Is There a Deadline for Entering the Presidential Race?

Recently people have been agitating about Sarah Palin. "Why won't she declare that she is running?", they ask. "Why doesn't she bow out and endorse someone in the race?", they demand. I sense what "they" mean is why doesn't she get out of the way of my preferred candidate. To all of the various plaintive cries for her to decide immediately, I say what's the rush? Why are all these people rushing in to a race that is so far off? Other than Gov. Rick Perry who just declared last Saturday, all of the GOP candidates jumped into the fray way too early. At this point in 1951, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was still serving as Supreme NATO Commander in Europe. When did we start making a presidential campaign a two year process? If my memory serves me, it is a recent phenomenon of starting active campaigning prior to January of the election year. Why are candidates deciding to enter the fray earlier? In the 2008 campaign Fred Thompson was criticized for supposedly starting late. The complaints about Thompson's entry into the race centered on the notion that money had already been committed to other candidates. I could be wrong, but the money issue may not be as critical to a potential Palin campaign. A lot of campaign funds go towards staff and administrative concern (travel, etc), but by far the largest expenditure is on advertising to get the candidate's name out to potential voters. With her strong base of support and very active presence in social media Palin may be able to overcome some of those concerns. If Palin chooses to enter the race for the GOP nomination I have no doubt that even if she makes her announcement in October she will quickly raise enough money to wage an effective primary campaign.

Bottom line: people need to just relax. Sure, we all want Obama out of office. However, starting the primary season earlier doesn't bring the election or the next inauguration any sooner. Clearing the field for a nominee immediately just allows the extreme left wing media more time to undermine our nominee. Look how Perry has been treated since his announcement. Media attacks the one in best shape to beat Obama. Notice the media is not attacking Romney as he is their preferred candidate against Obama.

Regardless of who ends up our nominee, we need to ensure we have properly and fully vetted the candidate well ahead of the general election. Dem's and their complicit allies in the media will be doing opposition research and we don't need any October surprises (Bush DUI for example). Right now Palin is the only GOP candidate who has been vetted. Thoroughly check out the rest. They are applying for an important job so we need to give them a serious review.

A Vigorous Examination of Candidates During a Primary is a Good Thing

Recently, I've heard a lot of comments on Twitter and at various blogs that run along the lines of condemning any criticism of someone else's preferred candidate as a sin of Republicans eating their own. There is some element of validity to that sentiment. It would be nonsensical for me to call anyone not 100% in agreement with me on the issues a RINO. I also think there are lines that shouldn't be crossed and things that shouldn't be said in an attempt to run down someone in your own party to bolster your preferred candidate. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with an open, honest fight for the nomination. You are not trashing Gov. Rick Perry by bringing up his stance on immigration as shown by the Texas version of the DREAM Act. You are not unfairly trashing Mitt Romney by bringing up the similarity of his health care plan to Obama-care. A candidates voting record is fair game. If that makes things difficult for people with long legislative careers, so be it.

There are some things that should not be regular parts of your case against a candidate. A candidate's religion or ethnicity should be off limits. I'd also say lay off Huntsman's service as Ambassador to China in Obama's administration. If the president asks you to serve our country and you can do so without compromising your values you should answer that call. A candidate's weight or appearance shouldn't be a disqualification and obsessing on it reflects poorly on those who do. For the most part the candidate's family shouldn't be fair game.

The better informed the electorate is about the candidates hopefully the better outcome we will get from elections. Let the people decide at the ballot box how relevant things are to fulfilling the duties of the office. Some may believe Perry's college grades are a big deal. Personally, if I'm hiring a 60 year old man for a job I'm looking at his accomplishments not his college grades from decades ago. Every knock on a candidate should be weighed in that manner. Each voter has to decide for themselves what matters most to them and vote accordingly. After the primary season is over the differences must be forgotten.

Please use the comment box to elaborate on this subject. What is appropriate or inappropriate in your opinion?

Who Exactly are the Terrorists here?

After the attacks of 9/11 some apologists of Islamic extremists fought against certain people being labeled terrorists. Some repeated the cliche "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" which was coined decades prior during the conflict between British forces and the Irish Republican Army. Since then some on the left have used that phrase to excuse supporting murderous thugs like Che Guevara. The general gist of the phrase is meant to imply that if the people we are calling terrorists were on our side we wouldn't be denouncing their actions, but would rather celebrate their successes. Obviously, intelligent people can see through that flawed logic and dismiss it as nonsense. What brings the question up now? Well, today Vice President Joe Biden said the following: "They have acted like terrorists" in reference to Tea Party congressmen. So, let me get this straight, we have to be very careful about using labels like terrorist and must not rush to judgment in regards to crazy Muslims who kill people, but it is perfectly fine to equate citizens concerned with our national debt exceeding 14 TRILLION dollars with terrorists. No, Mr. Biden, it is slimy politicians of your ilk who have spent other peoples money to bribe voters with promises of never ending government largesse that are terrorizing our grandchildren with debt they'll never be able to realistically pay down with out creating an economy that will put the great depression to shame. Mr Vice President by once again refusing to deal with our nations debt problem, you and your colleagues in DC have only assured the problem will get much worse. Anyone who has ever paid for anything with credit knows full well that debt is not like wine or cheese it does NOT get better with age. The entrenched political hacks in DC failed again and some like Biden are attacking the only people who wanted to actually address the problem. Pathetic!