About Me

Name: Jyalai
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

We vote with our hearts

Posted by Jyalai on Friday, January 18, 2008 2:36:35 PM
We vote with our hearts, not our heads.

Let me give a few examples:

1) Huckabee won Iowa for one reason: he convinced evangelical Christians that a vote for him was a vote for their faith.  They did not look at what his policy stances were, they voted with their hearts.

2) Independents in New Hampshire helped McCain win that election.  What is it about independents and McCain?  Independents are anti-establishment at their core.  McCain's frequent attacks against his own party comes across as anti-establishment, even though much of McCain's policies support the DC establishment.  They voted with their heart.

3) Traditional Republicans in Michigan came out and voted for Romney as a visceral reaction to the idea that independents were going to upset the primaries.  After New Hampshire, Republicans in Michigan were not going to have their candidate chosen by a bunch of independents.  They voted with their heart.

The question is which candidate is reaching the hearts of South Carolina voters.  Huckabee is still trying to make it about 'standing up for Christianity.'  That is his strategy, even if his positions are anti-thetical to core Republican values.  He knows evangelicals will vote their heart.  McCain is still trying to make himself the anti-establishment maverick, even though his policy positions are Democrat establishment talking points. He knows libertarian and independent leaning Republicans will vote their heart.  Romney is trying to convince the rank and file Republicans that he is conservative enough.  The traditional Republicans will vote their heart.

Thompson has a problem in this area.  Selling conservatism intellectually is sometimes a hard sell.  How do you reach voters hearts when the message is a return to an intellectual ideal like federalism.  Thompson needs to identify how federalism helps people, how it positively affects everyday Americans.  He needs to get to their heart.

Sometimes, as political intellectuals, we forget that people do not sit around arguing the affects of free markets, limited governments, and national security in cerebral ways.  They want to know how the candidate will affect their lives.   Will he/she make them feel good about themselves?  Will he represent them well?  These are heart issues, not head issues.  In the end, these are the reasons people vote for a candidate.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don't Stick a Fork in it Yet

Posted by Jyalai on Friday, January 04, 2008 12:38:39 PM
Trolling through redstate gave me the distinct impression they think Romney is out of it.  I know a lot of them are Fredheads and would like to see Romney step aside for Thompson, but I don't see the numbers being all too bad for Romney.

Romney garnered 25%.  That isn't bad in a large field of candidates.  He may come in second in New Hampshire and get another 25-30%.  Again, that's not bad in the long run for two of the smaller states.  He could technically come in second in most of the states and show up at the convention with enough delegates to proclaim victory. 

The key  is that the states may split the top vote across the board.  Huckabee may win some. Guliani may win some. Thompson may win some.  Who knows?  Ron Paul may even win one or two.  Romney will probably win his own share.  In fact, the more split it is, the better for Mitt Romney, as long as he garners a high second or third consistently.

I am currently a Fredhead.  I believe he has the best total package.  But I would vote for Romney in a second over any democrat.  I would even vote for Guliani, Huckabee, Paul, or McCain.  I didn't mention Duncan Hunter or Alan Keyes since they really have no chance. 

Garlick's First Rule in politics:
The primaries are about candidates;  the general election is about party.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Silver Lining

Posted by Jyalai on Friday, January 04, 2008 6:27:06 AM
In his blog on townhall, Patrick Ruffini makes this statement:

"The problem is that Mike Huckabee’s momentum brought in new voters off the beaten path — more Evangelicals, more women, people lower on the income ladder. Think about this: In the 2000 Caucuses, only 37% described themselves as “religious right.” This year, 60% described themselves as “Evangelical Christians.” That’s an imperfect comparison, but the universe of Evangelical voters almost certainly expanded this year. "

Many of us, who are just too uncomfortable with what Huckabee has said and done see his success in Iowa as a negative.  I have a different take.  I don't believe Huckabee has the ability to make it all the way through to the convention.  However, if he is bringing in new evangelical voters into the Republican party, its a good thing.  If these new voters are not alienated by the visceral reaction to Huckabee's win from those who think it gives them carte blanche to castigate evangelicals, they will vote for the Republican candidate in the fall and keep Iowa red.  Mission accomplished!

The fact that so many of them came out to get involved in politics for the Republican party gives me hope that this year, as in 2004, we will see a surge in value voters that will put the Republican candidate over the top.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Christian Zionism

Posted by Jyalai on Monday, August 07, 2006 11:22:56 AM
 

Recently, I have been hearing the word Christian Zionism being bandied about to label the Christian evangelical movement’s support for Israel. Some people seem to think Israel’s existence is due to this group’s support. I just read an article by Vox Day at WND that accurately describes my own view of this issue.

Obviously, Bible scholars are fascinated with what is going on in Israel. However, most Christians who support Israel do not see that their support really matters. God will do what He has planned to do regardless of what a segment of His church wants. He is running the show. The church moves to His direction, not the other way around.

What fascinates Christians who take the Bible seriously, is how easily God fulfills His prophecies even when it seems impossible. We (The Christian community) are just along for the ride.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lebanon

Posted by Jyalai on Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:41:47 PM
I came in to work early on Tuesday to get a little extra work done.  God had another plan.  My early arrival gave one of my co-workers a chance to talk with me.  She is of Lebanese descent and has family over there.  I really sympathize with her.  Her family is in a bad situation.

Even though her family does not support Hezbollah, they are very frustrated at Israel's bombing of Lebanon.  I hope her family and friends stay safe, but I responded to her with this question, "Who do you trust more?"

Do you trust Hezbollah who has continually gone after civilians as their targets, and hide behind civilians with a callous disregard for their safety, ...

Or do you trust Israel who has waited patiently for years while Hezbollah has sent rockets into their country, has told the civilians where they are going to bomb before they do it, going as far as calling people on the phone to warn them, and apologizes when civilians are killed or hurt?

There are times we need to trust that the moral country will do the right thing and lives will be saved from it.  Hezbollah is not moral.  Their idealogy trumps all.  Israel has made good moral decisions over and over, even to the detriment of themselves.  I trust Israel to do everything possible to save innocent lives.  I do not trust Hezbollah to protect civilians.

I gained some insight into Lebanon by reading Katheryn Jean Lopez's interview of Dr. Walid Phares over at NRO.  Next time I see my co-worker, I will point her to that article.  It really puts things into perspective.

HT to Hugh Hewitt for the interview.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Moral Equivalency

Posted by Jyalai on Monday, July 24, 2006 5:48:41 PM
I was just listening to Sean Hannity.  He had David Horowitz and a liberal journalist, Robert Dreyfuss, to debate the current conflict in Isreal and its origins.  What a debate! 

I was surprised that Robert cited the fact that the rest of the world is against Israel and the US to support his position that Israel and the US are wrong.  Let's take a quick look at what countries are against Israel in this fight.

Russia has been a long term major supporter of Iran and Syria.  Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, it kept military ties with Saddam Hussein and other dictators in the area.  It has never been a friend of Israel, siding with the terrorist nations over and over at the UN.

Communism did not die when the Soviet Union fell.  China has been the largest communist country since 1949.  Even though it has recently allowed its people to engage in limited capitalism, it keeps the economic reins close to its power base, the communist party.  It continues to this day to oppress its people throwing dissenters into prisons, beating them, and executing them.  China would like nothing else than to see the US fall on its own sword as it fights Islamic fascism.

Syria and Iran have both been supporting terrorists against Israel and the US for decades.  These countries have made it clear that Israel has no right to exist and would like nothing less than to destroy it.  They wouldn't mind the US getting destroyed too.

The Palestinians have been given major concessions by Israel over the years and they elected a Hamas government - enough said!

The major countries of Europe (specifically France and Germany) have been found to be profitting off the dictators of the Mid-East.  The Oil-for-food scandal demonstrates why Europe is not fit to make moral judgments in this situation.

Robert intimates that these countries as morally superior to the US.  That is far from the truth.  History has proven over and over that the US is one of the last altruistic super powers.  Israel has also proven it takes life and liberty seriously.  There is no moral equivalency.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Choices for our Border

Posted by Jyalai on Friday, July 07, 2006 1:26:26 AM
 

We can deal with our borders in three ways:

1) Allow anyone to cross freely into the U.S. without any process to legitimize their stay.

2) Force some through a process that legitimizes their stay in the U.S. while allowing others to cross freely.

3) Force everyone through a process that legitimizes their stay in the U.S., and heavily penalize those who try to circumvent the process.

The first choice may be enticing to the free market economists, but it does nothing to protect us from foreigners who do not have the best interests of the country at heart.  There are many of them!

We have currently selected the second choice. We force the ones who respect our country to jump through hoops, but have a totally ambivalent attitude those who sneak in without consequence.  From which group do you think the next terrorist will come? This choice does nothing for security and just angers those we make stand in line.  This choice is the worst of the three.

The third choice is the only answer to successfully handle immigration and security. We can allow millions of Mexicans a chance to join our great American experiment legally, and still secure our borders. But that means we must tackle both border security and immigration reform.

I was listening to Laura Ingraham interview congressman Mike Pence about his immigration reform plan. I know it isn’t conservatively correct to talk about reforming immigration until a fence is built on the border, but I think Mike tackles both problems as well as anyone has. We need security, but we need immigration reform also.

We have assimilated waves of English, Irish, Scandinavian, German, Jewish, Slavic, Italian, African, Chinese, Hmong, and Vietnamese immigrants.  I think we can handle a few million Mexicans too. We just need to find out how to do it while protecting our country.  Mike wants to use one of America's greatest strengths, it's market forces, to help us process the millions who want to participate in our Great American Dream, after we build a fence.  We should give Pence's ideas serious consideration.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Party Action

Posted by Jyalai on Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:46:10 AM
I  just spent the evening working on my state house district Republican organization notebook.  I updated the names of precinct committee people and precinct maps preparing for this campaign cycle.  Yes, I am one of those party activists that call at caucus and election time.  As I looked through the names of the people who volunteer their time to see that the party continues to function in my area, I was disappointed in how few of my own friends outside of political circles were involved.

So many of my friends talk about the abuses of government.  They talk about high taxes, the biased media, bad schools, all the things that make them Republican.  Then you ask them what they are doing for the party and you get a real dumb look.

"Well, I vote!" they say.

Sometimes just voting is not enough.  Our country's future does not depend on one candidate getting elected, or even a handful of candidates getting elected.  The direction of the country changes when thousands of candidates get elected over and over again with similar goals.  That only happens through the party system.

The only way the Republican party is going to make a difference, now or in the future, is if people who cherish its ideals are willing to commit some time to the organization of the party.  When your precinct committee person calls you, don't get off the phone so quickly.  Seriously consider what you can do to help.  Better yet, don't wait for the phone call.  Call your state or county Republican headquarters and find out what you can do.

It's the efforts of the activists that win elections.  You can just vote, or you can actively seek the votes you need to move the Republican agenda.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »