Citizen Voices

Jack Bauer for President!  What?  He’s not running?  Dang!  Well, maybe he will be tomorrow.  After all, a lot can happen in 24 hours…

Before I reveal my political slant, I want you to know that I’m open-minded and would love to hear YOUR thoughts.  Feel free to present your case.  As long as you don’t call me a fat, ugly cow I’ll listen.  No need to insult the cows.  The end of my blog should be the beginning of a fun discussion!

My editor asked me: “If the election were tomorrow, who would you vote for?”  My vote today goes to Mitt Romney.  I’m really interested in Ron Paul; however, I fear my vote would be wasted.  I don’t think he’ll win the primary and I want to make sure we get a strong candidate who has a fighting chance against the powerful Democrat Machine.

Yeah, you heard me…I’m a Republican. Gasp!

I like that Romney has shown leadership and accomplishments in both private enterprise and public service.  He sees a problem and fixes it, while his counterpart career-politicians sit around debating or throwing money at it.  He built a hugely successful company and turned around the 2002 Olympics, which faced financial crisis before his arrival.  Our country is in need of rescue again.

A recent poll shows that concern about our economy tops the list of important issues for both Democrats and Republicans.  Romney balanced the Massachusetts budget every year as governor and has a sound understanding of economics.  America is clamoring for change and Romney appears to know how to make it happen.  

I like Romney’s stance on immigration, health care and education - just three of my hot buttons.  There is so much more for us to talk about, but I’ve been told to keep this blog short or else I’ll be shot. (Editor's note: I never said I would shoot them. I said I would meet them in the back alley of KPBS.)

We have some fascinating months ahead of us.  The general election isn’t tomorrow, but we San Diegans have the opportunity to submit a primary vote and send a message to the rest of the country next Tuesday.  Let your voice be heard!

If you judge a person by his “fruits” then Romney looks ripe for the presidency. And who do I think Romney’s running-mate should be? Jack Bauer, of course.

 
- Trina Boice is an author and mother of four who lives in Carlsbad.

Alma from San Diego
January 31, 2008 at 04:17 PM
I saw something we both have in common, Democrat and Republican: we're leaning in one direction with our policy ideals but still keeping an open mind. It sounds like policy put into action, and not continuing to debate, would be your ideal (a la Jack Bauer.) I agree we need action, as long as it isn't another unilateral executive deciding to bypass the rules (like, excluding Congress.) Do you think his long business experience will translate well to the format of D.C.? I'm asking knowing that CA's Governor ran on a similar platform; he has managed to find a bi-partisan way of legislating, while still making decisions. There's something else we have in common, namely, looking at Ron Paul. He's a candidate who stands out from the entire field and I'm listening and reading about him too.

Trina from Carlsbad
January 31, 2008 at 05:37 PM
Hi Alma! Thanks for taking time to read my silly blog. While I get a kick out of watching Jack Bauer's ridiculous antics, I don't think a President or any poliltican should rush to action quite like he does nor bypass the rules as you mentioned. Debate and deliberation are necessary and important. I love that our country auditions presidential candidates for a year (and then some) before we choose who is going to be the leader of the free world. Sure, most people are sick of watching the umpteenth debate on TV, but we have a critical decision to make and we need to gather all of the facts as best as we can. Romney has had experience trying to balance the needs of people from both sides of the aisle in Massachussetts. I think the best leader is one who can hear both sides, rather than be dictated solely by his party. It seems to me the line between parties has blurred a lot lately anyway. Yes, it bothers me a lot that Romney has the reputation of beach footwear, a real flip flopper; however, some might award him honesty points for being brave enough to change his stance and admit his change of heart. Political schmitical? Probably, but none of the Republican candidates are as perfect as I’d like them to be. Then again, neither am I. Some of them are even a bit scary. Sometimes, especially in the morning, I am too. As to Ron Paul, it's too bad he's not doing better in the Primaries. I love his protective grasp on the Constitution. He seems to have struck a popular cord with younger voters too. Next Tuesday is going to be...uh...SUPER!

Marsha
January 31, 2008 at 06:43 PM
How refreshing to find a blogger whose ideals mirror my own so perfectly! Thank you, Trina. This is going to be a very interesting campaign year, and with the writers' strike, there will be fewer distractions than ever before. Look sharp, people. Get all the information you can, then make wise voting decisions, based on Constitutional guidelines and who can best lead our country, not which politician promises to give you more entitlements and perks. There's no free lunch!

Liz from Pacific Northwest
January 31, 2008 at 06:44 PM
I was delighted to see John McCain win the Florida primary. Though I think Romney's success in the private sector is admirable, I don't know that it follows that he would be a good executive officer of this large, unwieldy, shared-power government. McCain's ability to reach across the aisle and work with the opposing party needs to be harnessed in pushing through needed legislation. I don't think his age is any sort of an impediment. I'm 66 myself, still working full time while being a published writer. I think the senior years can be the most productive time of one's life. But most of all, I value that McCain is/has been true to what he believes, standing staunchly when his views are unpopular. By the way, welcome! I'm sure yours will be a welcome forum during the election.

Anne Bradshaw from Utah
January 31, 2008 at 06:47 PM
I'm with you on this one, Trina. Mitt Romney has my vote, good and solid--not because of his religion (yeah, so I'm from Utah), but because of his qualifications as a leader and honest politician (I didn't think there as such a thing until Romney), and his overall integrity as a citizen, husband, and father.

Josi
January 31, 2008 at 06:55 PM
I agree that Romney is the better republican for the job. The only thing McCain can tout is that he served in the military. I'm grateful for that and I think a man who's been in war would have a big perspective of our current circumstance, but I"m far more impressed by the economic 'wars' Romney has been fighting his whole life. He has the political know how, the economic know how, and the business mans savvy necessary to make the best overall decisions in regards to running this country. I also agree with his education, health care, and immigration stance. As for Jack Bauer--that's one I'll argue with you on. Did you know Keifer Sutherland used to be a vampire? We don't need any more of them in politics.

Paula Rogers from Las Vegas, NV
January 31, 2008 at 06:56 PM
Your comments are right on target. With your permission, I would like to share them with friends and family in other states who will be voting February 5. It's unfortunate that the national, liberal media goes out of the way to slant Mitt Romney's background and record while promoting the candidate of their choice. We have not had a candidate for President with such great credentials since Ronald Reagan. Hopefully the public will not be misled by the biased media and will cast a vote for the most qualified candidate -- Mitt Romney. Thanks for presenting the facts in a succinct manner.

Tristi Pinkston
January 31, 2008 at 07:07 PM
I read McCain's book Faith of My Fathers and had a lot of respect for him until I saw the way he's running his campaign. He's throwing tantrums and going off on tears -- he can't seem to argue his points calmly. We need a level-headed president. I'm voting for Romney.

Jaimee
January 31, 2008 at 07:10 PM
Romney has my vote, especially after last night's debate. It was very apparent to me that McCain is trying to smear Romney's reputation by twisting Romney's comments or flating saying things that are false about his apponent. And I didn't like how he was constantly smirking when Romney was talking. How unprofessional and rude! I was going to vote for McCain. I am a military wife and I admire McCain's military record and consider him a war hero. After listening to him and his comments, I have come to the conclusion that the only difference between him and Hillary is that he is pro Iraq war and doesn't want to immediately pull the troops out. I feel he is being dishonest to try to win votes. Any voter that does their homework will see what I'm talkign about. That's the only difference is the war in Iraq. And personally I think that most people that used to be Republicans are now really Democrats and those that call themselves Democrats are really Socialists. We need to return to our conservative roots! Romney was a successful govener. Running a state is like running a smaller version of the US. Senators don't have this kind of experiene. Yes, Romney's state didn't do so well in getting more jobs, etc. But it was so much farther in the hole than any other state and had farther to go than any other state did. He turned things around for them! Remeber the Olympics in SLC? Full of corruption like no other Olympics had ever seen and he came in and turned it around too. Go back in time and read up on what happened. The US is at a crossroads here. Are we going to head down the path of socialism or worse? Or are we going to return to the glory days of Ronald Reagan? McCain isn't going to fix Washington neither will HIllary or Obama. They are part of the problem. Romney has a history of fixing broken companies and organizations. And I believe him to be a moral man as well. We need morality and honesty and sheer executive know how to pull this country out of what could be a huge train wreck!

Lori from Upstate NY
January 31, 2008 at 07:14 PM
I believe Mitt Romney is the right man to be our next President. He is financially responsible and experienced. He has the integrity to lead this great nation. He has ethics and integrity and has the humility to admit he was wrong in areas that matter to our family. He is a strong leader with well-planned, realistic and workable goals for our country. The three areas that he represents us most is (1) economy (2) illegal immigration and (3) securing our nation. He can and will do this because he has a plan. Also, he can't and won't be bought.

Steven
January 31, 2008 at 07:23 PM
It's okay to be Republican. No one's perfect! Just kidding... Seriously, really interesting article! Thanks for writing it, and good luck in these next few months!

Jodie from SLC, UT
January 31, 2008 at 07:23 PM
I would vote for Rudy Giulani - if we were still in the race - because of the way he handled 9/11. I like him and feel that he has not done the bashing that the others seem to feel is the thing to do. Since he is not in the race I would probably vote for John McCain - he seems to be on the same platform that Rudy is. I would like to hear what the canidates are for and not what the other one has done wrong.

Rob from Provo, UT
January 31, 2008 at 07:24 PM
I've asked myself the "If the election were tomorrow" question quite a bit over the last several months, and I've always come down very reluctantly in Romney's camp. I think his biggest selling point is that he's a man of integrity (which, as has been said, is rare these days). He'd also, undoubtedly do a great job with the economy. But unlike many of the commenters, it's his stance on immigration and health care that make me dislike him--and I dislike him more every time I watch a debate. As of five days ago I officially gave up on Romney, just as I gave up on the Republican party three years ago (I'm now an Independent). On Sunday I jumped to the dark side, and now am very reluctantly supporting Obama. I wish that the Republican primaries weren't an "I Love Reagan More Than You" contest, pandering to the most conservative elements. I miss election of 2000 when everyone was trying to prove they were the most moderate. This country could do with a little less ideological chest thumping, and a little more compromise and results.

Patty
January 31, 2008 at 07:26 PM
Interesting Commentary, all of you. This is an interesting election for us wherein we do not have a seated president or vice president running for the Oval Office. I think it has allowed us the opportunity to step back from politics and look at the individuals in a way that is unique to this election. There is a lot of dialogue about reaching across the aisles and looking for bi-partisan solutions. I hope we, as voters, can look past who has the best media presence and can deliver the best speeches and evaluate who is best suited to lead the country. While I am not planning to cast my vote for Huckabee, I think he said something important in last night's debate. He talked about the need to re-capture the American spirit and the "can-do" attitude when looking to the future, whether we are Republicans or Democrats (or something else), He talked about bringing us together to believe in ourselves as a nation. It is the candidate that can actually deliver that kind of leadership -- as well as the candidate who posesses the most experience and resolve to actually get things done -- that will be the candidate to get my vote! In the meantime, like Trina, I am trying to keep an open mind. I'll let you know after SUPER Tuesday!

Amy from Dewey, Arizona
January 31, 2008 at 07:32 PM
It's nice to see such a fresh take on the political wasteland that has become the current race to the whitehouse. With the Arizona election next week, I have been researching, and soul-searching "the right candidate for the job", if there is such a perfect specimen anymore. As a Mom, my "platform" is setting a good example, and leading by the same. we need a President who is ready to make change, and I am not talking about what will be left of a budget when he gets through. Actions speak louder than words, thus my vote will be going to Mitt Romney. He is a leader who ldoes so by example,a proven record to stand by it. His values are something this country needs to come full circle on. He has respect, honor and commitment...things that can still be acquired without a millitary career.

Paul from San Diego
January 31, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Thanks Trina. I too believe that Mitt Romney is the only true candidate in this presidential election. John McCain is a Democrat is disguise. He preaches standard republican values but he acts in a totally different manor. The interesting part about it is the fact that none of the media are calling him on his faults or deceptive traits. Why do you think that is? I believe that the liberal media would love to have the Republican party make a big mistake and nominate an egotistical hot headed "politician" as our candidate ranther than a thorough, intelligent individual who has proven to be successful in every aspect of his life and in anything he has been involved with. I was listening to a talk show on the radio and the narrator said, "I pick a candidate on the opinions of others who have had past experiences working with a candidate" Mitt Romney has received massive amounts of praise from co-workers, partners, running mates and pretty much anybody he has come into contact with. To me that shows true character and the signs of a leader that can lead this country at a pivital moment. He is the only candidate that will be able to defeat the Democrats and take this country to where it needs to be.

Tom from Alpharetta, GA
January 31, 2008 at 07:38 PM
Mitt is the only conservative left, I mean right, McCain is left. Right on Mitt - I'm starting the printing press for bumper sticers that read Romney-Bauer.

Gary Oddou
January 31, 2008 at 07:55 PM
In addition to their particular stands and how they match my particular views, I have a huge preference for the candidate that is less likely to be too beholding to the interest groups that fund the campaign and subsequently have tremendous influence on policies. None of our politicians can avoid some of that; it's an unfortunate by-product of our dysfunctional political system and campaign "requirements." McCain seems to be someone who is independent and definitely speaks his mind, sometimes without adequate diplomacy. Romney also, in part because of his personal wealth and ability to fund much of his campaign himself, seems to be someone who can think independently. I do like the fact that his understanding of organizations and his personal integrity were both integral to turning the Olympics from a total fiasco to a respectable event. He has been successful as a businessman and as a governor. I don't think McCain can point to the same accomplishments even though I like his forthrightness. Obama lacks experience in general and Hilary is far too calculating and intertwined with the established way of doing politics, etc. It's a toss-up at this point between McCain and Romney for me.

Steve from Carlsbad
January 31, 2008 at 07:57 PM
I have a bit different perspective on politics. Frankly, I don't really care whether someone is Democrat or Republican. It seems to me that in the end it amounts to the same thing: When you take money from people, you OWE them. It's not possible to take tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars from huge campaign contributors to purchase air-time and advertisements and then ignore them after you get elected. As a consequence, nothing ever changes in Washington. We talk about campaign finance reform and it never happens. We talk about tax reform and it never happens. We talk about reforming health care and it never happens. We talk about he skyrocketing prices of drugs in America and nothing is ever done. We talk about becoming independent of oil and nothing ever happens. We talk about doing something about global warming and nothing is ever done. I could go on and on, and I'm sure many feel the same. I have really only one question when it comes to a presidential candidate: Is he part of the problem or part of the solution? I believe Mitt Romney will be part of the solution. Every other candidate, from McCain to Clinton will be part of the problem. I frankly don't think that Mitt will be able to change much given the state of the Congress but at least it's a start. Perhaps people will get fed up with the same old stuff and vote for real change eventually. But I'm not holding my breath.

Dave from Oceanside
January 31, 2008 at 08:21 PM
I love to hear talk of balanced budgets.. and no free lunch... it'll be such a change from the last 8 years.. of out of control spending.. and then giving money back to the people to get the popularity up.. a chicken in every pot!! California and the country need to get back on track.. we're closing our parks because of bi-partisan bickering.. (http://pangeanative.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/arnold-responds-about-state-park-closures/) ..Our economy is going in the tank from lack of confidence in the Federal Government ... please.. step out of the Red vs Blue box.. AND take off the blinders.. if you feel yourself picking one of the candidates because it's the default choice of your party.. stop.. step back .. take the pictures and names away from what the people are saying.. then make a choice... If the politicians see that being genuine works.. they will work hard at being genuine... let's do our part and give them an honest vote.

Louise from Las Vegas, NV
January 31, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Thanks Trina for the truth in jest opening statement. I vote Jack too for VP- he gets things done. As for Romney-I think he's one of the few with true internal integrity and external business sense. I don't agree with your accusation about him flip flopping- he never supported abortion but chose to not change the existing position of the state of Mass. He spent his efforts elsewhere. As for Guiliani- not even the NY Times gave him support in last week's publication. They called him a dishonest, crude and selfish man- pretty harsh coming from his own city. Romney shows a stark contrast for good. Here's a big applause for all those Republicans who at least acknowledge that the GOP way of working for what you get instead of being given it all by the govt. on the dole- is the true American Spirit. We don't need another democrat as Pres. who believes in higher taxes and govt. invovlement in every aspect of your lives. If Bauer were VP we know what would happen to Iraq...

Brenda from New England
January 31, 2008 at 10:06 PM
I will enjoy casting a vote for Romney on Tuesday. It will be a privilege to finally vote FOR someone, rather than against others. That being said, if he does not make it to the general election, I will not vote for McCain. If this country is going to go down under a Democrat, then it will go down under someone registered as a Democrat. McCain is just as much a Democrat as Hillary and Obama, he just happens to have an R next to his name. To the people who say it doesn't matter whether someone is a Democrat or Republican - it does matter. There are reasons why there are seperate parties. Each party has a philosophy of how the country should be run. They have platforms that they follow. One believes in limited government, one believes in big government. No matter how nice they are, or how much you like them, they are going to cast thier votes along thier party lines. So you decide on the ideas that you think will move America forward the best, and vote for candidates who by being members of that party have aligned themselves to those ideas. That is why a lot of conservatives dont like McCain. He is a traitor. What the Jello republicans dont realize is that without us conservatives, they are not going to win anything. If the conservative base leaves the Republican party due to them turning away from thier conservative platform, the Republicans will be no more. The liberal Republicans will always vote for the real liberals - the Democrats, and that will leave just the middles. Alone and without shape, they will slide off the political plate. If they vote McCain the nomination, the Democrats will win the White House. The conservatives, will be left to create a new home for themselves. Enjoyed your column, Brenda

Steve from Carlsbad
January 31, 2008 at 10:06 PM
If every car in America were electric we wouldn't be in Iraq.

Marguss from AZ
January 31, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Trina, Thank you for the comments. I am leaning toward Romney myself. I appreciate his knowledge of economics, example of integrity, and what he had done with his American opportunities. Being an Arizona resident, I was originally looking at McCain as my candidate of choice. However, now that I am seeing his lack of ability to control emotion and run a positive campaign, I am doubting his ability to control crisis and represent our nation in a positive way. Mostly, it comes down to integrity, honesty, and ability to bring about change. For these reasons, Mitt has my vote.

Trina from Carlsbad
January 31, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Wow! I walked away from my computer for a little while and all of sudden there were 23 comments from lots of wonderful people! That's terrific! Thanks for supporting "Citizen Voices"! I'm so pleased that there intelligent voters out there like you who are taking their voting power seriously.

Trina from Carlsbad
January 31, 2008 at 10:59 PM
For all of you who are pretty spontaneous....my editor here at KPBS just told me that Mitt Romney is coming to town TODAY at 4:30 at the SD County Admin Building on 1600 Pacific Highway. I can't go, but if any of you out there do attend it I'd love to hear all about it. Also coming to "America's Finest City" is Hillary Clinton! She's speaking at the Cox Arena TOMORROW (Feb 1) at 1:30. It's free and open to the public. Attendees are encouraged to arrive several hours early. Doors will open at 12:30. For those who are unable to attend, I hear the event will be broadcast live via SDSU TV network. Lots of opportunities to get informed!

Betty Mullennix from Atlanta, Ga.
January 31, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I have been thinking for a long time that either Romney or Hucklebee would be the best Rebublican Candidate for President because I am rather conservative and at this point I believe that McCain is too liberal for me. However the main issue that I like about Huckabee is that he supports the fair tax but that just doesn't seem to be enough. I do like Romney's ideas on the economy best and his tract record as governor is good also. He also seems to think subjects through and keeps a level head about the answers he gives. Also, I do believe that he believes , practices , and is a loyal Christian and that means a lot to me.

Susan M from Southern California
January 31, 2008 at 11:43 PM
I enjoyed your comments Trina! I attended a Mitt Romney rally today and as we were driving home my friend made the comment that sometimes we're so quiet in America about what we think about issues, and who we're going to vote for, etc. I think maybe more so when we're 'conservative'. I grew up in a large, loving family of Democrats. My parents weren't quite sure what had happened when all 7 of their children married into Republican families. They have always voted their conscience. That is what we've tried to do and that's what I admire about people on both sides of the political debate. I see people feeling as passionate as I do with a completely opposite viewpoint and I often enjoy learning from them. Thanks Trina for bringing your fresh perspective to this blogging world. Susan

Bonnie from Carlsbad
January 31, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Mitt has had my vote from the beginning...he knows how to successfully lead a family. He knows how to successfully lead a business. He knows how to successfully lead a state. Character speaks volumes. He's the right man for the job. He's not another power-seeking politician. He's a man not beholden to special interests. He makes decisions based on tried and proven sound principles...and humble enough to know others have great ideas as well. To spend 5 minutes with him is to be convinced that there are still good people out there trying to make a difference. I was impressed after the southern California wildfires to read a story about Mitt and his son taking time off the campaign trail to grab a shovel and help clear out dead tree stumps. He knows how to lead...he leads by example. He's my pick for this nation that I love!!

Tera from Utah
February 01, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Trina, It looks like your blog is getting more popular by the minute. You've got lots of comments already. I'm glad to hear you have forgiven Romney for being what democrats call a "flip flopper". Did you know that Hillary use to be a republican? (Talk about flipping & flopping ^-^). I agree with the comment by Tom that Mitt is the only true conservative running for office. McCain is a RINO (republican in name only). I wonder how the results of this election will influence the last days in preparation for the Second Coming? Do you think we can turn this BLOG into a discussion on emergency preparation? Congrats on a BLOG well done! Tera

Larry from Layton, Utah
February 01, 2008 at 01:50 AM
I am voting for Gladys Knight. She is the perfect candidate. She is black, a woman and a Mormon. The best of all worlds.

Crystal
February 01, 2008 at 02:04 AM
I know a lot of people that are fans of Ron Paul but say the same thing you said in your blog- would it be a wasted vote? I bet if EVERYONE who thought that voted for him he'd have a pretty good shot. Just my two cents.

sharon holt from Carlsbad
February 01, 2008 at 04:47 AM
Tini, Mitt Rommey has values that I share. He is my choice for the Republican nomination , however; I have 3 things to say to you- HILARY, HILARY, HILARY Thanks for your blog , you remind me of Hilary, savy, tough , informed and you love your country but on the downside you are a republican. Thanks for a sassy ,fun blog, Sharon

Gary Chamberlain from SLC Utah
February 01, 2008 at 04:58 AM
I love your comments. I think Romney is the only republican to vote for since he is a businessman and the business of the country has gone into a recession while both democrats running for office want to raise taxes and steal even more from the wealthy who actually hire people to work for them but if you destroy business through even more taxes this recession will become a deeper depression than in the 20s and 30s. Since it appears only McCaine or Romney will become contenders and McCaine is obviously an illegal alien supporting anti tax cut liberal only Romney makes sense for America at this time.

Chandler from Las Vegas
February 01, 2008 at 08:42 AM
I think it is interesting that the media plays the role it does with our elections of public officials. You have editors that have their own personal slants and idealogy that dictates how and what reporters write, who also have their own slants and idealogy on not only the candidates but the issues as well. Isn't the role of the media to report the facts of the stories and not to give personal opinions that seem to suit their needs? Ok off that bandwagon. I haven't made my decision yet as to who is getting my vote, because as is to be expected, I am waiting for the skeltons to come out of the closets and the scandels to come to the surface that will show some true character among the candidates left over after the bottom half drops out of the race. But the facts are simply in my mind. Lifetime politicians have done very little to help this country get any stronger or safer. Why is that? Because of the constant political bickering between the two main parties keeps them from seeing the real target and that is making this the healthiest, economically strongest, and safest country in the world. NEWS FLASH.. Running this country should be done like running a business. And with that you need strong leadership at the head of that business, NOT lifetime politicians! I would like to see more time and money being spent on domestic issues, while keeping international issues at a reasonable minimal. I understand the importance of strong trading partners and military allies. But if we can not feed, house and keep our own healthy, what the heck good is all of the exterior stuff worth? I look at the Social Security system and wonder how the heck is it going to be able to help me (which I am 45) when I would possibly need it? They say to plan for my own retirement by setting up a retirement account with mutual funds and other investments, yet those same options are so unstable right now, how can I feel confident in putting my future in those hands? I could go on for hours, but I won't. I will check back from time to time to see what everyone has to say. But for now, can I use a write-in vote of Jessie "The Body" Ventura and Jack Bauer for my vote!

Larry from Las Vegas
February 01, 2008 at 03:31 PM
The real question that needs to be answered by all voters is who can MANAGE a country. We hear alot about change but when was the last time you could FORCE change on anybody or anything. Obama Thinks he is going to waltz to the White House and wave a magic wand and we will all suddenly follow his way of thinking. The greatest of leaders(managers) know that you evaluate where things are, look indepth for strengths and weakness and find ways to motovate others to find solutions to the problems and capatilize(opps I mean build) on the strengths. That is called business. The prinicples are the same in EVERY entity. It can be a community, state or federal government. That is why my vote goes to ROMNEY. His whole life and success have been looking at business, family and personal situations and finding ways to motovate positive success with what is there. When it comes right down to it, he will roll up his sleves, stop the rhetoric and get to work.

Ryan from Ramstein Air Base, Germany
February 01, 2008 at 03:48 PM
I agree that of all the candidates out there the only one who currently has the greatest appeal is Romney. McCain as so many have said is a true RINO. I am still undecided about Romney. I would like to sit down with him and talk about the issues because he has changed his tune since his time as Governor. I would like to know if his conversion to a conservative is one of convenience or a true conversion. Perhaps others out there have a better take on this than I do.

Angel from Denton, Texas
February 01, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Hi Trina: I will be voting against John McCain. I love Mitt Romney, but I really stand firmly against John McCain. He took an oath to protect our Constitution. He has deliberately and repeatedly failed to keep his oath. McCain has succeeded in putting a chokehold on the First Amendment with his McCain-Feingold legislation. He has opposed the will of the people by advancing the McCain-Kennedy legislation. One of the most important jobs that the president has is to protect the country from invasion. McCain is assisting the invaders. (I am "Hispanic", but I am an American first. The rule of law is important to me.) And his McCain-Lieberman bill is intended to tax us in a way that we cannot really afford. There are other ways to accomplish the goal without burdening the people this way. On the other hand, Mitt Romney is a stand-up guy. And as far as flip-flopping, I can respect a man who can admit he is wrong and change his ways. McCain has grabbed on to some bad positions, and has hung on to them for dear life. I cannot respect that. Even now, he says that he would sign McCain-Kennedy if it came across his desk during his presidency. The people have spoken, and they say "NO". Yet he says yes. To McCain, we should "Just say no".

Eve
February 01, 2008 at 08:52 PM
Trina, Thanks for your provocative comments. For me it's about integrity and leadership qualities. Mitt has not a skeleton to be seen in his closet, and his integrity seems to be impeccable. While we know that no candidate can be perfect, and we would like him to be more decisive on some issues, he has shown his ability to contend for what he believes in without behaving inappropriately, as we observed McCain doing during recent debates. Mitt Romney appears presidential, confident and dignified, which will, in my opinion, make him a better leader. That combined with his history in leadership as a business executive, his political leadership and his platform makes him the man who will receive my vote.

Joe Wang from CARLSBAD
February 04, 2008 at 01:16 AM
It is over. McCain will get the nod. Huckabee doesn't care if he wins, he just wants to make sure Romney loses, so he splits the conservative vote and the MODERATE wing (oh, yes, did you forget about us moderate Republicans?) of the Republican party will have the candidate that can beat Mr. Obama. Did I say Obama? Indeed. Because if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination, not only will McCain lose, we all will. Just Vote. Joe Wang

Gary Chamberlain from SLC Utah
February 04, 2008 at 01:29 AM
Oh by the way did you know it is illegal for John McCaine to run for president? He was born in Panama and the constitution says must be born in the USA. So if we allow him to become the nominee you can bet the democrats will take it to court and they will of course win. He cannot legally be president.

LVnative
February 04, 2008 at 06:31 PM
Trina: Heard you on KPBS this Monday morning. While I appreciate your comments. you said "Democrat" several times while referring to Democratic candidates and leaders. The latter is the correct title. Quite frankly, when you do that, you sound like the typical right-wing knee-jerk partisan. And I'd like to think you're smarter than that.

Trina from Carlsbad
February 04, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Well, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on my intelligence. Truth is, I only know enough about politics to get myself in trouble and I'm the first one to admit I'm a complete idiot! I don't even know what words came out of mouth this morning...I was so nervous! It was so scary to go live on the radio and think that there would be people out there actually listening to my nonsense. Sorry for the slip of the tongue that offended you. Yes, Democratic is correct. You were supposed to be able to read my mind and know what I meant. There was another moment when what I said didn't match my thoughts...well, ok...there were several of those moments. I mentioned that Mitt Romney was the only candidate who had experiencing governing a state and a caller reminded me of Huckabee. Right before I was a guest on Tom Fudge's show I had been listening to another show on KOGO in San Diego where the discussion of candidates was condensed into a list of 4 viable options: Romney and McCain vs. Obama and Clinton. That's where my head was when I threw out that comment about Romney. I wasn't even thinking about Huckabee. (Sorry about that all of you Huckabee fans out there!) I was just about ready to give Tom Fudge a gift when he cut our visit on air short. The time went by too quickly and there were 5 callers on hold who were also disappointed that our segment was over. What was the gift, you ask? When we were off the air I handed Tom a stress ball in the shape of the US Capitol. I told him when politics makes him want to scream he can just squeeze that Capitol. Thanks for listening to the show and visiting our blog!

Steve from Carlsbad
February 04, 2008 at 08:23 PM
Just a thought everyone... We're discussing the wrong topic. Everyone here go to MAPlight.org and click on and watch the 'Video Tour' on the main page. Tell me what you think. I think that until we fix the campaign financing system nothing else we do will matter one whit, including electing someone president. Remember the first three words in the Constitution? We the People have lost control of our government.

Jenn from Solana Beach
February 04, 2008 at 08:43 PM
Well I missed most of the These Days show, but I have been on the radio, and I get the nervous thing! Good for you for putting your views out there on the airwaves and in the blogosphere-- even though I don't agree with you! and I'm sure many KPBS blog reader and radio listeners don't agree either, so honestly, I applaud your efforts. Romney would definitely be tolerable as a president, however. At least I wouldn't be embarrassed by him! Congratulations on the Citizens Voices gig!

Michael E. Russell from Pacific Beach
February 04, 2008 at 09:14 PM
Are all Republicans hypocrites? Hypocrepublicans. This question comes to mind reading the responses to this 'blog'. It seems that those who support the 'conservative' 'Republican' platform all practice some form of cognitive dissonance*. The author claims to support Mitt Romney based upon his "Leadership" and "Business Success" during the 2002 Olympics? They seem to forget that the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics were plagued by scandal after scandal for the cheating and bribes that were doled out to various political and business forces. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Winter_Olympic_bid_scandal ) A number of I.O.C. members are forced to resign after it is uncovered that they have accepted inappropriately valuable "gifts" in return for voting for Salt Lake City to hold the Games. Perhaps to a 'conservative republican' that seems like a very successful business practice, just like Dick Cheney's no-bid war profiteering contracts to Hallibutron. In 2002, Dual gold medals were awarded in pairs figure skating, to Canadian pair David Pelletier and Jamie Salé and to Russian pair Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze after allegations of collusion among judges. Perhaps to 'conservative republicans' the idea of collusion among judges is just the kind of thing they want, witness how the current Republican administration has chosen to appoint Supreme Court Justices based upon their religious conviction rather than the quality of their work. Three cross-country skiers are disqualified after blood tests indicate the use of darbepoetin. Perhaps to 'conservative republicans' the thought of competing upon a fair playing field so terrifies them because it threatens their mistaken elitism. Thus they accept that cheating is a fact of life in a world they claim is dominated by 'the bias of the minority'. It's not that I hate corporations, the legal concept of a corporation is just designed to avoid personal responsibility (irony) by limiting liability. And I don't hate christians, I think their mythology is funny, and their arrogant claims to the truth are incessantly annoying, but most of their philosophy can be justified (except that first commandment, why such a jealous god?). What disgusts me are liars, and by that I mean people who say one thing and do another, that is hypocrites. Like people who say 'love thy neighbor' but don't want basic healthcare for kids. Or people who say people should take 'personal responsibility' for their actions, yet hide their accountability behind the legalized corporate system when they make greedy mistakes that destroy our environment and people's lives. How about those that claim it is fine for big drug companies to make billions selling necessary drugs at inflated prices while people suffer, yet continue to fund jails and loosing wars to fight off illicit drug trade, all while high on prescription narcotics. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with any use of mind altering substances, I do not smoke, or drink alcohol, but I just don't like hypocrites. It seems like healthcare is a profit center for these types, instead of a necessity for a quality life. It seems I'm describing Rush Limbaugh, doesn't it... Perhaps we can come to some compromise, instead of calling these self-contradictions 'conservative republicans' the code word for the oxymoron -'corporate christians' - we will just refer to people who say one thing while doing the opposite as Hypocrepublicans. Hypocrepubs like Rush are universally disgusting, as representatives of the kind of lust, greed, gluttony, pride, envy, wrath, and sloth, that many corporate leaders display behind the blind of 'business success'. While worker's labor is devalued, and the minds of our youth are neglected, our elected Hypocrepubs spend their time in airport bathrooms, or sending cell phone messages to young congressional pages, or doing meth with homosexual prostitutes, or covering up the raping little boys (oops, that last was just a Catholic thing). But what about the average republican on the street. Why do they vote against their own best interest? I think most are dependent upon the this broken system of illegal and unethical business. Most businesses fail to do what is right, and most successful businesses seem to harm others in some way. In their quest to maximize profit, or avoid responsibility, the corporate actors corrupt everyone they touch. They pay employees more than they are worth to gain loyalty. They hire private security thugs, and use government as a way to steal, bribing public officials (legally or illegally), and abusing natural resources without accountability. The result is that a large block of any population depends upon the corporations for their livelihood. That's what a common republican is, a dependent. Then there are the religious fundamentalists, these disgust me. They are the psychologically lazy and weak, those who lack the rational ability to think critically, and would rather trade their independence to some religious ideologue than do the work and make the tough decisions for themselves. There leaders are universally corrupt, con-men selling salvation for just 10% tithe, and your eternal soul. The fact that 90% of any given generation fall for the con of fundamentalism says something dark about human nature. The western ideals of a free minds, independence, self-reliance, democracy, and justice, are all undermined by organized religion. Evangelicals especially destroy the freedoms that evolved from western history. The United States fought a war of Independence to free ourselves from the Divine Right of Kings, yet these dupes are not only willing to sacrifice their own freedom, but work to gather in new converts, usually attacking them in their time of weakness, or worse as children, before they reach the age of reason. Those who prey on children should be held in the lowest circle of hell. Yet Hypocrepublicans are universally against pubic school education, they wish to abolish critical thinking, even imposing their religious rejection of the science of evolution upon the young. Their greatest fear is an informed and educated population. They prefer the brainwashing of 'home-schooling' or private religious schools. Scary as that is to any sane individual, there is a worse hypocrisy. The mercenary nature of corporate greed follows a rational course, whatever maximizes profit is best, but WHY do these Machiavellians need money? Why do you need a mass of uneducated, dependent slaves? What form of mind thinks a world slaves run by a ruling class is legitimate? Elitists. Americans are not elitists. Thus Hypocrepubs are not Americans, they do not hold to our law, our founding documents, they believe their truth is better than the scientific facts. Their goal is to control this country, and change the world. To what end, you might ask? There is the terror, the irrational Christian evangelicals in America believe that this is the 'end time'. Thus they are working toward the goal of ultimate world peace, in a battle fought on the plain of Armageddon. "We hold these truths to be self evident; That all men are create equal..." (* I put the labels in quotes because we all know that 'conservative' is code for 'Christian' and 'Republican' is code for 'corporate', and 'minority' is code for 'non-white', but a real fiscal conservative doesn't exist in the Republican Party if you look at the budgets, and no truly Republican ideology has existed on the conservative side since the time of Lincoln, that's when the slaves were set free.)

Michael E. Russell from Pacific Beach
February 04, 2008 at 09:22 PM
I guess Hyporepubs fail to acknowledge that Romney is a puppet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Winter_Olympic_bid_scandal 'Business Success' only means that you didn't get caught.

LVnative
February 04, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Hi again, Trina: Appreciate your explanation of that. Again, we should all (no, I'm not referring to you, specifically) refer from name-calling and really be able to discuss the issues. At times, that is hard (given the hyper-partisan mood this country has had live through for nearly 15 years), but I think it's good that you are willing to take part in this forum.

Joe Wang
February 04, 2008 at 10:43 PM
RE: The irony of Michael Russell quoting Thomas Jefferson, the co-founder and leader of the Democratic-Republican Party (the precursor of the modern-day Democratic Party) in defining "Cognitive Dissonance" is spectacular. Well Done. Yes, indeed, Mr. Jefferson penned the famous opening of the Declaration of Independence ( "We hold these truths to be self evident; That all men are created equal...� ), yet Jefferson owned many slaves over his lifetime. In fact, he owned slaves and at the same time was outspoken in declaring slavery to be immoral and that it should be abolished. And why was he a hypocrit? Why the Cognitive Dissonance? Money, of course. Jefferson had significant debts and had pledged the slaves as collateral. He once wrote, "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other." Thus, the foundations of Cognitive Dissonance reside, I suppose, with the Democratic Party, which, at least to me, is not surprising. -Joe

Gary Chamberlain from SLC Utah
February 05, 2008 at 05:00 AM
Somebody just sounded like they hate all things republican. He thought all the corruption at the olympics was Mitt's fault. All the judges who are from all countries and the russian judges who were proven to score their own people higher etc. Once again since it is illegal for McCaine to run for president "see constituition where it says to run for president one has to be 35 lived in the USA for the last 14 years and be born here. He was born in Panama.

Dave from Oceanside
February 05, 2008 at 05:52 AM
Sorry Gary .. the guy talking about the olympics wasn't just talking about judges... he was talking about bribes to GET the olympics to Salt Lake.. stuff behind the scenes.. not the skating.. stuff that, if Mitt wants to take credit for, are part of his legacy.. you can't just take the good stuff unless you're a politician.. oops.. Mitt's a polititician.. so much for change.. And to the Rush/Fox types.. here are some facts about eligibility for president... Natural-born citizen Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" Anyone born inside the United States Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example. So.. enough already about Panama... Here's a quick test.. Which is right.. A lot of rich, powerful people spend lots of time and money to support a run for president even though their guy isn't eligible... Or.. some nut job heard something form another nut job on a nut job radio show that said something so idiotic that it must be true.. Say.. this is kinda fun NOT being one of the Citizen Voices.. Ahh.. unfiltered expression!

Ryan from Ramstein Air Base, Germany
February 06, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Michael Russell, let me answer some of the statements that you make. Point 1 on Mitt Romney. If you remember, Mitt Romney came in after the scandal to fix things and was able to make the 2002 Olympics a success when many feared it was going to fail because of the scandal. So the remainder of your tirade on the Olympics is moot. Point 2. The Supreme Court Justices were/are well qualified. Certainly, they were chosen based on a belief in and following of the Constitution and not in legislating from the bench as Democrats like to do. Point 3. Taking that cross-country skiing incident and tying it to Republican values is about as inane as it gets. Please use a valid rationale when making a point don’t try to turn something that is not even related into an issue about Republicans. Republicans had nothing to do with what skiers put into their bodies. And Mitt Romney certainly had nothing to do with it. Point 4. We’ll skip the statement that shows your ignorance of religious truth because it says nothing about Christians only about your biased, albeit false, notion about whether or not there is a true and living God. Which of course there is. Point 5. Hypocrites is an interesting topic. Unfortunately we see hypocrites in all sectors of our society, white, black Hispanic, etc., Christian, Jew, Moslem, atheist, agnostic, etc., rich, poor. There is no shortage of hypocrites in all walks of life. However, there are many very good Christians who truly strive to do good for and by other people. Point 6. Health Care and loving our neighbors. If we truly loved our neighbors we remove all the politicians and make sure we get some strict constitutionalists in the government. Then we would quickly whittle down the size of government giving back to people the money that belongs to them. Once that happens then everyone will have enough to pay for their own insurance because the government won’t be taking it all. Point 7. Certainly, we believe that people should have responsibility for taking care of themselves. We are not a socialist nation and we should never become one. However, that is exactly the goal of the Clintons, Barak Obama and most of the rest of the Democratic crowd. Point 8. Yes, sometimes big drug companies charge more than they should in order to make back what it cost in research and development as well as to have additional money to do additional R&D;. But, you as a Democrat should be happy that it’s rich Americans who are paying the price and that poor people in other nations don’t have to. That’s the Democrat way isn’t it, take from the rich and give to the poor? Spread the wealth? Point 9 Rush Limbaugh. It’s fine to criticize someone but, until you have walked in his shoes, it is truly unfair. Certainly, he got in trouble because of some prescription medicines that had been prescribed for him by a doctor. He got addicted to the prescription medicines and an addiction, no matter how much you may want to quit, isn’t always easy to give up. It first takes realizing that you have a problems. Then you have to be willing to do something about it. Sometimes it takes others intervening because an addict doesn’t always realize the severity of his problem. So, please, be a little more compassionate yourself for someone who went through a difficult time. Point 9 Ok, tell me how workers labor is devalued. AS for the minds of our youth being neglected you can blame that on the Department of Education, one of those unconstitutional agencies that meddles in the educating of our youth. Also, you can blame it on those who, as Rush Limbaugh put it, instituted the dumbing down of America. Mainstreaming was one of those liberal ideas that sounds good to a few but hurts the majority. Even now teachers have to teach to the lower middle portion of their classes because of it. Point 10. As for some of the deviant behaviors lets talk Bill Clinton. Point 11. As for scientific fact. Show me the facts and if they bear out, I’ll believe them. The problem with too many facts is they are simply theories. You do know what a theory is, it is when a person looks at something and says I think this is what it means. The Theory of Evolution is one of them. There is no concrete evidence that we descended from apes. There are hypotheses. So, why not a hypothesis that God created us. It is just as valid. If we evolved from apes, why isn’t that still happening? Finally, your creating this little code while amusing is certainly inaccurate. For a truly Conservative Republican it would mean being a strict constitutionalist. That being said it would mean they believe in fiscal responsibility, small federal government, etc. Just because the elite from both parties have taken it on themselves to try and do all things for all people rather than let people do for themselves, only speaks for the person and not the party. Both parties have done things that are embarrassing and unconstitutional and members of both parties should throw nearly everyone out of congress. Perhaps Ron Paul could be kept since he appears to be the only strict constitutionalist available. I didn’t address every item that you proclaim as evil but most of them. However, you may recall that it was religious persons seeking freedom to worship God the way they pleased that brought many to America. It was religious men who drafted the Constitution and the only way such a document could have been prepared is under divine direction. You may castigate Christians all you like but, there would be no America with all the freedoms you now enjoy without them.

Steve from Carlsbad
February 06, 2008 at 05:05 PM
I have a better question. Which is right: A bunch of billion-dollar corporations contributing through various 'legal' means, millions of dollars to the campaigns of 'public' officials so they can subsequently influence them to make decisions not in the public's good or Giving us all the option of contributing $5 each year to a national campaign fund which is then equally divided between those running for public office and making any other such contributions illegal?