as Canadians love their political autonomy and the nuances that make them globally unique, most of them realize that their country's destiny is largely shaped by the U.S and therefore take an active interest in what goes on down south. Therefore whatever leader is best for the U.S, is best for Canada. That leader is Mitt Romney.

Read more!

New member

I am new to this blog and hope to add my input as the U.S presidential elections draw nearer. I am a huge supporter of Mitt Romney for president, even though I cannot vote being Canadian. I believe that Mitt will have an enormously positive effect on America and leave it far better than he found it, if elected. In the near future I will post the reasoning behind my support of this man.

Read more!