Republican Blogger in Exile

Some of you may be wondering why I have been so silent on this blog in reference to the political race, particularly owing to my once avid involvement in politics, and my role that I adopted in 2008 of "Republican Blogger in Exile." Shouldn't I be itching to be doing my part to return Republicans to power? Not really. Why is this? It is due to two main reasons.

First, in 2008, I was a novice to Biblical studies: I loved politics, but knew nothing more about theology than what I had learned in church. As I learned that Jesus was Lord, and that that term had political ramifications, my entire way of viewing the world changed. In response to this, my political positions started changing: the US was no longer my chief entity that I needed to serve. Thus, in my pursuit of King Jesus, my values shifted away from some Republican positions, I softened on immigration, war (and military spending), watching out for the poor. So, in many ways, I am no longer a Republican in exile because Republicans have been booted from office, but rather I am now a Republican in exile because many Republicans have exiled me from the party: “You don’t think freedom is worth killing over? You liberal. And you don’t think we should deport all of the illegal aliens? Why don’t you just become a Democrat?” It is important to note at this point that I still consider myself a conservative, I just don’t toe the line when it appears that my study of Scripture should lead me elsewhere.

Second, is the nature of the 2012 election. I held my nose and voted for McCain in ’08. But we had to go nominate another moderate? Romney may have truly changed his mind on abortion and other issues that are near to my heart, but the timing was far too politically expedient for me to believe it. Tie that to comments from Romney’s campaign this spring that he was an “etch-a-sketch” candidate, and I simply do not trust him. I do not believe he shares my core political beliefs, and I honestly have no clue what he would actually believe and work on once he was in office. In addition, let’s mention the elephant in the room: Romney is Mormon! Those very same people who once made outlandish claims that Obama was a secret Muslim (even though Obama has claimed to be a believer) are now the ones who are willingly voting for a man who is part of a cult. And in many cases (such as Billy Graham) the political support of a candidate is leading believers to blur the line between orthodoxy and heresy. So, I couldn’t support Romney. Combining  not falling in complete lock-step with my party and being extremely unhappy with their nominee leads to a great big “meh” about the election.

I believe Americans have a responsibility to vote. I couldn’t vote for Romney. I don’t want Obama to win either (which is why I have been almost completely silent on this blog). So my solution for myself? I wrote in Barry Creamer, PhD. Your vote is up to you: vote your conscience. Vote for who you think God would have you vote. Regardless of who wins, Jesus is still Lord, he still reigns.

James Holmes and Gun Control

While this post is not going to discuss the ethics of Christians using violence to defend themselves and others, I am going to focus on discussing one point of interest in the debate that is currently swirling about gun control.

First, let me respond to the emotional reaction to Holmes using an "assault weapon". As any gun enthusiast can tell you, "assault weapons" are a made-up category, designed to bring to mind "assault rifles" which are the military grade weapons. The only thing that makes an AR-15 any different from my "harmless" Ruger 10/22 is that it fires slightly larger bullets (which are still significantly smaller than many other rifle bullets), and it looks scarier. Both are semi-automatic, both can fire quickly, both have box magazines, both are deadly, only one is considered an "assault weapon".

Second, as a standard rule, it is never good to act upon emotions. Nearly thirty people a day die from drunk drivers, but there are few mainstream media calls for Prohibition to be brought back. If we do not let those thirty people a day to emotionally impact us, then we should be careful about letting our emotions get carried away by twelve deaths.

Now, most argue that if the laws were different, Holmes would not have been able to acquire the weapons which he used. This may or may not be true. What I am more interested in is this: they (such as this post) claim that even if there had been a CHL holder in the audience, he would have been unable to harm Holmes, since Holmes was wearing body armor. But they don't think about the last part of that phrase. Why not ban the vest? Contrary to popular opinion, CHL holders are not wild-eyed vigilantes, who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Rather, they are trained (both by the required course, as well as additional individual training, typically), responsible citizens. Now, would it have been difficult for a CHL to stop Holmes? Certainly. In fact, in a pistol vs. rifle match, it is almost certain that the CHL would be killed. But having someone shoot back would at least have shaken up Holmes, and maybe distracted him long enough for someone else to tackle him. But you know what would really have evened the odds? If Holmes had not been able to purchase a ballistic vest.

People will acquire illegal items. Neither outlawing the gun, nor the ballistic vest, will prevent something like Aurora from happening. But people want to feel like they are doing something to prevent this type of thing from happening again. But if you want to ban something, instead of starting the slippery slope which would eventually disarm those who would protect themselves (and firearms were banned at the theater, even though CO allows CHLs, which just disarmed those who wound up being victims), why not ban the thing which protected Holmes from citizens defending themselves? And why not give the citizens a fair chance of defending themselves?

SIDE NOTE: In April, a massacre in Aurora (same town) was prevented when the gunman was shot by a church-goer, who happened to be an off-duty police officer.

The Solution to Illegal Immigration?

Kansas state Rep. Virgil Peck recently commented on a local radio show about the use of aerial gunman to shoot wild hogs. He then took that in an interesting direction (you can read about it here): "Looks like to me, if shooting these immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a [solution] to our illegal immigration problem."

Now, I think most people, Republicans included, would say that that is wrong. However, I think Illegal Immigration is the new face of racism--just a more socially acceptable form. Defending himself, Peck said that his constituents are angry about illegal immigration and "I was just speaking like a southeast Kansas person."

A nation cannot stand firmly if their borders are under attack. But, the Christian is not called to primarily do what is best for their nation, but to primarily do what is best for the Gospel. We, as Christians, have been called to love everyone. The dividing wall between races has been broken down (Eph.2:14), praise God! We are now one humanity with our brother's and sister's in Christ, and are to bring all the people of the world into this new humanity. So, what if, instead of protesting these Illegal Immigrants (otherwise known as "people"), we showed God's love to them? What if instead of trying to check their id, we offered them shelter or a warm meal? Or, we could just shoot them from helicopters as they try to gain a better life.

The End of an Era

            If you visited my blog today, compared to yesterday, you would have noticed an incredible shift. For starters, my URL eliminated the dash, so it is now "joshuahebert.blogspot.com". But, more noticeable is the new title, tagline, format, and look.

I once was heavily involved in politics and was a good social conservative. However, as I learned about the gospel and that there was an extreme political element in it I realized that what the gospel actually teaches is not what the Republican agenda, and in some places, it is quite different. To that end, I more or less let my blog die, just not feeling right about taking the role of “Republican Blogger in Exile”.

However, I recently started blogging again, and decided that I needed turn the page and to retool my blog to make it a closer reflection of what I want to spend the majority of my time talking about. My main topics will be Ecclesiology and Political Theology, although I imagine I will dabble in other topics as well. I will leave all the old political posts in the archives.

Over the next few weeks, I will continue modifying this site so that it has a little more information, and is more accessible to the visitor. Is it the end of an era for me? Yes. But, it is the beginning of an even brighter era!

2010 Gubernatorial Endorsement

Well, without any further fanfare, I am hereby endorsing Rick Perry for Governor of the Great State of Texas. Granted, this is not the strongest of endorsements, since Perry has had his share of screwups. But, why is he being endorsed? Simple--there are two reasons. First, because through the economic crisis that has swept the country, Texas has maintained one of the strongest economies, and lowest unemployment rate, and I think at least some of the credit should go to our Governor. The main reason is that there simply is no one else whom I can support. Larry Kilgore is a joke. Debra Medina supported Ron Paul, which in my mind makes her a joke as well. Kay Bailey Hutchinson claims to be a fiscal conservative, even though she voted for the 700 billion dollar bailout. She is also pro-choice (don't believe me? Go here), and I absolutely refuse to support a pro-choice candidate under any circumstances. So, in light of the other options, vote for Rick Perry for Governor!

Biden Single-Handedly Drives Stock Market Down

Here is a story from the Forbes that Vice President Biden literally drove down the stock market by his comments about the economy, alone. Enjoy.

The (Future) Republican Comeback....Otherwise known as the "If you can't keep it in your pants, don't run as a Republican!" Plan

Well, I know I am a little late to start chiming in on this, but I have been sitting here steaming about what has been going on with Republicans lately. First, Senator John Ensign had an affair. Less than 2 weeks later, Mark Sanford, another up-and-comer admitted to an affair. This is not the way to have things happen when the party is already out, and trying to stage a comeback. Now, I understand the urges a man gets, after all I am one. However, what these folks need is a good dose of discipline. Ooooor, if you want to have an affair and still be a FISCAL conservative, go be a Libertarian! After all, a trademark of the Republicans is supposed to be family values, but we can't hang on to that and our hypocritical members at the same time. So folks, get your act together!

Christians and Politics: Part 1

I am going to preface my discussion by stating that I am a Christian, and that I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This influences how I look at everything in my life. This post will be about how I got to this point (I guess this should actually be the intro, but it is too late for that). Growing up, I was in a very political family. There was never any question about whether or not Christians should be in politics. In fact, when I was 10, I remember reading a book titled The Political Christian.

I have just finished my first year at Criswell Bible College in Dallas. My brother attended there, and talked me into going there for a year to figure out if I was really a Christian, or if it was just because my parents were Christians. After that I planned on transferring to UT for pre-law, and intended on getting in to politics after I finished my law degree. However, Criswell changed all that. For the first time, I have been faced by people who have spent their entire adult lives studying what they are teaching, who are so good that they can read the Bible straight from the original languages, translating on the fly. And these professors presented the Bible in a different way than I had ever heard before. All of a sudden the Bible was not a disconnected set of principles that could be used to fuss at gays.

Through these profs, I came to a correct view on ecclesiology, which is just a five dollar word for: "What the church is supposed to be". I discovered that the church, when done correctly, is very geo-political, and that it is to be a standalone society. The church should offer an alternate way to view the world. We are supposed to be differnent in almost every way, from our way of persuasion, to our care of other people. Now, obviously this is not the way the church actually is, but I am dealing with how is SHOULD be, not how it currently is. The main conflict with politics is that the political system is based on power which they obtain through manipulation, force, deception, etc. The Christian obtains power through weakness. Christ was led to the cross like a lamb. He told us to not try to fight those who hurt us. That is weakness. This is the problem that any Christian would have to deal with in order to be in politics. How do I be in the system, and yet not work it the way everyone else does?

The next few posts will be expounding this further, as well as dealing with a few individual issues that would be affected by Christians' involvement or non-involvement in politics.

Christians in Politics-Introduction

Well, I have finished another semester. I took 21 hours this semester, which is why I have not had time to write. However, life is slowing down now, and there is a topic that I am going to start exploring. This topic is the relationship between Christians and politics. What is the role that Christians should play in politics? Is being involved in politics really the best way to change things? Is being in politics even biblical? These are the questions that I am going to start answering over the next few posts.

Corrupt Democrats

Well, I have told all my friends that I was going to give Obama a chance, going in with an open mind to see how he would do. Well, it took him just three days to tick me off. What did he do? I am glad you asked. He removed the rule that would prevent US tax dollars from being used to fund international abortions. Next up on the list, after his claims that he was going to be this new, transparent, ethical administration, Obama is already bending the rules to allow a lobbyist to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. So, everyone says that the first 100 hours are critical to setting the tone for the rest of the administration. Is this what I have to look forward to for the next 8 years? Talking a good talk, and then undoing what you just did less than 2 days? This is not good for our country. On this note, the only media that has gotten an interview with him since he became President was the company (ABC) that spent millions hosting a ball for him. This has created what some reporters are calling a "Pay to play system." Oh, and the Feds are raiding a contractor that Democrat Jack Murtha steered more than $100,000,000 to. Can anyone say corruption?

In other news (non-corrupt), Bobby Jindal is not doing much to clamp down on the rumors of a Presidential run when he is getting the top speaking slot for the NRCC, a spot usually taken by former President Bush.

I'm Back!

Well everyone,
I am back. I have not been posting because of a lack of news, rather I just have a lack of time. I have started writing a paper on how the Republican Party can return to dominance. I will be posting it here, piece by piece. I expect it to be a while since it is low priority, and I will be taking 21 hours of school. So, without further ado, here is the first section, which is a brief summary of the Republican Party.


Republican History
Is there a need for the Republican Party? This is a difficult question, and ties in with the next section. History repeats itself, so I will start with going over the history of the GOP.
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas Nebraska Act, which would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. At the time, the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. The Republican Party was just filling a niche, somewhat like the Libertarian Party of today. They started gaining power through Congressional elections.
In 1860, the party’s second Presidential nominee—Abraham Lincoln—was elected to the nation’s highest office. The Republican’s platform was for "Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men".
The Civil War was followed by roughly 30 years of Republican dominance, with the Democratic Party limited to the South. This came to an end in the 1880s as the Democratic Party became competitive, winning the White House in 1884, and losing it in 1888. In 1892, the Democrat’s took control of the government, and the economy crashed. In 1894, in response to the economy, the Republicans won the biggest landslide (130 seats, comparable to 158 seats today) in their history.
In 1896, the Republicans recaptured the White House. This was seen as the resurgence of the Republican Party, brought about by honing their message, reviewing their policies, and the Democrat’s policies failing.
In 1912, the party split, allowing the Democrats to win again. In the 1920s, the party again gained power. They pushed through the agenda of big business. At that time, “social conservatives” were members of the Democratic Party. When The Great Depression came, the country turned to the Democrats, who established firm control of the nation. While the Presidency would go back and forth between the parties, the Congress would be controlled by Republicans for only 2 years between 1934 and 1994.
During the period of time following the Great Depression until the 1980s, the Republican Party was controlled by moderates. They also were repeatedly defeated. The first time the conservative showed their strength was in the nomination of Barry Goldwater, who was defeated by Lyndon Johnson.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan led the conservatives to victory. It was during this election that social conservatives abandoned the Democratic Party, and joined the Republicans. The moderates lost control of the party, and briefly regained it in 1996, followed by 2008, both of which ended in defeat.
In 1988, George Bush was seen as the heir to the conservative leadership. By 1992, conservatives saw that he was not a true believer and he lost to Bill Clinton. The majority people did not support Clinton, but many conservatives thought that Bush had lost his way, and would not vote for him, and Clinton won with only a plurality.
In 1994, America had had two years of liberalism, and decided that they did not like it. In combination, the Republicans defined their message with the Contract with America, and were brought to dominance in the House.
In 1996, the moderate candidate won the nomination, and was defeated. The Republicans retained control of the conservative House, however.
In 2000, the conservatives nominated George W. Bush, who many saw as a true conservative. He united both economic and social conservatives. The Republican Party rode his coattails to take tie control of the Senate. In the 2002 midterm elections, America had had a taste of conservatism, and they liked it. They gave complete control of Congress to the Republican Party for the first time since the 1950s. When the GOP took power, however, they lost sight of their goals, took part in wasteful spending, became corrupt, and failed at being decisive leaders. In many instances, you could not tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. In 2006, the nation resoundingly rejected this type of leadership. The aftershocks of this were still being felt in 2008, resulting in the GOP losing more Congressional seats, as well as the Presidency.
The one caveat to purifying the brand is that while it is needed at the Presidential level, the Democrats proved in 2006 and 2008 that they can run moderates on Republican turf, and win. Republicans may have to put this into their formula for finding candidates.
The Republican Party has accomplished many great things over the years, and they can again, if they follow their ideas, and don’t compromise to liberal pressure.

Texas Governor's Race 2010 (Continuation)

Well, I must admit something to you. I incorrectly predicted which race would be the really big one. I assumed that it would be for the Governor's Mansion, but I was wrong. The big race for 2010 (or a special election before that) is for Kay's Senate seat. Several of my main ideas for candidates have announced, or are discussing a run for her Senate seat (Michael Williams, Roger Williams, Greg Abbot, David Dewhurst, Bill White, etc). So, this post will conclude my analysis of the Governor's Race. I will soon start analyzing the Senate race.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson

Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Everyone has been talking about her. But who really knows who she is? Hutchinson was born on July 22^nd, 1943. She was raised in Texas City. She went to University of Texas, and got a Law degree. She was unable to get a job as a lawyer, and so she started working for a Houston news channel as a reporter. In 1972, she was elected to the State House, its first Republican woman. In 1990, she was elected to the office of State Treasurer. This was in a Republican year, which also swept Perry into office. Her big break came in 1993, when Lloyd Bentsen resigned his seat to become Secretary of the Treasury. In the election to finish his term, she won with 29%. In the runoff, she won 67% of the vote. Hutchinson cruised to easy victories every time she has run for re-election. In 2006, she became chairwoman of the Republican Conference, widely considered to be the number 3 position in the Republican leadership ladder. In 2008, she announced that she would not seek re-election to her leadership post, and that she would retire in 2010. On December 4^th, she formed an exploratory committee for a gubernatorial run in 2010.

Hutchinson is an extremely popular Republican who stands a good chance of defeating Perry. Perry really has only one issue that h can use. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is mildly pro-choice. This is unknown to most Republicans, and is a serious problem if they can be told that she is. She was a member of WISH List, which is the largest PAC for pro-choice Republican women. She has stated that she does not believe that abortion should be outlawed, and that Roe v. Wade was the correct decision by the Supreme Court. This is extremely alarming for me, as an ultra-conservative. I am extremely unhappy with Rick Perry, but I simply cannot support someone who is pro-choice. I will feel a little more sure about her if she resigns her seat. Soon.

Texas Governor's Race 2010

2010 Texas Gubernatorial Candidates

With the election over, it is time to start looking at the future. I will start discussing the 2010 gubernatorial election. I will be discussing each candidate, posting my article on each, one at a time. I will order the article with the first part being a biography of the politician, and the second part being my analysis of their chances. One thing is for sure: this election is going to be a battle of heavy weights, and it will be played for keeps. At the time of this writing, it appears that at least three of our most powerful politicians will be running, leaving only one of them an office when this is over. This will also create some room for younger politicians to move up the political “food chain” into the vacant offices.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry was born on March 4^th 1950, near the family ranch in Paint Creek, Texas. He received his Eagle Scout, and then went to Texas A&M University to study Animal Science, hoping to become a veterinarian. Becoming a veterinarian didn’t pan out, but he did spend time as a yell leader at A&M, a coveted position. After school he spent five years piloting C-130s in the Air Force. In 1977 he returned to the family ranch to take up the family trade. In 1984, he won his first public office, as a state representative. He was elected as a Democrat. He remained a Democrat until 1989, when he was passed up for a leadership position, and then switched parties. In 1990, an up and coming political consultant named Karl Rove saw an empty suit where he could put hi talents to work. Perry became one of his creations, and ran for his first statewide office, winning a surprise victory for the position of Agriculture Commissioner against a popular incumbent. This was one of the first signs that the Democrats’ control of the state was starting to fade. In 1998, Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock announced that he was retiring, and Perry announced that he would run for the seat. Now, in many lesser states, the office of Lieutenant Governor is nothing more than an honorary, meaningless office. However, in Texas, the Lt. Governor is more powerful than the Governor, because no legislation can come to the Senate floor, and sub-sequentially be passes, without his personal approval. This puts him in an excellent bargaining position. He served in this office until 2000, when Governor George Bush resigned to become President. Perry survived his re-election, coasting to a 58%-40% victory even though he was outspent by more than 2 to 1. One of his more controversial issues was his role in forcing through the new redistricting plan that was masterminded by Tom Delay. He also pushed through a plan for a new superhighway from Dallas, through Austin, to the Mexican border. This was approved, but two years later, was stopped by the state legislature. The most controversial issue, was when he signed an executive order requiring all Texas teenage girls to receive the HPV vaccination. This made the conservative state incredibly angry, with the state legislature overturning his order with an almost unanimous vote. He won re-election in a 4 way race, with a 39% “majority”. This has caused his nickname of “Governor Goodhair” to be replaced with “39% Perry”. On December 21^st, he will become the longest serving governor in Texas history.

Perry has many problems with the conservative base of the Republican party, and must survive a definite nomination battle. However, he does have a few advantages. First, is that he has a fundraising advantage, with over insert number million dollars. Second, he is the sitting governor of the state which will cause many loyalists to vote for him. Third, he is 100% pro-life, which is in opposition to one of his primary opponents.

Hutchinson forms exploratory committee

Well, no surprise, but Kay Bailey Hutchinson has formed an exploratory committee to look into a possible gubernatorial run. So, everybody knew that she was going to do this, so the fight is now on. Personally, I am waiting to see if she resigns her Senate seat to prove that she really wants this job. If she does not, she may have a hard time convincing me to support her.

Republican Establishment Bailout Lunacy!

John Boehner, the Republican House Leader, is now fighting to stop $25 billion from being given (loaned) to the failing auto industry. Many other Republicans are opposing this. This is absolute lunacy! These people approved $700 billion to bail out the financial organizations, who were the VERY people who got us into this mess, yet they will not allow just 25 billion of that to go to the auto industry that is collateral damage from the financial market! How did these people get into office? I am very interested in two things: politics and cars, so this is hitting close to home. If Republicans bail out the corrupt people who got us into this mess--those same people who are going to expensive resorts after being bailed out--but lets the only American car companies to go under, my support of Republicans is going to disappear. If they are going to throw the American auto industry under the bus, then they need to be thrown under the Republican bus. America does not need leaders like that.

Ins and Outs

Let me explain the top two boxes on the right, labeled "Ins" and "Outs". These are my speculation as to who I think will and will not run for the GOP nomination in 2012. When I update it, I will always tell you in a post, why I am moving someone.

Ins:
Newt Gingrich-Many of his staff members are hinting that this may finally be his year. Also, Robert Novak, typically plugged in, seems to think that Gingrich is running.
Tim Pawlenty- He is non-commital, and after being runner up in the veepstakes, is widely expected to run.
Mike Huckabee-He has a Fox talk show, and is starting a nationwide book tour. Need I say more?
John Thune-He needs to win reelection to the Senate, and then he would be a powerful candidate.

Outs:
Rick Perry-He was considered by many as a candidate, but he told reporters:
"Being the Texas governor is the greatest job in the world and I'm not interested in change," he said. "As a matter of fact, I'm running for re-election in 2010." So, it sounds like he will not be running.

Palin definitely leaves the door open for a run for President

In an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox she was asked about future Presidential ambitions, and she said:
“You know, I have -- faith is a very big part of my life. And putting my life in my creator's hands -- this is what I always do. I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is. Even if it's cracked up a little bit, maybe I'll plow right on through that and maybe prematurely plow through it, but don't let me miss an open door. And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door.”

Sooo, everyone has been speculating on this, but we can now add Sarah Palin to our list of definite "Ins" for the Race for President. We can also almost definitely remove Gov. Mitt Romney from the list. When speaking to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, he said:
"I think it's quite unlikely that I would run for office again," he said. "I gave this my best effort. My experience in politics is that the window opens rarely. It opened for me. I stepped through it, got on the stage and did my darnedest to win the nomination. John McCain was successful and I was not."

Cornyn for President!

Wow! In a couple of my last few posts, I mentioned "Cornyn '12". I had no idea that anyone else was echoing my sentiments until I read this (courtesy of the Houston Chronicle):
"[Running for Chairman of the NRSC] has prompted speculation that the senator [Cornyn] may establish a donor base that could position him for an eventual run for president."

This is incredibly exciting! This is just what the Republican Party needs to cure its woes. John Cornyn has the classic combination conservatism. He appeals to BOTH fiscal, and social conservatives (As opposed to McCain, Huck, Giuliani), he has no significant flip flops (Romney...), and sounds very intelligent in media interviews *cough* Palin*cough*.

Go Cornyn '12!

UPDATE: was reading the news and saw this. Popular governors don't go to Iowa right after an election when their candidate lost, without a very good reason. Looks like it is time to add another to the hunt, 4 years before the election...

We Did It!

Well my friends,
We did it! While John McCain lost (no surprise), but all 3 races that I mentioned earlier, Republicans won! Texas Republicans should congratulate themselves. I am too tired to write more now, but I will later.

Go Vote!

The election is tomorrow. Many people are ready for it to have been over a few eeks ago. Now is the time for one final push! Call your local campaigns, and see if they need any help at the polls, or making calls. But the most important thing to do is vote! If no Republicans come vote, the liberal Democrats win by elimination. So, go vote (straight ticket Republican) and bring at least 5 Republican friends with you to vote. Then make sure that they bring 5 friends, and the movement will be started. Vote Republican!