Saturday
Jan012011
Any Predictions for the New Year?
Saturday, January 1, 2011 at 08:12AM 
Happy New Year!
Ordinarily, I spend the day with my sons watching college football (and overeating). But given the way the BCS has ruined New Year's Day college bowl games, we'll probably watch the Three Stooges marathon instead (you know, in protest).
I'm also conducting a wedding later today for a couple from church. I've never done a New Years Day wedding before (but it is 1-1-11).
Is anyone willing to go out on a limb and make a few predictions for the coming year? If you wish, leave them in the comments section below. Given my track-record at making such predictions, I'll play it safe and predict that I'll get older and balder in the coming year.
Finally, I wish you all a very prosperous and healthy New Year!
Reader Comments (48)
You do not have to "register" with any party to vote in a primary. This is a common misconception. There is only one voter registration process. Once you are a voter, you can vote in any primary.
The rules, however, state that in any particular election cycle, you may only vote in one primary. You cannot vote, for instance, in both Republican and Libertarian primaries in 2012. You have to pick one. But what you can do, and in fact happens very frequently, is that you can vote in the Republican primary in 2010, but then turn round in 2012 and vote in the Democratic primary. This is allowed. Consider the instances in the last decade when Senators and Representatives have switched parties while in office. In the next election, they have to vote in a different primary to vote for themselves. This is allowed.
I hope that helps.
God is neither a democrat nor a republican. So, you may feel free to vote for anyone under Luther's 2k's.
I am content with any of the GOP candidates. As far as Sarah Palin not being intelligent, that is a typical left wing depiction of anyone that is right of center. They said the same thing about Ronald Reagan.
I would like to see Marco Rubio come out of Iowa as the GOP leader. However, he is only 39 years old, and may not run.
If you get a moment or two, google what Bill Clinton says about Sarah Palin. He is very impressed with her as a 2012 candidate. He says that she may very well turn out to be a nemesis to the democrats if she comes out of it as the candidate for the GOP.
I will make the argument for yes, for the following reasons:
One of the Riddleblogger's mentioned Kerry a few years ago running against Bush. The reason that Kerry lost, was that his ideas were not in line with mainstream America.
Example: One of the big public supporters of Kerry was none other than Elton John. Outside of the left coast's, your average American is not going to align themselves with Elton John on political and social issues. Yes, most of us love Elton John's music, but we will not hang out with him and watch football, or go to church with him.
I only bring that up for the sake of the perception of much of those in the democratic party. Mainstream America cannot relate to a candidate that is attracting the likes of Elton John and his concepts of life in general. Be it Mormons, J.W.'s, Muslims or Christians. Yes, it is Okay with the left coast's, but not mainstream America.
My state, Arizona is very representative of what mainstream America is like, and what it thinks socially. We don't want the government telling us that we have to get rid of our trucks and SUV's and drive little box cars. If it is 112 degrees, we don't want the government telling us where to set our thermostat's. Especially when we have energy in abundance, and are not subject to blackouts.
Why would Palin be an attractive vote for mainstream America? Housewives can relate to her. She is a mother, with kids, including a retarted baby that she didn't abort. Her cornball statement about soccer Mom's hits home with women in mainstream America.
Her position on 2nd amendment rights, nails it with most of the men in mainstream America.
Palin is in line with mainstream America on the immigration issue. I like how Marco Rubio states that he is for the "legal immigrants." That is the way mainstream America thinks about the immigration issue.
Palin uses all of the buzz words that connect with mainstream America. Such as; tax breaks for the small business man (which, by the way drives 75% of the econmy). She uses buzz words like less government, less taxes for the working man.
Even though Palin is a woman, she is extremely popular with the male voters here in Arizona. Among men she is viewed as a rugged, no nonsense butt kicker.
If voted in, she will probably be able to assemble a very good cabinet, which is half the battle for any president.
Yes, Sarah Palin can be a cornball at times. She is simple minded and believes strongly in American exceptionalism, which will go over big with the mainstream voters.
Sarah Palin connects with mainstream Americans. She is a great speaker, that can rally the country to her causes--much like the old gipper, Ronald Reagan, another perceived cornball, with silly buzz words and cliches.
Like Bill Clinton states (and he is no dummy!), the democrats may not want what they wish for; Sarah Palin. She is just simple minded and corny enough to get voted in!
I think it depends in what state you vote in and in what the state party officials decide. I do remember one year here in CA where I was given the choice of what ballot I wanted, but I don't remember what election that was. For the last presidential primary, CA Republicans had a closed primary but not the Democrats. There is a new law here in CA that does away with closed primaries at least for state gov't.
LLoyd,
Perhaps Sarah Palin could win the Presidency. It may be true that "mainstream" America may vote for Palin, but I personally don't care. It was "mainstream" America that voted in Barack Obama, who I think you may view as the polar opposite. I thought Barack Obama's support was much hype; and the McCain campaign got Palin in order to get their own hype also. I don't view "mainstream" America as being rational; they change frequently even as seen in polls and elections; many American's make decisions on an emotional and non-rational (even irrational) basis than rational. You prove this with even giving some reasons on why people support Palin. "Mainstream America" seems to be a flexible entity since different ideologies can claim it as their own. The desire to get mainstream American support is not one based on what is right or best, but one based on power or what is the best way to get votes.
As for comparing Reagan and Palin, it's a bit of a stretch from what I've heard. Reagan finished his position as governor here in my state and seems to be known for being successful at it. Besides being conservative, he is known for being more inclusive among Republicans. Also, Sarah Palin seems to be thin skinned; a little criticism from people like Karl Rove and she and her supporters can't take it. This is kind of odd since she is viewed as a "rugged, no nonsense butt kicker". I've seen how she responds to some criticism, and it's not been impressive.
As for the unfavorable view of Palin, it's not exclusive to the Left. It can be found among independents and some on the Right; it's just that the Right wing critics are less harsh because she is on their side.
That's it for me on this, so please don't feel offended if I don't respond any further to any other post. I view politics as a side issue I have to deal with that takes times from other things I care more about.
Thank you for responding. You make some good points.
Also, I commend you for not being a hit and run blogger! You at least have the courage to state your opinion.
Maybe you should do some research on why "those countries don't like us" propping dictators, lip service on international law, human rights and democracy/ equality/ freedom yet our closest allies and greatest financial and military benefactors in the MidEast are all in grave violation of these, bombing civilians, etc.
It's a hard pill to swallow, but when it comes to the Middle East the people on the Middle Eastern street see the USA gov't as aggressors, and rightly so funding Israel's military strikes, occupation and settlements, invading Iraq, etc.
Peace.
Lloyd said:
"I much prefer the way Israel deals with terror. Quick strikes as a retaliatory action. The instant that we leave those those countries, they will revert right back to their Muslim ways. Can we really afford to sustain such effort's financially when the people in those countries don't like us, and they view us infidel's?"
I much prefer a foreign policy along the lines of the Libertarian Party. I am not in favor of an imperialistic approach where we force other countries--against their will--to accept a U.S. style of government.
When I talk about a quick strike similar to what Israel does, I am talking about it as a retaliation for killing U.S. citizens. We need to keep our noses out of the affairs of other countries as much as possible.
Like I mentioned above, the middle eastern countries don't like our way of life, so to try to force them to implement our lifestyle is a waste of time, money and lives. The instant that we pull our troops out, they will revert back to their old ways. In light of that, why are we still there?
On the other hand, if a country sponsers terrorism against U.S. citizens, bomb the crap out of them, and get the hell out. This is pretty much what Israel does.
I realize that sustaining a war or two helps our defense contractors, but, I am still not in favor of it.
This is one area where I am at odds with both of our two major parties.
As citizens in the Kingdom of God, we still need to go into the middle east and preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments properly as we seek to advance the Kingdom of God, as commanded in the Scriptures.