Ray Richardson

First and foremost, I appreciate all of the response to my column regarding "Can you be anti-gay agenda without being anti-gay?" While most of the responses were in dissent of my opinion, they were thought-provoking and substantive. I encourage you in the future to direct the responses to the newspaper, however, so that the discussion of the issue continues to reach more people. Again, thank you for your provocative responses.

There has been considerable discussion regarding the Governor's proposal to take-over the county jail system by the state government. Due to the financial implications in a number of counties including Cumberland, backs have stiffened and the rhetoric has grown hot and not necessarily productive.

We must keep a couple of things in mind as we approach this subject. One, the idea has merit. The state already mandates much of what the county jail system does. While the state prison system and the county jail system may provide different services based on the current crop of residents and the laws they arrived at their destination under, that may be a lot like saying the Red Sox cannot run the Sea Dogs. It is, after all, baseball.

Much of the discussion surrounding this issue relates to money. Will the state make the counties whole, particularly those who have recently built or are building new jails or those who have significant equity in their current facility? The state cannot reasonably expect to takeover the county jail system without accepting financial responsibility for their acquisition.

The county jail system is financed by property taxes and the state prison system is financed by the general fund appropriated by the State Legislature. Both are supported by our tax dollars, but which approach makes more sense? Ultimately, I think this issue fails or succeeds based on how the dollars are worked out.

Have you had a chance to look over Hillary Clinton's heath insurance proposal? The price tag is $110 billion taxpayer dollars. It is modeled significantly on the HillaryCare proposal from 1993 and once again, does not solve the problem. One of the elements starting to filter its way to the top is the requirement to have health insurance in order to accept employment. I find this particularly egregious because what right is it of the federal government to tell me to buy health insurance? This is still America and it is none of her business whether we the people have health insurance.

Further, her proposal is clearly un-Constitutional; however, since we no longer use the Constitution, if she is elected, she will probably get this nonsense enacted. God help us all if she does. Maybe we can join with France and create an international socialist state?

Speaking of the Red Sox today is Sept. 20. I not only predict they will win the division and the American League championship, I also believe they will beat the Mets in five games for the World Series title. Remember you read it here first.

Fred Thompson has now entered the race for President and as those of you who watch my morning show know, I am a big supporter of his. He appeared on my show during the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts (he helped him through the process) and I asked him at the time if he would run. He did not rule it out and I have hoped for his entrance into this race ever since.

Thompson is a commanding presence and he supports most of the same ideas that I do. He believes in a limited, but effective government whose intrusion into our lives should be minimal. He understands that we must be strong military as well as economically in order for our nation to remain free, safe and vibrant. I hope you will take a look at his candidacy by going to www.fred08.com

Finally, should you support anyone for political office, even if they are the nominee of your political party, if you fundamentally disagree with their position on the most important thing to you? I made this comment about Rudy Giuliani recently and boy did it ruffle some feathers.

I said I could not support Rudy because he does not value marriage. Based on his actions, I have come to the conclusion that he takes his marriage vows lightly. It is not that he cheated on his wife when he was Mayor; I know good people make mistakes. He was flagrant about it. He lived in an apartment with his girlfriend while his wife and children lived in the Mayor's mansion. He was flamboyant and his actions dictated that he takes his vows lightly as though they meant little.

My marriage is the most important thing to me (other than my relationship with God). How can I support a man who apparently does not place value on the one thing that is most important to me? I am not moralizing here, although I am sure some will say that I am.

I am talking about character. I want the man or woman who sits in the oval office to possess character. I define character, not by the mistakes one makes, but by what they do about them.

Rudy chose to flaunt his mistakes as though they were meaningless and I simply cannot support a man who places so little value on his vows, whether to his wife or to the citizens he hopes to represent.

Ray Richardson is a longtime Westbrook resident and has also served as president of the Westbrook Chamber of Commerce. He has a morning radio show on WLOB, a TV show on FOX 23 and is involved with many community organizations. He can be contacted at ray@rayrichardson.com.

Ray Richardson is a longtime Westbrook resident and has also served as president of the Westbrook Chamber of Commerce. He has a morning radio show on WLOB, a TV show on FOX 23 and is involved with many community organizations. He can be contacted at ray@rayrichardson.com.