Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been surprised how many times I’ve heard a Republican say, “I’ll vote for Hillary before I vote for him.”   In each case the “him” was a different guy—McCain, Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson.  In fact you probably heard Dr. James Dobson said that he’d vote for a 3^rd party or even not vote before he would support Rudy.

The argument goes: choosing the “lesser of two evils” is still choosing evil. 

I’m not sure I understand this reasoning, but I’d like to bring a new perspective to the issue.  As I’ve said before, we Republicans have a tendency to seek perfection from our candidates.  Anyone who disagrees with me on one or more of my pet issues, is certainly not worthy of the office.

Let me suggest that this is a wholly impractical way to think.  In reality, nearly everything we do in this imperfect world consists of making of trade-offs.  Sometimes formally, usually informally, we conduct a cost-benefit analysis.  We ask ourselves, “Does the benefit of this approach outweigh the cost?”  

When I decide to buy a new car, I must determine whether the benefit of owning the car will outweigh the loss of $500 from my bank account every month.  When selecting the car, I must decide whether the benefit of being able to carry a lot of passengers outweighs the cost of lower fuel economy. 

Sure, I’d love to have it all.  I’d like to be able to own the big truck that gets 50 mpg and doesn’t cost me any money at all.  Of course, that can’t happen.  This is the reality of life.  

So, for all of you conservatives out there, ask yourself a question, does the benefit of voting against Rudy, McCain or Romney outweigh the cost of a Hillary presidency? 

-Does the benefit of “making a statement” that you disagree with Rudy on abortion outweigh the cost of giving Hillary up to 6 Supreme Court appointments? 

-Do your “concerns” about Mormons outweigh the cost of “Hillarycare”?

-Is McCain’s view on immigration worth the cost of defeat in Iraq and a retreat in the war against terrorists? 

Let me propose that voting is much more a practical matter than a moral one.  Which candidate will do more to further your causes?  Which candidate will hurt your causes the most? 

Dr. Dobson is wrong.  This talk of skipping the vote, starting a 3^rd party, or voting with Hillary is silly.  We have a clear choice in the coming election.  Either we enthusiastically support the Republican nominee, or we blame ourselves for the potentially devastating consequences to our causes, our country, and our world.  

We now have what may be the first polling on the race for Colorado’s soon to be vacant US Senate seat.  It’s going to be close, but Republican Bob Schaffer is currently in a dead heat with his Democrat opponent, Mark Udall.  If you want to help the Republicans keep this very important Senate seat, you can contribute here.

 

Christopher writes:

…obviously the Republican Party did not do well in Colorado in 04 and 06. Given the atmosphere will not be any more kind in 08, (hope that changes), what is you assessment on the chances of a Schaffer win? I also know that you have some activist out there whose spending a ton of money, the name escapes me.

These are all good questions. Of course, it’s just my opinion (since I’m not aware of any polling at this point), but I believe Schaffer has a very good shot at the seat. Here are some of my considerations:

1) Just 4 years ago, Colorado had 2 Republican Senators, a Republican Governor, and both a Republican State Senate and Legislature. Our Electoral College votes went to President Bush both times. Though Colorado’s demographics may be changing a bit, we are still a fairly conservative state. I don’t believe 2 years is enough time for a state to change from red to blue.

2) You are right--Colorado has had a lot of out of state dollars coming in to support liberals and their causes. Though this is common for federal races, I believe outside support held a lot of sway in some of the key local elections.

3) In spite of out of state sponsorship, and a “wave” of Democratic success nationwide in ‘06, Colorado voters still handily rejected several liberal “poster” causes. These included solid passage of a state constitutional marriage amendment, rejection of a homosexual civil unions initiative, and rejection of a marijuana legalization initiative.

4) Bob Schaffer is a solid conservative with an established record. I think he’s someone core Republicans will be excited about in part because of his following through on his term limits pledge during his time in the Congress. I believe they’ll see him as someone they can trust. By the way, Senator Allard is stepping down because of a similar term limits pledge.

5) Schaffer actually ran for the Senate seat that Ken Salazar ultimately won. This is significant for a couple of reasons.

    -First, Schaffer had a tough primary challenger (Pete Coors) and both he and his challenger came out a little bloody. This likely contributed significantly to Coor’s defeat and Salazar’s win. Schaffer will almost certainly run unopposed this time around.

    -Secondly, Salazar campaigned as a moderate. However, during his 2 years in the Senate, he has consistently voted with the Dems on the most liberal causes. I think Colorado voters will think twice before sending another vote to Harry Reid.

6) The Colorado GOP has a new head, the same guy responsible for Tom Daschle’s defeat 4 years ago. See this link for details.

So, yes, Bob Schaffer has a good chance but only if he gets the support he deserves.

Maybe you've heard about the Republicans' fundraising disadvantage going into the '08 election.  Since you may be unsure which candidate to support for the Presidency, here's your chance to make a difference. 

Former Congressman Bob Schaffer is running to replace Colorado Senator Wayne Allard in the Senate.  Let's work to keep this Senate seat in Republican hands!  Let's close the fundraising gap.  Send a few dollars Bob's way. 

Some general thoughts about the coming Presidential election--

First, if you think it’s too early to talk about the election, you are wrong. The campaigning is in full swing. States are leapfrogging one another to hold primaries as early as possible. The first primary voting could potentially happen by the end of this calendar year. Each party has around a dozen candidates, and we’ve already seen a handful of televised debates.

Next, I like the Republican slate of candidates. Rather than a bunch of unknowns or has-beens, we have a diverse group of successful, well-know prospects.

I know a lot of my friends are unhappy with the Republican choices--though I’m not exactly sure why. Consider this: We are electing a President, not a Savior. God took care of the Savior part a couple thousand years ago. Republicans need to stop seeking perfection and purity from their candidates, because they won’t get it from any earthly being. Instead, we need to seek out the men that will do the best job for the country and the party.

As Donald Rumsfeld once said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.” Republicans need to get behind these top-tier candidates, learn what they are about, and be prepared to support them when they “go to war” in the general election. Let’s build these guys up and focus on the strengths they bring to the table.

Remember, an un-electable candidate doesn’t do us any good. Any Republican will be light years better than any of the Democrats, so let’s nominate someone who can win.

Now, what about the specific candidates?

Giuliani—A solid leader with proven results in a city with a population bigger than most states; I believe he would be a great President; His campaign is struggling a bit, but most polls place him on top right now.

F. Thompson—He just got in the race, so it remains to be seen how he’ll fair. If I had to guess, either Thompson or Giuliani will be the Republican nominee. Unfortunately, former senators almost never get elected to the Presidency, and Thompson’s limited experience may hamper his chances.

Romney—A solid candidate with a great organization; He seems to be running the best campaign by far. Unfortunately, he lacks name recognition and broad support. With Thompson in the race, it’ll be hard for Romney to break through.

McCain—His campaign is struggling, and I don’t believe he has much chance in the primary. Still, I’d rather see this honorable war hero in the oval office than the former first lady.

Tancredo and others—These may all be great guys, but they don’t stand a chance. With 3 or 4 well known, well-funded candidates at the top of the field, there just isn’t much room for others to break through. If you support one of these men, then send them an email. Tell them to drop out of the Presidential race ASAP and focus on earning back their Legislative or Statewide seats. If you’re committing money to the Presidential race, then save it for one of the guys at the top.

One last note—

Immigration is a loser issue for Republicans. The party is divided on the topic. For some reason, immigration has become the hot-button issue for many in the party. Disagreement over this issue was probably a large contributor to Republican losses during the last election. The safest position for Republicans to take is one that treats tough border security as a key component of national defense. Anything less and a candidate will be unable to rally the base-level support he needs to win the election.

Last week, Governor Ritter signed SB 25, adding sexual orientation to the list of things that employers cannot consider for purposes of hiring and firing.  In other words, businesses are now required by law to hire homosexuals, regardless of owners' religious, moral, business, or any other objections.

In case you missed it, the Democratic-controlled state legislature recently passed a property tax increase expected to cost the taxpayers 1.8 BILLION dollars over the next decade. That’s right, only 5 months into their 2-year rule, the Democrats have raised taxes by 1,800 million dollars.

“Wait a minute!” you might say, “the Colorado constitution requires that voters approve tax increases.” You would be right. But when has un-constitutionality ever stopped Democrats from advancing their agenda?

This is just the beginning; get ready!

Check this out.  When offered the chance to say how he would respond to a terrorist attack by Al Qaida on 2 US cities, Barak Obama offered an interesting approach.  First, he would work on building an emergency response.  Then, he would work on intelligence.  Finally, he'll do some other stuff.

Here's the most telling thing.  Never does Democratic Presidential candidate Obama say that he will do anything to get the bad guys!

Rudy was right!  The Democrats fundamentally fail to understand the threat.

The Colorado State legislature has taken on several "anti-family" measures in recent weeks.  Among these are bills which will legalize adoptions by unmarried and homosexual "parents", force private businesses to hire homosexuals over religious objections, and change the definition of "family." 

See the following link for details:
http://coloradoaction.org/

Take Action! Contact Governor Ritter immediately and ask him to veto these measures.

Web Site: http://www.colorado.gov/governor/contact.html
Email: Governor.ritter@state.co.us
Phone: (303) 866-2471
Fax: (303) 866-2003
Mail
Bill Ritter, Governor
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203-1792

Did you hear the news last week?  Rudy Giuliani warned of "another 911" if a Democrat gets elected President.

Was that a stupid thing to say?  It probably was.

The thing is, Rudy never said it.  At least, I can't find any confirmation that he did.  The original article appeared on the Politico website with the words: "another 911" in quotes.  However, nowhere in the article, or in any printed transcripts that I've see, does Giuliani actually say these words.

Instead, he details some of the ways in which the various Democratic Presidential candidates seek to return the country to a pre-911 mindset.  These included: cutting back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, and interrogation techniques.

As you might expect, the Democrats promptly responded--accusing Giuliani of questioning their patriotism.  Interestingly, none of them disputed Rudy's fundamental claims or offered any type of counter argument.  We didn't hear any Democrat say, "My plan will make our country safer, and here's why..." or "Giuliani is flat wrong, and here are the reasons..."  Instead, they ignored the argument altogether.

Rudy was absolutely right and should be commended.  It's refreshing to hear a candidate say it like it is. Any Republican President will keep our country on offense against those who want to kill us.  The most we can expect from any Democrat is defensive, reactionary measures. 

I was interested to hear that a Lutheran pastor, a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, gave one of the talks at the Virginia Tech Convocation last week.  I guess I wasn't too surprised to learn that of the various religious representatives at the convocation (which included a Muslim, Jew, and a Buddhist), the Lutheran was the only one who failed to mention his God.  Instead, he rambled on using vague, "inclusive" religious nonsense.  (The complete text of his speech is below). 

This afternoon, I was feeling kind of down about the bad rap this guy is giving us Lutherans.  What a missed opportunity to share the Gospel!

I got a morale boost on the drive home from work.  I caught the tail end of the Michael Medved show.  In the course of a discussion about failing mainstream Christian churches, Medved and one of his callers mentioned the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) 2 or 3 times.  In each case, the LCMS was identified in a positive way as one which has held strong to Biblical principles. 

Thanks for the positive press Mr. Medved!

The complete text from the pastor's VA tech speech follows:
William H. King, Lutheran campus pastor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, Va., and staff of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), delivered the Christian message April 17 at the Virginia Tech Convocation where students, faculty and others of the community gathered to remember the victims of yesterday's shooting on campus.  According to the Virginia Tech Web site, at least 33 people died including the gunman.
     "We're gathered this afternoon for many purposes.  To weep for lost friends and families, to mourn our lost innocence, to walk forward in the wake of unspeakable tragedy, to embrace hope in the shadow of despair, to join our voices and our longing for peace, healing and understanding which is much greater than any single faith community, to embrace that which unifies, and to reject the seductive temptation to hate," said King, who also serves as deployed staff of the Department for Campus Ministry, ELCA Vocation and Education.
     "We gather together weeping, yes, we weep with an agony too deep for words and sighs that are inexpressible, but also we gather affirming the sovereignty of life over death.  At a time such as this the darkness of evil seems powerful indeed.  It casts a pall over our simple joys, joys as simple as playing Frisbee on the Drill Field.  We struggle to imagine a future beyond this agony.  If we ever harbored any illusions that our campus is an idyllic refuge from the violence of the rest the world, they are gone forever.  And yet we come to this place to testify that the light of love cannot be defeated.  Amid all our pain, we confess that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it," said King.
     "We cannot undo yesterday's tragic events, but we can sit in patient silence with those who mourn as they seek for a way forward.  As we share light one with another, we reclaim our campus.  Let us deny death's power to rob us of all that we have loved about Virginia Tech, our community.  Let us cast our lot with hope in defiance of despair," said King, who invited the convocation to a moment of silence.
    

With the Virginia Tech shooting this week, there has been much follow-up talk about gun laws.  There is a typical conservative argument that restrictive gun laws enable such massacres.  "Gun Free" zones in schools only serve to disarm the "good guys." 

This argument is rarely persuasive to the liberal left.  It got me wondering...why not? 

I think we see an answer in another of last week's news items.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared Iraq a lost war and is pushing yet another piece of legislation calling for troop withdrawl. 

Fundamentally, liberals don't believe in the concept of self-defense.  Whether at the national level or the personal level, liberals would gladly spend more time understanding the enemy than they would devote to defending against the enemy.  What's more, there's ample evidence that the left is unwilling to even call the "bad guys" what they are.  If liberals aren't willing to identify evil, how can they be expected to confront it?

They don't want our country to defend itself, and they don't want you to defend yourself. 

At least they're consistent.

Greetings friends and family!

With so much happening in our everyday lives, it can be easy to miss the important things going on in our community and country.   

I've decided to take advantage of this forum to let all of you know about some of the things which I think will be informative and important to you.  Please let me know what you think!  If you like what you see here, please tell a friend.

Thanks and God Bless!

Jonathan

The Colorado Legislature recently passed legislation (HB07-1330) which would allow legal adoptions of children by unmarried couples.  If signed by the Governor, this change to current law will allow adoption by two "parents" of the same sex.   

This legislation clearly goes against the wishes of Colorado voters who recently passed a state marriage amendment and voted down a law authorizing civil unions.

Please, contact Governor Ritter now and urge him to VETO HB07-1330.

Urge friends and family members to do the same.
 
CONTACT GOVERNOR RITTER NOW!
Web Site: http://www.colorado.gov/governor/contact.html
Email: Governor.ritter@state.co.us
Phone: (303) 866-2471
Fax: (303) 866-2003
Mail
Bill Ritter, Governor
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203-1792