Who I voted for...

After an agonizing period of time wrestling with the options in my mind, I finally made some decisions and filled out my absentee ballot today.

I ended up voting for:

13 Republican candidates (6 of which were unopposed)
4 Libertarian candidates
3 Democratic candidates (1 of which was unopposed)

I also abstained from voting in three races, and all three were races with Republican candidates running unopposed.

If you haven't voted yet, I urge you to cast your vote for the candidates you do like, and not against a candidate you don't like. Don't base your decision on a fear of "the other guy" winning.

I am glad this is finally over. I look forward to the next election.

Some of My Sources...

I have had several people ask me where I get my information from, so I wanted to share with you, loyal reader, the websites that I check regularly. Most of these I check daily, if not more. Some of them I may check only a couple times a week.

Facebook - I have two accounts: one personal one, and one solely dedicated to political postings.
Email - I have three email accounts that I check, not including multiple work emails.
Twitter - you can follow me at @realtonygoodwin at Twitter. I retweet a lot of stories and things I find interesting, not very much in terms of original content though. See below to see some of who I "follow."

http://www.msn.com/ MSN.com - this is for headlines and interesting little stories
http://drudgereport.com/ The Drudge Report is known for breaking news stories
http://www.fark.com/ Fark.com is a news aggregator, it includes user-submitted links and snarky commentary
http://www.politico.com/ Politico is my main source for mainstream political news, especially the 2012 Live tab
http://www.fark.com/politics/ - This is Fark.com's special politics section
http://realclearpolitics.com/ - RealClearPolitics has the best and most accurate polling numbers, as well as news stories

http://www.maximumpc.com/ Maximum PC is all about PC hardware and other technology stuff
http://www.tomshardware.com/ Tom's Hardware has indepth PC hardware articles, with excellent reviews and testing
http://www.maximumpc.com/tags/maximum_tech Maximum PC's tech site, for Android, tablets, phones, etc

http://www.smartmoney.com/ SmartMoney has a portfolio tool where I can check my real and fantasy investment portfolios, as well as interesting articles
http://crawlingroad.com/blog/ Crawling Road keeps me up to date with interesting investment news, mostly focusing on Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio Strategy

http://thegospelcoalition.org/ The Gospel Coalition features great articles and blogs from a solid theological footing
http://www.challies.com/ Tim Challies has great reviews of books and whatnot, from a Reformed perspective, and his a la carte posts are quite interesting
http://edstetzer.com/ Ed Stetzer blogs about church research, missiology, and church planting

Here is just a small sampling of the several hundred accounts I follow on

TWITTER:

Politics
https://twitter.com/#!/gallupnews
https://twitter.com/#!/POLITICO2012 
https://twitter.com/#!/politico
https://twitter.com/#!/BuzzFeedPol
https://twitter.com/#!/BuzzFeedAndrew
https://twitter.com/#!/BuzzFeedBen
https://twitter.com/#!/ZekeJMiller 
https://twitter.com/#!/HuffPostPol
https://twitter.com/#!/thehill
https://twitter.com/#!/TheFix 
https://twitter.com/#!/daveweigel
https://twitter.com/#!/TheStateColumn
https://twitter.com/#!/PeterHambyCNN
https://twitter.com/#!/BretBaier


News
https://twitter.com/#!/csgazette
https://twitter.com/#!/HawaiiNewsNow
https://twitter.com/#!/MilitaryTimes
https://twitter.com/#!/reason
https://twitter.com/#!/TheEconomist
https://twitter.com/#!/CatoInstitute


Polling
https://twitter.com/#!/pewresearch
https://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls 
https://twitter.com/#!/RasmussenPoll


Christianity
https://twitter.com/#!/MarsHill
https://twitter.com/#!/edstetzer
https://twitter.com/#!/PastorMark
https://twitter.com/#!/PastorTullian
https://twitter.com/#!/RELEVANT
https://twitter.com/#!/desiringgod 
https://twitter.com/#!/CTmagazine

Miscellaneous
https://twitter.com/#!/joshualyman
https://twitter.com/#!/AnonyOps
https://twitter.com/#!/LiveActionFilms
https://twitter.com/#!/5tu
https://twitter.com/#!/HomeschoolConv

Bomb bomb Iran

This is a sort of follow-up and expansion post to two previous posts on GET REAL. They are "Unintended Consequences" and "On non-interventionism..."
I hear the rhetoric of so many calling for more intervention in the middle East. So many of my fellow Americans seem to think that Iran is going to nuke Israel and the United States. I urge you to read through the other two posts I made related to this subject, and to watch the following powerful video:



I had a brief conversation with an Air Force General once (during a question and answer session) regarding radical Islam. I asked why he thought radical Muslims hate America. I mentioned that it can't be a tenet of Islam, since Islam has been around a lot longer than the United States. It isn't because of our freedom and prosperity, since we are their number one target, and countries such as Switzerland are not as targeted as we are. He admitted that it was due to our history of intervention in what they consider to be Muslim Holy Lands. It was a refreshing moment of candor, and I had several other officers approach me after the General was finished with his briefing, and thank me for asking the questions I did. The CIA, the 9/11 Commission, and many others also agree with this assessment.

I am a believer in the idea that you can only solve a problem if you understand what caused it in the first place. This is why I think our economy is in the state it is in, and why we continue to try to fight endless wars throughout the world. I believe that total peace will never be possible until Christ returns, but I also believe that a humble foreign policy will take America a long way. See the following video for a good explanation, by former President George W. Bush.



It appears that many "conservatives" now view this as an "insane" or "dangerous" foreign policy. Going to war, in order to prevent war, is a terrible idea. How far we have fallen in such a short time.

And The Field Narrows

As of today, one month remains until Iowa kicks off their Presidential caucuses, helping to determine the course of the Presidential nomination. And as of today, the GOP field is a little smaller. Herman Cain announced he is suspending his campaign, I can only assume because of the previous post I wrote, On Herman Cain. Or maybe it had something to do with allegations that have been leveled against him. Whichever it really is, he is blaming the media. Mr. Cain has declared he will be endorsing a candidate in the near future, and I have a prediction on that front. I believe it will be one of the following three candidates:

Mitt Romney: Because he has business experience, has the best chance of beating President Obama (according to the conventional wisdom, anyway), but mostly because he endorsed Governor Romney back in 2008.

Newt Gingrich: There seems to be some mutual love between the fellow Georgians. They had a friendly, "Lincoln-Douglas" style debate where they were in agreement on most of the issues.

Michele Bachmann: This is the wildcard out there. The Bachmann campaign is the only one to let it be known that the Cain campaign contacted them today, prior to Cain's announcement. Trying to help a woman seems to be Cain's weakness, and I imagine he thinks it could help him with his image with women. Also, she has a perception of being an "Washington outsider." And lastly, the Bachmann campaign posted a very nice message about Cain's suspension of his campaign on Facebook immediately following his announcement.


Later today, the Des Moines Register will be releasing the results of new poll numbers in Iowa. The Des Moines Register is a newspaper in Des Moines, Iowa which has a reputation for having their finger on the pulse of Iowa voters most accurately. They have already released Herman Cain's numbers (8%).

Here are where the remaining candidates stand in Iowa, not including the numbers that will be released in several hours. This ranking is based on the RealClearPolitics.com average found here.

Gingrich
Romney
Paul
Bachmann
Perry
Santorum
Huntsman

In the next few weeks, I plan to break down each candidate and how I believe Iowans should vote. I leave you with the following quote from John Quincy Adams:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

On Herman Cain...

Back in March, I posted a blog post entitled "What I dislike."
At the time, I did not include Herman Cain in my thoughts. I knew he was running for President (in fact, his Presidential Exploratory Committee was formed in January!), but he was not registering very high in the polls. Well, recently, he has shot up in the polls, and is considered to be a "top-tier candidate." As such, I have now deemed him worthy of his own post.
First, a bit about Herman Cain. He has a decent resume and record of accomplishment. He has a bachelor's in mathematics, and a master's in computer science. In the 1970's he worked as a civilian ballistics analyst for the Department of the Navy, developing fire control systems for ships and fighter planes. He then left the DoN to work for Coca-Cola, and then Pillsbury. Under Pillsbury, he worked for Burger King and Godfather's Pizza. As President and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, he cut costs by going from 911 stores to 420 stores, in just over a year. Later, Cain and a group of investors bought Godfather's Pizza from Pillsbury. In 1996, Cain resigned as CEO of Godfather's, and became the CEO of the National Restaurant Association.
From 1992 to 1996, Herman Cain worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, including being the Chairman of the board of directors.
He resigned his position at the Fed to become more involved in national politics in 1996.
In 1993/1994, as the President-elect of the National Restaurant Association, he publicly opposed the Clinton health care plan.
In 1996, Herman Cain became a senior economic adviser to the Dole/Kemp presidential campaign.
In 2000, Herman Cain ran for President of the United States. He ended up dropping out and endorsing Steve Forbes over front-runner George W. Bush.
In 2004, Cain lost another race, this for the Senate seat vacated by Zell Miller.

Here are my problems with Herman Cain:
1. In 2008, Cain endorsed Mitt Romney for President.
2. Herman Cain has said he doesn't believe we need to audit the Federal Reserve, much less end it.
3. Cain's supporters like to tout the idea that he "isn't a politician, but a businessman." However, he has been involved in politics nearly two decades. This is his second run for the Presidency. He is a politician, just not a successful one.
4. Herman Cain doesn't seem to have a good grasp on the Constitution, as this article shows.
5. He has yet to clarify his positions on foreign policy, saying he won't know what to do until he is elected.
6. His 9-9-9 plan sounds good, and may, in fact, be better than the current system. However, it would be levying a national sales tax on the American taxpayer, on top of a national income tax. I am okay with they idea of a sales tax, but only one that replaces the income tax. I would prefer a 0-0 tax plan. 0% income tax, 0% sales tax. But I realize that is idealistic. Economists say that the 9-9-9 plan "would cause largest deficits since WWII, while increasing taxes for most Americans."
7. I don't know what he stands for. Like Mitt Romney, he seems to "adjust" his political positions for political expediency. He was for affirmative action, now he is against it. He was against Auditing the Fed, now he is for it. He was opposed to the Federal Government targeting US citizens for assassination without trial, now he is for it.
8. Herman Cain doesn't understand what caused the economic mess we are in. He claimed there was no housing bubble, and supported the TARP bailouts.

Another issue is race. Some conservatives seem to be under the impression that in an election between Barack Obama and Herman Cain, Cain would take a large chunk of the black vote from the President, thus securing a win for the GOP. However polling shows that to not be the case. In fact, Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, and Palin all secured a larger percentage of the black vote in a hypothetical matchup with President Obama than Herman Cain received. Some voters think that black voters overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama because he is black. In reality, black voters overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama because he is a Democrat. President Obama captured a similar amount of the black voter as John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton before him.

In conclusion, there are a lot of issues with a Herman Cain nomination. If you like his business background, Mitt Romney has a similar, and more successful one. If you like his support of the FairTax, I suggest you look toward Gary Johnson, Michele Bachmann, or Ron Paul, each of who support the FairTax at least as much as Herman Cain does. If you like the fact that he loses elections, I suggest you look toward Rick Santorum, who lost reelection to the Senate in 2006 by 18 percentage points, the largest margin against an incumbent senator since 1980.

Unintended Consequences

Many people in the Middle East equate the American government with Christianity. When they see Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and other prominent American Christians speak out against Islam, they do not separate that from any official positions of the US government. Keep in mind that in many countries in the Middle East, the church and state are not separate as they are in the US. And when the US military occupies Muslim homelands, Muslims in the Middle East will naturally equate that with Christianity.

Why do Islamic extremists target America? It is not for who we are, but for what we do. It is not a tenet of Islam to hate America. Keep in mind that Islam has been around a lot longer than the United States. It is not because we are free, and allow women to drive, and vote. It is not that our culture is immoral and we allow teenagers to talk back to their parents, and girls to dress immodestly. Yes, these things are opposed by many strict Muslims, but that is not why they attack us. Switzerland has all these same issues, yet are not being attacked by the Islamic terrorists. No, it is our foreign policy and our continued meddling in the Middle East that causes the radicals to hate and attack us. People like Osama bin Laden have used this sentiment, and tied it together with religion, to sway the public against us.

When the President of the United States refers to the War on Terror as a "crusade," as President George W. Bush did on September 11th, 2001, the Muslim world sees that as an extension of the long, violent history between Christianity and Islam.

Our history of interference in the Middle East comes from well before September 11th, 2001, and even prior to the first Gulf War. In 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by US and British intelligence agencies. In 1979, Americans began working with anti-communist rebels in Afghanistan in their conflict with the Soviet Union. These same rebels used our training and weapons years later against us. It has been argued that our drone strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia have inadvertently killed more civilians than the terrorists we are targeting.

The unintended consequences of our interventionist American foreign policy, is that millions upon millions of Arab and Persian Muslims have a negative view of Christianity. It is very difficult to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to people who believe that Christians want to invade and occupy Muslim homelands and kill Muslims. It has been claimed that Islam is the fasting growing religion in the world. Depending on how you define that, and how you look at the statistics, it could very well be true. As a Christian, I want more people to come to Christ, including Muslims.

Some interesting facts.
1. Christianity is legal in Iran, and in fact there is a requirement that Christians have representation in the Iranian Parliament.
2. Arabic speaking Christians use the word "Allah" for God.
3. Apostasy is illegal in many Muslim countries. It is illegal for a Christian in these countries to convert to Islam, and vice versa.

I ask you to pray for the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the Muslim people. I ask that you support politicians and candidates who will help change our destructive foreign policy which makes the spread of the Gospel that much more difficult to achieve. And give thanks to God, that even though we continue to sabotage ourselves in this manner, that He is powerful and loving and wise. He will continue to change people's hearts and bring them to Him.

Great Speech about Faith & Freedom

I am working on a longer blog post about how libertarianism and Christianity are not at odds with each other, as many seem to think. In the meantime, a small taste of that topic is in the following video. Dr. Ron Paul spoke at the Faith and Freedom Coalition 2011 conference this past week. Please watch and let me know what you think.

On non-interventionism...

In the 2000 Presidential race, George W. Bush espoused a non-interventionist foreign policy. A couple weeks ago, Sarah Palin got rid of her neo-conservative advisors and gave a speech in Colorado where she laid out her own non-interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul has been a non-interventionist for YEARS, (you know, kind of like many of our Founders), yet the media continues to refer to him as an "isolationist." This is simply not accurate. I urge everyone to watch this video to get a simplified overview of a non-interventionist foreign policy. It also delves a little bit into the Federal Reserve. I have not and will not endorse a candidate for any partisan office, but I do want people to understand the facts and choose to support the candidate of their choice. I urge you to read some of Michael Schuerer's books about the "War on Terror" if you want to get a little deeper into that topic. He was a CIA analyst for 22 years and was on the Osama bin Laden task force for that organization. He also makes frequent appearances on the Fox News Channel. Oh yeah, and he was one of Ron Paul's foreign policy advisers in his 2008 campaign.

Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Simplified

Make sure to leave some comments on this blog!

A boring President?

A well written opinion piece from Andrew Canfield entitled We Need a Boring President Again

Sometimes it is preferable to be boring. After the roller coaster ride of current events that have unfolded both domestically and abroad over the previous decade, many of us might yearn for some boring times for a change. Massive ups and downs in the economic sphere have only been matched by equal turmoil in the political one: it seems the House and presidency are switching hands more than homes at the height of the real estate bubble.

This is true in our personal lives as well, as most of us value steadiness and seek to steer clear of massive peaks and valleys in our personal relationships and family lives. So if we place such a premium on the times marked by a lack of upheaval, why do we not look back fondly on those who presided over such times while in the Oval Office? Our presidents who reigned during times of war or massive government intervention are constantly glorified and placed on a pedestal, while the ones who presided during times of peace and economic expansion are rarely even brought up.

Praise is ceaselessly heaped on the Wilsons, FDRs, Trumans, Lincolns, and Johnsons of our past. Not to say these men did not do some good things during their terms, but is it unrealistic to expect the same sort of folk tales to be told about the presidents who avoided war, saving us from untold carnage by their diplomacy? What about the ones who stuck to laissez faire principles, the men who kept the budget balanced, currency strong, and the government off the backs of the American people? These names are only brought up as historical footnotes, chalked up as too “boring” for in depth discussion. Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge come to mind; but I would wager most Americans have been taught little about the presidencies of these two men. I know I was not.
We need to teach the next generation about the men who placed peaceful international relations and a trust in market mechanisms at the forefront of their agenda, not necessarily the ones who, in the words of John Quincy Adams, sought to go overseas seeking “monsters to destroy.” Considering this sort of leader has been more the exception than the rule, learning about their administrations is valuable for those who want to curtail the massive apparatus that has emerged over the preceding decades.

While a holistic reading of our history is vitally important, we should not overlook the presidents who maintained a restrained view of presidential powers. In fact, America could use a boring president once again; after all, running the world and managing the economy is not exactly part of their job description. Our presidents need to be defined by what they don’t do, not just what they do. The urge to constantly be responding to this problem or that, intervening in this crisis or the next, has left us saddled with massive commitments we have no way of following through on. As the Republican presidential primary season gets underway in earnest over the next few months, perhaps we can look past the glamor and navel gazing, opting instead for the most boring of the bunch. Now that would be change we could all believe in.

What I dislike

I wanted to share the main concerns I have about each of the top potential Republican Presidential candidates. I presume that President Obama will be the nominee for the Democratic party. These are all of the candidates who are polling an average above 1%, according to the folks over at RealClearPolitics.com. They are listed in order from the current highest average to lowest. Keep in mind these are just one man's opinions.

I would love to get feedback on this. If you have a horse in the race yet, tell me who and why. Some of the concerns I have may not even matter to you at all. This is a wide-open race, with no clear front-runner. It will be interesting (to me, at least) to see how the race develops over this year. If you want sources for any of the quotes, just let me know.

Huckabee – I like Mike Huckabee as a person. I dislike him as a candidate, other than his support of the FairTax. He seems to be the anti-Reagan in the following quote.

“The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. ...”

Romney– Mitt Romney comes across to me as a political opportunist, switching sides back and forth based on the political winds. I actually don’t have a big issue with “RomneyCare” because it was only state-wide, not nationwide. I don’t have a problem with individual states enacting whatever kind of health care they want (state’s rights at play here.) It is hard to pin down a policy position to oppose or support, because his positions on the various issues seem so fluid.

Palin – Oh, where to start? I actually really liked Sarah Palin at first. I still don’t take much issue with most of her positions. I do think she handles criticism extremely poorly, and I can’t stand that she has yet to be able to complete a full term in office. She seems somewhat vain, and somewhat vindictive. She also has the problem of the perception of her as not too bright. I said after the election in 2008 that if she took some time out of the spotlight and did a couple years of brushing up on her reading and gaining some knowledge, her next time out may go well for her. She hasn’t appeared to do that.

Gingrich – Newt Gingrich

"...believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected,"

according to his 2nd wife. I can’t support that in a President. Honestly I don't know much about his issue positions.

Paul – I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries in 2008, despite his foreign policy stances. Over the last couple years, I have come to agree with him on that more and more. I do have a big problem with his defense of the whole Wikileaks situation. Other than that, Paul is good to go for me.

Pawlenty - Tim Pawlenty has lobbied the Governors' Ethanol Coalition to mandate higher ethanol use nationwide. While most people are looking for cuts in the Federal budget amid a growing defecit, Pawlenty wants to actually grow the defense budget. And in 2006 he said:

"The era of small government is over . . . government has to be more proactive, more aggressive."

Next.

Daniels – Mitch Daniels sounds good, a “fiscal conservative” who has asked for a “truce” on social issues. A couple minor negatives against him are that he isn’t opposed to raising taxes in order to balance the budget, and he is apparently a supporter of the War on Drugs. I doubt he ends up running though; he probably will stay in Indiana for a while longer.

Barbour – I like what he said recently about the need to cut defense spending. However, he also supports farm subsidies, corporate welfare, and eminent domain abuse.

Santorum – Rick Santorum has

acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy." In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, "Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."