harikari.com

This is interesting…

Mitt Romney  52.0%
John McCain    21.1%
Ron Paul    18.7%
Mike Huckabee    5.9%

Mitt Romney dropped out of the race last week so that the Republicans could unite behind McCain, the apparent nominee, and be in a better position to defeat the terrorists. … uh, I mean Democrats.

But now that the Republicans of Maine have decided that they would like to elect a racist, homophobic, free-market, war mongering, income-tax hating, millionaire businessman for president, perhaps Mitt will have to jump back in.

Mitt Romney said he called it quits today because, “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

What he really meant to say was that he realized Americans weren’t too keen on electing a racist, homophobic, free-market, war mongering, income-tax hating, millionaire businessman for president.

Last week I came across two websites that tell you which presidential candidates line up best with your political views.

The ABC “Match-O-Matic” asks you about fifteen questions and then displays your top three candidates and shows you where they lined up with you and where they differed.

The Pick Your Candidate page asks you twenty-five questions on broader range of topics than the ABC site, and it lets you weight each one’s importance to you as either being “Minimal, “Important,” or “Key.”  It returns a table that shows all the candidates ranked in order of how well they lined up with your views.

I answered the questions a few times on each site and tweaked the answers to a few questions that did not provide choices that lined up exactly with what I thought, but both sites matched me with Kucinich first.  The next in line were usually either Biden, Gravel, Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

I then went back to the sites and answered all the questions as if I were a racist, homophobic, free-market, war mongering, income-tax hating, millionaire businessman and both sites said Romney was my man.

The survey questions only take a few minutes to fill out, so give them a try and see who pops up.

The Republicans in New Hampshire would prefer a viable candidate to a guy they wouldn’t mind going to church with.  John McCain is the closest thing to viable they have.

The Independent voters of New Hampshire helped Hillary recover from a surprise punch in round one.  She entered New Hampshire fighting and pulled out a win in round two.

Obama is ready to go a few more rounds.

Mitt Romney has a lot of money, looks good, and speaks well, be he’s NOT viable. 

Rudy is Nowhere Man.

Fred Thompson is Walking Dead Man.

John Edwards’ game of catch-up is getting more and more difficult. 

For the record, I like John Edwards best because I agree with him on three major issues: 

1. He admitted that his vote for the Iraq War Resolutions was a mistake and that he would get the U.S. out of Iraq within a year.
2. He would repeal the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000 and close tax loopholes for hedge fund managers.
3. He has a plan for America to provide health care for all of its citizens.

It’s too bad that Romney’s “Faith in America” speech is even necessary, but he felt pressured into it and delivered it yesterday.

Here’s what he got right:

Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty.

…I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

…A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

…Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

…No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.

…We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.

Anyone familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows all that should go without saying.  We should hear similar statements from all the candidates, not just Romney.  (Are you listening Mr. Huckabee?)

What he got wrong:

“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are.

…When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.

…no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

…Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

…Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

The common thread through all those statements is that he excludes “the faithless” as if agnostics and atheists are second-class citizens not worthy of his attention.

Is the religion of an aspiring candidate an issue we should question?  I think not, but obviously many millions think otherwise.  Again, read the Constitution – it’s not an issue.

If he became president he would make a promise to God?  So when it gets right down to it, if God and the citizens of America are in disagreement, who does he serve?

Can a movement of conscience speak to non-religious people?  Is he saying they don’t have consciences?

When this country was formed, it was for the most part made up of Christians and Deists.  Since then, our country has absorbed people from all around the world, and they’ve all brought with them their own religions – what Romney calls a “Symphony of Faith.”  Let’s run with that metaphor for a second.  If everything is in balance, the symphony sounds great.  Occasionally the violins dominate, sometimes the woodwinds, sometimes the brass, sometimes the percussion.  But what if one voice always dominated?  What if all we ever heard were trumpets and trombones at 120 decibels?  That would drive many out of the hall, even some of the concertgoers who also played brass instruments would get sick of it.  So tempering the religious displays in the public square is not necessarily about removing any acknowledgement of God, it’s about balancing it all out so that no one religion dominates.

Oh, and secularism is not a religion.  I can’t believe he even said that.  Maybe he had W read his speech and asked him for suggestions.

And about that “most important question to ask a person of faith.”  He can’t ask an atheist the same question?  Does he think they aren’t qualified to answer it?  Probably not since they don’t fall into the group he refers to as his allies.

It’s not hard to guess how the non-believers will respond to his speech. 

So how will the Christian Republicans respond?  Can they accept a Mormon as their candidate for president?

They should be able to, but I’m betting they won’t.

If you were voting in the Republican primary tomorrow, which candidate would get your vote and why?

“Uh, hello? Rudolph Giuliani. He protected New York City from the terrorists on 9/11 and he’s like the anti-terrorist version of Sean Connery in the Untouchables. The Iraqi people put me in a wheelchair, so now he’ll put one of them in a torture prison.”

via Something Awful

For the following reasons, I don’t think this primary season is going to be easy for Republicans.

1. Romney will implode on the issue of his religion. Proper Xtians don’t like Mormons and Mormons don’t like a Massachusetts Governor who won’t defend their faith — and Mormonism is tough as shit to defend under serious scrutiny.

2. Huckabee, like Romney, will fall under the weight of his faith. He is simply TOO religious.

3. Giuliani has secrets just waiting to find the right mouthpiece.

4. Ron Paul isn’t a republican.

5. Thompson’s a poseur. He’s a great republican, though. Just like Reagan.

6. Tancredo’s a nutjob. Tancredo, before it’s too late… WTF!?!?

7. Hunter is…wait. Who? Actually, if Hunter wins the nom and chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, I may actually consider voting for “Hunter/Thompson 2008″.

8. McCain. Caucus Republicans love him, but don’t believe in him. Hate him, but respect him. He won’t pander to the Christians, he won’t get tough on terrorists, he did spend 5 years in a Vietnam prison camp, but he ran against Dear Leader 8 years ago, and lost. If he can’t defend his nomination from a draft dodger, how can he defend our country from islamo-fascist militants who want to bomb our malls and poison our small town water towers? However, I think he’s the only one who could kick the Dem nom’s ass in 2008 if he manages to get past the past 6 years of lap-dogging and elbow rubbing.