For GOP "issue" voters, how much do we let the desire to beat Hillary dictate who we cast our own ballot for? by R.J. Moeller
(conservative)
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
As a Conservative Christian, with the presidential election of 2008 on the horizon, the same question continues to perplex me: Where does one draw the line between heart and head? I consider myself a thoughtful, pragmatic young man, but it would be insincere for me to pretend that my faith is not the epicenter of my decision-making. On important issues such as abortion, the re-definition of marriage, and the War on , the leading GOP candidates represent positions all across the political spectrum and some contradict what I believe to be true. So what's a God-fearing Conservative to do in '08?
If, say Rudy Guiliani, who happens to be slightly more liberal on social issues, gets the nod at the Republican National Convention next summer, do we (those terrifying members of the Religious Right) really sit this one out in the hopes that a strong message is sent to the Republican National Committee? Do we effectively support Hillary by refusing to support Rudy because he's a moderate or Mitt because he's Mormon? My head tells me that the very notion of this is revolting.
Hillary Clinton, for all intensive purposes, is the candidate-de-jour on the Left. She also is, for all intensive purposes, a Secular-Progressive Communist. (But more on that later.) She's got the money, the name, and the support of most key players in election politics. The media already seems to speak of Hillary as president in the past tense.
If you thought the thousands of documented cases of Post Election Traumatic Stress Syndrome were bad in 2000 and 2004, wait till you see the billable hours that liberals' psychiatrists from Malibu to Maryland will be adding to Accounts Receivable come a Hillary loss in 2008. Dr. Phil and Hillary will have to start a new cable network called "L" (think about it) for the emotionally ized Lefty Losers across the fruited plains (except in those icky Red States between New York and L.A.).
In Hillary, we will be up against the most formidable shock-and-awe tactics of the Clintonistas, along with the clout of the mainstream media, the overwhelming majority of American newspaper editorial pages, and the annoyingly consistent drumbeat of support from professors and teachers in American public schools and universities. Add on to that an electorate already showing signs of Republican-fatigue (e.g. the 2006 mid-term elections), and you've got a volatile environment within which a GOP candidate is suppose to emerge victorious come next November.
To be fair, my head also tells me that there is plenty to be pleased with in this election cycle as far as my Party is concerned. For starters, the homogeneity found among the Liberal Democratic candidates is not the case on the Right. Primaries are for discussion and debate among the candidates to find out which direction that Party as a whole will be heading. The Libertarian voice of a Ron Paul (R-TX) is countered by that of the Moral values-driven Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who in turn is countered by the Pro-Nationalist Tom Tancredo (R-CO).
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has very different views on coerced interrogation than Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), and they are very real, long-standing distinctions in opinion. On the flip side of the political continuum, Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards wait till that week's latest polls are out to tell you if they are for or against bringing American troops home from Iraq. The only thing Obama has going for him is that he wasn't around when the infamous 2003 vote to authorize military force in Iraq took place. I've watched every Democratic and GOP debate thus far, and it is striking just how similar the responses from the Left sound compared to those on the Right. Notice I said "striking" and not "surprising".
As far as Madame Hillary is concerned, I defy anyone to pinpoint a plan in Hillary's platform that she's held for more than two years without drastically changing her public stance on it. (Other than wanting to: become President at any cost, raise your taxes, and create an entitlement-crazy society that becomes addicted to the narcotic-like affect of "free" stuff that only a liberal can, or will, provide.)
My head also tells me that falling on your sword to show just how self-righteous you are is self-defeating and largely unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. The gift-and-curse of reason and intellect I've been given tells me that the world is anything but perfect, and such is the case with any and every candidate for President. I despise the term "lesser of two evils" but in the admittedly melodramatic examples of WWII and the Cold War, America, in order to win the broader struggle at hand, was forced to work with people that we either despised at the time, or ended up fighting later. Can't the same case for defeating the socially and economically destructive forces of liberalism (and eventually socialism) be made as a rallying cry for voters to band together to keep Hillary out of the White House?
This, however, is usually the point where my heart begins to tell my head that he's come as far as he can go. My heart asks, "But if we compromise the values that define us (i.e. pro-life, pro-gun, pro-marriage), what are we left with?" Is it more important to have a president that I know completely agrees with my views than say one who I know completely disagrees with them? Do my personal principles trump those of the "greater good"? If I know for certain that one person is completely unqualified and unfit to be the CEO of my company, would it be better to go bankrupt than to give it to someone who I slightly differ with on management style and corporate objectives? T
hese are interesting questions to theorize about and reflect on, but where does that leave the average "values voter" on the Right? What do we do when potential candidates appear as anything but our "first choice" in a president? I tell anyone who will listen that the first thing we all must do is individually decide what truly matters to us. More than that, we should rank and classify those tenets into categories of Core and Peripheral beliefs.
For example: one of my Core beliefs is in the sanctity and preciousness of life. A peripheral belief for me is the tariff policy we may adopt in relations with Finland. One is negotiable, and the other is not. I believe, as the Founding Fathers did, that God, not Mankind, bestows value and worth onto and into each life. No amount of discussing the "right" of one human to selfishly end that of an another one will ever change my mind. Pro-life is the only, and I mean only, stance a religiously-serious person can have in my view of things.
Personally, Mayor Guiliani says hes abortion and counsels young couples and mothers to protect the life of their unborn baby by keeping it or giving it up for adoption. Conversely, as a matter of public policy, he says that Roe v. Wade, although a horrendously un-Constitutional decision by the Supreme Court, is currently the Federal government's stance on the issue and he therefore supports that. It's not as complicated a stance as the media tries to make it out as, in an attempt to drive the Conservative base further apart en route to a Hillary rout.
Sadly, Rudy also is for Liberal-strict gun control (something not even activist judges or law professors can justify thanks to the 2nd Amendment). He has a proclivity for dressing in drag, and is much more open to the idea of same-sex marriage being universally legalized. Without judging the personal life of a man I know about as well as Hillary knows the truth, it is worth noting that he has been married three times and has been involved in not-so-private affairs with married women.
I'm in no way trying to tear Mayor Guiliani down or say that I could never vote for him. But, the constant battle between heart and head that rages inside me demands I more honestly and closely examine him, as well as the other candidates, in the upcoming months of primary and election season. I use him as an example for the simple fact that his views most noticeably differ from my own on issues that are morally important to me.
Any candidate who shows charisma, leadership, courage under fire, and the ability to potentially defeat Conservatives' biggest fear (i.e. four more years of Slick Willy in the White House) must be taken seriously and given solemn consideration. But what do I do if that same candidate supports a social institution that has ed upwards of 50 million babies since 1972? To make it even more complicated and nuanced, what if he personally abhors the practice but publicly signs off on it? What does that say, if anything, about him that he's unable or unwilling to make a clear distinction in both arenas?
My point here is this: you should take the time to learn what these candidates really have said, have voted for, and are promising to do if elected. It's not enough to read bumper stickers and watch an occasional Daily Show to think you've got a handle on things. Not even poignant, thoughtful, engaging blogs written by ruggedly-handsome Grad students alone will afford you the comprehensive take on individual candidates that you may be interested in.
Read. Listen. Watch. Read some more. Think through what it is you really stand for and believe in. Find out what makes you tick before you set out to find out what makes them tick. Your head can and should influence what is in your heart, but that presumes there is actually something in your head. Don't sit back and wait for Halloween 2008 to start surfing through Colbert's page to decide whom you will vote for.
Listen to your head, but follow your heart. I know it sounds lamer than a Disney-produced song about Pocahontas, but it's true. God gave you a brain and a conscience, so use 'em.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of R.J. Moeller only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
R.J. Moeller is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Dann McCreary
Date: 2007-10-09 11:47:57
Thank you for your column.
If you truly believe what the Founding Fathers taught, and you look at the literal agendas and actual history of all the candidates, I am convinced that you will come to the conclusion that Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate consistent with their teachings.
Dr. Paul has demonstrated his deep respect for the rule of law throughout his career in politics. As a nation, we have strayed so far from the founder's principles that America would be unrecognizable to them today. Does that mean America should never change? Perhaps not, but we should certainly do so according to the provisions built into our constitution, NOT through federal power grabs and judicial activism.
The very word "Elect" literally means to choose. MY choice as a Christian conservative can be none other than the moral, principled Dr. Paul, whose track record proves that he would be the man our Founding Fathers would vote for today.
"Do we effectively support Hillary by refusing to support Rudy because he's a moderate or Mitt because he's Mormon? My head tells me that the very notion of this is revolting."
<> With all due respect, what I have for years found truly revolting is the illogic, not to mention he insanity, of this "voting for the lesser of two evils" mindset. You can tell yourself that you are making the "pragmatic" choice by doing so, but you are still endorsing evil in the process. I reject this flawed thinking, and the endless endorsement of corrupt, status-quo politicians that it engenders. Vote third party, vote for yourself, write in "none of the above", but for God's sake, stop being a sheep!
Thanks Dann for your kind words. I do not happen to agree that Ron Paul is the answer, but I understand why he is an attractive alternative to the front-runners. I am a Christian-American-Conservative-Republican, and that is the way I vote and try to live my life.
Alan, I am anything but a sheep, and in fact, although I'm only 25, I consider myself a shepard in my local community...especially among those close to my own age. I find it disheartening just how under-educated my peers are, many on whom have attended more presitigious universities and Grad Schools than myself. I am a thinking man, but a realistic one as well. As you can probably tell from my piece, I am struggling right now with who I can support; but I dont think that is in anyway a bad thing. This is what the primaries are for: to narrow the field and push the candidates on the issues members in their Party feel passionately about. Paul is a good man, but I don't consider him in any way legitimate as a presidential candidate. I like Huckabee (my dad is a Baptist pastor too), but don't see much of a chance for him as well. Romney seems too slick and disingenuous. Guiliani is a center-left Republican. Hunter and Brownback and Tancredo might as well be watching playoff baseball at home with their unlikely chances and less-than-exciting messages. Thompson appears apathetic to the whole process. McCain may still be shell-shocked (although I have the utmost respect for that man) and often looks uncomfortable in his own skin (and really all I have to say about him is McCai-Feingold). It's tough this time around, but I am going to wait at least until the primary season is over before I take an in-depth, serious look at whose left standing. 3rd Party is a dead-end street and we all know it.
Thanks for reading my post though, and sorry it won't format it into paragraphs. Don't know what that is about. Have a good one guys.
You have got to be kidding. It's never bothered us Republicans before, why should we change our ways now? I mean after our holy warrior George W. Bush, we can go in any of the 360 degrees on the compass and step up in integrity, humility, sincerity, intellect, and breeding. You know, like with the Iraq War; let's stay the course with Fred Thompson the lobbyist and purest hypocrite of the bunch. Why pull out now when it's just getting interesting. With any luck at all OPEC will say, "Ms. Secretary of State, we do not want to be inconvenience due to currency fluctuations so we'll no longer accept dollars, you'll have to pay with Euros." At that point blue collar Republicans will not be writing political articles based on the political dung that Fox News, CNN, and the WSJ feeds them, they'll be looking for a job along with the invertebrates occasionally referred to as Democrats. There is one thing for certain, George W. Bush epitomize the term Conservative Christian. No man in the history of the Republican Party has lived up to the creed of this family of predators better than, George W. Bush.
I may have just found the perfect replacement for Mr. Bush (Excuse me if I don't call him president. He exceeds my limits of greed and false pride).
TULSA, Okla. - 10/10/2007 - Twenty years ago, televangelist Oral Roberts said he was reading a spy novel when God appeared to him and told him to raise $8 million for Roberts' university, or else he would be "called home."
Now, his son, Oral Roberts University President Richard Roberts, says God is speaking again, telling him to deny lurid allegations in a lawsuit that threatens to engulf this 44-year-old Bible Belt college in scandal.
Richard Roberts is accused of illegal involvement in a local political campaign and lavish spending at donors' expense, including numerous home remodeling projects, use of the university jet for his daughter's senior trip to the Bahamas, and a red Mercedes convertible and a Lexus SUV for his wife, Lindsay.
She is accused of dropping tens of thousands of dollars on clothes, awarding nonacademic scholarships to friends of her children and sending scores of text messages on university-issued cell phones to people described in the lawsuit as "underage males."
In answer to your inquiry, those comments were not mine. Walt would not approve of what I would have had to say. No, God sits down beside me and said he had a message for you. I just watched. He types very well to my surprise, he didn't even bother with spell check or preview. I asked if he'd outsourced the people making to China or some other ungodly place. He just smiled and said, "Don't worry. They're going to come around. I'm going to see to it." I thanked him for calling Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy and Rex Humbard home. He just looked at me for the longest. It was kind of scary, me not being a Christian and all. After what seemed like an eternity he says, "Who?"
Phew, I'm tickled pink that the right wing failures are about to be ousted from the White House... (Rudy Giuliani is your best hope, but he is such an unlikeable bully that he can never beat Mrs. Clinton.)
Republicans have revealed themselves to be the party of closeted homosexuals, philanderers and pedophiles. Not to mention how many young people their policies have killed from your ill-thought adventurism overseas.
Republicans are immoral, Republicans lie without conscience. And America has seen you for what you are.
Bob- It sounds like you have a very low view of Christians in general, and God himself. I was just wondering, and I'm not trying to set a trap here or be disingenuous, what is it that you believe in? Who are your heroes, or people/thinkers/philosophers/etc that you look up to? What core tenets do you live by, and how did you arrive at them? What is it that drives you and gets you out of bed in the morning?
I'm just wondering because you seem very sure that the God that 90% of Americans (for the past 230 years), including men like John Adams, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan, heck, even Clinton, and yes, George W. Bush, all declared belief in is so grotesque and detestable that you would mock Him in such an unflattering way. I have no problem with you attacking fallen, sinful, controversial men (i.e. Falwell, Bush) and on some issues regarding their shortcomings you and i would likely agree. But when you start in on the disrespectful, unwarranted, unnecessary mocking of God, I (and hopefully the other 89.9999%) would ask you to reconsider your thoughtless words. God didn't let you down; those men let you down. God doesn't tell people to fly airplanes into buildings; perverted men tell other men to fly airplanes into buildings. God didn't make you an angry, bitter person; you've arrived there yourself.
Forums like this are poisoned when spite-filled "contributors" simply mock and ridicule, yet offer nothing in the way of thoughtful discussion and discourse. Please contribute something other than what you consider to be humorous antecdotes. I honestly am interested in what someone like you has to say, and want to learn from differing worldviews, but little is accomplished with posts like yours. Thank you and good day.
Your omniscience pours for this post like Niagara. I wasn't being disrespectful of God; I simply related what had happened. But you set yourself up, not as a judge of me, but as a judge of what God would or wouldn't do. This came as no surprise. After my book Conversations With God (Vanquish Publications 1992) came out I was invited to go on a church speaking tour. It was on this tour of some eighty different churches that pretty much covered the gambit of dogma in this country (Roman Catholics to the Pentecostals) that I got a backstage tour of Christianity. I was given lodging in the rectory or at the residence of a church official. I simply wasn't prepared to deal with the contention and petty complaints about other Christians. They even shared with me the names of their own members who were not worthy of God's grace. One night, just before falling to sleep, I asked God to help me understand what was happening. I hadn't yet traveled even halfway on the planned round robin, and I was sick of it all. I needed the money, but I didn't need it that badly. I awoke to find a Bible opened on the nightstand and this verse circled. I asked if I could keep that Bible, and it is my only prized position. I have been willing to die for the God I serve before I could read. From the battlefields of war to the heroin dungeons in New York and Las Vegas I've gone in His name and under His protection
 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."
Your arrogance and self-importance goes off the scale. I can't think of a thing of less importance to me than your name.
Your own words define you as a hypocrite. After tearing Giuliani down in every possible way you could think of you said, "I'm in no way trying to tear Mayor Guiliani down or say that I could never vote for him." We all know why you said that, it was protection incase he ends up running against Clinton. And by the way his name is spelled Giuliani.
Now I'm being hypocritical since my spelling and grammar are fifth grade at best.
Where's the mystery? Where's the ambiguity? Guess who made clear statements against warmongers and murderers? Hint: it wasn't some gay communists or Godless Democrats..
What's God's clearly-stated opinion of those who foment war so they can become rich selling weapons or being the friend of those who sell weapons? I don't recall that He said, "Don't worry; there will be no retribution, since you were misinformed by the Mainstream Media ."
I agree that you are mostly full of something, but I don't think it's the Holy Spirit.
Rock-
I'm not sure where you were, or are, going with your comments...
Are you mad at me or Bob, or both? We're discussing GOP presidential hopefuls, and I may be missing something, but your post appears to be angry at Halliburton or other arbitrary corp's that people place all their fears in and blame on as a coping mechanism due to fear of actual evils and injustices in the world. I'd take a corrupt corp. over a corrupt government any day of the week my friend. A strong (but small) Federal government and law enforcement can arrest Enron executives, but if more power goes to D.C. Democrats and Republicans, they'll have the economic and legal means to shut us all up.
Bush wasn't perfect, and no one is saying he is or was or will be. But, and this but is oh so important, he's no where near as bad as Kerry would have been or Hillary will be. That we should all be able to agree upon. Let's look for traditionalist, strict constructionist, free market, pro-life, pro-military, small government, competent candidates (regardless Party name) for the White House and Congress and we'll all be the better for it. Trust me.
I don't even know if this is in the same ballpark of what you were referring to, Rock, but I hope you'll explain yourself more so we can dialogue. Take care.
As she said, "I'm going to hate myself in the morning."
I may have misjudged you RJ. A battalion commander I flew for in Vietnam said to me one day, "Occasionally Miller, just occasionally, you say something that makes sense."Â
Don't take this as an invitation to share a ride to work or to move in with me. I'd rather have a cobra with an attitude loose in the house, but as I said, I may have misjudged you.
Posted By: Colette von Hessen
Date: 2007-10-17 11:50:52
Thanks for sharing your article, RJ. I enjoyed reading your perspective on things. I understand your frustration. The only reason I voted for George Bush in 2000 is because he wasny Al Gore. The only reason I voted for George Bush in 2004 is because he is pro-life (well, and because he wasn't John Kerry). You really don't have to settle for someone like Rudy Giuliani. Apart from the tax issue, I really don't see a huge difference between Hillary and Giuliani. It's hard to get more conservative than Ron Paul. He was the sponsor of the Sanctity of Life Act in Congress, and he voted to ban partial-birth abortion. Rudy Giuliani is pro-abortion, as we all know, even though he takes the cop-out position of being "personally pro-life but I don't want to decide for others." I'm all for that mentality when it comes to victimless crimes, such as drug use (though I'm personally strongly against drug use, people who use drugs are only harming themselves -- at least directly). In the case of abortion, though, there is very much a victim in this moral crime. Because of that, I will never vote for a candidate who is not pro-life. You may also like the fact that Dr. Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes and has been called "the taxpayers' best friend." He is also against the death penalty, and therefore has a deep respect for all human life, even the most corrupt among us. Ron Paul is a very honorable man with integrity that I haven't seen from any politician in my lifetime. I have been registered Republican since I was 18 years old (I am now 33). If the GOP nominates a pro-"choice" candidate, I will probably leave the party. I will write in a vote for Ron Paul if I have to. I strongly encourage you to look into him!
P.S. Ron Paul was one of only 4 Republican congressmen to support Ronald Reagan's bid for the presidency in 1976, while the rest of the Republicans in Congress supported Gerald Ford. Ron Paul is the real deal.
Many traditional conservatives and their more libertarian-Goldwater-Reagan leaning comrades have become apathetic or have left the GOP. This means that those who stay in the party and use the GOP primary have ALL THE POWER. The GOP primary is the MOST powerful tool for leveraging conservative personal values in government. Core conservatives and libertarians and independents have simply handed this most powerful of tools over to the neocons. Sadly, they tend to blame the tool when it is used to build an empire of debt rather than a nation of prosperous individuals. This year, those formerly apathetic conservatives are getting off the couch and mustering local support for Ron Paul. Many LP conservatives are also registering in the GOP to support Dr. Paul. (Not the left-libertarian-anarchists they want Hillary to win so that anarchy will arrive sooner.)
Less than 20% of registered Republicans have participate in the GOP primary over recent decades. This coming primary will show a tsunami of people who have learned that these primary or caucus systems are the most powerful tool they have. We give seminars to people who have no clue how the caucus system works. We've seen this rising Tsunami in dozens of cities across Colorado. We've driven thousands of miles and talked to hundreds of people, training them to do the same thing.
We have reasoned with libertarians, independents and unaffiliated and registered them as new republicans by the hundreds. The ONLY reason to be registered for any party is to participate in the nomination process. If people do not do that, their party affiliation is merely an ego-based badge that is of absolutely no consequence with regard to influencing the future of the USA.
R.J., most people under the age of 40 don't remember what the GOP stood for before the fear-mongering neocons took it over and marginalized core conservatives. This is the year that conservativism strikes back. We are so attuned to thinking that liberals are the enemy and republicans are our allies that it has taken a long time to realize neocons and liberals are all on the same side; the side of empire, fear and oppression of individual liberty.
As Richard Bach said, 'argue for your limitations and they're yours.' If you argue that you will not support Ron Paul because he can't win, you are just an unwitting victim of the herd mentality that socialist schools have indoctrinated most Americans to accept as normal over the past century. It is time for the re-revolution to restore the republic by reasserting our core conservative values and replacing fear-mongers and empire builders with leaders who will reinvigorate our peace, prosperity and individual liberty by reinforcing the principles that form the foundation of our Republic.
If you are going to bring God into the discussion, please note that there is only one candidate so far who has consistently honored his oath of office to protect and honor the Constitution of the United States. Will God be pleased if you support and promote oath-breakers and traitors to the Constitution? What sort of reasoning would convince you that God wants you to support and promote warmongers, liars and pirates? Where in the Bible does it say to promote the lesser of evils? If a person speaks against abortion, but starts wars of aggression based on lies and misinformation that kill hundreds of thousands of humans including little children, does that mean they support the "sanctity of life?" Does human life only count if it's unborn life? The agendas of both main parties are based on wealth and power, with a little lip-service to "life and freedom," etc. The only clear exception to all of this evil treachery is Ron Paul. If he is elected, how long do you think they will let him live?
Posted By: Evan Andrew Litosch
Date: 2007-10-24 17:13:07
I agree with this article especially on the point of dishonesty in government... no wait BIG GOVERNMENT. Hard enough to find a needle in a haystack but the needle's we're looking for are buried in the ground underneath. You have to realize, the people who put the laws on the books are rarely held accountable for past transgressions mostly because the general public is unaware. But we at least find the pedophiles, adulterers, and closet homosexuals(Surprise hillary)! Jolly good SHOW, carry on.
Posted By: Fearful in NH
Date: 2007-10-29 20:00:44
Colette von Hessen - I like the way you think. - I'm in the same BOAT. Let's make sure all our boats cross on primary day and Dr. Paul gets the Republican nomination. A Hilary or Rudy/Mitt (i.e. all socialist) presidency will be a fatal blow to the Republic, I fear.
I thank you for the article. So many people vote based soley to keep the other person out. Why are we doing this to ourselves? People need to start voting on principle and who best represents them. Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Guiliani are jokes. They are flip floppers and Fred is plain lazy. The Conservative Christian Right is losing it's mind by endorsing these three candidates. the National Right to Life just endorsed Thompson, who lobbied for a pro-choice company! I've lost faith in the GOP, never had faith in the Democratic party, and am quickly losing faith in the "Christian" leaders of America.
Ron Paul supporters know that besides registering to vote in the primaries that we need to become Precinct committmembers -- >We're All For Paul ==>Â Â ronpaul.meetup.com/7
Great article, but a couple of typos. I think he meant "killed" in the following: " But what do I do if that same candidate supports a social institution that has ed upwards of 50 million babies since 1972?".
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
