It’s only Sunday, but I figure this post needed to be made a few days in advance to have any effect. On Tuesday California votes in the Presidential nominating process, and what the blarg wants to know is, who are you voting for?

In case you’re new here or haven’t been reading, I am a strong supporter of Mitt Romney. Personally I think he has the right stance on the most issues, I think he has great experience both in private business and as a governor, he is a good family man, and I think he is the only candidate left that can win the general election.

At this point Republicans can choose between Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul…but only Romney and McCain have a chance. So Huckabee and Paul supporters, I urge you to throw your support behind Mitt Romney, a more conservative candidate than John McCain, someone who loves working with Democrats on liberal legislation.

Right now polls are showing Romney closing the gap in California. One poll shows him tied with McCain, and one shows him +3 points over McCain. Hugh Hewitt has a great article detailing why conservative voters should rally behind Romney.

Who are you voting for on Super Tuesday and why?

Republicans

I stayed up until 2 am last night watching the Republicans debate in New Hampshire, and overall it was very interesting. Going into the debate Romney was my favorite, and after this debate, that is even more true. I was disgusted by some of the comments by John McCain and Mike Huckabee. They sounded like 3rd graders on a playground with some of their comments taking swipes at Romney. McCain and Huckabee both gave insults and then smiled like little brats. Neither of them will get my votes, and you should watch last night’s debate before you decide to support them.

As for Romney, despite the barrage of insults, he was extremely intelligent on all issues. His understanding of the health care issue was great. I still like Fred Thompson on the issues, but it doesn’t look like he wants it. Romney is now solidly my #1, Thompson #2, and Giuliani #3.

Democrats

I even sat through the 2 hours of the Democrats debate. Obviously I don’t support any of the Democrats, but eventually one of them will be battling a Republican. It’s interesting to compare the Republican debate with the Democrat debate. The Republican debate was full of substance and discussion about the issues. They were in-depth discussions on the economy, defense, health care, and illegal immigration. As I watch the Democrats, it’s almost void of details. They spent 15 minutes arguing about who is the biggest proponent of “change.” It was basically “I’m the best person for change, and I think we should have discussions about change, and who will be changing the most, because we need change!” It was idiotic, especially in comparison to the Republican discussion that actually focused on issues.

There is another GOP debate tonight on FOX News at 5 pm, but I’ll have to catch that on youtube.

I love listening to Medved and Hewitt right now and listening to people duke it out over Huckabee and Romney. Now that Huckabee is up front he’s being scrutinized. It looks like Romney and Huck are back in a battle for Iowa. But clearly this race can go anywhere.

Something that boggles my mind though are the head-to-head matchups between Democrats and Republicans. McCain is one of the most competitive Republicans, and Obama has big leads against everyone except Giuliani.

There are only a couple weeks until voting starts in Iowa, but this race can go anywhere!

I’ve heard several people now say that they’re leaning towards Ron Paul, so I thought I’d make a special post about him.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian at heart, so it helps to understand the beliefs of the Libertarian party. Much of what he says about smaller government sounds great, but there are a few looney things that over the years have kept the Libertarian party a meaningless third party. Below are a few of those things that Ron Paul ascribes to.

1) He’s anti-death penalty, but most Republicans are the opposite. Surprisingly he’s pro-life which isn’t a given for Libertarians, but from what I can tell Paul is coming from a Christian background. He’s mixed some of his Libertarian values and his Christian values, and that has led to his own special version of being a Republican.

2) He’s anti-drug laws. He’s made some crazy statements that the war on drugs is keeping down the black man in the inner-city.

3) He doesn’t understand the danger of Militant Islam. A woman in the Sudan was being threatened with death for a Teddy Bear named Mohammad. What does that have to do with us “meddling” in foreign affairs as Ron Paul likes to say? What about when Iraq attacked Kuwait in the first Gulf War? According to Ron Paul since we weren’t threatened, then it’s not our fight. You know what, just forget that whole peace through strength thing. It’s better to just sit on our thumbs and get attacked first, and then we can worry about protecting ourselves.

If you’re a pacifist then this whole discussion is probably lost on you, but go read some of Paul’s comments. He says some looney things.

Overall I love what he has to say about limited government, and that’s the best thing the Libertarian party has going for it. Unfortunately for me, the other crackpot beliefs far outweigh my desire for a more limited government. Not to mention there isn’t a chance in heck he could win the national election. I also don’t understand how people like BOTH Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Paul is a limited government person, and Huckabee sounds like a big government Republican like Bush.

I think Thompson has the right stance on a lot of issues, and he might be the most conservative at his core, but he’s too late to the party, and he’s not dynamic enough to win the nomination or a general election. Giuliani is top notch on everything except social issues, which I might be able to live with if it means no Hillary or Obama. For now Romney is my favorite.

The following is an article from the Wall Street Journal by Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary for President Bush. It’s a very interesting article for many reasons. The most fascinating reason I find is that it shows that the “rich” pay most of the the taxes, but it also shows that “rich” doesn’t mean you make $5 million dollars. It’s a very good read, especially for Democrats that want to raise taxes. Article starts here:

If the tax forms you’re filing this year show Uncle Sam entitled to any income tax, you increasingly stand alone. The income tax system is so bad, and increasingly reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation’s bills, that 40% of the country’s households — more than 44 million adults — pay no income taxes at all. Not a penny.

Think of it this way. After dropping off your tax forms at the Post Office, you find 100 people standing on the sidewalk. Forty of them will be excused from paying income taxes thanks to Congress. Twenty of them, the middle class, will pay barely a thing. The 40 people who remain, the upper middle class and the wealthy, will pay nearly all of the income taxes. continue reading…

A couple quick thoughts on the election results. Obviously not what I was hoping for, but it’s really not that impressive of a win for the Democrats for a couple reasons. The losses in both the house and senate were on par for a president in the 6th year of his presidency. Considering that the war is so unpopular, you would really expect the gains by Democrats to be more substantial than they were. I think another reason it’s not an extremely impressive victory is the reason people were voting. People were voting against the war, not for liberal principals, just as they weren’t voting against conservative principals.

Ultimately I think the general public, who can’t sit through a 30-second commercial, can’t sit through a war. The talking heads on TV can’t even explain WHY it’s going "wrong," but people see a body count and assume it’s true. Best line of the night was from Howard Dean: "Clearly the people want a change in Iraq, and I think you’re going to see that." He couldn’t tell you what the heck "that" is, but there will be one!

I’m an optimistic fellow, and I see the next two years as an opportunity. Republicans should wake up and get back to small government basics. The Republicans in office have been pretty poor when it comes to core conservative values, and hopefully they can move back to what a majority of people want: less government. Already Democrats are talking about rasing the minimum wage, and President Bush is excited to have a congress controlled by Democrats because he thinks it will help his amnesty goals. Keep it up President Bush, and none of us will be sorry to see you leave.

Rush Limbaugh has an excellent article at his site.

Gas prices are heading south, but I don’t hear anyone giving George Bush credit for that. After all, if people want to blame him when they go up, they should praise him when they go down. If that sounds retarded to you, it’s because it is.

As gas prices go down, I would like to point out that OPEC doesn’t like that. In an effort to make the price go back up they are cutting supply. Gasp! "You mean gas prices aren’t up to the Dick Cheney and all the evil Republicans?" I get sick and tired of the idiocy of the general public that attributes anything negative to the people in charge.

Aside from gas prices, the economy is another great example of how dumb people are. The ENTIRE time Bush has been in office I’ve had to listen to people complain that the economy is in a recession (when it’s not) and that everything sucks. I found an interesting poll over at Reuters that seems to contradict itself.

On October 18th, 47% of people think the job market is worse than three years ago, and 38% think it’s better. On October 16th, 76% thought the country was on the wrong track, and only 22% on the right track. Both of these make it sound like people think the country is in the toilet. The economy is worse, and everything is on the wrong track…right? Only 2 weeks earlier on October 2nd, 53% of people have a higher salary than 4 years ago, only 22% make less, and 25% make the same. Why doesn’t the fact that people individually are doing better translate into the economy doing better?

According to this poll, people that don’t like Bush are confused….

On your Household Financial Situation…among those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job, 99% say excellent, very good, or good. Among those saying they disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, 53% say excellent, very good, or good and 46% say bad, very bad, or terrible.

-People that don’t like Bush think their personal financial situation is about 50 positive/50 negative.

On the National Economy…among those saying they approve of the way Bush is handling his job, 96% say excellent, very good, or good and 3% say bad, very bad, or terrible. Among those saying they disapprove of  the way Bush is handling his job, 89% say bad, very bad, or terrible and 10% say excellent, very good, or good.

-Whoa! People that don’t like Bush (who were 50/50 on their personal situation), almost 90% of them say the economy is bad!?!?

Yah statistics are boring, but they can sure tell a lot. Apparently to some, success in your own life has no effect on the economy. As long as George W. Bush is in charge the economy will suck. People, get your head out of the sand and stop blaming others.

It’s almost election time here in California, and it was a lot of fun posting about and researching the propositions last time. I think Andrew started it last time, but I jumped on the bandwagon.

I’ll start by posting about the propositions, and if I have time, we’ll get to the people. Most of my information will be coming from the LA Times Proposition Summaries, the State Voter Guide, Tom McClintock’s Positions, and a letter the teacher’s union sent me.

To let you know where I stand (in case you’re thick as a brick and can’t tell), I’m very conservative. I’m technically a Republican, but I’m a conservative first and foremost (yes, there’s a difference). When it comes to propositions I will vote against them 99% of the time if they have ANYTHING to do with bonds and government bureacracy.

So I don’t have to explain it again, bonds are what bankrupted the state under Gray Davis. Instead of the state coming up with a budget they can live with, politicians like to put bonds on the ballot and run up our debt. The government should live within it’s means. It’s idiotic to pay for fundamental infrastructure with debt. Something that important to us as a state should be part of our yearly budget. Bonds also should only be used for projects that will still be around when it’s done being paid off. Nobody takes out a 30 year loan to buy a cell phone. You take out loans like that for a house that will still be around and useful in 30 years. Most proposition bonds though will be spent on day to day stuff that should be handled in a budget.

As for government bureacracy, most propositions do nothing more than make government bigger and more bloated. As a conservative, smaller government is something very important to me (see, there is a difference between Republicans and conservatives) . With these two key pieces of info to look for, on to the propositions!

Prop 1A – Transportation Funding Protection

My Summary: Taxes on gasoline are easily used for non-transportation projects. Under this proposition it would make borrowing money from this fund for non-transportation uses much more difficult.

My Opinion: I think taxes should have a specific purpose, and it makes sense that gas taxes should go to pay for transportation expenses. I don’t want some Senator with a pet project borrowing this money for something else I might not agree with. This prop probably won’t change much, but let’s use gas taxes to make the crowded roads better.

Bottom Line: Use gas taxes for the roads!

I am voting YES on Prop 1A.

Prop 1B – Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006

My Summary: Roads are clogged, people don’t think the air is clean enough, and our ports need better security. This prop would sell almost $20 billion dollars in bonds to pay for stuff like better roads, upgrade school busses so they don’t stink, and make the ports safer.

My Opinion: I bet you can already guess my opinion because they used a four letter word….BOND! These bonds would end up costing the state another $20 billion dollars in interest ($40 billion total). This is why government is so ineffective. Instead of forcing state officials to make difficult choices about where money should go, tax payers just throw bond money at them, and then they don’t have to decide.

Bottom Line: Bonds are the devil.

I am voting NO on Prop 1B.

Prop 1C - Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006

My Summary: I’ll cheat and give you the LA Times summary: "The measure would authorize $2.9 billion in bonds to build urban parks, provide low-interest loans and grants for affordable housing, farm-worker housing and homeless shelters."

My Opinion: I was getting nauseous reading this one. Not only are they bonds, but they’re for urban parks and farm worker housing. What the crap?! Who is wasting their time in Sacramento trying to find ways to spur farm worker housing? Stop screwing with the economy you (insert bad words here).

Bottom Line: Not only are bonds the devil, but also whichever moron wrote this prop.

I am voting NO on Prop 1C.

Prop 1D – Kindergarten – University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006

My Summary: Bonds of $10 billion dollars would be sold to pay for various school related projects. Interest would cost another $10 billion dollars.

My Opinion: More bonds! Schools have waaaay too much money already. We pay for lunch for kids, we have millions of dollars earmarked for poor kids, and guess what? Our schools still suck. I don’t care if I had a bazillion dollars for my classroom, it wouldn’t matter. The students who receive no support at home, their parents are losers, or they don’t care about learning English…it won’t matter for them. It’s not about money! Stop throwing money at the education problem, it’s just making it worse.

Bottom Line: More money = less responsibility.

I am voting NO on Prop 1D.

Prop 1E - Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006

My Summary: It sells $4 billion in bonds to help pay for levee improvements and flood control/prevention.

My Opinion: Tom McClintock said yes to this bond measure, so I really looked into it. While I’ll agree with him that it’s important to protect our water, it’s still ridiculous to pay for it with bonds. Some other stuff I read said there are 2,000 miles of levees to maintain, but this is only enough money for 25 miles.

Bottom Line: Again, if this is SO important, stop sending the morons next to my parents welfare checks and get on this important task of improving the levees.

I am voting NO on Prop 1E (Sorry Tom).

Sorry this post was so long, but I had to tackle all the "1" props or I’d never find the motivation again. I’m putting up a special 2006 California Election page to the right to keep track of all these posts. Bookmark it!