WARNING:  There are those on both sides of the aisle (but mostly my side of the aisle) who will not be happy with what I have to say in this blog. 

Five weeks fron Tuesday, the much discussed midterm elections will be held in what will decide if the Republicans will continue to hold the House and/or the Senate.  The House has pretty much been doomed from the start (with Congressman Mark Foley's dispicable e-mails as the icing on the cake).  The Senate looked like a GOP victory a while back, but even that is looking like wishful thinking these days. 

There are two bumper stickers (actually I made magnets out of them) on my car.  One says "Rick '06" (in reference to Santorum) and the other says "Swann/Matthews '06" (Lynn Swann and Jim Matthews).  I also have been a vocal supporter of Raj Bahkta's right of center candidacy for Congress against left of center Congresswoman, Allyson Schwartz. 

My support of Santorum has to do with the fact that while I have many disagreements with him, he has proven to be a leader and a good Senator.  I don't subscribe to his brand of social conservatism as much as I subscribe to him when it comes to the need to reform programs such as Social Security and Healthcare.  Bob Casey Jr. (who is virtually the same as Santorum when it comes to the social issues) wants these overfunded and failing systems to stay as is by raising taxes.  Wrong answer. 

My support of Lynn Swann has to do with the principle of voting for a man who appears to be a Reagan conservative, and a decent man over Ed Rendell whose run as mayor of Philadelphia, I applauded but whose run as governor of PA, I have been disgusted with.  Swann, as an outsider, will most likely not win, but it will be a pleasure to vote for him and a lot of fun to vote agaisnt Rendell. 

However, when I am asked if the Republicans deserve to remain in the majority, I unfortunately must say, no. 

It starts with President Bush.  I think he is a good man but as proven to be a very weak leader.  He has personally signed pork filled spending sprees such as highway and energy bills. He signed the un-Consititutional campaign finance reform bill.  When he attempted to reform Social Security, he allowed his plan to be stalled by liberals and turncoats.  The war in Iraq has indeed turned into a miserable failure, not to mention his "Great Society" response to Hurricane Katrina, which proved that big government liberalism doesn't work if your a Republican either.  It was the GOP Congress that supported this nonsense on top of bills that were to Constutionally define marraige and ban flag burning (both of which were thankfully voted down).  Not to mention Dennis Hassert's ridiculous crusade to ban online poker!  I mean what the (expletive that is too explicit for the folks at Townhall.com), people? 

When it comes to judges and taxes, these folks are on the right side of aisle.  When it comes to much else, I would say they are on the WRONG side and aren't much better than the Democrats.  It doesn't make me happy to view it this way, but to give this majority another two years, is vote for the status quo.  At least we know what to expect from the Democrats.  With the most liberal of Democrats in power, the party of small government, fiscal responsibility, and individual rights will not only rise again, but in a much more respectable manner. 

So what do I recomend?  Go with your conscience.  I can't sit here and endorse the Democrats, but I can't endorse a RINO Congress either (despite my distaste of the term).  Swann, Santorum, and Bahtka are candidates who I believe are worthy of my support and my vote.  When the Republican Party, e-mailed me asking me for money the other day, I sent one back that said "The Republican Party will get my money when they become a conservative party instead of a beltway one."  They should just be thankful that the Democrats are just bad enough, where maybe they will hold on at the end of the day.   

As for my predictions?  Both Houses are lost to Democrat control.  Santorum will lose, Swann will lose, Bahtka will win (his Giuliani style rhetoric on crime in Philly will win the Northeast over).  Out of the loss, hopefully the Republican Party will become the Grand Old Party, once again: The Party of Reagan and Goldwater, not the party of Frist, Hassert, and Bush.

 

Today, President Bush vetoed his first bill ever.  It was a bill that Congress sent to his desk that called for federal funding of stem cell research.  There is a plausible argument one can make about taxpayer dollars funding stem cell research.  One can say it is more reckless spending.  Another can say it's more big government getting involved with something that could be handled by the private sector better.  Both those arguments are conservative and libertarian arguments against this bill. 

As for my thoughts on stem cell research, I feel it is something that can benefit society.  In the name of economics, science, and health such research could help millions of people.  Aborted embryos are simply discarded as is.  Last time I checked, abortion is still legal.  Why not make the best of a tragic situation, and put it to good use.  Why turn back the clock on scientific progress?  I somehow doubt that we will see herds of pregnant women running to the nearest abortion clinic in the name of stem cell research, especially if it is proven to be not as effective as some thought.

As for how our government dollars are spent, I can think of worse ways to spend them.  Bridges to nowhere and other pork filled highway and energy bills have fiscal hawks foaming at the mouth, yet Mr. Bush has had no problems signing both into law.  I tend to feel that the private sector could very well benefit from stem cell research.  A clear majority of people in this country support such research.  The people, should be heard and listened to. 

There is a debate to be had on this research and it seems to be something that is uniting factions of conservatives and liberals.   Mr. Bush has stalled that debate today.  I think he has slapped conservatives in the face many times, and this was not a veto to support them, it was a veto to support the religious right.  The facts have mounted up that Bush is not a conservative and there is nothing that he can do to prove otherwise to me now. 

Democract National Committe Chairman, Howard Dean is back in the news.  This time Dr. Dean has decided to take on the New York Court of Appeals, who yesterday ruled that the state contistution does not guarantee the right of same sex couples to marry.  Dr. Dean issued the following statement:

"As Democrats, we believe that every American has a right to equal protection under the law and to live in dignity. And we must respect the right of every family to live in dignity with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law. Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal."

While the good doctor certainly has a right to his opinion and makes a good case for those in favor of judicial activism and overturning what has been voted on already.  Yet where he goes wrong is that he was on the 700 Club, where he cailms that the Democratic platorm specifically states that marriage is between a man and a woman.  I haven't the time or the stomach to read the official party platform, but I guess it is much more convenient to take shots at the judges (and why not?) than the party of which you are the chairman of. 

I despise government activism from all branches, which often puts me at odds with my own party, who has recently decided to fiddle with the Constitution and federally ban flag burning and gay marraige.  I had it brought up in a debate the other day, that gay couples should be subject to the same benefits as married couples.  I know of many companies who provide benefits to gay couples already.  As for tax breaks and economic benefits, I don't necessarily support this incentive for married couples either.  A vote to grant these benefits to gays would be a step in the wrong direction.  It may be fair, but it isn't right.  Government should have stayed out of marraige all together, and leave it to the church. 

Good day, to all of you who have decided to read this blog.  Being that this is my Townhall.com debut, I shall tell you all about myself and where I stand.  I am almost 26 years old, and have been working behind a bar or in a restaurant for over six of those years.  I plan on making a return to college in the future to start an education in journalism or political science. 

Politics has been a huge interest of mine since I was about 14 or so, after being fortunate enough to have been in an excellent government class.  I have been a registered Republican for nearly eight years now.  I believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, tax reform, states rights, property rights and strong defense.  One the issues of the day, I can go either way:

1.  I was for going into Iraq, on a mission to find WMD, but am very much opposed to the nation building that has gone on since.

2.  While I am personally opposed to abortion, flag burning, and gay marriage I do not endorse the idea of what I call "executive and legislative activism" by tampering  with the Constitution. 

3.  I believe the Supreme Court Justices that voted in favor of New London in Kilo vs. New London are guilty of treason.

4.  Guantonamo Bay should remain open.

5.  While I voted for President Bush twice, I feel he has sold out conservatism to the religious right and big government. 


There are many other issues, you will hear my comments on in the future.   I welcome all comments and look forward to being part of the great online community that is Townhall.com