Why Not Legalize Drugs? I'll Tell You Why Not.

The topic of legalizing drugs recently came up at a GOP presidential debate. More than a few Americans, politicians among them, have come to the conclusion that the War on Drugs has been lost and that drugs should be, if not legalized, at least decriminalized. The theory most often put forward by advocates of this position is that the the fight against drugs has gained us little in the way of curbing the usage of drugs and nothing to stop the harm done by them. Indeed, some argue that the war on drugs has been a huge waste of time, money, and resources. Furthermore, they argue that it is the illegality of drugs that is the major cause behind drug related crime. This is a very peculiar and dangerous position to take for several reasons.

First, not all drugs are alike. Commonly when the topic of legalizing drugs comes up most people, at least European Americans, think first and foremost of marijuana. This is not remarkable. Marijuana is most often the subject of choice in the legalization argument for several reasons. One, it is a very popular drug used by a large and diverse population in the country. Secondly, it is a relatively harmless drug in the larger scheme of things. In many ways it is less harmful than alcohol. Additionally, marijuana is not addictive or a major source of crime and social disruption. People rarely beat their spouses or kill people in bars in a marijuana induced stupor. People do not prostitute themselves or break into houses to obtain money for a marijuana fix. Legalizing marijuana is unlikely to destroy lives or cause social devastation. Many people use marijuana with no detriment to their personal or professional lives. If all drugs were like marijuana those in favor of legalizing drugs might have a case. But they are not. Not by a long shot.

Others might have pictures in their mind of Hollywood parties where stars snort cocaine or upscale nightclubs where designer drugs are offered to select guests. This too is a dangerous illusion. The reality of dirty and desperate crack heads, shooters, speed freaks, and junkies rarely comes to mind when the discussion of legalizing drugs comes up. The crime associated with drugs on the street is usually only discussed tangentially in the debate and then only in regard to buying and selling, not using. This leads to an deceptive and naive treatment of the subject. Once one gets past the rich, the beautiful, and the comfortable, the reality of drug use quickly becomes sordid.

People in support of legalizing drugs envision that such a policy would benefit society in a number of ways. They claim crime would be reduced, and not just by erasing a category of crime from the books. By decriminalizing drugs we would shift what is now an officially legal problem, into a social problem. In any event one of the major sources of crime in regard to drugs would be unaffected: they would still not be free. People would still need money to buy them. People would still commit crimes to get the money.

Some like to make the point that legalizing or decriminalizing possession of drugs below a certain threshold, usually around what is considered sufficient for personal use, would be useful in clearing up much of the drug related clutter in our courts and jails. But, again, this is a very myopic view of the issue. Would the sale of drugs be decriminalized as well? If not, people would still violate the law by buying and selling them. The purchase and sale of illegal drugs is the major preoccupation of the legal system, not use or possession. People would not have drugs in their possession if they did buy them. They could not buy them unless someone was selling them. You cannot sell drugs unless you have drugs to sell. Cocaine and heroin are not indigenous to the U.S. They are imported. It is the importation and distribution of drugs that underlay most of the drug related violence in our country as gangs and syndicates struggle for control of markets. The consequences of usage while sometimes tragic, are usually seen as more of a social problem than anything else.

Legalizing the possession of pot is one thing. If you want to talk about legalizing marijuana lets talk about legalizing marijuana. If you mean drugs, then let's talk about drugs, real drugs like heroin and cocaine, and let's talk about how people will get their drugs and what will happen after they use them. Unless you are willing to also decriminalize the sale and distribution of drugs the larger problem will remain. People are dying in Mexico right now in a struggle over drug distribution. Legalizing possession of drugs in the United States will do nothing to solve that. It likely would make things worse.

Too often when the subject of legalizing drugs come up it is dealt with in the abstract. It is seen as a matter of numbers: the costs of interdiction; the costs of adjudication; the costs of incarceration, and so on. But the issue of drugs is greater than the sum of its parts. Decriminalizing drugs might reduce legal costs, it might not. Crime might go down, it might not.  It will remove none of the social and personal costs of drug use. If anything, it will make them worse as those who might otherwise be reluctant to venture into the world of drugs have one less reason not to do so.

Columnist George Will wrote a recent editorial in favor of legalizing drugs. He pointed out how the illegality of the drug trade drives up profit. Profit drives business. He notes that if it weren't for our current drug policies, a $5 rock of crack could be sold profitably for 25 cents. Lower prices would mean lower profits. Lower profits would lead to less violence. That is precisely the sort of detached reasoning common among those far removed from the world of drugs. For them drugs are a matter of statistics: a simple matter of cost and effect that, along with everything else, can be handled by the market. If George Will and others really believe that 25 cent cocaine and heroin sold legally will solve the nation's drug problem they are sorely mistaken.

Across the river from the Capitol in Washington, D.C. is the neighborhood of Anacostia. I would be surprised if George Will has ever been there, let alone spent time there. It is the poorest, dirtiest, most crime plagued part of Washington. I would be surprised if anyone on Capitol Hill visits Anacostia. If people  want to seriously talk about the merits of legalizing drugs they should make it a point to visit neighborhoods like Anacostia first and see what drugs have done for those communities. Then they should try and envision what those neighborhoods would look like if drugs were legal. Then they should consider what people would do to get the money they needed to buy their drugs. But they won't. There will not be people selling drugs on George Will's street. There will not be junkies shooting up behind George Will's house. There will not be people panhandling and begging for money to support their habit in George Will's neighborhood. There will not be speed freaks breaking into George Will's house to get money to buy their drugs.

But I forgot. If people could get their drugs for just a few dollars, they wouldn't need to commit crimes or prostitute themselves to get money for their fix. They could simply wash windshields at intersections and beg on street corners for the few dollars they need. Hospitals and cemeteries could pick up the stragglers. The rich and the beautiful could cavort safe from the fear of being apprehended. Everybody else could carry on satisfied that the the nation's drug problem has been solved.

Now that I think about it, it might be nice to invite the guys over for the game with a big bowl of nachos and a dime bag of heroin once in awhile, or take the wife out for a nice meal and a rock of crack. I suppose I should give the matter a little more thought.

What is the Problem With Bigamy

The Dallas Morning News regularly runs a column called Crime Stoppers. In the column, a list of people currently wanted by the Dallas police department is published a long with a photo of the person and the charge they are wanted on. The crimes typically cover a wide range of offenses, from public intoxication and burglary to armed robbery and murder. (I have not yet discerned how or why particular people are chosen for an appearance in the column.) In this morning's paper, there was a listing I have not seen before. Sean Block, age 30, is wanted for bigamy.

It is surprising that in this enlightened age of homosexual marriage that there are still laws against bigamy. Certainly the idea of traditional marriage as one between one man and one woman is not a barrier. If two men decide they want to get married, many demand that the state accede to their request. Many courts have upheld the legitimacy of gay marriage and conferred upon it the same rights and privileges accorded to traditional marriage. Any infringement of that right usually must be able to withstand a high level of scrutiny.

Laws against miscegenation, adultery and fornication have long gone by the board. So why are laws against bigamy, to say nothing of polygamy, allowed to stand? Is it because bigamy undermines the idea of marriage as a union between one man and one woman? That cannot be it. That barrier has been breached. Could it be because polygamy is contrary to what is written in the Bible? That is a laughable proposition. Since when have the courts cared what is in the Bible? Could it be because polygamy is seen to undermine the morals or threaten the health of the community? Certainly that is not the case. Morality we are told is simply a subjective set of beliefs that do not bind anyone but the person who feels them and there is no evidence that bigamy is any more of a threat to public health than monogamy. Moreover, as is often chanted by the left, you cannot legislate morality. Essentially, the reason bigamy is illegal is because most people, liberal and conservative alike, (albeit for very different reasons), object to it. So strong are the feelings against bigamy that any religion that embraces it or group that advocates for it is scorned. Tolerance, religious or otherwise, does not extend to bigamy.

It can, (and likely one day will), be argued that bigamy hurts no one. Where bigamy is the result of coercion or involves minors it becomes a matter where the law is obliged to step in. If a bigamous marriage is the result deceit there is already a legal remedy. It is called divorce. Where bigamy involves consenting adults, there is no basis for legal interference, especially if it is rooted in religious tradition. Simply put, bigamy is illegal because most people object to it. It is an institution that runs contrary to Christian tradition and the moral sensibilities of an overwhelming majority of Americans. But why should it matter what most people or particular religions think? As we have been told time and time again, just because something offends people or violates a religious tenet is no basis to make it illegal.

Often in the U.S., when it comes to moral issues it doesn't matter what the public thinks. As far as the law is concerned, public opinion is not important. Why should it matter how Americans feel about polygamy? By the standards of modern relativism, traditional marriage is simply one of the last remnants of an antiquated notion of religion and moral propriety. If we are to keep making progress towards the ideal society, cobwebs such as bourgeoisie notion that marriage should be confined to a union between two consenting adults must be swept away. If Jane can marry Betty, why can't Robert marry Sarah and Ruth?

Custom, tradition, and community sensibilities have been steadily eroding as foundations of law. Without them, we are left with only reason to guide us. Reason alone is not a sufficient basis for drafting law. It never has been. This is because simply following a line of reasoning can lead not only to places one doesn't want to go, but also to places one never imagined to go.

"Sensible" Immigration Reform.

Not long ago, supporters for immigration reform held a rally in Dallas, Texas. It was stated that the purpose of the rally was to urge support for "comprehensive, sensible and feasible" immigration reform. They had hoped to draw 100,000 for the event. They didn't.

The organizers of the rally chose a title designed to take the moral high ground. By calling for "sensible" and "feasible" immigration policy they implied that those opposed to their agenda are irrational and unrealistic.  The specific immigration reforms sought by the group were not clearly laid out, largely due to the wide range of participants in the rally, but they essentially revolved around loosening the restrictions on those who seek to enter the country and easing the pressure on those already here in violation of U.S. law. They advocate policy more accommodating to immigrants and immigration than the irrational and unrealistic policies they claim are being put forth by those seeking to stem the tide of illegal immigration that is sweeping the nation.

This begs the question of what exactly constitutes a sensible and realistic immigration policy. That is precisely what the debate over immigration is about. Advocates for immigration are certain that their policies are realistic and fair. Their opponents are just as certain in their position. Such debates cannot be settled through rallies and protest marches. They are best settled through the ballot box. The problem for immigration advocacy groups is that when the issue is left to voters, more often than not voters disapprove of immigration on the scale we are experiencing today. Because of this, pro immigration groups are reluctant to rely on elections and voters to bolster their position. It is also a significant reason why they often attempt to portray opponents of immigration as racists and xenophobes. Certainly policy should not be left to such people. 

There should be a discussion about immigration and what policy should be in regard to it. Unlike many supporters of immigration, I am inclined to believe the issue should be left to voters to decide whenever possible. It is their communities which are affected by immigration. It is they who must bear the burdens and suffer the turmoil caused by shifting demographics. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the vast majority of those who are concerned about the effect of immigration on the scale we are witnessing today are not xenophobes, jingoists, or racists. They are regular people holding jobs, paying bills, and raising families. They are the ones who pay the costs of unchecked immigration. Yet they are the ones most often excluded from the debate. They are the ones that, when they express their reservations or apprehensions about immigration, are likely to be chastised as hateful or ignorant.The exclusion of citizens from the immigration debate only fuels resentment towards the issue. That resentment sometimes boils over into protests. Where those protests are well organized they will often be portrayed as being machinated by selfish, hard hearted, and quite possibly racist elements. When the protests are motley or disorganized expressions of anti-immigration sentiments, it will be argued that most, if not all protesters are acting from ignorance, dark motives and prejudice.

It is citizens and communities that bear the greatest burden when it comes to immigration. They should have a say. But, as is often the case, the citizens are not trusted to act in accordance with the ambitions and desires of activists. Elections and referendums are to be avoided whenever the results sought are in doubt. In such cases, it is best to cut out the middle man and go straight to the statehouse. If the state house proves unsympathetic to the cause, policy should be taken to the court house. When citizens are excluded from political debate, resentment, frustration and spasms of indignation can be counted on. That frustration and resentment in turn will be used against the public by pro immigration groups when they portray themselves as struggling against an intolerant society. When elections cannot be counted on to achieve desired policy, other methods must be found. It is near certain that the rallies and protests planned are not intended to woo or change the minds of voters. The audience for such protests will be the media and the state house. If the marches and protests succeed, the public will read about the new policy in the newspaper. By then it will be too late for them to do much about it. Voters are rarely asked for their opinion on what constitutes rational and sensible immigration policy. More often they are told. That is the problem.

Sowing the Wind

Nations in the West are discussing the need to increase pressure on the government in Tehran, and even overthrow it if required, due to its nuclear efforts. Meanwhile, the Americans and Israelis are exploring their options and making preparations to attack Iran if it is deemed necessary. Plans are being made and plots are being hatched. None of this is remarkable or objectionable if one is an American or an Israeli. Plans have long been made and studied in the U.S. on how to contain the Islamic regime in Tehran. But what if one is Iranian? How should an Iranian view the plans and preparations to "contain" it? It is not as though the U.S. and Israel have never launched attacks or worked to undermine governments when it was perceived that their national security interests were at stake. When the U.S. or Israel threatens you, you had better pay attention.

Israel has launched numerous "preemptive" and "defensive" attacks on its neighbors. Iran has attacked no one. But, Iran is the threat to peace in the Middle East. The U.S. has acted to over throw the governments of three nations in the region and is maneuvering to make Iran's ally Syria the fourth. Yet it is Iran that is accused of destabilizing the Middle East. We have demanded that Iran follow international law and treaties and comply with U.N. resolutions while we have often been selective in the enforcement and recognition of those same treaties and resolutions and creative in our interpretation of them. Yet, Iran is condemned as defiant. Every war fought by Israel, with the possible exception of its recent invasion of Lebanon, has ended to the benefit of Israel. It has a military that is unmatched in the region yet its survival is seen in constant jeopardy.

It is odd that Iran is viewed as the chief threat to peace in the Middle East. The U.S has bombed Libya. It has invaded and occupied two of Iran's neighbors and overthrown their governments. It  has repeatedly threatened Iran and worked diligently to sabotage its economy and undermine its government. There are thousands of U.S. troops, and hundreds of U.S. aircraft nearby in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are dozens of U.S. warships patrolling not far off Iran's shore. And still, Iran is the threat. Israel has nuclear weapons, a formidable air force, and a powerful army. It has repeatedly used force to resolve its conflicts and has made it known that it is quite prepared to attack Iran. Nevertheless, Iran is the threat.  Despite its bluster, Iran has little effective means to attack Israel, and none to attack the U.S. It has only a modest ability to defend itself. Yet it is argued that Iran is the chief danger in the region.

Iran claims it is being unfairly singled out for it's actions and policies. The U.S. asserts that Iran is being devious in its plans and dishonest in its statements. Perhaps the U.S. and Israel are correct in their concerns and prudent in their preparations. But still, it is hard to blame the Iranians if they feel they are being treated unfairly. North Korea built a bomb and stated its willingness to use it and no one has threatened to attack them. Israel has nuclear weapons and there has not been a peep out of Washington.

Having a nuclear weapon would not allow Iran to conquer the Middle East or destroy it's enemies. It would not even allow Iran to take over its neighbors. Surrounded as they are by Israel, India, Russia, and Pakistan, and with U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq and offshore, all with nuclear weapons, whatever territorial ambitions Iran may have, if any, would be unlikely to succeed. Militarily, even with a nuclear weapon, Iran is hopelessly outmatched. The only use Iran could make of a nuclear weapon would be for self defense or an act of spite. While some in Iran may boast and threaten, is difficult to believe the government in Tehran would accept the destruction of Iran for an act of spite. And let there be no doubt, it would be destroyed.

The greatest benefit of possessing nuclear weapons to Iran, other than the boost to its collective ego, is that those weapons would make Iran less susceptible to attack and threats from the West. Perhaps if the government in Iran felt less threatened and more secure, its ego, fears, and ambitions would be easier to assuage. It might at least be more willing to sit down and talk to it's adversaries.

There are many in Washington and elsewhere that are impatient and suspicious of Iran's motives and activities. They do not want to "waste" time negotiating. They would dearly love to add the government in Tehran to the list of toppled regimes in the region and change Iran's color on our maps. They advocate confrontation, covert activities, and even military action to undermine Iran's government and destroy its capabilities. They just flat out don't like Iran. But we should resist their calls. Iran is not Iraq or Libya. It would be a mistake to assume that the Iranian people will abandon their government and cheer if bombs and missiles start falling on their country. As for using "covert action" to sabotage Iran's economy or assassinate its leaders and scientists as some are advocating, that would be a peculiar policy to adopt for a nation that has spent the last decade fighting a crusade against terrorism. But then "terrorism" has often been a matter of perspective.

However an unprovoked attack on Iranian nuclear facilities might be portrayed in the press, it would not be a simple surgical strike or preemptive raid. It would be an act of war. It would also be the fourth Islamic nation attacked by the U.S and its allies in the last decade, a fact that would not be lost on the Muslim world.

Iran is a proud and ancient nation with a keen sense of self and it will fight back  It is also a sophisticated and powerful nation with a long reach. An attack on Iran, to put it in terms befitting the region, would be the act of sowing the wind.

Don't Ask the Monkeys

Researchers at the Oregon National Primate Center conducting studies of fat monkeys have determined that obesity among primates is deleterious to their health. A group of monkeys was fed a steady diet of fatty and sugar laden food in order to make them obese. Some of the monkeys were kept locked in their cages to simulate the lack of physical activity that often accompanies over eating. "We were trying to induce the couch potato style" said one researcher. As expected, the monkeys gained weight. Some became obese. Monkeys were used because, in addition to their similarity to humans, their diet and activity are easily controlled and monitored. More importantly, they do not lie about what they eat.

Several conclusions were made from the study. First, eating poorly and physical inactivity leads to weight increase. Secondly, monkeys, like people, prefer rich, fatty foods and tend to eat when they are bored. Lastly, it was observed that obesity in monkeys leads to health problems such as diabetes.

Arguably, there are few reasons to study obesity. We know what causes it and we know what results from it. The only thing we are not sure of is why people seem complacent about it. Most people who are overweight know they are overweight. With few exceptions, they also know why they are overweight and that being so is not good for their health.

There is really nothing mysterious about the phenomenon of obesity. People are prone to doing things they should not do. They lie when they know that lying is wrong. They watch TV when they know they should be working in the yard. They spend time on facebook when they know they should be doing something else. They eat potato chips by the bag full when they know no good will come from it. The phenomenon of doing something we know is harmful or that we should not do is a subject that has perplexed thinkers for thousands of years. The only thing that has changed is the perception of the problem.

Human behavior has shifted from being a philosophical and theological problem to a psychological and physiological one. I doubt scientists will have better luck in getting to the bottom of why people conduct themselves as they do than St. Augustine and Aristotle did. If anything, they will accomplish less. Aristotle and St. Augustine sought to understand human behavior. Scientists only try to explain it.

Scientists are searching for a cause or trigger: a gene, a brain chemical, an environmental factor, something to explain obesity. They will not find one. What they should be looking for is character and self discipline. Every one should be looking for those. In the mean time, we will keep spending time and money conducting studies and spending money trying to understand what any good high school football coach already knows: if you want to lose weight and get in shape put down the cup cakes and start moving.

It is unclear to me why the study was conducted. If the purpose of the study was to learn the consequences of poor diet and inactivity, it was a waste of time. We know what those consequences are. If the study was aimed at learning the cause of obesity, it was an equal waste of time. We know what causes obesity and, as importantly, we know how to get rid of it. The only thing we are unsure of is why some people don't seem willing to do anything about it. We will not get the answer to that from studying monkeys. Monkeys don't know any better, people do.

A Right to Ignorance

Several months ago, a federal court struck down much of Texas's new abortion sonogram law that required doctors to perform a sonogram before giving an abortion. The court concluded that it is unconstitutional to compel women to listen to information that isn't "medically relevant and that they (patients) don't wish to hear." The ruling was heralded as a victory for doctors and women. Under the ruling, doctors are no longer required to gather or provide medical information deemed unnecessary to the termination of the pregnancy. Texas officials have made it known that they intend to appeal the ruling.

The ire directed towards the new abortion law is based on the objection that the law unfairly compels physicians to collect information regarding a medical procedure, namely by performing a sonogram, and places too great an onus on women contemplating getting that procedure by requiring them to listen to it. It is asserted that women have the right to request and receive an abortion with as little information about the procedure as necessary. It is felt by some that women only need to know where the clinic is and what time it opens.

The debate over the abortion law is an anomaly. No one objects to x-rays regarding sore knees or aching backs. Very few demand medical treatment with as little information collected or provided as possible. Indeed, many physicians would be considered negligent if they declined to collect information concerning a medical condition and provide that information to a patient before offering it. But then, pregnancy is a peculiar medical condition. Often a patient is very much aware of her medical condition before she walks into a doctor's office. She knows she she is pregnant and she knows the cure, at least by name. She does not need an x-ray to tell her she is pregnant. What she might not know, and what she might not want to know, are the details. She simply wants to be rid of the problem with a little muss or fuss as possible.

Abortion has always been a psychologically difficult medical procedure to contemplate. Numerous studies have been conducted that identify the often troubling psychological consequences that occur after an abortion is received. Many women suffer from depression and remorse in the years following having an abortion. For abortion advocates, front loading the procedure with details will only make a difficult decision even more difficult. There is concern that many women will forgo obtaining an abortion if they are required to listen to details before receiving one. A women strolling down to the clinic in anticipation of receiving an abortion might have second thoughts if she is required to confront the details of what she is seeking. She might conclude that an abortion is not quite the casual procedure she anticipated.

Why any of that should disturb abortion rights advocates escapes me. If the law is allowed to stand abortion will be no less safe or legal. It might become more rare. Hasn't that been the stated goal of abortion advocates from the beginning? Or have they really meant that abortion should be safe, legal, and easy?

If information is the enemy of abortion, what does that say about its allies?

Some Advice for Rick Perry

I have some advice for Rick Perry. Rick, you are running one of the worst campaigns in modern history. Despite having a tremendous amount going for you, your campaign is in trouble. You are the governor of one of the few states that are weathering the recession. Texas is a large and diverse state, economically, culturally, and socially. It is a protestant state and a Catholic state. It is a white state, a Hispanic state, an African American state, and an Asian state.  It is a cattle state, a farm state, an energy state, a high tech state, and a hub for international trade. It takes a great deal to run such a state successfully and you have done so admirably. Despite this, you are floundering badly, so badly in fact I feel I should offer you some suggestions.

First of all, your flat tax proposal is catchy but it does not hold up well under scrutiny. It is better than Herman Cain's "5-5-5" proposal, but not by much. Nothing is simple in politics or economics. Tax rates alone do not take circumstances into account. There is a tremendous amount of variety within each bracket that needs to be considered. First, not everyone making $100,000 a year is in the same boat. A single person making $100,000 a year can live well. The head of a household of five earning $100,000 a year with a mortgage, car payments, and a kid in college, not so well. The exemptions and deductions so often being railed against these days represent attempts to even things out. While there is a great deal of waste and absurdity in the current tax code, that does not mean the tax code is in and of itself unjust or harmful. It might be but if that is your point you are not making it well. If you insist on a flat tax code I would also suggest you find a way to distinguish between the guy who earned $10 million for developing a new microchip from the guy who made $10 million for throwing 25 touchdown passes or made the right gamble on pork futures. The company that made a bundle by developing a marvelous new diabetes drug should be distinguished from one that made a bundle by firing its workers and moving overseas. People who actually create, invent and discover things add to our economy. They should not be penalized for being successful.  Those who just move things around should pay more, but not the people who keep the U.S. moving forward. Naturally, you can fiddle with your proposal to take such particulars into account, but be careful, people won't like it. Besides, it is fiddling with the tax code that got us to where we are today.

Secondly, choose your issues carefully.  The economy is what is on the nation's mind right now, not whether creationism should be taught in schools. Talk about things like prayer and abortion only when you absolutely have to. If you feel compelled to talk about abortion, do not talk about "overturning" Roe v. Wade. That will start a fire bigger than the one we just managed to put out here in Texas a little while back. A more subtle approach is required. Talk about "handing the issue of abortion back to the voters where it belongs." It is saying the same thing but in a way that will not upset the majority of people who otherwise would not give the issue much thought. Handing issues to voters is a good thing. It shows that you trust them. People like to feel like they have a say in policy. You need to make the case that people who cling to Roe v. Wade do not want the decision overturned because they don't trust the public to see things their way. You should point out that liberals have no confidence in the public, indeed, they are often disdainful of the public and its beliefs. That is why they so often rely on the courts to advance their agenda. If you can portray your opponent as someone who doesn't trust voters enough to let them decide an issue, you will score big. But from what I have seen and read, you seem averse to subtlety.

Rick, there is no one running to the right of you. You do not need to speechify against abortion or gay marriage. Everyone knows where you stand. Your flat tax proposal has some appeal but it will not bear much weight. Your "hang em' high" approach to justice might resonate in Texas but it gives a lot of people across the nation the willies. Your defense of creationism is comic. Your stated belief in a literal understanding of the Bible is disturbing, especially as a basis for Middle East diplomacy. The Old Testament makes for a very bad foreign policy. When your name comes up you do not want people to think about abortion, the Bible, and executions. You want them to think about a better future.

 Rick, you need a new campaign manager.  You need one bad. You need a new press secretary too. Someone needs to get hold of your campaign and get it back on track. Better to shake things up now than go down in flames later. You might be rallying the faithful but you are frightening people like my mom. Indeed you are running so far to the right you risk making Obama seem like a moderate in comparison. That is no small feat. They way things are going, unless Obama gets caught in bed with a dead hooker you have to like his odds. I don't know who is running your campaign but you should fire him and hire me. If you want your campaign run into the ground I will do it for half of what you are paying the guy you have now.