To Hillary, Mitt, Barack, John and Mike, with love,

Surely these luminaries are all going to hurry to this website to read what we have to say.

If they were to come and visit this site.....truth is they would ignore what is said like they do to everyone else. Yep.

The political season is full upon us, a little early for my taste, but still the choices have narrowed considerably. In the Democratic camp we have a socialist and an extreme socialist. In the Republican camp we a Socialist and a Socialist sympathizer. Conservatives have no real choice except Huckabee who’s tax plan has so many variables no one can back it with confidence; besides he’s not exactly knocking them dead in the primaries.

I'm not sure I can really confidently agree or disagree with your characterizations of the candidates as socialists or socialist sympathizers. Probably that's a bit of an exaggeration. I do agree about Huckabee's tax plan though. So far in my experience with presidential elections, candidates who make massive tax reform part of their campaign do not get elected.

So, now here is my whining dissertation:

Hillary, you really think we need a stronger government? Like the one that forced itself into the camp at Waco --you know, David Koresh? That was so wonderful how the stronger government handled that! I will not vote for you, your ideas are the ideas of a bully. I do not let non-issues decide who to vote for, the fact you are a woman tells me nothing of any importance to my vote. I probably would like you; you seem to be a nice person.

So, the only thing you can think of to criticize Hillary about is how her husband's political policies might have influenced the catastrophe at Waco? That's a bit of a stretch. Nothing about Whitewater? State-run heathcare? Illegal immigration? What about the fact that her husband (co-president?) has already had 8 years in the Whitehouse? Before I can even think about the issues, that's my problem with her. Her whole candidacy is an end-run around the constitution! I don't WANT Bill Clinton anywhere near the Whitehouse, or the Oval Office!

I chose the one topic for each that bothered me the most. I am willing to accept your diatribe as good. I think however you missed my point, let me try again: Hillary wants a stronger government, yuck. I'm with you there.

Mitt, whew, where to start! Socialized Medicine in the state of Massachusetts, which is working out so wonderfully isn’t it, only millions of dollars of debt. For you I will allow a personal and maybe offensive observation. Your religion is based on a story about how a lost tribe of Joseph came to America and became the American Indians. You believe this to be true in spite of the fact that there is no definitive evidence that this is true. Even your own Mormon geneticists have discovered the American Indians came from an area in China.
I cannot vote for someone who believes what I feel is the equivalent of believing Santa is the magic elf who supplies billions of children with gifts once a year.

Jerry, we Christians believe some pretty preposterous stuff too, for which there is very little, if any, evidence outside our own sacred texts. I agree that Mormonism is a bunch of hooey, but for a Christian to criticize a Mormon for believing things which are highly unlikely, and for which there is little evidence -- well, isn't it a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? Faith -- by definition (see Hebrews 11:1 for the definition) -- is not about believing things based on the evidence. For those who have faith, faith IS the evidence.

As for Christians (which all of the candidates claim to be), don't they all believe that we're headed for an inevitable world war, and that Jesus will fly down out of the sky on a white horse just in the nick of time to rescue them from the bad guys (Rev. 19:14)? Or maybe they're "pre-trib" and they believe that they'll be whisked away to meet with Jesus up in the clouds before the crap hits the fan (I Thess. 4:17)? But at least they don't believe that the American Indians were descendents of a lost tribe of Isreal! Now that is just silly!

Here again a missed point. I offer the thought that their history is false-- a story made up by a self-agrandizing monster. There is no historical difinitive proof that these events exist. You cannot say that about Christianity. True faith does not require ignorance of us, when there is reasonable evidence to the contrary. Future events can happen any way any one wants to predict. I really want to discuss faith, perhaps the next blog. (tag your it) I'll see what I can do.

Barack, please, socialized medicine? --see how well that is working out for Mitt? Re-work some ideas here, think things through a bit more. I like my money to stay in my pocket, work on that one please.

Wow, you really don't have much to say about Barack. Nothing about his Muslim education? Is he a Manchurian candidate?

Of all the democrats, I like Barack the best. He appeals to my "support the underdog" instinct. He's the poorest of all the candidates, yet he's on the verge of beating the Clinton Political Machine. That's something! Also, the poor guy has to fight against his own names! Hussein Obama -- who would have thought a person with that name could be a major contender for the American presidency?

This is getting a little scary. I agree with you. Barrack is the best the democrats have to offer, in fact between him and John McCain I may just vote for him, at least I feel I can trust him more.

John, You puzzle me a bit. I am the most afraid of you. Your compliance with the democrats has me scared. I am not even sure why you stay in the Republican Party. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. I am sure that you have had plenty of people tell you thank-you for your service to our country during the Vietnam War, but you have never had a thank-you from me. I admire your courage sir, Thank-you for standing up for our beloved country. Your service in the war has a part in a decision to make you president, but not enough for me.

So John McCain is "double-minded" because he's neither an extreme liberal, nor an extreme conservative? Nevermind his age and vast experience and successes in life -- he's "unstable" because he's not as closed-minded as you?

No, it is because he calls himself a republican when he votes more for democratic causes. I believe a wolf in sheeps clothing may be the best description.

The great thing about John McCain is -- he's the only republican that has a snowball's chance of actually being elected this year. Let's face it. Whatever you and I might think of ol' Dub'ya, he's left a bitter taste in the collective American mouth. I really hope I'm wrong about this, but I really don't think it's going to be possible for a republican to win this time. Even if one of the candidates could get 100% of republican voters behind him, there will just be more democrats at the polls this time. I heard on the radio from a reporter who visited both caucuses in his state. This was on conservative talk-radio, and after going on for a few minutes about whether or not this or that republican would win the nomination, he had to admit that it didn't really matter, because there were about 100 times as many warm bodies at the democratic caucus.

I am reading in the book of Second Kings right now. The truth is we deserve the president we get. George Bush's reluctance to do what was needed has caused a political backlash. So we will elect another "king" who will cause of more grief. I have noticed over the years that in the political arena "it ain't over until it is over". I am not jumping on any band wagon until... in this case probably never.

Mike, I initially liked your tax plan. A stronger government scares me (see Hillary) so anything that diminishes the strength of that government works for me. I did say initially I liked your plan but because I find it hard to be comfortable with so many variables in play I am having trouble appreciating it. It appears to be just as convoluted as the present system. Sorry, I as a conservative really like you.

Why is it that with Mitt Romney, all you could think to talk about was his religious beliefs, but with Mike Huckabee (a Baptist), we don't spend a moment to talk about his (I assume here that he agrees with his fellow Baptists) beliefs? The soon return of Jesus on a white horse coming out of the clouds? The immenent "rapture" of believers up into the clouds to meet him there? The inevitable Apocalypse (a.k.a. World War III)? Do you think it possible that these beliefs might influence a president's foreign affairs policies? Is it really a good idea to elect a man president who believes that he'll be "raptured" out of the world before any of the negative results of his own foreign policy decisions can hurt him?

You probably should have thought this one through a bit more. What a person thinks may happen in the future becomes an issue?

Of course!!! What a man believes will happen in the future not only affects his actions today, it is the very basis for everything he does! If you think Microsoft stock is likely to rise in the future, you'll buy more of their stock. If you believe there's going to be a war, you prepare for war. If we're talking about me or you, who cares? One more person selling or buying stock, one more person builds a bomb shelter or whatever. However, if we're talking about the leader of the most powerful nation in the world -- then yes, it does become a big issue. Especially if the man's beliefs about the future have a direct bearing on decisions he must make as part of his job.

I really want to play with this more. The socialists (most of them) believe that if they can pass some sort of universal healthcare that all the people in the world will be kept healthy, mecicine will be easy to get, and lollipops will grow on trees in a beautiful land flowing with happy days and sugar-coated dreams. Bah! At least Mike gets his prediction of future events from someone who gets it right every time.

I don't know what to say to this. I guess you mean God when you say "someone who gets it right every time." However, I have not found that people "get it right every time", or even get it right MOST times, or even get it right FREQUENTLY when they act based on their interpretation of murky Biblical passages.

Here is the conclusion to the whole matter so far…

Ppppppttttttttttttttttttttt.

That’s a raspberry for those who are not into comic books.

Comic books. Now THERE'S a topic. This summer at the movies we'll have Batman and Iron Man. These are DC and Marvel's respective takes on the concept of a troubled, but extremely wealthy and inventive man who uses his wealth and intelligence to fight evildoers in a super-hero-like fashion. Which one will be better? Who'd win if they were forced to battle each other? Which one is a democrat and which a republican? These are the real issues!

(p.s. The Lego® versions of Batman® and Iron Man® pictured here were found at http://www.minimatemultiverse.com/, and I hope they won't mind my using them. Batman and Iron Man are the property of DC Comics and Marvel Enterprises, respectively, and Iron Man would kick Batman's butt.)

Yes, the votes have been cast: Iron man 2 and Batman 0. A much less acidifying topic than politics!