Many GOP watchers are predicting a brokered convention. Some are even hoping for one. That may not really be what they want.
A brokered convention will happen when none of the GOP candidates have enough delegates to win, and the convention votes to nominate a compromise candidate, not one of the current declared candidates. This has happened twice in recent history. In 1920, the GOP delegates could not decide between General Leonard Wood and Governor Frank Lowden of Illinois. Warren G. Harding emerged as a compromise candidate and the convention chose Calvin Coolidge as as his running mate. Harding denied rumors of his checkered past. The rest is history.
The GOP Convention of 1920 was a time when the party bosses were more powerful and the rank and file were more in the dark than today. This convention was the epitome of a smoke-filled, back-room deal. This is not the type of deal that will fly with the type of voters needed to defeat Barrack Obama today.
Another such convention was the GOP convention of 1940 where Wendell Wilkie emerged from nowhere to win. At the end of the primary season, the vote was split between 3 different candidates, Senators Arthur Vandenburg of Michigan, Howard Taft of Ohio and Mr. Thomas Dewey a federal prosecutor from New York who put mob bosses in jail. Taft was the early favorite, but between the end of the Primary season and the beginning of the convention, Nazi Germany overran France leaving Great Britain in the fight of it's life. Both Taft and Vandenburg were isolationists and it appeared that US entry into the war was inevitable. Dewey was the early leader in the convention, but his lack of foreign policy experience was costly.
That is where Wilkie became the knight in shining armor. But he could not deliver the White House to the GOP and Roosevelt easily won an unprecedented third term.
A contested convention is where there is no clear nominee after the primary season, and the convention delegates chose the nominee from one of the declared candidates. It is not the same as a brokered convention. Remember, if a compromise candidate is chosen, it is a brokered convention. If there is no compromise candidate, it is a contested convention. There is a difference.
The GOP had a contested conventions in 1948, where by-then Governor Dewey was nominated; 1952 where Eisenhower won the nod; 1964 where Barry Goldwater was nominated; 1968 where Richard Nixon beat out other future presidents Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush and 1976 where President Ford fended off another strong challenge from Governor Reagan.
You may have noticed a pattern. When the GOP had a contested convention, they lost unless there was an open seat. In 1948, 1964 and 1976, there was an incumbent, and the GOP lost. In 1952 and 1968 there was no incumbent and the GOP won. During an open contest, a contested convention is a really good idea. It brings the right kind of publicity to the party. Voters are confident their candidate has been properly vetted. Hopefully, the other party's convention is also contested as was the case in both 1952 and 1968. (In fact, the 1968 democratic convention was brokered because the de-facto nominee, Robert F. Kennedy, was gunned down right after winning the California primary and securing enough delegate votes to win the nod.) When there is an incumbent, a contested convention is a bad idea.
As evidence, let's see what happened in the other party. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter had 60% of the delegates going into the convention, Edward Kennedy refused to drop out and concede, Secretary of State Edwin Muskie was put forward as a compromise candidate, but Carter still won on the first ballot. The GOP nominee, Ronald Reagan had a much easier time in the primaries, was not challenged at the convention, and won the General Election quite handily.
Again, when there is an open seat for the White House, a long-protracted primary battle and a contested convention are good things. But when there is an incumbent in the White House, it is bad. It is bad for the candidate that can not secure the nomination early.
Look at the three times since WWII that the incumbent was defeated...Bush in 1992, Carter in 1980 and Ford in 1976 you find that their challengers; Bill Clinton in 1992, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Jimmy Carter in 1976 were de facto nominees long before the convention. And except for Bush in 1992, the incumbents had trouble gaining re-nomination and their candidacy was in doubt when the convention began. If you are an incumbent, you do not want trouble in gaining the renomination for your party, you want your opponent to have lots of trouble.
Super Tuesday is around the corner. Right now, Romney has 143 delegates, Santorum has 62 delegates, Gingrich has 32 delegates and Paul has 20. Romney has 55% of the delegates so far. If this trend continues, if Romney has 400 or more delegates after Super Tuesday, then Santorum and the others collectively are not gaining ground. It will be futile for them to remain in the race and it will make the party look more disunited and weaken the chances of the eventual nominee.
In fact, Santorum has 23% of the delegates right now. He needs to increase his delegate count to above 106 delegates to be gaining ground. It would be wise for Santorum to have an end game in mind if he does not win at least 64 delegates in the next week.
Gingrich is probably going to win Georgia, and is likely to gain ground as a result, but he needs to consider getting out of the race if he fails to win anything outside of Georgia.
Ron Paul is more key to this than people realize. He may not win very many delegates from this point and beyond, but he could help avoid a contested convention and stay in until Santorum and Gingrich drop out. If Romney is just short after all of the primaries are over, then Ron Paul's delegates could put Romney over the top. I suspect that is the reason why Romney is playing nice with Ron Paul, but I do not know what Ron Paul is getting in return.
I have read comments and blogs by some hoping that a brokered convention will bring them a conservative knight in shining armor. History says that this is wishful thinking, especially if the incumbent has been campaigning from the Rose Garden.
If the GOP nomination battle goes on much longer, it will be bad news for whoever the nominee is. It will be bad for the Republican Party and it may even spell trouble in close Senatorial and Congressional races.
Republicans should hope for a primary that will wrap-up soon. The sooner that the GOP can make this election about Obama, and stop tearing down one another, the better. A contested convention, if history is your guide, when an incumbent is in the race, is never a good idea.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
How will $5.00 per gallon gas effect the election
Many are predicting that 5.00-6.00 per gallon gasoline will hit consumers this summer. This will no doubt have an effect on the election this fall. At this time, however, I have been to several message boards and people are adamant that they will still vote for Obama this fall even if the price of gas climbs. But I do not believe this is sound reality. This is why.
At 3.25 per gallon, the average American pays $55 per week on gas. At 5.00, it is a 54% increase. If habits are not changed, that is $85 per week, which represents a $30 per week increase, or about a $120 per month increase. At 6.00 per gallon, the price nearly doubles...a 91% increase. This means that Americans with the same driving habits would pay $105 per week, which is $200 more on the monthly budget. This would be a back breaker to most family budgets.
In 2007-2008, a similar increase in fuel costs possibly was the catalyst of the mortgage crisis, as families struggled to meet the increased fuel costs, they were unable to meet other obligations and eventually many default on their mortgages.
But the impact would not stop at the average family budget. Businesses have to pay for increased fuel costs as well. They deal with these cost increases by passing some of the costs onto consumers, but that is unwise in a time when demand is reduced when families are cutting back to meet excess fuel costs. Smart businesses seek alternatives to higher prices. They will also close outlets and offshore work to other countries, like they have been doing for the last 5 years. This means more expensive products at the store and more layoffs. In other words, here we go again.
Many in both major parties will point out that we experienced the same under GWB, and we did. The question is, who wins the argument? Obama's people would say that his policies have not had the chance to really work. The Republicans will point to this as evidence that Obama's policies have failed, but will have to downplay the fact that we went through this 4 years ago. The GOP candidate will have to find ways to differentiate himself from the prior GOP administration. It could mean that a third-party candidate, like Ron Paul, if he chooses that route, would have a message that more people would listen to, no matter how unproven or unrealistic that message is? One could argue that this proves that the message of both major parties is wrong, and a new direction is clearly needed. Would that guarantee another four years of Obama?
More likely if the GOP nomination comes down to a brokered convention, a candidate like Ron Paul would certainly have a message that could sway more GOP delegate, and one of the four remaining candidates, the one who has yet to win a single state, could steal the nomination and possibly the election.
Obviously, we need a different direction. Price volatility means that the oil industry does not have the capacity to respond to fluctuations in supply and demand, and everything from the smallest oil refinery fire and larger can cause oil prices to spike. The second problem is that money spent on importing oil leaves the United State economy, and does not return in any form. It reduces the multiplier, so that any funds spent by anyone are gone and can't be spent by someone else.
People who are hopeful for a GOP victory in November may wish to point out the obstructionism by the other party during the prior administration. Nearly all proposals to expand American oil production were shot down by the opposition until the end of the term, once they were certain a new administration would roll them back. They may also wish to quote Robert Foster Bennett, who once said, "all governmental activity, including environmental protection, if funded by economic activity. Without a strong economy, the government does not have the funds to protect the environment." Consider the alternative.
Remember that with Ron Paul, if it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is illegal...per the 10th amendment. The constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to oversee the environment, therefore, this power belongs to the states. The Keystone XL pipeline people may take this as good news and look forward to negotiating with the states that would welcome the economic boost.
We therefore need to be careful what we wish for. Higher gas prices may not be Obama's undoing unless they can be tied to a failed energy policy. That is not a slam dunk and may not get the desired results.
At 3.25 per gallon, the average American pays $55 per week on gas. At 5.00, it is a 54% increase. If habits are not changed, that is $85 per week, which represents a $30 per week increase, or about a $120 per month increase. At 6.00 per gallon, the price nearly doubles...a 91% increase. This means that Americans with the same driving habits would pay $105 per week, which is $200 more on the monthly budget. This would be a back breaker to most family budgets.
In 2007-2008, a similar increase in fuel costs possibly was the catalyst of the mortgage crisis, as families struggled to meet the increased fuel costs, they were unable to meet other obligations and eventually many default on their mortgages.
But the impact would not stop at the average family budget. Businesses have to pay for increased fuel costs as well. They deal with these cost increases by passing some of the costs onto consumers, but that is unwise in a time when demand is reduced when families are cutting back to meet excess fuel costs. Smart businesses seek alternatives to higher prices. They will also close outlets and offshore work to other countries, like they have been doing for the last 5 years. This means more expensive products at the store and more layoffs. In other words, here we go again.
Many in both major parties will point out that we experienced the same under GWB, and we did. The question is, who wins the argument? Obama's people would say that his policies have not had the chance to really work. The Republicans will point to this as evidence that Obama's policies have failed, but will have to downplay the fact that we went through this 4 years ago. The GOP candidate will have to find ways to differentiate himself from the prior GOP administration. It could mean that a third-party candidate, like Ron Paul, if he chooses that route, would have a message that more people would listen to, no matter how unproven or unrealistic that message is? One could argue that this proves that the message of both major parties is wrong, and a new direction is clearly needed. Would that guarantee another four years of Obama?
More likely if the GOP nomination comes down to a brokered convention, a candidate like Ron Paul would certainly have a message that could sway more GOP delegate, and one of the four remaining candidates, the one who has yet to win a single state, could steal the nomination and possibly the election.
Obviously, we need a different direction. Price volatility means that the oil industry does not have the capacity to respond to fluctuations in supply and demand, and everything from the smallest oil refinery fire and larger can cause oil prices to spike. The second problem is that money spent on importing oil leaves the United State economy, and does not return in any form. It reduces the multiplier, so that any funds spent by anyone are gone and can't be spent by someone else.
People who are hopeful for a GOP victory in November may wish to point out the obstructionism by the other party during the prior administration. Nearly all proposals to expand American oil production were shot down by the opposition until the end of the term, once they were certain a new administration would roll them back. They may also wish to quote Robert Foster Bennett, who once said, "all governmental activity, including environmental protection, if funded by economic activity. Without a strong economy, the government does not have the funds to protect the environment." Consider the alternative.
Remember that with Ron Paul, if it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is illegal...per the 10th amendment. The constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to oversee the environment, therefore, this power belongs to the states. The Keystone XL pipeline people may take this as good news and look forward to negotiating with the states that would welcome the economic boost.
We therefore need to be careful what we wish for. Higher gas prices may not be Obama's undoing unless they can be tied to a failed energy policy. That is not a slam dunk and may not get the desired results.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Would You Vote for This Guy
There once was a Republican Presidential Candidate who did the following as his state's governor.
-He raised taxes to balance his state's budget.
-He loosened the restrictions on abortion in his state. He later changed his mind.
-He signed a bill into law that made divorce easier in his state.
-He campaigned against a bill that would have banned homosexual teachers in schools.
-He once served as the president of a labor union.
Does a man with a record like this stand a chance as winning the nomination in today's Republican Party? Click here to find out who this man is.
-He raised taxes to balance his state's budget.
-He loosened the restrictions on abortion in his state. He later changed his mind.
-He signed a bill into law that made divorce easier in his state.
-He campaigned against a bill that would have banned homosexual teachers in schools.
-He once served as the president of a labor union.
Does a man with a record like this stand a chance as winning the nomination in today's Republican Party? Click here to find out who this man is.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Railing Against Scott Jenkins.
As Scott Jenkins is my State Senator in West Haven, I open a public letter to him.
Dear Senator Jenkins,
I am writing to you to comment about your rave in the State Legislative Session on February 16 against SB 116, a bill that would give a property tax exemption to Active Duty Soldiers who serve outside the state for 200 days or longer.
As a fiscal conservative, I agree that we should be careful about what we do for anyone with state tax dollars. As a former Active Duty Airman, I can tell you from experience that it is difficult to get over the sense of entitlement that serving in the military can give a person. But I take issue with your response to this bill on two fronts.
First, it is not your opposition to the bill that is most unfortunate, but the manner in which you came across in railing against it. Let's begin by setting the record straight.
First of all, you said, "we pay for their clothing." Military men and women have a clothing allowance to help pay for the purchase and maintenance of their uniforms. Taxpayers do not pay for all of their clothing. Often, this allowance does not pay the full cost of uniform purchase and maintenance, it only pays for a large portion of it. Military people have to cover the balance of this cost with their own money. This is not much different than working at McDonald's or other such establishments where a common dress code is required. The uniforms may be provided by the employer, but the employee is responsible for the cleaning and repair of that clothing.
Military men and women will get assistance with food. Those with families to support, who will not primary eat for free in the mess hall will receive a little extra on their paycheck to cover the cost of food. For those in the lower ranks, this allowance is not enough and many supplement the cost of their food with food stamps.
You mention that well allow them to shop at an exchange. This is usually a lower-cost place to shop. But the exchange often does not carry the item that is needed. Often the needed item is found at a lower costs with one of the discount retailers off-base. There is also a commissary on base which usually provides food for active duty members and retirees at a lower cost.
Military men and women are provided housing on base, where it is available. In a perfect world, all Active Duty Personnel will have housing on-base. But usually, there is not enough housing for everyone at a duty station and many have to live off base. The Federal Government will provide a housing allowance, but it is usually not enough to cover the cost of renting acceptable housing off base. Many of those whose tour of duty will last beyond 3 years will chose to purchase property in the community where they are stationed.
Many of these benefits are provided to our National Guard members as well. But not all of them, unless the military member is activated.
When a military person is deployed, some of those benefits are lost. The housing and food allowances are lost because when a person is deployed, his housing and food are provided by the military. This adds a financial burden to the family that has to do without their father or mother during the deployment. This makes making a mortgage payment more difficult. The allowances for housing and food are only applied when the military member is at his or her home base.
I understand that as a fiscal conservative you want to spend as little as possible on a group of people that already receive a considerable amount of financial assistance from all levels of government. Let me state that most military people earn considerably less than their civilian counterparts. But the real problem is not what you said, but how you said it.
You came across as no better than miserly Scrooge turning away a common beggar. But instead your comments were directed at the heroes who protect the freedom that we all enjoy. This is a critical time for Utah and our economy. It may be improving, but it won't take much to put our economy in the tank again. One of the many items that the BRAC commission may consider in determining which military bases to keep open and close is how well the Airmen serving at Hill Air Force Base are welcomed by the community as a whole. This is something that Utah could improve upon. Forgiving the property tax of an airman on a remote assignment may seem like a large expense, but it is something worth considering to show BRAC and the airmen stationed at Hill AFB that Utah cares about them and wants the base to remain open.
As a fiscal conservative, you do not have to vote for this bill if you feel that the burden on the rest of the tax payers will be too great. But simply state that the burden on the rest of the tax payers will be too high, and leave it at that.
I encourage you to issue a public apology to the state and to the Airmen stationed at Hill Air Force Base. Your comments were insensitive to them, many of whom have taken residence in your district and are my neighbors.
Ben Hunt,
West Haven Utah
Dear Senator Jenkins,
I am writing to you to comment about your rave in the State Legislative Session on February 16 against SB 116, a bill that would give a property tax exemption to Active Duty Soldiers who serve outside the state for 200 days or longer.
As a fiscal conservative, I agree that we should be careful about what we do for anyone with state tax dollars. As a former Active Duty Airman, I can tell you from experience that it is difficult to get over the sense of entitlement that serving in the military can give a person. But I take issue with your response to this bill on two fronts.
First, it is not your opposition to the bill that is most unfortunate, but the manner in which you came across in railing against it. Let's begin by setting the record straight.
First of all, you said, "we pay for their clothing." Military men and women have a clothing allowance to help pay for the purchase and maintenance of their uniforms. Taxpayers do not pay for all of their clothing. Often, this allowance does not pay the full cost of uniform purchase and maintenance, it only pays for a large portion of it. Military people have to cover the balance of this cost with their own money. This is not much different than working at McDonald's or other such establishments where a common dress code is required. The uniforms may be provided by the employer, but the employee is responsible for the cleaning and repair of that clothing.
Military men and women will get assistance with food. Those with families to support, who will not primary eat for free in the mess hall will receive a little extra on their paycheck to cover the cost of food. For those in the lower ranks, this allowance is not enough and many supplement the cost of their food with food stamps.
You mention that well allow them to shop at an exchange. This is usually a lower-cost place to shop. But the exchange often does not carry the item that is needed. Often the needed item is found at a lower costs with one of the discount retailers off-base. There is also a commissary on base which usually provides food for active duty members and retirees at a lower cost.
Military men and women are provided housing on base, where it is available. In a perfect world, all Active Duty Personnel will have housing on-base. But usually, there is not enough housing for everyone at a duty station and many have to live off base. The Federal Government will provide a housing allowance, but it is usually not enough to cover the cost of renting acceptable housing off base. Many of those whose tour of duty will last beyond 3 years will chose to purchase property in the community where they are stationed.
Many of these benefits are provided to our National Guard members as well. But not all of them, unless the military member is activated.
When a military person is deployed, some of those benefits are lost. The housing and food allowances are lost because when a person is deployed, his housing and food are provided by the military. This adds a financial burden to the family that has to do without their father or mother during the deployment. This makes making a mortgage payment more difficult. The allowances for housing and food are only applied when the military member is at his or her home base.
I understand that as a fiscal conservative you want to spend as little as possible on a group of people that already receive a considerable amount of financial assistance from all levels of government. Let me state that most military people earn considerably less than their civilian counterparts. But the real problem is not what you said, but how you said it.
You came across as no better than miserly Scrooge turning away a common beggar. But instead your comments were directed at the heroes who protect the freedom that we all enjoy. This is a critical time for Utah and our economy. It may be improving, but it won't take much to put our economy in the tank again. One of the many items that the BRAC commission may consider in determining which military bases to keep open and close is how well the Airmen serving at Hill Air Force Base are welcomed by the community as a whole. This is something that Utah could improve upon. Forgiving the property tax of an airman on a remote assignment may seem like a large expense, but it is something worth considering to show BRAC and the airmen stationed at Hill AFB that Utah cares about them and wants the base to remain open.
As a fiscal conservative, you do not have to vote for this bill if you feel that the burden on the rest of the tax payers will be too great. But simply state that the burden on the rest of the tax payers will be too high, and leave it at that.
I encourage you to issue a public apology to the state and to the Airmen stationed at Hill Air Force Base. Your comments were insensitive to them, many of whom have taken residence in your district and are my neighbors.
Ben Hunt,
West Haven Utah
Sunday, February 12, 2012
How Everyone is Wrong About Same - Sex Marriage
WARNING...to some people, the following is considered hate speech....If one can be against same-sex marriage and not be homophobic, then this is not hate speech...but otherwise it is. If you feel that being against same-sex marriage is homophobia, please stop reading this article now.
You have been warned.
I read the headline of an article today, which said, "It is Time for Mormons to Accept Gay Marriage." And it hit me, I understand now how everyone is wrong about Marriage.
There have been times in History when societies have been very permissive about sexuality. And there have even been societies in ancient Rome and Greece where homosexuality was encouraged. But never did any of these societies insist on giving the right to marry to same-gender couples. Does anyone wonder why that is?
In a society there are rights, privileges and duties. In the United States there are rights to life, liberty, etc. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. We also have privileges. A driver's license is a privilege that comes with an agreement to operate a vehicle in a safe manner and according to established laws. If you do not obey those laws, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be taken away. And there are also duties. The duty to care for others. If we neglect the duty to care, it is called negligence and the court can force one to execute a penalty.
In winning the fight over same-sex marriage, gay activist state that marriage is a right. But I ask, it is really? Did the ancient Greeks, Romans and Hebrews treat marriage as a right? If they did, would they have held men who did not marry and have children in lower esteem? The evidence is that marriage is not a right, but a duty.
Now, one does not need marriage to produce off-spring. The real duty that we have to society is to produce offspring, to have children. It appears that we can and have, throughout history, produced children outside of matrimony. Why do we even need to get married in the first place?
There are many theories in many societies about how and why marriage began. From a male perspective, there are two benefits to marriage. First, assurance of the paternity of his children. Second, exclusive sexual access to his wife. A woman has little to gain in this relationship, except for the intimate emotion bond that is a natural result of consortium. However, in most societies, the husband become the primary breadwinner for his wife.
How have we drifted from this basic understanding in our society? First, we gained the ability to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual activity...at least 99.9% of the time. Second, we have the ability to, like no other time in history, to separate genetic parenthood from legal parenthood.
We have perfected methods of artificial insemination to help infertile couples have children of their own. Today, we do not need both sexes in a marriage relationship to rear children. However, we still need both sexes to produce a child.
If two men marry, they can have a child. They can use donated ova and engage the services of a surrogate mother, and legally both men are the parents of that child. But when it comes to actual paternity, the child may still only be the genetic child of one of those men.
If two women marry, they can have a child. They only need the services of a sperm bank. That child may be the legal child of both members of the relationship. But genetically, it is only the child of one of those women.
So same-sex marriage does not resolve all of their problems. It does not completely solve the problems of paternity nor maternity. We may therefore find that same sex divorce is far more sticky than people make it out to be.
Same-sex marriage can not resolve, completely, the paternity issue. It can resolve the exclusivity issue. But does one really need marriage to state that two people will be legally sexually exclusive to one another? Probably not. This is not a reason for same-sex marriage at all. There must be other reasons as well and there are.
In our society, we reward men who enter into a marriage contract. We make it easier for marriage men to get insurance for their children. We give them tax breaks. It becomes easier for a married man to get credit. There are all sorts of perks in our society to marriage. You can argue that all married couples have a right to these perks. But I argue that marriage is not a right.
As humans, we have a duty to produce offspring. If we do not have children, the human species will become extinct. It sounds like hate speech, but it is really a cruel fact of science.
We also have a duty, because were are intelligent beings, to teach our offspring proper law and order. If we do not do this, our society will turn to chaos and may eventually become extinct. I say this because we have weapons that are capable of destroying our planet.
Marriage is a tool, as it helps guarantee paternity, to assist men and women in these duties. It provides order in the reproduction of the species. It provides a small group where this care and nurture can take place.
Therefore, my argument is that same-sex marriage is not needed. Because marriage is really about children, we can provide the perks that are given to any married couple to any parent, regardless of their marital status. And one does not need a legal document to be sexually exclusive. That is a promise that any two people can make with each other. If we have this attitude in society, religious zealots, such as myself, can continue in our happy marriages. And therefore, there will not be a need for Mormons, or Catholics, or Muslims to accept same-sex marriage.
You have been warned.
I read the headline of an article today, which said, "It is Time for Mormons to Accept Gay Marriage." And it hit me, I understand now how everyone is wrong about Marriage.
There have been times in History when societies have been very permissive about sexuality. And there have even been societies in ancient Rome and Greece where homosexuality was encouraged. But never did any of these societies insist on giving the right to marry to same-gender couples. Does anyone wonder why that is?
In a society there are rights, privileges and duties. In the United States there are rights to life, liberty, etc. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. We also have privileges. A driver's license is a privilege that comes with an agreement to operate a vehicle in a safe manner and according to established laws. If you do not obey those laws, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be taken away. And there are also duties. The duty to care for others. If we neglect the duty to care, it is called negligence and the court can force one to execute a penalty.
In winning the fight over same-sex marriage, gay activist state that marriage is a right. But I ask, it is really? Did the ancient Greeks, Romans and Hebrews treat marriage as a right? If they did, would they have held men who did not marry and have children in lower esteem? The evidence is that marriage is not a right, but a duty.
Now, one does not need marriage to produce off-spring. The real duty that we have to society is to produce offspring, to have children. It appears that we can and have, throughout history, produced children outside of matrimony. Why do we even need to get married in the first place?
There are many theories in many societies about how and why marriage began. From a male perspective, there are two benefits to marriage. First, assurance of the paternity of his children. Second, exclusive sexual access to his wife. A woman has little to gain in this relationship, except for the intimate emotion bond that is a natural result of consortium. However, in most societies, the husband become the primary breadwinner for his wife.
How have we drifted from this basic understanding in our society? First, we gained the ability to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual activity...at least 99.9% of the time. Second, we have the ability to, like no other time in history, to separate genetic parenthood from legal parenthood.
We have perfected methods of artificial insemination to help infertile couples have children of their own. Today, we do not need both sexes in a marriage relationship to rear children. However, we still need both sexes to produce a child.
If two men marry, they can have a child. They can use donated ova and engage the services of a surrogate mother, and legally both men are the parents of that child. But when it comes to actual paternity, the child may still only be the genetic child of one of those men.
If two women marry, they can have a child. They only need the services of a sperm bank. That child may be the legal child of both members of the relationship. But genetically, it is only the child of one of those women.
So same-sex marriage does not resolve all of their problems. It does not completely solve the problems of paternity nor maternity. We may therefore find that same sex divorce is far more sticky than people make it out to be.
Same-sex marriage can not resolve, completely, the paternity issue. It can resolve the exclusivity issue. But does one really need marriage to state that two people will be legally sexually exclusive to one another? Probably not. This is not a reason for same-sex marriage at all. There must be other reasons as well and there are.
In our society, we reward men who enter into a marriage contract. We make it easier for marriage men to get insurance for their children. We give them tax breaks. It becomes easier for a married man to get credit. There are all sorts of perks in our society to marriage. You can argue that all married couples have a right to these perks. But I argue that marriage is not a right.
As humans, we have a duty to produce offspring. If we do not have children, the human species will become extinct. It sounds like hate speech, but it is really a cruel fact of science.
We also have a duty, because were are intelligent beings, to teach our offspring proper law and order. If we do not do this, our society will turn to chaos and may eventually become extinct. I say this because we have weapons that are capable of destroying our planet.
Marriage is a tool, as it helps guarantee paternity, to assist men and women in these duties. It provides order in the reproduction of the species. It provides a small group where this care and nurture can take place.
Therefore, my argument is that same-sex marriage is not needed. Because marriage is really about children, we can provide the perks that are given to any married couple to any parent, regardless of their marital status. And one does not need a legal document to be sexually exclusive. That is a promise that any two people can make with each other. If we have this attitude in society, religious zealots, such as myself, can continue in our happy marriages. And therefore, there will not be a need for Mormons, or Catholics, or Muslims to accept same-sex marriage.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Who would be a good running mate for Romney?
Mitt Romney has re-established himself as the GOP front runner, and likely it will remain that way barring a major failure on Super Tuesday...meaning something happens that would give another candidate nearly all of the delegates. Mitt will likely need to name a running mate by Memorial Day, but if the race remains close, he may choose a running mate earlier to help push him over the top. What qualities will Mr. Romney look for in a running mate?
1. Provides some political balance. In order words, if Mitt is perceived to be a moderate, or a right-center person, he would need someone who is perceived to be a little-bit more conservative. Mitt needs someone who will help him unite the party...like Palin, at first, did for McCain. This will elmininate someone like Jon Huntsman from consideration.
2. Geographical balance. Mr. Romney is from the Northeast. Likely, he will need someone from another region of the country. This will eliminate Chris Christie or Kelly Ayotte. Because of Romney's religion, someone from the west may not balance the ticket. The choice should be from either the midwest or the south.
3. A politically safe choice. IE...if someone is in office, what are the chances that he or she will be replaced by a like-minded person. Again, this would eliminate Christ Christie.
4. Someone who can look credible when debating Joe Biden...believe it or not, the sitting Vice President does have the ability to win a debate or two. A Dan Quayle-type person may not be the best option. Someone young, like Quayle was, but articulate like Quayle was not.
5. Someone who the country, in general, will feel good about being a heat beat away from the Presidency. This includes someone with experience. Someone who has been in the House of Representative before 2009, or has completed 1 term in either the Senate or as a governor. Therefore, don't expect Romney to name someone like Chris Christie, Brian Sandoval, Nikki Haley, Susanna Martinez or Marco Rubio.
6. Someone with a good conservative track record.
Here is who would be on my short list if I made recommendations to Mr. Romney.
House of Representatives
Eric Cantor from Virginia--Conservative score 63%
Jack Kingston from Georgia--Conservative score 68%
Paul Ryan from Wisconsin--Conservative score 81%
Mike Pence from Indiana--Conservative score 93%
Connie Mack from Florida---Conservative score 56%
Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee--Conservative score 84%
Former Congressmen and Congresswomen
JC Watts from Oklahoma--Conservative score 94%
US Senate
Jim DeMint from South Carolina--Conservative score 82%
Jon Kyl from Arizona--Conservative score 94%
Daniel Inhofe from Oklahoma--Conservative score 86%
Mike Johanns from Nebraska--Conservative score 77%
State Governors
Mitch Daniels from Indiana--Considered #10 most conservative state governor in 2006 by Free Republic where Mitt Romney did not make the list.
Tom Heineman from Nebraska--Considered #6 on the same list.
Bobby Jindal from Louisiana--Considered a leading conservative, but was not in office in 2006.
Former Governor Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota--Was #8 on the Free Republic list.
(Note: Jeb Bush was #1 and Rick Perry was #5).
I know that there are people out there that are hopeful for a Tea-Party friendly person such as Christie or Sandoval. That would be a bold and risky as Palin was for McCain four years ago. Any of the above would be a safer risk for Romney to choose and would add to the ticket instead of distract from it.
1. Provides some political balance. In order words, if Mitt is perceived to be a moderate, or a right-center person, he would need someone who is perceived to be a little-bit more conservative. Mitt needs someone who will help him unite the party...like Palin, at first, did for McCain. This will elmininate someone like Jon Huntsman from consideration.
2. Geographical balance. Mr. Romney is from the Northeast. Likely, he will need someone from another region of the country. This will eliminate Chris Christie or Kelly Ayotte. Because of Romney's religion, someone from the west may not balance the ticket. The choice should be from either the midwest or the south.
3. A politically safe choice. IE...if someone is in office, what are the chances that he or she will be replaced by a like-minded person. Again, this would eliminate Christ Christie.
4. Someone who can look credible when debating Joe Biden...believe it or not, the sitting Vice President does have the ability to win a debate or two. A Dan Quayle-type person may not be the best option. Someone young, like Quayle was, but articulate like Quayle was not.
5. Someone who the country, in general, will feel good about being a heat beat away from the Presidency. This includes someone with experience. Someone who has been in the House of Representative before 2009, or has completed 1 term in either the Senate or as a governor. Therefore, don't expect Romney to name someone like Chris Christie, Brian Sandoval, Nikki Haley, Susanna Martinez or Marco Rubio.
6. Someone with a good conservative track record.
Here is who would be on my short list if I made recommendations to Mr. Romney.
House of Representatives
Eric Cantor from Virginia--Conservative score 63%
Jack Kingston from Georgia--Conservative score 68%
Paul Ryan from Wisconsin--Conservative score 81%
Mike Pence from Indiana--Conservative score 93%
Connie Mack from Florida---Conservative score 56%
Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee--Conservative score 84%
Former Congressmen and Congresswomen
JC Watts from Oklahoma--Conservative score 94%
US Senate
Jim DeMint from South Carolina--Conservative score 82%
Jon Kyl from Arizona--Conservative score 94%
Daniel Inhofe from Oklahoma--Conservative score 86%
Mike Johanns from Nebraska--Conservative score 77%
State Governors
Mitch Daniels from Indiana--Considered #10 most conservative state governor in 2006 by Free Republic where Mitt Romney did not make the list.
Tom Heineman from Nebraska--Considered #6 on the same list.
Bobby Jindal from Louisiana--Considered a leading conservative, but was not in office in 2006.
Former Governor Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota--Was #8 on the Free Republic list.
(Note: Jeb Bush was #1 and Rick Perry was #5).
I know that there are people out there that are hopeful for a Tea-Party friendly person such as Christie or Sandoval. That would be a bold and risky as Palin was for McCain four years ago. Any of the above would be a safer risk for Romney to choose and would add to the ticket instead of distract from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
