People of faith, and Christians in particular, need to get out of the political king-making business. We have more important things we need to be worrying about than who wins elections. We condemn elitists. We say that politicians are out of touch with our values. And you know what? We are absolutely right to be doing that. But we cannot, and we should not, be telling people to vote for or against a candidate because of the level of their belief or non-belief in God. With all the flaws in the Democratic strategy over the years, I don’t recall them ever fighting about which candidate is more religious, and basing their support on who appears to love God the most. It’s a stupid argument that we are having here, and we need to recognize that the more important characteristic than a person’s religion is how competently that person can run the US government and how aggressive she/he is in protecting this country from foreign enemies, both terrorists and rogue regimes seeking nukes. If we can find someone as a Republican nominee who will appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court in addition to that, that would be a bonus.

We have to ask ourselves how aggressive we want the federal government to be as advocates for a social conservative agenda. Do we really want government programs to push an agenda that would be better carried out in the private sector with non-profits and charities rather than adding another appendage to the government monolith? I would like a candidate who is a social conservative and who shares my values, but I would have to think about whether I want the government to be funding religious activity. The reason for that is that what government funds, it will eventually control. I don’t want the government to have any control over religious organizations at all. So keep funding of faith-based organizations in the private sector where it belongs.

Many of the social conservatives running for president seem to want to have an activist government on social policy. Is that really what we want? Here’s something else to consider. Is it the government’s job to provide free health care to all Americans? Is it the government’s job to ensure that people can afford a house? Is it the government’s job to make sure that you have a job?

No. It is not.

If we say that we are for limited government, and we actually mean it, then this should mean that the candidate we nominate should be more interested in protecting our country than protecting our faith. That’s what churches are for. That’s what our pastors are for. That’s the role of our families. That’s not the role of our government.

Tags: ’08 election, Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, Republicans

Ron Paul sounds more like he’s lecturing the country than he’s motivating the country.  Some of his good ideas get lost in the bizarre presentation. The problem is that the hard truths don’t usually come from the candidates who can win.  Activists don’t usually win elections as candidates.  Ron Paul sounds like an activist, as does the other unknown candidate, John Cox.  Ron Paul says America is becoming a tyranny.  There’s a difference between being a realist and being a scare-monger.  Ron Paul sounds a lot like Kucinich in his views on trade.  The Paulites are kind of scary.  I agree with Paul and Neil Boortz that we are becoming less free due to increased government bureaucracy. There’s a logical argument that we should focus more on the problems we face domestically than on foreign policy.  What sympathizers of Ron Paul’s seem not to understand is that we need a muscular foreign policy to allow us to stay free and prosperous, and to live the life that we are used to as Americans.

I love Mike Huckabee’s speech, even though he did rip off Newt’s Fed-Ex analogy on illegal immigration.  It’s more pep talk than lecture, and filled with enough one-liners to pack any campaign article.  He is missing his true calling – motivational speaker.  The audience absolutely loved him, and I hope that he sticks around until the end and shows well in Iowa today.  I don’t know why those who are supporting Huckabee are not concerned that he might be one of those “compassionate conservatives” who show compassion by the way they allocate money to federal programs and bureaucracy.  With all of Bush’s strengths, he has been weak on controlling spending.  If you are a person who is serious about that issue, Huckabee might not be your guy.  On the other hand, I’m not sure any of the top three are committed to reducing government spending either. Rudy is probably the most likely to do that, but do we really know for sure?  I don’t think we have that kind of candidate.

It’s a shame that Duncan Hunter hasn’t gotten more traction.  For conservatives, he’s the closest we have to everything we want.  He is a social conservative, and he’s strong on defense issues, including border security.  I’m not sure why his speech is focusing so much on trade and China.  The applause by the audience seems to be even for just about every candidate.  It’s hard to predict the results of the Iowa straw poll based on audience applause.  His best moments in this speech are when he talks about his area of expertise: border security.  Duncan Hunter ends with a shout-out to the military.  Always a quality option in Republican-friendly towns.

I missed Romney’s speech, but I’m sure there was nothing in it I hadn’t heard before.

Romney may win, as everyone is predicting, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were a few surprises coming out of this straw poll.

Tags: ’08 election, Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, Republicans