Presidential Candidate Quiz

I took this Presidential Candidate Quiz at my MIL's blog, and was surprised at the results. I can't stand Huckabee or McCain, but apparently we agree on some issues. I was a little disturbed to see I agree with Hillary 26% of the time - I'll have to work on lowering that score. ;0) Try it out and see what you think!

Here are my scores:

84% Mike Huckabee
83% Mitt Romney
82% John McCain
82% Fred Thompson
78% Tom Tancredo
70% Ron Paul
65% Rudy Giuliani
32% Bill Richardson
26% Hillary Clinton
25% Chris Dodd
24% Mike Gravel
24% John Edwards
22% Barack Obama
22% Joe Biden
18% Dennis Kucinich

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

Farewell, Fred

Although I saw it coming, I was disappointed in Fred Thompson's withdrawal from the Presidential race. By default, I am now supporting Mitt Romney. *collective gasp from my Baptist readers* Yes, the Mormon guy. And I quite literally mean "by default," meaning the only reason I have chosen to support him is that all the other candidates have some kind of bigger deal-breaker than a wacky religion. I'm not going to lie, I am uncomfortable with his religion. However, I think it is more dangerous to vote in a man with a more palatable religion who will lead the country down the wrong path. Many leaders have claimed religious affiliations that caused the religious voters to swoon, only to get into office and be a dismal failure. (Anyone old enough to remember Jimmy Carter?) So, I have decided to support the man who I think will both morally and socially be the most effective leader of this country. Yes, I think it's weird that he believes all women should strive to be eternally pregnant. But that's all it is - a weird belief. He is not going to get into office and issue an executive order that all women get pregnant.
Basically, although I am a bit uncomfortable with putting a Mormon in such a high position of power, I am even more uncomfortable with the other choices. I know there isn't a man who's going to run who believes exactly like I do, so I will just have to take the closest thing!

Are You A Subconscious Racist?

I have heard this twice in the last few weeks, so I am curious about other's opinions. I heard someone say that they believe all people are racist. Where you live and what your culture dictates determines who exactly you are racist against, but ultimately all people groups are raised in suspicion of another people group (or groups). There are a myriad of reasons, and I won't get into analyzing all that. I instead want to focus on whether or not we are all secretly harboring hidden prejudice. Do you agree or disagree? Is it possible to be truly color blind? Do those who claim to judge character first, skin color second only deluding themselves? And if we are raised with racist views or teachings, is that something that will be permanently embedded in your mind, or is it something you can overcome?

I found this article interesting. I hope that these views aren't taken to the extreme, so that if you disagree with Obama (as I do) on his social and political views, it will be assumed that it is because of a deep seated, hidden racism. Personally, I also can't stand Bill Clinton (but that is largely based on his contemptible, degrading treatment of women), and he's white, although he tries to act otherwise to garner popularity. I feel it is just as ignorant to support Obama because he's black as it is to dislike him because he's black.

What struck me about this article was the assumption that a lot of people will not support Obama because deep down, they just don't trust the black guy. This article seemed to assume that all people are slaves to their hidden racism, and it is something we cannot truly overcome. I disagree. I believe only the lazy and ignorant are racist; only the small-minded who form their view of the world based solely on their own experiences. Whatever people group they have the most bad experiences with, or whichever group their authority figures (usually parents) label as "bad," "lazy," "devious," "incompetent," "untrustworthy," etc..., they will just transfer this prejudice to the entire people group. Rather than taking each person and giving them a chance individually, they make broad assumptions. Again, this is just the lazy, ignorant route. It takes effort, intelligence, and a truly open heart to evaluate people on an individual basis. Some groups, especially young people, seem determined to earn the negative stereotypes associated with them, and this is frustrating. Still, I think that there are people, and Christians especially, who should be able to transcend their societal views and evaluate people based on their individual personalities. All societies have their divisions, whether race or class, but is it truly impossible to overcome? I hope not.

My Personal Favorite

Well, I haven't been overly impressed with the choices this time around, but I have to say I am still rooting for Fred Thompson. He's not perfect, none of the candidates are, but he seems to be the closest to who I'd like to see running our country. I would like to see him a bit stronger on the issues that matter to me, but from what I have seen/heard in interviews and articles, he at least seems to be on the same side I am. If he doesn't do better in the primaries, maybe he would be a good choice for VP? I just found an article by David Limbaugh endorsing him with some good general information. Also, in the transcript of an interview with Hannity he briefly answers some of the issues raised about how conservative he truly is.

Obama votes against abortion survivors

There is a bill called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that guarantees that any infant born alive at any stage of development will be afforded the FULL RIGHTS of a human being. This includes receiving any medical attention necessary for survival. While this may seem like an obvious fact to make into a law, apparently there were cases of babies actually surviving abortions and not being afforded these rights. Some hospitals have a policy that if a baby is born with zero chance of survival (For example, before 22 weeks gestation, or with severe, untreatable fatal abnormalities) they will provide "comfort care," keeping the baby warm and fed until it dies naturally, usually within hours. Well, apparently there were hospitals that were applying this "comfort care only" policy to babies who survived abortions, even if the baby had no birth defects and had a chance of survival, albeit with the expected risks of being born prematurely due to a forced labor in an attempt to abort the pregnancy. Under this law, if a child is fully born for any reason (even a botched abortion) killing it is murder.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Terence Jeffrey.


When Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the Born Alive Infants bill came up three successive years.

In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

On all three bills, Obama voted "present," effectively the same as a "no." Defining "a pre-viable fetus" that survived an abortion as a "person" or "child," he argued, "would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Do Your Homework!!

As much as I've made fun of women who voted for Hillary to "get even" with men, I'm afraid a lot of my fellow Republicans are making the same mistake of voting for someone for all the wrong reasons. I love this quote from Ann Coulter's Column, "The Elephant in the Room."

Dear Republicans: Please do one-tenth as much research before casting a vote in a presidential election as you do before buying a new car.
Are you too busy boning up on Consumer Reports' reviews of microwave ovens to spend one day thinking about who should be the next leader of the free world? Are you familiar with our "no exchange/no return" policy on presidential candidates? Voting for McCain because he was a POW a quarter-century ago or Huckabee because he was a Baptist preacher is like buying a new car because you like the color.

Hillary fans get even with guys

I listened to so many interviews with women after Hillary's win in NH that really made me gag. As if it wasn't embarrassing enough for Hilary to have such a corny teary moment, you should have heard the response of the women who voted for her! They were saying things along the lines of, "I wasn't sure who to vote for, but when I went to work/turned on my TV and saw these overweight men in suits snickering at Hillary for getting all weepy, I just know this was my chance to get even with all these male pigs." Okay, that's a very mature, intelligent, level-headed reason for making someone your presidential candidate: To get back at the loser men in your life. In other words, because a lot of women in this country have bad taste in guys, or else don't have enough self-confidence to roll their eyes at the idiots we all come in contact with, we may wake up one morning to Madame President Clinton... and the return of Slick Willy. Oh good one, ladies. You want to score one for the feminist movement by returning a sex addict to the White House. You feel bad for women who are being down-trodden and degraded, like poor Shrillary was, so let's return an accused rapist and womanizer to the highest position of power in the land. Excuse me for not getting it, but how exactly is this punishing all those egocentric male chauvinist pigs? Women voted for Hillary out of revenge, but what, did they forget about that man attached to her? I wouldn't exactly call a guy who gave a whole new sordid meaning to the term "Bumming a cigar" a stellar champion of treating women with respect.. Hmmm.... free reign of the White House while Hillary does all the real work. And what is one of the President's spouse's job? To entertain the spouses of the visiting dignitaries, right? Do the words "fox" and "hen house" mean anything to you? I can just picture Hillary leaning over a conference table intensely negotiating our foreign policy with a visiting head of state... while Bill "entertains" the guy's wife in the next room by playing strip Twister and doing Jell-O shots. (And I thought the Democrats were promising to restore America's credibility overseas. *sigh*) Yeah, you showed 'em girls. Don't let those evil men get away with this degrading behavior! Let's get Hill and Bill back in the spotlight so they can show us all how women ought to be treated.

Pleeeeease, girls. Next time you have a point to prove, please remember the following advice, "Better to let people think you're an unintelligent, uninformed ditz than to vote for Hillary for such an idiotic reason and remove all doubt."

Hillary gets all girlie

The typically stoic Clinton conceded that an emotional moment during a pre-election rally on Monday, in which she came close to tears as she discussed her reasons for wanting the presidency, may have helped her.

"I had this incredible moment of connection with the voters of New Hampshire and they saw it and they heard it. And they gave me this incredible victory last night," she said on CBS' "Early Show" on Wednesday.

Oh puh-leeeease. There is nothing more embarrassing to me, as a woman, when the girl has to act all "girlie" to try to make it in a man's world. Do we really want a president who feels she connects with voters when she gets all teary!?!? I can just see her head-to-head with some rogue nation's dictator, setting forth our country's demands, then pouting and getting teary when they don't take her seriously. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Hillary is a girlie girl at all. Quite the contrary, I agree with one article that said, "We know Hillary is man enough for the job, but is she woman enough?" I think the nearly teary moment was just to show off her acting abilities. All I am complaining about is when women play the whole emotional female card to get ahead. It reminds me of when Indy car racer Danica Patrick posed for those sleazy photos before a race. Personally, I would love for a woman to go out there and kick the boys' butts in racing. It's fun. I just wish she could have made her point by kicking their butts, not showing off hers (and a lot more!). To me it plays right into the stereotype that women can't really compete, so they have to degrade themselves by faking a teary moment or acting trashy. Come on girls, have some dignity!!! Use brains, not breasts. Issues and passion over teary pleas. I just can't see Margaret Thatcher getting all weepy in order to "connect with voters," and she's the type of woman leader I could look up to.

Excellent Homeschool Info

I read this article on Jess's blog and really liked the way the facts were presented. Please click here to check it out! I'll add my thoughts later... (You didn't think you would escape my opinions, did you!??!)

Homeschooling is NOT for everyone. People often have very extreme views on homeschooling, and it usually reflects their own experiences, whether good or bad. Even within my own immediate family (we were all home schooled for varying lengths of time) the opinion ranges from approval to repulsion. I have had the fortune (and misfortune) to experience both ends of the spectrum within our extended family and social circles: excellent homeschooling and really, really awful homeschooling. When done right, it is fabulous. When done wrong, it is devastating to the child and the family.

Christmas Update

Wow, I have gotten some interesting phone calls an e-mails about my last post! There are a couple things I'd like to clarify: a lot of people have said it sounds mean-spirited, overly harsh, and not giving Jesus the glory at Christmas. I apologize if that's how you perceived it, but I believe that if you read it carefully you will see my true intention is to preserve Christianity, not tear it down. I am simply warning against getting caught up in these little details and traditions and missing the big picture. I have no problem with those who want to dedicate Christmas to the Birth of Christ. Although that is not the origin of the Christmas celebration, and the Bible doesn't specifically command us to commemorate His birth, I certainly don't think it will hurt anything! In my opinion, anytime you can bring honor and glory to God you should. I just want other Christians to be careful not to be harsh and judgemental as if they can lay some kind of claim to ownership on Christmas. I was raised in a church where it was practically a sin to mention Santa Clause, and some families even called him Satan Clause for "daring" to take the focus off of Christ. I think taking this extreme view only pushes non-Christians away. (Not to mention, the families that go to these extremes after several years generally ended up very worldly and/or their kids went wild when they got older.) At the same time, I don't put any special emphasis on Santa Clause as anything other than an imaginary Christmas character, like Rudolph or Frosty. Whenever you blow things out of proportion it always blows up in your face. Try to keep a balanced attitude and keep your perspective Bible-based instead of Bandwagon-based. Again, sorry to those I offended! I was actually laughing while I wrote it - I wasn't trying to be mean. I can have a harsh sense of humor, though, and I certainly didn't want to come off like I am some anti-Christmas Scroogette. I was just a little taken aback that with all of the things in our society that are offensive to Christianity and God, "Happy Holidays" seems like the least of our worries!