If you're new here and enjoyed what you read, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed so you don't miss a thing. Thanks for visiting!

I’ve had lots of people leave comments on various posts on this website, asking me where I’ve been at, plus I’ve been getting quite a few people emailing me through the contact page, wondering when I’d be back.

I figured it was probably time to post an update on what’s been happening, so you guys wouldn’t think I fell off a cliff and died or something.

First off, I currently have 4 part-time jobs.  I work part-time at the local library; I pull mortgage records for an insurance company; I manage a large group of blogs about TV shows (roughly 50 blogs in all); and I blog on a site at Today.com, where I read and review nonfiction books.  My website is Nonfiction Lover.

Needless to say, I’m rather busy with all of that. But just for kicks and grins, I’m going back to school this fall to get my AA degree in Library Science - I have to take 12 credits each semester in order to keep the scholarships I received, so I am going to be even busier than I already am starting in about 4 weeks. Sleep?  What’s that?

So that’s a Hava update.  If you’re really missing me and my rambly posts, do feel free to check out the Nonfiction blog, since that’s a site I update 5 - 6 times a week (IOW, pretty much daily).  I try to review a wide variety of books so my readers don’t get bored with one kind (well, my readers and me, since I have to read all of these books.  Luckily for me, I’m a speed reader).

As for a Mitt update, I’ve been hearing quite a few rumors swirling around that McCain has chosen Mitt has his VP, and is going to announce this choice soon.  I’ve got mixed feelings on the subject.  First, let’s get the absolutes out of the way:

1) Mitt will accept if McCain offers.  He has already said as much.

2) McCain will be in a much stronger position if Mitt is his VP, since Mitt will bring a wealth of knowledge about the economy and business to the table.  With the economy in the shape it’s in right now, that will be a huge boost to McCain, the one who infamously said that he was reading Alan Greenspan’s new book in order to learn more about the economy.  (Which, by the way, I have read that book myself, and I plan on reviewing it soon on my Nonfiction blog.  I’ll sum it up here by saying: Every politician in America should be required to read that book before taking office.  You’ll have to read my review to find out more).

3) McCain will also get a boost in fundraising, money in the coffers, and loyal supporters of Mitt transferring that loyalty to McCain.

4) Mitt’s great health and young age will be an asset to McCain, who looks older by the day.

5) Since Mitt has already been campaigning on McCain’s behalf for the last several months, this will not be a difficult idea for most people to get used to (as opposed to if McCain had picked Mitt as his running mate when Mitt first dropped out.  Everyone would have seen it as bizarre and politically expedient.  Now it won’t look as bad).

6) If McCain picks Mitt as the VP, I will vote for McCain and Mitt this fall.

Now that we’ve got the givens out of the way, let’s tackle it from Mitt’s point of view:

1) If he becomes McCain’s running mate, best case scenario is that McCain wins the presidency, and he has a great four year term, whereupon at the end of it, he steps out of the way, says he’s too old to be a president anymore, and endorses Mitt for president.  Mitt runs in 2012 as a partial incumbent.

Even in the absolute best case scenario, you still have the problem of Mitt trying to become the third Republican president in a row (Bush - 2 terms, McCain - 1 term, then Romney).  If I were a really dedicated blogger, I would look up the last time that happened, but I’m not, so you’re simply going to be stuck with me saying that having a president from the same party being elected three times in a row doesn’t happen very often.  America seems to swing from one side to the other - well, that party didn’t do any good, let’s try the other one.  Well crud, that one didn’t do any better, let’s go back to the first one.

Since the ultimate goal is to make Mitt Romney president of the United States, this is an obvious drawback.

2) Let’s face reality and realize that the absolute best case scenario probably isn’t going to happen.  Let’s go with McCain winning the presidency but having a checkered record, much like Bush.  When he steps aside in 2012, he’s going to bestow that legacy on Mitt Romney, just like if Cheney were to run this election cycle.  This would obviously hurt Mitt, because he’d have to answer for McCain’s stupid decisions (like cap and trade) when he himself didn’t think any of those things were a good idea. This would be a huge drawback for Mitt.

3) Let’s get even more worse-case scenario: McCain loses this election cycle against Obama.  Now Mitt has a two-time losing streak - he lost when he was trying to become a nominee, and lost again as the potential VP.  The chances of winning in 2012 would be astronomically small.  At that point, it would be better for Mitt to simply give it up and try to help another Republican candidate win the nomination.

So when it comes down to it, what’s best for Mitt Romney?  To be left entirely out of this campaign cycle.  Let McCain and whoever he picks run this time lose, and pave the way for Mitt to run again in 2012.   That would be best case scenario - have Obama win, really screw up this country, and have Mitt run against him in 2012 and win.

Isn’t it depressing when your best case scenario is to have a socialist win and screw up the country?  I for one am extremely depressed at the thought.

I know I’m not taking into account the fact that at least two judges on the Supreme Court will be replaced in the next four years, and with Obama at the wheel, you are guaranteed a more liberal court.

I know that I’m also not taking into account the fact that if Obama comes in, he’ll probably pull us out of Iraq sooner than we should go (anyone read Moment of Truth in Iraq?  I reviewed it on my Nonfiction Lovers site - great book.  Check it out if you haven’t yet) and that will mean we’re even more screwed up than we already are.  I know all of that.

And so a part of me understands that it’d be better to have McCain than Obama this fall.  But it’s still such a toss-up for me.  I’m trying to figure out what the possibilities are that Washington DC will simply fall into the ocean between now and fall and I won’t have to care about any of this.  I can hope, right?

So I’m opening the comments section back up to you, my faithful readers.  What do you hope will happen, and why?  What do you think will happen, and why?  I can’t wait to hear it!

Hava

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This is a hard blog to write - it was hard to even type that headline. For anyone who missed Mitt’s final speech, check it out here:

I just watched it again, and I cried as I watched it. I don’t know if it’s my imagination or not, but it seemed as if Mitt had a catch in his voice more than once, as if he was choking back emotions.

Based on this article, it sounds as if Mitt had decided last night to drop out of the race today:

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrenstrom says the decision to withdraw was made last night. Earlier in the day, Romney had held meetings with senior staffers, looking at options. At a later meeting with the entire staff, they enthusiastically encouraged him to stay in the race.

So he went home last night to write his CPAC speech, and Eric says it became a “farewell speech.”

Romney wanted to do what was right for the party. Though he still saw a pathway to nomination, he was concerned about a protracted struggle within the party at a time when the country is at war.

Romney hopes today’s decision unifies the party, his family supported the decision, and he will endorse McCain if he is the nominee.

This shows the class and character of Mitt Romney. “Actions speak louder than words” and here, Mitt showed how ready and willing he is to work towards the good of the country and the party, not just for his own selfish interests.

I admired Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani when they dropped out when it became clear they could not win, because I thought their ability to look objectively at the situation and make a decision that was best for the Republican Party, could not be overestimated. I feel the same way (and then some) about Mitt Romney.

I won’t lie and say I didn’t shed a lot of tears over this. The night of Super Tuesday was one of the hardest that I have ever had to endure. I sobbed that night, because I just couldn’t understand how the Republican Party could reject one of the best candidates they had ever been blessed with. Yesterday I spent most of the day in a real funk. But I’ve come to accept the fact that this simply isn’t the year for Romney. Many candidates have lost in the primaries one year, and then come back to win the primaries the next: John McCain himself ran in 2000 against Bush, then you have Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, and of course Ronald Reagan.

So yes, Romney is out of the race now. But I have a gut feeling he’ll be back in 2012, at the end of McCain’s promised one term, or at the end of a failed Clinton presidency (c’mon, how could another Clinton presidency be anything but failed?) So I’m going to keep this address, and I’m going to be back, late 2010, early 2011. You can count on it.

God bless,

Hava

PS Sad about Romney’s leaving? Want to spill your guts - laughing, crying, ranting, raving? Go ahead - the comment section is wide open and ready. Hugs and love to you all.  Thanks for your support over this last year - I am blessed to have some really great commentors on this site, and I appreciate you all.  Mitt in 2012!!!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In the Republican race, we currently have 4 men running, yet people keep saying that we’re in a two-man race. Why? Well, I have been trying to get Ron Paul supporters to give me a plausible path to the nomination, including states, delegate count, etc. So far, I’ve been told that the run for presidency is not “the American Idol contest” and then again that it is not “a soccer match.” I’m assuming that means that there is no plausible path to the presidency for Ron Paul, because if there was, his supporters would be giving it to me, instead of telling me that it doesn’t matter if Ron Paul can win or not. Umm, as a matter of fact, it does matter. If didn’t matter, than all this would be is a vanity run and a complete waste of time and money for Ron Paul and his supporters. What on earth is the point of running, if it isn’t to win? Did I miss something?

Then you’ve got Mike Huckabee who won the Iowa caucus but hasn’t won anything since. The media has been downplaying the Maine caucus that Mitt Romney did so AMAZINGLY well in this weekend, because after all, “it’s just a caucus.” I guess someone forgot to tell the MSM that Iowa was “just a caucus” too. Putting that aside, even his most ardent supporters have got to be realizing that Mike just isn’t going anywhere. There are not enough states where there are enough evangelical Christians to vote for Mike to give him the nomination. And outside of the evangelical vote, there isn’t much else to point to. Mike’s support has been almost all evangelical. Don’t agree with me? I’ll give Mike Huckabee supporters the same challenge that I gave Ron Paul supporters: Show me how Mike will win the nomination. I want states, delegates, and supporting poll data. If you can show me sufficient proof of such, I will stop saying that this is “only a two-man race” and will encourage everyone I know to do the same, and that includes pretty much all the pro-Mitt bloggers out there. Just a hint: Telling me that the presidential race isn’t the same as a soccer game, or football/baseball/cricket/bowling game is not convincing.

But (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news) even evangelical Christian leaders are starting to say that Huckabee cannot win. Reverend Schenk said in a press release put out today, “After careful and prayerful consideration, I have concluded that an evangelical vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for John McCain, and a vote for John McCain will be a disaster for this country.” Who is Reverend Schenk? He is president of Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, chairman of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance, and co-founder of the annual National Memorial for the Pre-born and their Mothers and Fathers, the only pro-life worship service held inside the U.S. Capitol complex in Washington, DC.

Here is his press release, in full:

McCain, Huckabee Worst Picks for Evangelicals

Contact: Rev. Schenck, 703-447-7686

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 4 / Christian Newswire / — The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), in his capacity as a private citizen, today released this statement regarding tomorrow’s primary votes:

“I have spent the last 33 years as an active evangelical Christian. I am an ordained evangelical minister. I graduated from an evangelical Bible college and an evangelical seminary. I serve on the board of America’s oldest association of evangelical church leaders, and I head one of the most active evangelical ministries in Washington, DC.

“I have thought long and hard about the upcoming elections. I have prayed earnestly about them, and I have met many of the candidates and their top campaign people and I have studied their platforms and policy proposals.

“After careful and prayerful consideration, I have concluded that an evangelical vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for John McCain, and a vote for John McCain will be a disaster for this country.

“Let me explain. It’s clear to me and many others that Mike Huckabee is not broadening his appeal enough to win the primary. Therefore, his only contribution is to siphon off votes, giving McCain a clear path to victory. It’s very possible Huckabee is being positioned to be John McCain’s pick for vice president. In order to win, McCain needs Mike Huckabee and the evangelical votes he brings with him. The specter of a McCain-Huckabee ticket is bad for evangelicals.

“McCain is proud of his signature accomplishment, the McCain-Feingold law co-authored with liberal Democrat senator Russ Feingold. McCain-Feingold severely limits the First Amendment rights of evangelicals. McCain will use this law as the litmus test for his Supreme Court nominees. If a judge is likely to be against McCain’s unconstitutional law, McCain will not nominate him. Make no mistake about it, constitutional originalist judges will be against McCain-Feingold. These same judges will also be pro-life, for traditional marriage and for the public acknowledgment of God.

“Only liberal judges will support McCain-Feingold. They will also be pro-abortion, anti-traditional marriage and against the public acknowledgement of God. So, with a McCain-Huckabee administration, or with a McCain-anyone administration, we get the wrong judges. Most distressing, we get the wrong justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Evangelicals must consider both the stakes and the realities in this election. Mike Huckabee’s continuation only helps John McCain. The consequences are just too great to take this risk. A McCain victory will hurt this country because of the long-term damage of the wrong judges and justices. Worse, McCain’s court legacy will continue to hurt our children and our grandchildren, perhaps even our great grandchildren.

“Evangelicals must choose wisely from among candidates other than Mike Huckabee and John McCain as they vote tomorrow, February 5.”

Can I be perfectly honest with you? I don’t think Reverend Schenk wanted to write this. And judging by the lack of actual endorsement of Mitt Romney (”choose wisely among the other candidates” - if you take out Mike and John, this only leaves Mitt and Paul!) I don’t believe the reverend could bring himself to actually endorse a Mormon. Hey, I understand. I would probably have a hard time endorsing or voting in someone who worshiped the moon and drank blood at dinner every night. I know that evangelicals have a hard time with the LDS Church. But we need to focus on something much more important (in the political world) than whether the Trinity exists or not. A gentleman who blogs over at Evangelicals for Mitt said it best when he said in an interview:

As David—who is so much smarter than I am, despite the fact that he went to Harvard—puts it so well: Theology is only important in a political race to the extent it affects public policy. With a Mormon, the places where we diverge—the Trinity, for instance—are not relevant to public policy. And the places where we are together—family values come to mind—are.

Don’t get me wrong; correct doctrine is extremely important. The Bible doesn’t mince words on that, and if Governor Romney believes all Mormon doctrines, I believe he’s mistaken and that it is a matter of eternal significance. But the mere fact that something is important to one’s relationship with God doesn’t mean it’s something we should give it prime consideration in a political race.

What’s prime consideration? Well, put it this way. If there were another candidate in the race who had all Governor Romney’s good qualities but happened to be a Presbyterian, I’d probably support him. Plain and simple, he’d be more likely to win, because there’d be no need for a website like EFM. But there isn’t. The only other candidate whose doctrine is—near as I can tell—close to mine has nothing of any intelligence to say on the central issue of our times (the war) and believes in massive governmental intervention in the economy. Sorry, but when we’re picking a president—not a pastor—having good theology doesn’t cancel all that stuff out.

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, and the evangelical Christians have a choice to either vote for the man whose doctrine is the closest to theirs, but would ultimately bring about the presidency of a man who openly admitted just two days ago that “It’s not social issues I care about,” or vote for a man whose doctrine is oppositional to theirs, but whose presidency would help strengthen such important movements as pro-life and traditional marriage.

It’s your choice, America. Please choose wisely.

Havs

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I have tried to stay away from the whole topic of Mitt’s Mormonism, especially lately, because I figured that Mitt’s speech on “Faith in America” covered all that anyone needed to know, and any more talk about Mormonism would be counterproductive.

But I received an e-mail where a gentleman talked about how Mitt was traveling through the area on a Sunday, and stopped at the local LDS Church to partake of the services there. The gentleman is a part of the ward that Mitt attended, and as I read the gentleman’s e-mail on how the visit went and what happened, I could see it all happening in my mind. His e-mail is touching - I hope you take a moment to read it (I have stripped out all identifying data for privacy reasons):

On Sunday, Jan. 6, as I do every Sunday, I attended the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on XX Street. It was the XX Ward’s Fast and Testimony meeting. On the first weekend of every month, Mormons traditionally abstain from food for 24 hours, then at the conclusion of this fast we attend our meetings. From the money we save from not eating, we’re encouraged to donate generously to the poor among us. This meeting is called a “testimony meeting” because anyone feeling prompted can rise to the podium to speak. It’s certainly a unique and sometimes unpredictable meeting.

As Bishop Spenser was welcoming the congregation, I happened to glance behind me. I was astonished to see Mitt Romney and an aide quietly walk in and sit down. I had just watched him on Fox News Sunday minutes before. After the passing of the sacrament, the bishop opened the microphone to the congregation. During this hour-long meeting, about 12 to 15 adults and children spoke. Romney sat through the rest of the meeting and listened graciously. At the conclusion, he walked to the foyer where many greeted him and wished him well.

I will always remember this Sunday’s meeting for what did and did not happen. What amazed me was that during the meeting no one, including the bishop, mentioned or made reference to our important visitor. And unlike Mike Huckabee, who was preaching a sermon somewhere in New Hampshire on “Becoming an Army for Christ,” Romney chose not to speak but rather chose to simply listen respectfully to the impromptu speakers.

I think this experience is significant for two reasons:

First, it is a good example of how the culture in the Mormon Church clearly respects the separation of religion and politics. Second, I also respect and admire Romney’s choice not to arise and address the congregation. His quiet reverence said a lot more about who he is and what he values. He was just one of us. Lastly, as the bread and water (ie, the Sacrament) was quietly being passed, I couldn’t help but glance over at him a time or two. I saw his head bowed, his eyes closed and his hands resting on his lap.

As we sat solemnly amidst the quiet, I wondered what was going on in the mind of someone seeking the highest office in the land. I thought of all the criticism from the media questioning his integrity, calling him a liar and flip-flopper. I thought of Huckabee’s campaign manager wishing to kick his teeth in. I thought of vicious attacks on his character from everywhere and wondered how he could and why he would endure such disparagement.

When the meeting was over, I couldn’t get near him so I approached his aide, who was standing at the door, and shook his hand. After a few words, he grabbed Romney’s arm from behind and said, “Gotta go.” Standing in the way, I moved aside to let Romney by. As he passed, he turned and extended his hand to me, he looked me square in the eye and smiled as I smiled back. And then I knew. I knew exactly how he got his strength and I knew exactly why he was doing this.

Mitt Romney has been blessed with great, great ability and talent. Our nation has critical problems that all seem to be reaching a tipping point at the same time. Consider the coming insolvency of Social Security, our unmanageable $8 trillion debt, the forthcoming economic tests from China and India, the illegal immigration challenge to our sovereignty, the Islamic extremists who want to harm us, our dependency on foreign oil, and the crisis in education and health care.

Have we ever had more of a need for an honest, competent, compassionate, think-out-of-the-box problem solver? Can you honestly say in your heart that any other candidate, or even any other American, is more qualified to lead us through all these challenges? Even if you disagree with some of his political positions, consider what it would mean to America’s youth and future if someone of his competence, principles and character occupied the Oval Office.

Certainly, one can look back at the last two administrations and see the consequence of what the lack of competence has meant during the last seven years and what damage the lack of character and principles did during the previous eight.

Mitt Romney is not doing this for himself. He’s doing this because we need him to. Our children and grandchildren need him to. He’s our last hope if this country is to survive, then thrive, once again. I know the New Hampshire primary is over. I get a feeling though that you’ll have a chance to vote for him once again.

I think it was telling that Mitt chose to take part in any church meetings at all. Here is someone running for the highest office in the country. He is booked from morning until night with speeches and townhall meetings. I’m sure there is a portion of his staff who wished he wouldn’t “waste” the time attending church because he wouldn’t/couldn’t campaign while there. And in a tight race like this, you can’t waste an hour doing something “unproductive.” But Mitt’s faith in God is strong enough that he knows that no matter how others may view it, he has to attend church to regain his bearings and revive his spirit for the upcoming week.

He may not wear his religion on his sleeve, but you can be rest assured, here is a man who believes in God.

Havs

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I posted this blog back in April, and as I was going through my archives, I realized that the blog had become hopelessly outdated. So I’m going to update this blog to reflect the race as it is now (Feb of 2008).

People used to talk about Rudy Giuliani becoming Mitt’s running mate, but I think the chances of that happening now are pretty much nil. There is no way Mitt would ask Rudy to run with him after Rudy endorsed McCain. So that takes care of Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter too. Tom Tancredo endorsed Mitt after he dropped out, but I don’t think anyone honestly believes that he would be a good VP choice for Mitt, even Tancredo. I think he would do well in some sort of immigration post though - perhaps he could be put in charge of building the fence?

I have heard some people hope for Ron Paul to run as Mitt’s VP, but I simply don’t see that happening. They just don’t mesh well together. I know that isn’t a scientific analysis, but I don’t have a better way of explaining myself.

The only other former presidential candidate to discuss would be Fred Thompson, and I think that one actually has some potential. I think that would lay to rest some people’s fear that Romney isn’t conservative enough, and of course Fred being from the south would be a huge plus. The only real problem is see with this is that again, the personalities don’t really mesh. Fred Thompson is laid back, Mitt is real go-getter. It also wouldn’t help with the experience card - Fred doesn’t have any more experience in government than Mitt does.

In a perfect world, Mitt’s VP would need to be:

• From the south
• Very conservative
• Without any professional or personal baggage
• Backed Mitt all along
• Has experience in government
• Influential - would love it if they were well-known nationally although I know that’s asking for a lot.

Heck, if I was really asking for perfection, I would say this flawless person would be black and a woman too, but I don’t think such a person exists. ;-)If you leave out the black and female part, Jim DeMint fits the rest. I think Mitt would do well to choose him as VP. Governor Tim Pawlenty used to top the list, but since he joined McCain’s election team and endorsed him, that X’s him off. Same for Charlie Crist.

One person who doesn’t fit the Southern role but who is female, is Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. I am probably biased because she was born in Sandpoint, Idaho, making me a fan already but to those who don’t know her, here’s quick rundown of her strong points:

• She has an extremely high approval rating as governor of Alaska - she hovers between 85 - 90%
• She is strong proponent of the pro-life movement and always has been, which should help social conservatives who worry about Mitt’s conversion
• She’s Protestant, which will help calm down the anti-Mormon crowd
• She has been a lifelong member of the NRA, which is another huge plus for Mitt
• She’s been married to the same man all her life - there are no social personal scandals in her closet. They have four children together
• She is very conservative fiscally - well-known as being a tax cutter and for cutting spending out of the budget. She has a long record of integrity.
• Mitt and Palin share the same views on gay marriage and gay rights.

Her only negatives are that a) She isn’t well-known nationally, b) She doesn’t have much experience outside of being governor of Alaska - she was a two-time mayor of a growing city in Alaska before becoming governor, but that isn’t much to point to, and c) She isn’t from the south.

So for Mitt, I think his best choices would be either Jim DeMint or Sarah Palin. Do you have any other favorites you would like to throw out there for the rest of us to consider? Please add the names below in the comment section - I would love to hear your ideas on the subject! Useless conjecture is always fun to do, and helps pass the time between now and Super Tuesday.

Havs

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!