Rap Cat

Since you all (I refuse to use the contraction form) don't live in the south, you may not have Checkers. It's a fast food restaurant that currently has an ad campaign based on Rap Cat. I believe Checkers originally came up with the idea (i.e., he is a product of their ad campaign). For some reason, this is one of the funniest and catchiest things I have ever seen. Here he is (click on it):

Giuliani, McCain, and GingrichWhy the first two can't win, and why I hope none do.

As the presidential race heats up almost two years in advance, we find ourselves caught up in poles matching multiple candidates against each other to see who will win. Political analysts have made predictions, and already it seems that we have our candidates, or at least our front runners. Unfortunately, they're wrong.

The major problem with Giuliani and McCain is that they are not conservative (Romney could be included as well, but the Governor of Massachusetts is, ironically, still more conservative than these two and has a chance). Most importantly, the latter is moderately pro-life and the former is outspokenly pro-death (the opposite of pro-life). Giuliani is also pro-gun control, and McCain has a strong record of being "bipartisan," which means, of course, that he votes for liberal policies such as Campaign Finance Reform.

In fact, the only pluses that either candidate has with respect to the Republican Party is that there is a sense that they will be able to do good things with Iraq and will probably support some tax cuts. But pretty much every possible Republican candidate has a similar reputation on Iraq, except for Chuck Hagel, who himself is liberal in other respects. And who doesn't "support tax cuts"? Giuliani is also "tough on crime," which is good for a mayor, but does little for a presidential candidate save but perhaps a perception of being pro-military (which, again, almost all the Republican candidates do, and of which McCain probably has a better reputation).

The issue with these candidates is not the general election, but the Republican primaries. In fact, I think both would do quite well in a general election. As a result, I could see either of them as potential VP candidates for a strong conservative one. Which leads us to the actual conservative.

Gingrich did a good job in Congress, leading the conservative movement with strength and tact. He is respected amongst conservatives, and would certainly do well policy-wise as a President. Conservatives would be happy with his ideas, and he would be able to explain conservative principles clearly from the "bully pulpit." However, I hope he doesn't win the primaries. Despite the fact that I agree with a lot of what he says, he has had 3 wives, including at least one affair.

"But didn't Reagan have 2 wives? You'd vote for him if you could, wouldn't you?"

Yes, on both accounts. But Reagan's wife left him. Biographers have noted it wasn't his desire. Gingrich, on the other hand, by his own shortcomings, has been unfaithful and a willing participant in both divorce and adultery. I certainly believe in forgiveness, and don't think it is right, fair, or reasonable to hold every sin of a public figure against them. The fact that Bush tried drugs (he didn't admit it outright, but it was pretty strongly implied) or was an alcoholic when he was young has no bearing on my vote for him. It was done a long time ago and there was true repentance. His character as a leader, I believe, has been shown in the changes that came about in his life, and more importantly, his faithfulness to his family.

Gingrich has shown a lack of character in regards to his family. Just as the bible speaks of church leaders, if a man cannot lead, govern, and be trusted with the affairs (no pun intended) of his family, he should not lead, govern, and be trusted with the affairs of the country. Again, no one is perfect, and there is room for forgiveness. However, I believe that because of this single issue, Gingrich has gone beyond a point of acceptance.

"But you'd vote for him for Congress?"

Yes. But a Congresshuman ("Congressman" is sexist) is a representative sent to vote on our behalf. They lead, sure, but they are not figureheads. I don't see Jim Ramstad as a figurehead of the western suburbs of Minneapolis. He is my representative in Congress. I care much more about how he votes than I do about his personal life.

The President is different. He is a figurehead for the US, both here and around the world. He should be held to a higher standard in personal character. When Clinton committed adultery, it hurt this nation. Junior high kids were interviewed on Oprah about how they just had oral sex because it "wasn't sex." We want presidents who have good policies. But character is just as, if not more, important, since the role of President involves a great deal of leadership and moral courage. I believe most Americans, especially those who vote in the Republican primaries, have strong feelings about this.

For the same reason (beyond the others already mentioned), both Giuliani and McCain are bad candidates for the office. Both have had affairs and multiple wives, although McCain is probably a more easily forgivable candidate, being as a lot of it resulted from his 5+ years as a POW.

So all in all, no thanks. Of the three, Gingrich has the best chance of winning the primaries. But despite my support of a lot of his policies, I don't want him to be my President. I could see any of them as VP's, and don't think issues of extra-marital activities would hurt the presidential candidate (VP's are sort of glorified Senators... I don't think they need to be held to the same standard). It's so far out, though, that we have no idea who will win. Hopefully, some true conservative will take the lead. Right now, all is speculation.

However, I can say confidently that McCain and Giuliani will not be nominated by the Republican Party, and I hope Gingrich isn't. In the end, I'll probably end up voting for the Republican, because I'm somewhat of a pragmatist, and as my friend Jed says, "politics is about direction, not perfection." Here's hoping he's a true conservative who's got some balls when it comes to moral courage.

For more on Gingrich, here is the recent interview he had with James Dobson where he spoke of his shortcomings:
Gingrich Interview

The Story Says It All

Boston woman sues for child-rearing costs after failed abortion

March 7, 2007

BOSTON --A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her child.

The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.

Raper claimed in the three-page medical malpractice suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.

Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it "was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant," according to the complaint.

Raper then went to see Dr. Benjamin Eleonu at Boston Medical Center in July 2004, and he failed to detect the pregnancy even though she was 20 weeks pregnant at the time, the lawsuit alleges.

It was only when Raper went to the New England Medical Center emergency room for treatment of pelvic pain in late September that year that she found out she was pregnant, the suit said.

She gave birth to a daughter on Dec. 7, 2004.

She is seeking damages, including child-rearing costs.

Raper and her lawyer, Barry C. Reed Jr., refused comment when contacted by The Boston Globe.

A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood said the organization does not comment on pending litigation.

Neither doctor responded to requests for comment.

Raper alleges in the suit that Planned Parenthood and Bryant were negligent for failing to end her pregnancy and that Eleonu was negligent for failing to see she was still pregnant.

The state's high court ruled in 1990 that parents can sue physicians for child-rearing expenses, but limited those claims to cases in which children require extraordinary expenses because of medical problems, medical malpractice lawyer Andrew C. Meyer Jr. said.

Raper's suit has no mentions of medical problems involving her now 2-year-old daughter.

As with all medical malpractice suits in Massachusetts, Raper's complaint will have to be screened by a tribunal consisting of a Superior Court judge, a lawyer, and a doctor to determine whether it has merit to go to trial.