In reading Michael Medved's typical thoughtful, reasonable, and compelling article today at Townhall.com about the ongoing dialogue regarding a Mormon in the White House, I was surprised to see him write that I had announced that I could never, in good conscience, vote for a Mormon.

Actually, I believe Michael heard me pose a hypothetical scenario during my radio show.  Heck, it might have even been my fault in the way I presented it on-air.  I remember that I was defending people who are raising the issue of Mormonism by suggesting that one should able to say, "I could never vote for a Mormon in good conscience based on the core religious beliefs that conflict with my own" and not have to be accused of being some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth bigot by Mitt Romney supporters.

But for the record, I've never said I have failed to consider ANY of the Republican candidates for president.  It's way too early and besides, I continue to struggle with the issue of the strangeness of a number of various Mormon beliefs.  But that doesn't mean I'd ever suggest that I'd never vote for Gov. Romney.

While Michael makes some convincing arguments that should make Romney supporters happy, I noticed that the pre-1978 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints opinion of Blacks was missing from his column.  Evidently, prior to 1978 the Mormons had a pretty dim view of people of color.  But in 1978, presto!  there was some kind of revelation or inspiration or some auspicious occasion where Blacks were suddenly allowed to be on an even playing field with Whites.

Again, as I understand it, this was 1978.  Not 1878.

Is it fair and reasonable to wonder if a man who is part of a religion that held such a horrible view only 29 years ago would be a good choice for the president of a country that seems to constantly be struggling with race relations?  Can we at least consider the question openly and without condemnation?

I sure hope so. 

Meantime, not that it matters much, but when I decide who to vote for in 2008, I"ll let you know.

The Republican debate last night in South Carolina seemed to prop up one of the candidates and say good-bye to another.  When Texas Congressman Ron Paul suggested that our foreign policy is the reason we were attacked on 9/11, Rudy Guiliani buried him.  In that brief exchange, the former New York mayor demonstrated what a strong, decisive, tough-as-nails guy sounds like, while poor Congressman Paul just twisted in the wind.

It was like watching a big leaguer play catch with a little leaguer.

More importantly, Guiliani's performance is a reminder that he is, indeed, a very viable GOP candidate.  Isn't it wise to consider a guy like Rudy as a wartime president?   And isn't it true that a battle-scarred, street fighter like "America's mayor" would be the perfect opponent  to Hillary?

Let's face it, most of the men up on that stage last night are nice guys.  Pleasant, affable fellows all.  With perhaps one exception.  Rudy Guiliani is a lot of things, but a touchy-feely nice guy he is not.  He's tough, edgy, to-the-point, and capable of going toe-to-toe with anyone who crosses him. 

Do you really think Hillary Clinton would best him in a debate?  Let them discuss 9/11 and her previous support of the war on terror and he'll make mincemeat out of her.

I certainly struggle with Rudy's ideology on some crucial social issues, especially abortion.  But when Rudy Guiliani says that he's willing to appoint constructionist judges, regardless of his personal views on abortion, I believe him.  Besides, we've had years of pro-life presidents and so far, Roe v. Wade doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

More and more, I'm starting to believe that if Republicans have any chance of winning the White House in 2008, we'd better put a seasoned, tough cookie up against Madame Hillary.

They don't come much tougher than Rudy.

Democrats thought they were so clever to wait until today to present the 'cut and run' military spending bill to the President for his inevitable veto.  Evidently, they're so fixated on the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner behind the presidential podium four years ago that they just had to try and embarrass President Bush on the fourth anniversary of that speech and banner.

But today is starting out a bit differently, isn't it?  Headlines are screaming that the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri has been killed.

At the time of this writing, the U.S. has yet to officially confirm it, but the reports seem to suggest it's true.

If so, this must be a really awful turn of events for the Pelosi/Reid dems who wanted to run President Bush's nose in the 'Mission Accomplished" event.  It's mighty hard to argue that we're not making any progress in Iraq when something like that occurs, eh?

What is it they say about karma?