The Bottom Line Blog

Starr Wars II: Attack of the Drones

2008-03-06T21:30:00.002-06:00

Today, one of Hillary Clinton's spokesmen, Harold Wolfson, compared Barack Obama's statement that he's going to be more critical of Hillary's record to the Whitewater investigation headed up by Kenneth Starr.

Yeah. It doesn't make sense to me, either.

Naturally when something like this happens, I look to talk radio's big guns, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck to see what they think was the motivation. I didn't find anything on Rush's website where he talked about it, but I did get to see the lovely collection of Club Gitmo wear. I listened to Hannity and he was still on the "Obama's racist Pastor" kick in between chats with guests. And Beck? I'm not sure it hit early enough for him to comment on it today, so I went 0 for 3 with the guys who get paid to comment on this sort of thing.

When I started thinking about it at first, it seemed rather disjointed. Who even remembers that much about Ken Starr these days besides the Clintons and their followers? Ah, but there's the rub! It comes down to this election, but not in the way you think.

Right now, Hillary could win the Democratic nomination by virtue of securing enough super delegates. With Obama starting to try to get Hillary's super delegates on his side, she knows she'll have to retain as many as she can while trying to attract as many of Obama's super delegates as possible. So, her campaign brings up an old boogeyman in the form of Ken Starr, hoping the super delegates who remember him flock to her to protect her from Obama's attempts to...well, to campaign against her.

The potential pitfall to this is if Democrats start to think about how weak a comparison Wolfson made. Seriously, asking about Hillary's tax returns as a means to suggest she's not being completely open about herself is akin to Ken Starr's investigation into Whitewater? That's a bit of a stretch, even for someone enamored with the prospect of a former First Lady becoming President. At some point, you can't play the "victim card" and have it work. This is one time when it definitely doesn't work when you really think about it.

Of course, you never can tell when something will work. Who would have thought Hillary crying would have helped her win New Hampshire?

Rubbernecking at the Societal Freak Show

2008-03-05T19:59:00.004-06:00

Have you ever seen "The Moment of Truth"? If you haven't, it's a game show on Fox that puts contestants on a polygraph, ask them questions ranging from benign to highly personal, and then ask them some of the questions they've answered previously to see if they're telling the truth on camera for a chance to win $500,000. And the toughest questions are saved for later on, as you might expect.

And let me tell you, it's uncomfortable to watch.

I'm not the type to force people to do my bidding (because if I did, Jessica Alba would be here and the blog would not matter), but I seriously want people not to watch this show. I'm sure there are people who would appreciate digging deeply into the psyche of the contestants, but some things should not be seen on television. This is way too real, even for reality TV.

Of course, Fox will say that they're only giving the people what they want. If they're right, we're much further along in our social disintegration than I thought. Where have we put our compassion for our fellow human beings? Seriously, this is the kind of stuff that would fall way into the TMI section if people volunteered this stuff on their own.

Perhaps more disturbing than the invasion of privacy that "The Moment of Truth" is the fact that these people are willing to destroy their lives and the lives of loved ones for money. I'm a capitalist, but even I have limits. When people's lives get destroyed in a pursuit of money, it becomes that much more important that we don't give our consent, silent or overt. Have we become so corrupted as a society that we take a perverse joy at watching the pain of others?

In a way, we've always been like that. As wonderful and moral as we think we are, we all have darker influences that creep into our minds and hearts from time to time. It's a part of human nature, but that doesn't justify our actions. We can and should strive to be better than our baser natures. "The Moment of Truth" should only be on the air for one more moment before being filed away like the bad show it is.

Of course, that would mean we'd have to stop rubbernecking long enough to make that notion a reality.

Rethinking the War on Terrorism

2008-03-01T21:21:00.002-06:00

It's been going on 7 years since 9/11, putting us on a course that put us in a war against global terrorism. Since I don't think anyone else is doing it, I figured I'd give some thought to how well the war on terrorism is going.

In the aftermath of 9/11, America took a bold step forward to challenge the terrorists, one I still agree with wholeheartedly. Yet, as time has passed, that bold step has been turned into a baby step. We're still fighting the terrorists as we should be doing, but I don't think we really think about the importance of that fact on our daily lives. President Bush, to his credit, told us that it would take a while to win, but we didn't get that. For many Americans, a long time is two weeks.

Like it or not, we got spoiled during the 90s. With the Soviet Union falling, we were the lone superpower in the world, so we did what seemed logical at the time and started to scale back our military operations and retool our thinking. With these actions, we became insulated with a false sense of security while another global threat on the horizon waited for its time to strike. And strike it did.

Once we saw that we weren't as safe as we thought, we woke up for a time. Ah, but with time, political spin from both major parties, and a shortening attention span or perspective on history, many Americans either forgot we were fighting the war on terrorism or merely disregarded it like a year-old advertising slogan. Once this started happening, we started losing the home front in the war on terrorism.

If you were to ask the average American on the street today whether we were winning or losing the war on terrorism, I honestly think the majority would say we were losing. Why? Although we haven't done everything we should be doing (like securing the borders and using more realistic standards for airport security) to combat terrorism, we're at least in the game. That's a step in the right direction, but we need more than a step. We need to be willing and able to fight the terrorists where they are and tell our international critics to sod off.

Unfortunately, we're not doing as much of either as we need to in order to be serious about fighting international terrorism. We're so concerned about fighting the "right" war that we're giving up ground to those who don't share our sense of battlefield fairness. The terrorists can and will use our freedoms and adherence to preserving them where we can against us. In short, while we squabble over whether to shut down Gitmo or whether the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, we're taking our eyes off the terrorists who want us dead.

We're past the point where we can point to one President or another as being to blame for our lack of readiness on 9/11. Looking at the past is only useful as a tool to know what not to do in the future. Instead, we should have our eyes fixed on our eventual goal and the path to get us there.

Yes, dear readers, we need to rethink the war on terrorism, not whether it was a worthy undertaking, but whether we're really fighting it as well as we need to do to survive. And if we're not, we need to figure out how to make it happen so that we do. Our nation's protection, and the protection of the world for that matter, isn't a political football to be tossed around during an election year to help one candidate or another. We need to take the war on terrorism seriously, and that requires us to do some serious rethinking about it to ensure that we're taking it as seriously as required to win it.

Clinton-zuma's Revenge?

2008-02-29T20:05:00.002-06:00

One of the stories that isn't getting as much play in this election cycle is how Hillary Clinton's campaign has been attractive to Latino voters. At this point, it may be a moot point.

Or is it?

Think about it for a moment. Democrats have been setting the stage for illegal immigrants to be given the same voting power as we do. Thanks to Motor Voter (an initiative that allows people to register to vote at the same time they get their driver's license, thanks to...Bill Clinton), illegal immigrants can register to vote. With attentiveness at polling places being less than Britney Spears at a parenting class, nobody's checking whether these folks are legitimate. They're too busy trying to get the all-Spanish ballots, after all.

Now, consider the fact that there are millions of illegal immigrants streaming into this country. That's a pretty big voting bloc, one that won't be ignored by a candidate as savvy as Hillary. (And, yes, that's even counting the blunders she's made with campaign staff and finances.) But you don't have to be a political guru to look at illegal immigrants and the Latino voters who love them as a potentially powerful political force.

Hillary has done a great, yet understated, job at attracting these voters to her campaign. Then, the question becomes whether these voters would go for Obama if Hillary were to drop out or not win the nomination. If they're anything like the other voters on Hillary's side, their loyalty will be fierce. That will deprive Obama of millions of votes in an election where Democrats are hoping to get the White House back. Every vote that Obama loses will put him that much more in the hole when going up against someone who might be able to draw on the center-right crowd Obama's hoping to get.

In short, if things play out like they have so far, Obama may win the nomination, but lose the general election, thanks to Hillary Clinton working to get the Latino vote. Then, in 2012, Hillary has a ready-made voting bloc that only she will be able to deliver.

Montezuma's Revenge is kinder than this.

William F. Buckley and the State of Conservatism

2008-02-27T19:14:00.003-06:00

With today's passing of William F. Buckley, arguably the father of conservatism as we know it today, there are a lot of column inches being spent in tribute. This won't be one of them, not because I don't think Buckley is worthy of a tribute I wrote, but because I don't think I'm worthy to write one.

Instead, we need to look ahead at where conservatism goes from here. It's morbid, but it has to be done. With Buckley's death, conservatism has lost one of the guiding voices and minds of the movement. This leaves conservatism in a bit of a lurch at a time when the debate over its heart and soul needs to be lively.

Who can we look to as the new standard bearer? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Glenn Beck? Michael Savage? They and their talk radio brethren can help to fill some of the void, but they fall short. This isn't a knock against them by any means. It's a testament to the impact Buckley had on conservatism as a whole. I'm sure the "next Buckley" is out there somewhere, and we will need him or her now more than ever because there are people attempting to reshape it in their own image.

Granted, everybody on the right will have a different view on what constitutes a conservative ideology, and that's fine to a point. However, what we're seeing right now isn't a difference of opinion; it's a radical redesign of conservatism. When self-styled conservatives start supporting big government, overspending, and the erosion of property rights, that's where I draw the line. Those folks are no more conservative than Cindy Sheehan is. Yet, that's what we're being presented as "conservative" by those looking to water down what conservatism is.

With Buckley's death, true conservatives now have a lot of ground to make up. But as long as there are people who believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and respect for the individual over the state, Buckley will live on.

Coming Apart at the Seems

2008-02-26T21:08:00.003-06:00

If no other lesson can be learned from Election 2008, it's that one cannot count on appearances as an indication of possible success.

Remember January 2008? It was almost 2 months ago, but it's seen the coming and going of the dreams of some of the people we thought we be locks for their respective parties' nominations. Hillary Clinton seemed to have the money and the political machine to waltz to the nomination, as did Mitt Romney. Now, the latter is out and the former is all but out.

It seemed Mike Huckabee and John McCain were also-rans who no one would vote for in a million years. Now, both are still in the race, as is Ron Paul.

Barack Obama seemed like a long shot to take on Hillary. Now, he's whupping up on her like a child getting spanked for taking a cookie from the cookie jar before dinner.

Bill Clinton seemed like an invaluable asset for Hillary's campaign. Now, he's pretty much seen as 3/5 of the word (and you can guess which three letters I'm referring to).

It seemed that the Clinton political machine was well-oiled, well-funded, and well-schooled on how to win. With recent reports of how much Hillary spent early on because she and her campaign felt the nomination was all but hers, it's clear all three notions were not based on anything but wishful thinking or an overestimation of her abilities.

Modern politics is all about projecting an image to the voters. Yet, as we've seen so far, image is a poor substitute for reality. As we get closer to narrowing down our choices for President, it would be good for us all to remember that.

A New Post from Stella Rondo

2008-02-26T20:59:00.002-06:00

Now that it looks like Hillary Clinton may be swept aside inthe presidential race, let’s look at this story’s larger implications.

Hillary was supposed to be a different kind of woman. THE Woman, the woman who would change the rules of history, who would smash the ultimate glass ceiling and enter history as proof positive that America has put its sexist past behind it and would enter the new century with new enlightened progressive leadership.

And yet, who would have heard of Hillary Clinton had it notbeen for her husband? She had a modest career as a lawyer, but nothing that a lot of lawyers haven’t had - time in a firm, cranking out the billable hours. So yes, she had some minor accomplishments on her own, but her appearance on the public scene really came with the election of her husband as governor of Arkansas. She was not lieutenant governor, nor was she a member of the governor’s cabinet. She was the governor’s wife, and as much as she may have chafed against that role, she succumbed to it for his good and, she hoped, ultimately her own.

She claims 35 years of experience “advocating” for her pet concerns. But what she calls “experience”, most women would just call “living”. What she calls “advocating”, most women would just call “talking”. Being a mother confers nothing unusual either. It is something literally billions of women have done throughout history, many with much less education and money and in more trying circumstances than she. Fighting for the rights of someone unfortunate is something that many women do frequently and without fanfare, often on a volunteer basis.

Maybe there was a devil’s bargain between Hillary and Bill. If she would overlook his personal foibles and just sacrifice for him a little longer, he would help her get what she wanted- the ultimate political prize. But it’s gone terribly awry. Surprising, considering how for years we all have heard how Hillary is smarter and shrewder and craftier than even Bill.

Which raises the specter of the Awful Truth. When all is said and done, Hillary Clinton has turned out to be just another woman who got her power the old fashioned way. She slept with it, and she married it. And her story is one of the oldest in the world. She sacrificed her life for the sake of a man, expecting love and reward in return, and was instead passed over for a younger model. A younger male model, no less.

What ultimately is extraordinary about Hillary Clinton isthat for all her protestations of experience and vision and sacrifice and service, how very, very ordinary her life really has been.

Hope 2.0

2008-02-25T19:38:00.002-06:00

He's young, attractive, and articulate. He makes crowds go wild with his energy and sheer charisma. He seems to have come from obscurity to the spotlight. Some even say this candidate for President is sexy!

Yep, that Bill Clinton from 1992 was quite the candidate.

If you thought I was referring to Barack Obama just now, that's not by accident. In thinking about Obamamania recently, I flashed back to "The Man from Hope." Back then, it was Bill Clinton who was trying to convince the electorate that we needed change in this country. He offered much of the same high-minded dreams that Obama is today, and got much the same reaction. In 1992, Bill Clinton was the candidate for change.

Now, in 2008, Barack Obama is repeating the success that Clinton enjoyed in 1992. Obama is hopeful, optimistic, and running on the notion that he can bring about the change this country needs. Whether that's because of who he is or merely an attempt to copy what worked in the past, I don't know. But what I do know is that it's working again, and this time Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are the ones resisting the change.

A nice twist of fate to say the least. One of the "co-Presidents" who got into the White House preaching for change is now saying change isn't all it's cracked up to be. And they're the ones trying to beat back the challenge of someone who thinks change and hope are worth fighting for.

And who says this election is boring?

When Is A Sex Scandal NOT A Sex Scandal?

2008-02-22T21:55:00.002-06:00

Thursday saw the revelation of a sex scandal involving Republican front-runner John McCain. Nine years ago, it's rumored that McCain was having an affair with a female lobbyist in exchange for his support on certain telecommunications bills in the Senate. And, because Americans are like 13 year old boys when it comes to sex, we focused on the sexual side of the scandal.

Of course, that's not the real issue at hand here. The issue isn't sex with a lobbyist; it's sex with a lobbyist. Let's not forget it was John McCain who made his name as a maverick by bucking his party on lobbyist influence on legislation. As it turns out, the "Straight Talk Express" doesn't talk so straight when it comes to lobbyists. He's been connected to telecommunications lobbyists since the mid-to-late 90s, so this "latest" scandal is nothing new. The sex thing? That's new, but it's the parsley garnish on the blue plate special: for looks only.

So, when is a sex scandal NOT a sex scandal? When it involves John McCain and a lobbyist.

Maybe It's Us

2008-02-16T19:14:00.002-06:00

The recent shootings at Northern Illinois University have brought a lot of issues to the forefront. As we look for solutions or reasons why the shootings happened, we'll go over the usual culprets. But there's one that we always seem to overlook.

Maybe it's us.

Yes, we're not the ones who gave the shooter the gun or bought the bullets. We aren't the ones who pushed the shooter to take the actions he did. We aren't the ones who made Northern Illinois University a "gun free zone." Most of the people reading this have no direct connection to the shooter or his actions.

But indirectly, we might have an impact we don't see. Our society has gotten darker since the early 90s, and, no, I don't pin this on Bill Clinton's Presidency. Clinton's ascension was a symptom, not the cause. Thanks to a combination of a seemingly sound economy and the lack of a known enemy, we had no real concerns, so we did what most people would do: we started looking for ways to make our own lives better. And what we did was loosen the morals a bit, make greed and excess cardinal virtues, and let the end all and be all of our existences ourselves.

Now, consider that at the same time we were becoming me-monkeys, there was a corresponding rise in communication technology. Personal computers, online services, cell phones, text messaging, and other advances have made it possible for people to become dehumanized. Also, don't forget the rise in use of video games, especially violent games like "Doom" and "Grand Theft Auto." Again, symptoms, not the cause.

So what is the cause? The environment we created and have not thought through in our rush for bigger SUVs, more expensive coffee, and faster downloads of internet porn. In building up our castles, we have made the walls so strong that few other people can get inside. That creates an echo chamber where the only voice we hear is our own, and the only one we feel answerable to is ourselves.

Could the Northern Illinois University shootings have been prevented by someone breaking through the shooter's personal barriers? I'd like to think so, but it's only speculation at this point. By ignoring our fellow human beings and their needs, even if it comes with a slight inconvenience for us, we make our world a little darker, which only drives some even further inward. What would change this condition?

Maybe it's us.

A Party Divided

2008-02-16T06:17:00.003-06:00

Back in 2003, I wrote a column titled "The Impending Democrat War" where I observed how the Democratic Party was starting to come apart at the seams because it had become a loose coalition of special interest groups jockeying for position and power. Now, we're seeing it blowing up in front of our faces with the current rifts in the Democratic ranks.

It shouldn't be such a surprise, though. Modern politics has become less about picking the best man or woman for the job and more about cults of personality. Read the message boards or listen to the chatter among politically-minded people on the left and you'll see and hear the factionalization of the party. If you're a Hillary supporter, you're full-on for Hillary. If you support Obama, he is the only one you'll consider. If you're a Mike Gravel supporter, you're some of the loneliest people on the planet.

To be fair, Republicans have the same problem, but on a smaller scale. There really aren't that many special interest groups within the Republican side, but those that are there can be just as nasty as what we're seeing on the Democratic side right now. Ask John McCain.

The factionalization of the parties is a double-edged sword. Having to appeal to a wider audience than just a few party faithful helps in the general election when you're having to try to pull votes from voters other than the party faithful. On the other hand, the more factions you have, the more people you have to try to bring into the fold...and the more people you can torque off if you don't say and do exactly what they want, or at least pretend like you will. It's a mixed bag, but it's one that both major parties have accepted as a fact of political life.

But it's that fact of political life that is destroying the Democratic Party as we know it. Put simply, neither Hillary nor Obama will be able to unite the party after one of them wins the nomination. When emotions are running as high as they have been in Election 2008, factionalization can lead to a weakened national effort.

The unintended consequences of this impacts the Congressional races this year. Republicans have to defend more seats than Democrats do, but if the emotions of the national race bleed into the Congressional races, we could see Democratic candidates who back Hillary be opposed by Democratic candidates who back Obama sparring for the nomination and then having to try to court those same voters in an attempt to win, which may not be possible. Many Republicans may win in November simply because they didn't have to put up with so much in-fighting.

Either way, the Democrats are faced with a dilemma. Either they have to force a change in their party, or it will be destroyed. To be honest, I don't see them being able to pull up out of this death dive because they're too focused on the short term goal of winning the White House to see that winning the White House but losing the party is a pyrric victory. But it may take a pyrric victory or a crushing defeat for cooler heads to prevail.

And from the way it looks right now, Democrats are in for one or the other sooner than they think.

What If...

2008-02-14T21:02:00.002-06:00

Marvel Comics used to have a regular series titled "What If?" where they took important storylines in their characters' comics and figure out what would have happened if something else had happened. Watching the current struggles within the Democratic Party, I decided to do my own little "What If?" And it starts in 1996. What if Bob Dole had defeated Bill Clinton?

The Dole Presidency would be one term, but it would be significant in a couple of ways. First, assuming the world situation remained the same, he would have taken Osama Bin Laden when he was first offered and not refused him on the basis of a lack of legal grounds to hold him. Dole's anti-terrorism policy would not be as broad or as detailed as the current policy is, but it wouldn't pass up a chance to take out a known terrorist leader. Second, Dole would not have sent troops into Kosovo, which would have saved America money and prevented us from helping Islamic terrorism. Would 9/11 have still happened? Maybe, maybe not. But Dole's Presidency would have been much stronger than Clinton's real second term.

Dole's 96 victory would have had another impact: it would have knocked Bill and Hillary Clinton, and possibly even Al Gore, out of the political arena. This would have prevented Hillary from being elected junior Senator of New York State, and Bill would have been relegated to also-ran status. Gore might have stayed in for a bit longer, but probably would have dropped out and started working on his global warming presentations a bit earlier. The loss of these three individuals alone from the Democratic side of the aisle would have a monumental impact.

During the Dole Presidency, the Republican-led Congress would drift towards the center to match Dole's more moderate views. Without a Clinton impeachment to deal with, Republicans would pretty much have kept things going the way they had been, which would have accellerated their fall from power as it occurred in reality in 2006. Conservative voters would be marginalized and moderate to liberal Republicans would be taking over.

Critical mass for the GOP would occur in 2000 when it would be Bob Dole running against Bill Bradley. Bradley's progressive populism would be more of a match for Dole and Bradley would win going away. With him, the Democrats in Congress would move in Bradley's direction, leaving the Republicans in a tough spot. Even with Newt Gingrich rallying the Republicans and the conservatives, the party loses control of Congress and ends the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Bradley's first term signals a change in the way Washington, or at the very least the President, does business. The American public gets a sense that the Democrats are once again the party of the little guy, not just in rhetoric, but in deed. The infighting we're seeing now within real Democratic ranks would be mostly contained and not that big or that often. With the Republican Party in disarray, the Democrats would have a solid grip on Congress yet again.

Then, 2004 rolls around and President Bradley would face up against either a moderate Republican like John McCain or a moderate Republican running as a conservative Republican like George W. Bush. In either case, Bradley wins again, continuing his progressive populist message. After all, people would be comfortable with the idea, so why change? Bradley's success, in turn, inspires a state Senator from Illinois to throw his hat into the ring in 2008. And that man becomes President Barack Obama.

Granted, this is a combination of assumptions, guesswork, and a little political knowledge, but it's interesting to try to figure out how one election could have such an impact on an election 12 years later. What I predicted would have happened is not perfect, nor would it have come to pass. But I am open to suggestions or points that I neglected to factor into my thinking. As it stands, though, 1996 was a year that could have changed the political environment forever if one event had turned out differently than it had.

And Now You Know Why

2008-02-14T05:14:00.003-06:00

It's no secret that my opinion of Congress is lower than Mini Me's insole, and it's been that way for a long time. When you look at the history of the Senate and the great names who have walked the halls of the Capitol, the current crop of Congress Critters just don't measure up.

Nothing showcases this more than the recent House hearings about steroids in baseball and the Senate being pulled into recent issues involving the National Football League. We have grown adults in the U. S. Senate actually getting involved in such things as whether the New England Patriots' last regular season game should only be seen on the NFL Network for the love of Pete! Now, they're getting involved in whether the New England Patriots videotaped opponents and whether Major League Baseball players have used steroids and then lied about it.

Am I the only one wondering what issues aren't being covered by Congress right now?

It's not like they couldn't find work to do for the country if they really wanted to. If they can see the "need" to get involved in professional sports issues, I'm sure they have the power to get involved with issues that matter, like saving Social Security or reforming the tax code. You know, stuff that might actually help people?

I think the real reason Congress is getting involved in professional sports issues right now is because they know they can't handle the big issues facing us. Being a politician, especially a Senator, requires significant ego. When you put yourself out there as a politician, people you intend to represent will expect solutions from you. When you can't produce those solutions, it will make you look bad, maybe even make people want to vote against you in the next election. So, it becomes important for the politician to appear to be doing something, anything, that will make him or her look like a leader.

That's why these professional sports issues are tailor made for the House. They can appear on camera, point their fingers at the perps, shame the perps, and watch the electorate respond. But the downside to this is that many Americans are wondering why the Senate's even getting involved with the other issues on our minds. It seems to be a flight of fancy to average Americans dealing with real issues, as well as proof that Congress in general is out of touch with the average American, and the poll numbers reflect how little Americans regard the "good work" the Senate is doing.

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I can say that I object to Congress sticking its nose into these professional sports issues for a much more basic reason. These are sports we're dealing with here, and the fans have already spoken up about these and other sports issues. In short, we're doing the real work, and our outrage will be heard and felt by Major League Baseball and the NFL in ways Congress don't understand. These are our games, and we want them back. And no stuffed suit in Washington can get them back for us.

And now you know why I have such a disdain for Congress in this case, and in general.

A New Factor in Election 2008?

2008-02-10T22:11:00.000-06:00

In an earlier blog post, I noted that Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential chances could be tied to how well Nancy Pelosi lead the House of Representatives, and I still think it may have an impact. However, there is something else that came to mind the other day that might have equal, if not more, influence.

If current trends continue, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and John McCain will be the Republican nominee. What do all three have in common? They're all U. S. Senators. It's rare that a Senator becomes President, but with this election cycle of strange and unusual events, it's par for the course.

Since the front-runners/prospective nominees are all from the Senate, the Senate's approval rating could have an impact on each candidate. If the Senate is seen doing something constructive (yes, I know it's the Senate we're talking about here, but let's say for the sake of argument it happens), it would buoy the poll numbers of any of the three I mentioned. Furthermore, if that positive change is lead by one of the three, their poll numbers skyrocket overnight. The downside to it is if the Senate does nothing or does something seen as destructive. Then, the Senate would be the last place Obama, Clinton, and McCain would want to be seen. And taking the lead on a controversial or unpopular piece of legislation? Forget about it!

It's not written in stone that the Senate's approval ratings will definitely impact the 2008 Presidential race, but it would be foolish to disregard it out of hand. Regardless of how you feel about them, the three candidates or presumed candidates are all politicians at heart. They will calculate the impact of certain speeches or certain events and spin accordinly. But, they can't escape the fact that they're all from the same branch of government, and if the Senate goes down, they, too, will go down.

I'm Not Ready to Make Nice

2008-02-08T05:32:00.000-06:00

With Mitt Romney dropping out of the Republican race and the remaining Republicans being no real threat to the ascension of John McCain to the nomination, it seems to be pretty much a done deal. McCain sensed this, so he tried to mend fences with the rank and file Republicans at the CPAC convention yesterday. You know, the same rank and file that he's held in such low regard for years?

Now, McCain and his supporters are calling for unity within the Republican Party to try to bring the various factions together to win the White House. Some have bought in, saying it's better to vote for McCain than to let Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the White House and choose Supreme Court Justices. Others, like me, are not so easily swayed. I'm in the position I was back in 1994 when I came to a point where I couldn't support Bill Clinton anymore because there were too many things to overlook to continue supporting him.

With McCain, it's 1994 all over again. Whether it's McCain-Feingold or voting against the Bush tax cuts for reasons that have nothing to do with spending cuts or lying about Romney supporting timetables to get out of Iraq, McCain has stabbed the Republican Party in the back so many times the elephant is looking like a pin cushion.

But we're supposed to hold our noses and vote for McCain because he's a Republican and would prevent Hillary or Obama from winning the White House. If you believe this, let me ask you something.

If McCain were a Democrat instead of a Republican, would you be as forgiving of his duplicity?

Somehow, I don't think you would.

Super Tuesday: The Aftermath

2008-02-06T05:32:00.000-06:00

Super Tuesday was make-or-break time for Democrats and Republicans. So who got made and who got broken?

Winners

- Hillary Clinton. Say what you will about Hillary, she pulled out some big ticket victories on Super Tuesday, and even came from behind or near behind to do it. That includes a win in California, where Hollywood has been less than thrilled with Clinton in recent years. Although she barely beat Barack Obama in the delegate count for the contests yesterday and Obama has taken the lead in the delegate count, she's still seen as the frontrunner, which gives her a boost over her rival.

- Barack Obama. The fact he stayed competetive with Clinton in many states and managed to get 8 fewer delegates than she did shows Obama is a real threat to the Clintons...and to the Republican candidate. The Democratic nomination may still be up in the air after Super Tuesday, but Obama's performance last night guarantees he will be in the hunt for it for a long time yet.

- John McCain. From also-ran to front-runner. At this point, the "Straight Talk Express" is pretty much unstoppable, due in no small part to what appears to be backroom deals with Mike Huckabee's campaign to be a block to Mitt Romney. But he also seems to have built a coalition of liberal and moderate Republicans who want a change from the way the GOP has been run in recent years. To them, McCain represents both change and promise of victory in November.

- Mike Huckabee. He stands no chance of winning, but his actions have put him in a position where McCain owes Huckabee for being a firebreak against Romney. That will help him get a place at the table when McCain starts putting together the ticket or if he gets a chance to put together a Cabinet.

Losers

- Mitt Romney. Romney needed to win big to stay viable, and he didn't. But what's more maddening is that the Romney campaign didn't do more to break up what is now seen as the McCain-Huckabee coalition and the media's lack of coverage of Romney's victories. At this point, McCain has a commanding lead and I don't think Romney can pick up enough steam to run the rest of the states to be the nominee. If there is any upside to this, it may set the table for a run in 2012, provided McCain either loses in November or does so horribly that the GOP wants to dump him.

- The Republican Party. This may seem a bit melodramatic, but I don't see how the Republican Party can win in November. I've said that the only way the Democrats can win is through the nomination of John McCain, and lo and behold, that's what Republicans seem to be willing to do. Even with the internal problems being ignored by the Democrats, the Republican Party's problems are only beginning, and they will be magnified by the media.

- Talk radio. The jury's still out on how much talk radio's anti-McCain sentiment hurt Romney, but knowing the mainstream media, it won't matter because they'll say talk radio hurt Romney and proved how ineffective it has become. It's total spin, but it cannot be denied that talk radio may not have done itself any favors prior to Super Tuesday. Ideologically, they were being consistent with their beliefs, which is admirable considering the man they were criticizing has been anything but consistent. From a public relations standpoint, though, it will prove to be a boondoggle for so many talk radio hosts to go after McCain and fail to move the electorate like they used to do.

As promised, I'm going to step away from these types of blog posts at this point because things are pretty much settled for the Republicans and going to be settled for the Democrats soon enough. Now, I'll go back to my true strong suit.

Writing blog posts making more references to "Gigli" than there were people who actually saw the movie.

Why Democrats Want McCain to Win the GOP Nomination on Super Tuesday

2008-02-05T18:45:00.000-06:00

It's conventional wisdom that the Democrats won't have a clear-cut front-runner coming out of Super Tuesday, but that John McCain could sew up the Republican nomination with enough victories. And no one is cheering more for McCain to wrap it up tonight than the Democrats.

Before you start emailing me wondering what I've been smoking and where you can score some for this weekend, there are a number of reasons why Democrats are hoping McCain does well enough to knock out Mitt Romney. Here are a few of them.

1) Democrat surrogates can start undercutting McCain. We've already seen the initial stages of the attempts to derail the "Straight Talk Express." The Hill and the Washington Post have already published pieces talking about how McCain isn't exactly Mr. Popular in the halls of the Senate. If McCain takes a commanding lead in the delegate count after tonight, watch for more of those stories to come out.

2) More face time for Democrats. Once the Republican nomination is pretty much determined, the media have no need to pay attention to the presumed nominee as much as they did during the campaign. With the Democrats still battling, the media have an easy choice to make. Follow the fighting and reject the Republican.

3) A Republican crisis of conscience. It's no secret that McCain's as popular in the GOP as Michael Moore at an all-you-can-eat buffet. If he's the nominee, the Republican base will have to struggle with voting for the party's nominee or voting their conscience. Given the number of Republicans who have said they won't vote for McCain under any circumstances, an extended time to mull over this situation will cause many Republicans to stay conflicted and break up the current Republican Party as we know it.

4) More time to paint McCain as corrupt. This could go under the first point, but it deserves its own spot because it's one of those things that could destroy McCain's Presidential hopes. Look back at McCain's history in Congress and you'll see a lot of questionable actions that could easily be turned into an attack ad by the Democrats. And just like with the negative news stories mentioned earlier, don't be surprised if some of these stories of corruption start to leak out "all of the sudden."

5) Gives McCain more time to mess up. Give any politician enough time and they will screw up. Whether it's a big problem or a small gaffe depends on the circumstances. If McCain's the nominee and he messes up, I guarantee the media will be there to cover it, analyze it, spin it, and repeat it for days on end. If McCain wins the public relations side of the primary process tonight, the countdown clock towards McCain's screw-up will start.

6) The big question: Can McCain be "swift boated"? Since the 2004 election, Democrats have been looking for an opportunity to nail a Republican with what they perceive that Bush did to John Kerry. With McCain, Democrats will have the chance to get one back for their side. McCain's military hasn't been delved into yet, but trust me Democrat operatives will be, looking for anything to sink McCain.

There are probably others that I didn't mention, but it's clear that Democrat strategists are rubbing their hands together and hoping John McCain makes short work of the rest of the Republican field on Super Tuesday.

Twain Said It Best...

2008-02-03T05:06:00.000-06:00

If you listen to segments of the media, it doesn't look good for Republicans and conservatives right now. Some say the Reagan Revolution is dead. Others say conservatism in general is dead. Some say talk radio is losing its influence and is going to be dead. Of course, the American left has been saying this for years, but when you have conservatives saying and believing it, should we take it seriously?

Not so much.

To me, the power of the conservatives has always come from the people. Ronald Reagan touched many people and still is a motivating force in their lives. That's why the Republican candidates were falling over themselves to try to claim the "Reagan Republican" mantle early on. The fact it's not talked about right now is not proof that the Reagan Revolution is dead. When you have Barack Obama talking at least somewhat positively about Reagan as a transformative force in politics (and getting attacked by Democrats for it), it's clear the spirit of the Reagan Revolution is alive and well.

Whether conservatism is dead is another situation where people may be jumping to conclusions. After Election 2006, many people made the mistake of assuming that Democrats winning meant the country was moving to the left. In some races, you could make that argument, but in a good number of races, it was a Democrat running on a more moderate to conservative issues that tilted the balance in those races. The new Democrats in the House especially were more conservative than the Nancy Pelosi wing of the party, which made for some interesting votes to say the least. So, conservatism isn't dead, either.

That leaves talk radio. To say talk radio is on the verge of demise because of what some have said is its declining influence is to ignore the facts. The Republican candidates know talk radio still has some sway with the people or else they wouldn't appear on their shows. When Rush Limbaugh talks about supporting Mitt Romney and people talk about it, talk radio is still relevant. When Mike Huckabee goes after Sean Hannity in speeches, talk radio is still relevant. When Glenn Beck gives air time and space in his online newsletter to the candidates, talk radio is still relevant. When Democrats take time in their speeches to attack talk radio hosts, talk radio is still relevant.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the demise of the Reagan Revolution, conservatism, and talk radio have been greatly exaggerated. It is wishful thinking to think that the outcome of a single election or a single set of circumstances would derail these movements. No matter how much the left and some segments of the right want the Reagan Revolution, conservatism, and talk radio to wither away and die, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

If Brattleboro Wasn't Enough...

2008-02-02T19:18:00.000-06:00

...now Berkeley, California, has to prove that they're just as asinine as Brattleboro, Vermont, is.

By a vote of 6-3, the Berkeley City Council voted Tuesday to tell a U. S. Marines recruiting station in the city that it "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders." Along with that, the Council voted to determine whether its law against sexual orientation discrimination could be applied to the Marines because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Oh, and it gave the green light to anti-war group Code Pink to protest in front of the recruiting station as a means of disrupting the Marines' jobs. In fact, the Council gave Code Pink a parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting from noon to 4 PM once a week.

Okay, where do we begin on this one? There are so many problems with the City Council's decisions that it's hard to pick a starting point. So, let's start with their proclamation that the Marines aren't welcome in Berkeley.

The big question that has to be asked here is what harm is being done by the Marines recruiting station. Does the mere presence of such a station created a hostile environment or promote illegal activity? Contrary to what the Berkeley City Council and the Code Pink crowd believes, it doesn't. Being against the current war effort is not a grounds for preventing Marines from recruiting people to serve on the basis of public nuisance.

However, it can be argued that Code Pink's activity does create a hostile environment by inviting the harassment of the Marines and other people in the neighborhood. The story from the Contra Costa Times website has a quote from a business owner who said the Code Pink protestors were are "aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy." Hmmm...sounds like Code Pink is violating more than a few laws there and is much closer to a public nuisance than the Marines are. Sounds to me like the public in the area disagrees that the Marines are the unwelcome ones.

Next, we have the "don't ask, don't tell" policy being seen as discriminatory. Well, I hate to break this to you, Berkeley City Council, but the Marines didn't come up with that policy. That was initiated by the federal government by one William Jefferson Clinton. The Marines, in this case, are following a lawful order issued by the Commander In Chief, i.e. the President. The Berkeley City Council can urge that this lawful order be changed, but it cannot bring a legal remedy against the Marines for a violation of civil law. And considering the Council is focused only on the Marines and not the entire U. S. military (who must also follow "don't ask, don't tell"), the Council's focusing on the Marines could be considered an attempt to intimidate or harass, which could be against the law, but it certainly hypocritical of the left in Berkeley.

Then, there's the Council granting Code Pink a parking space and a free sound permit. Considering no other group might be allowed those same accomodations, that is certainly a violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Would the Berkeley City Council be so nice as to allow a pro life group to set up shop in front of an abortion clinic and give them a free parking spot and a free sound permit? I doubt it. But it should be pointed out that pro life groups have been targeted for restraining orders requiring them to be well away from abortion clinics, and the American left has seen nothing wrong with it. A double standard, mayhaps? Most definitely, and an unconstitutional double standard at that.

In short, the Berkeley City Council overstepped its bounds, ignored the laws on the books, and violated the Constitution's equal protection clause. And all because a majority of the City Council is against the current war effort. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a clear abuse of power. I hope the Marines stay put and turn the legal dogs against the Berkeley City Council, or at the very least that enough citizens are outraged at this that there would be a massive wave of anti-incumbancy fore each and every member of the Council who voted in favor of this travesty. Failing that, perhaps there would be another mechanism to address this situation, like if the city's laws allow for the impeachment of City Council members.

Either way, I'm reminded of a line from a Stealer's Wheel song.

Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you

Given the clowns in Berkeley and the jokers in Brattleboro, VT, I'm glad I'm stuck in the middle of the country.

Who I'm Endorsing for Republican Nominee in 2008

2008-01-31T20:02:00.000-06:00

I've finally come down off the fence. After much soul searching and deep thought, I've decided who I will support to be the Republican Party's nominee to be President.

John McCain.

Do I agree with his politics? Nope.

Do I think he's qualified to be President? Absolutely not.

Does he strike me as being a leader on foreign and domestic issues? Nah. In fact, I think John McCain being elected President would be the biggest mistake in our history. So, why am I supporting him?

For a while, I supported Fred Thompson. He dropped out of the race. Then, I supported Rudy Giuliani. He dropped out of the race. Being the smart guy I am, I noticed a pattern forming: the candidates I support drop out. So, if I wanted to keep John McCain out of the White House...I had to support him.

With that, I firmly throw my support behind John McCain for the Republican nomination and the Presidency! Go Big Mac!!!!!

Spoiled Brat(tleboro)

2008-01-31T05:00:00.000-06:00

There are times I read the news and shake my head because I can't wrap my head around why people do the things they do. The latest head-shaker came from the town of Brattleboro, Vermont, where a petition circulated to arrest and detain George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against the Constitution if they ever set foot in Brattleboro. The problem: even if passed by the town Select Board, the petition has no legal standing. So, why do it?

The same reason many modern liberals do extremely dumb and pointless things: to "make a statement."

I can understand what some citizens of Brattleboro are trying to say. They're upset that Bush and Cheney have, according to them, treated the Constitution like Bill Clinton treats women, according to me. However, the petition is suggesting a legal action for something that is subject to debate. Personally, I don't think Bush and Cheney are guilty of crimes against the Constitution and I have yet to see a credible accusation that they have. When you seek a legal remedy for a crime, you can't have debate; you have to have evidence.

This is where the Brattleboro petition falls flat, but it doesn't matter to the petitioners because they're more concerned about "making a statement," which only requires the act of "making a statement" to be successful in the minds of the modern left. Yet, the statement loses something if nothing comes of it. If I say I'm going to win the lottery and never play, then my statement means nothing. The fact that the Brattleboro petition can't be legally enforced and it utterly absurd at its face should tell you everything you need to know about the "statement" being made.

But there is a plus side to this. I can cross Brattleboro, Vermont, off my list of potential vacation spots. I can stand a lot of modern liberal stupidity, even on vacation, but even I have limits.

Florida, the Aftermath

2008-01-30T04:30:00.000-06:00

Second verse, same as the first...

Winners

- John McCain. With his win in Florida, he went from being an also-ran to being a serious contender for the Republican nomination. The media seem to have crowned McCain, and the voters are paying attention to this. The combination of his military service and his moderate politics make for a candidacy that seems to be able to draw voters from multiple sources, which might just be enough to take the nomination.

- Hillary Clinton. Although nothing was at stake for the Democrats in Florida due to them moving up their primary date and being slapped down by the national party leadership, Hillary walked away with a decisive win. It may not be enough to put the racial element of the Democrat campaign behind her, but it will give her the same media credibility that McCain's getting.

- Hispanic voters. The Clinton campaign is proving that the Hispanic vote is worthy of note this election cycle, as we all should. This is one reason neither major political party wants to do anything about illegal immigration; they both hope to tap into this relatively undiscovered voting bloc. Hillary's campaigning in Nevada and Florida shows she's serious about doing just that with impressive results thusfar. Don't be surprised if Democrats and Republicans start to make more overt gestures towards Hispanic voters than they did in the 2004 election.

- Mitt Romney. Although he took second in Florida and did not win any delegates, he remained close to McCain, losing by 5%. Cold comfort, I know, but it speaks to the strength of Romney's campaign. He may not win every contest, but he continues to come in first or second in most of the contests so far. Super Tuesday will determine his fate, and he will need to line up some victories to stay in the hunt.

- The media. It's no secret who the media are supporting for both major party's nominees, and with Florida, they were able to become king-makers, if only for a state. With that kind of power, watch for them to flex it right before Super Tuesday to seal the deal for McCain and Hillary.

Losers

- Rudy Giuliani. Florida was his firewall, and it may prove to be his Waterloo. He had his best showing to date, beating out Mike Huckabee for third, but it was not the outcome he expected. Nor was it the victory or near victory he needed to stay viable. When you get blown out by 21% in a state you could have won, it's time to reconsider whether you should be in the race.

- Barack Obama. Obama came in a distant second to Hillary in Florida, but the reason he's on the list of losers out of Florida is because he took Hillary at her word when she promised not to campaign in Florida. Even though there was nothing at stake, it was still a naive move to believe Hillary wouldn't campaign, given her strategy and desperation. It gives her more credibility in the media, which will undercut Obama's chances somewhat. Given time, it can derail his Presidential chances.

- Mike Huckabee and John Edwards. Still sliding towards oblivion, and still not doing well enough to stay near the head of the pack. These two are put together because they're getting forgotten in their respective party's two-person races. They're not generating the buzz they were able to after Iowa, and with each new primary or caucus, they're falling further and further behind.

Now, onto Super Tuesday!

John McCain: Unbeatable or Untested?

2008-01-28T19:19:00.000-06:00

I've been paying a bit more attention to John McCain in recent days, mainly because I keep hearing how McCain is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton. His supporters say it, Democrats say it, and the media are saying it. But is it true?

The McCainiacs would say so, based on national polling data that show McCain beats Clinton in a one-on-one race. I hesitate to call that definitive evidence of a McCain win because it's based on a number of as-yet unestablished assumptions:

- McCain is the Republican candidate
- Clinton is the Democratic candidate
- The election is being held now
- McCain and Clinton have had one-on-one debates
- McCain and Clinton have run campaign ads against one another

None of these has been written in stone or even Silly Putty yet. That's why it's rather premature to say McCain is the only Republican who can beat Clinton. There's a good 9+ months before Election Day and there are a lot of things that can happen between now and then.

And those are things I just can't overlook. Until McCain can show the world that he's capable of being President, I'm not ready to call him unbeatable yet.

Where Will the Bush Hate Go?

2008-01-28T05:14:00.000-06:00

The town of Brattleboro, Vermont, will be voting on a measure that, if passed, would allow them to detain and prosecute George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes should they ever come into Vermont. Supporters of the measure typically use the same lines we've heard since the beginning that the Iraq War is an "illegal war" because the UN Charter does not allow for pre-emptive attacks on a sovereign nation. (Of course, nothing's been said about the other pre-emptive wars that have occurred prior to the Iraq War, but that's not the point.) Reading the message board on the subject in the Rutland Herald got me to thinking.

What happens to the Bush haters after he leaves office?

A lot will depend on the lead-in to when Bush leaves office. Bush has less than a year to be President, and every day that passes by closes the window for impeaching him a little bit more. At this point, the Congressional Democrats does not have the public sentiment behind them to push for the impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney. Unless Bush does something that gets the entire country behind an impeachment action, it's unlikely an impeachment will happen.

This will, of course, get the Bush Haters even more angry. Considering these folks are already pretty angry to begin with, the lack of an impeachment will push their hatred for Bush to all new levels. The question then becomes what will they do with that abundance of hate. That's the wild card in all of this.

Hate makes people do insane things. Remember the guy who tried to run down Katherine Harris with a car in 2002 as a form of "protest" against her role in the Florida recount? I get the feeling that some Bush Haters may take their hatred to that same extreme. Not all, mind you. Just the ones who will be pushed beyond the callback point. Thankfully, those folks are rare today, and I think it will be just as rare should Bush leave office without being impeached.

There is another possible target for the Bush Hate: Congressional Democrats. There is a line of thought within Bush Hater circles that the Democrats in Congress who have not moved to impeach Bush and/or Cheney are just as guilty as Bush and Cheney. Should Democrats retain control of the House and gain legitimate control of the Senate, the Bush Haters may turn their hate against the Democrats who failed to act. In an already fractured party, such a move would further the decline of the Democratic Party as we know it. And if you don't think it's possible, let me remind you that "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan is running against Nancy Pelosi for her seat in Congress using the same mentality that I just referenced.

The other possible outlet for the Bush Hate is far more disturbing. There is always the possibility that the Bush Haters will internalize the hate, which will only hurt the Bush Haters. Whenenver you swallow as much hate that has been expressed against Bush, it has lasting physical, mental, and psychological effects, and none of them good. Unless they find a way to release all of that hate, it will eat at them, damaging relationships with others.

George W. Bush has been one of the most polarizing figures in American politics, and as we've seen with people who hated Bill Clinton, that hate doesn't go away when he leaves office. How it is dealt with will determine how far the Bush Haters will go with their unresolved hate. For the sake of the country, let's hope they find a peaceful resolution.

South Carolina - The Aftermath

2008-01-27T06:51:00.000-06:00

You know the drill. Winners and losers from South Carolina's Democrat primary.

Winners

- Barack Obama. In a word, OUCH! Obama ran away with the primary, getting 55% of the vote. Hillary? She managed to get 27%, but we'll talk about that later. The media chalked up Obama's victory to the large African-American turnout (which I will admit impacted the outcome), but there's more to it. Obama appeared to be above the fray while his opponents looked inept. In short, Obama looked Presidential.

- African-Americans. Democrats should be quick to note the turnout in South Carolina before they completely write off African-Americans as a voting bloc. Having watched the Clinton campaign in Nevada, I get the feeling they're willing to either take the black vote for granted or disregard it altogether in favor of the Hispanic vote. Bad move in either case if that's what they're doing. The turnout shows the politically astute that African-Americans are still viable and able to swing an election for one candidate or another.

- The Republicans. Yep, you read that right. The Republicans came out smelling like a rose because of the Democratic primaries. The Democrats found themselves embroiled in a discussion about race that they really didn't want or need at this point in their run for the White House, which gives Republicans a chance to set the record straight on their racial record. Also, Bill and Hillary Clinton's attacks on Barack Obama have backfired, which will give the GOP ammunition to use against Hillary should she become the nominee or a chance to appear to be race-neutral if Obama is the nominee and if the Republicans dont' even mention his race. And the nastiness of the Democratic race is making them look like children, which will only help the Republicans.

Losers

- Hillary Clinton. I know you guys wrote off South Carolina later in the campaign, but you should know better than to play the race card against Obama...in South Carolina...where there are a lot of African-American voters. And the African-American voters are not lining up behind you like you may have assumed they did. The race issue isn't going away, mostly because you're continuing to use it, and it will continue to burn you like it did in South Carolina.

- John Edwards. Remember when I said earlier that the Democrats looked like children in the South Carolina primary? You, Johnny Boy, looked the most childish of all. The debate where you whined about not getting to field as many questions as Obama and Clinton made you look immature and completely non-Presidential. The fact you didn't get to field the questions should be a sign for you to drop out. Plus, now you know how Dennis Kucinich felt.

- The Democrats. Like I said earlier, Democrats didn't want to have this discussion on race right now, and with good reason. When you look at the past 40-50 years with an honest and objective point of view, you'll see Democrats have co-opted the history of the civil rights movement and adopted it as part of its own history. But African-Americans are starting to see what Democrats have done (and not done) for them and are looking at their options. That should make Democrats very scared. And having the race issue brought up for the past month or so doesn't help the Democrats at all.

Coming soon, Florida and Super Tuesday!

Stopping Global Warming In Two Words

2008-01-26T19:38:00.000-06:00

Former Vice President and current blowhard on global warming Al Gore came out last week and said the damage from global warming is worse than anticipated. This sentiment was echoed by another celebrity on stage when Gore made this statement, Chicken Little.

Seriously, do we need more global warming talk when much of the nation has been experiencing dangerously cold temperatures in the past week or so? Seriously, does Al just not have the Weather Channel where he lives? And he should, considering he took the initiative in the creation of it, and I think he might have taken the initiative in the creation of weather in general, too.

As much as Al loves to talk about possible solutions to the impending global crisis, there's one he and his ilk haven't considered: enlightened self-interest. In short, people will tend to do what is best for them in the long run if given a choice because we all think we're the best thing since sliced bread. That, in turn, works out better for others, who are interested in themselves and will also seek out the best for them in the long run.

What does that have to do with global warming? Two things, really. First, enlightened self-interest would make it possible for people to want to combat global warming once they believe it's in their best interests. Remember when hybrids first came out? The demand for them wasn't too great...until oil prices shot up. Then everyone wanted a hybrid to cut down on the amount of money they were spending at the gas pump. That, gentle reader, is enlightened self-interest. The people who bought up hybrids did it to save money, but they also saved the environment as a secondary benefit.

Second, enlightened self-interest will tell you all you need to know about Al Gore and his crowd. Think about it. If the planet was really on the brink of an ecological disaster, enlightened self-interest would encourage people like Gore to consume less and conserve more. Yet, what is Gore doing to reduce his "carbon footprint"? Riding in private jets that guzzle gas like Ted Kennedy guzzles scotch, riding around in lines of cars to attend movie premieres and accept awards, and owning multiple mansions that use up the goods of the earth without giving much back. That alone should tell you Gore's full of hot air!

Instead of letting Gore and his friends dictate to you how you should live your life, think about what's best for you. Then, let enlightened self-interest take over. You'll do more to help the environment than Gore ever will.

A New Post from Stella Rondo

2008-01-26T18:16:00.000-06:00

More Stella Rondo goodness for ya!

Satan Needs Longjohns, Part DeuxHaving checked outside my window for flying pigs, I sat down to reread an editorial in the Los Angeles Times today in which the author, a Clinton loyalist, hints that maybe, just MAYBE, he had been wrong about the Clintons. Maybe they were every bit as awful as so many conservative suggested they were. Of course that doesn't mean the obligatory swipes weren't taken at conservatives (Paula Jones is trash, Ken Starr is a hack, blah blah blah), but even the mere suggestion that they might have been WRONG is nothing short of earth shattering.

But here's the question to ask the Democrats. If you were THIS wrong about the Clintons; if, in spite of everything "we" told you about them, you refused to believe it until now when you can't deny the evidence any longer; if it is now apparent that you could not see what so many of us saw in them - the lying, the equivocation, the shading of the truth, and the personal lapse of character - if you can't see something THIS obvious, how on earth can we can we trust you to see ANYTHING? And suddenly the mindset of liberalism become crystal clear.

No WONDER you don't think Islamic radicalism is a threat. No WONDER you think high taxes are a way to grow an economy. No WONDER you think lack of personal responsibility is irrelevant one's life outcome. For whatever reason, call it magical thinking, call it wish fulfillment, - you CANNOT see the obvious. You CANNOT see the consequences of your actions. You think that because you are, well, YOU, it somehow insulates you from the reality of life.

You think that you can have children and raise them "just as well" without a two married parents. You think that the unborn are not human beings. You think that you can have sex with partner after partner in any variation possible and it's just another "lifestyle choice." You think it's "fair" that you can take someone's money and redistribute it to someone else. You think socialism just hasn't been implemented properly. You think that government is your father, mother, God, and Santa Claus all rolled into one. You think you can ignore the basics of education like spelling, reading, and history and navigate through life just fine just so long as you know how to put a condom on a banana. You think you can just GIVE people money and food and clothes and housing and health care, and they will be satisfied, grateful, prosperous, productive, and quiet.

That a (as a friend of mine puts it so eloquently) Clinton rumpswab can even entertain the thought that maybe the Clintons are nothing more than malignant narcissists is news indeed. And THAT represents true change.

With Friends Like These...

2008-01-26T05:24:00.000-06:00

I've long believed that Democrats don't have much of a use for you after you fail them. The latest example is with 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Not only did he endorse Barack Obama, but he's gone after Bill Clinton for attacking Obama and abusing the truth, as he put it. Judging by CNN's message board on this subject, this has caused a firestorm within Democrat circles with a number of people wanting to dismiss Kerry's comments by saying he was a loser, so his opinion doesn't matter.

The problem Democrats face is that Kerry's opinion does matter. He is, albeit far later than some, accurately reflecting the mood of a good number of Democrats. They are tired of Bill Clinton and having to defend his dishonesty on relatively minor issues and now they're speaking out. It doesn't matter whether Kerry lost the 2004 election. His opinion is anything but irrelevant by virtue of the number of people he's echoing.

Of course, backing Obama would instantly make Kerry a target for criticism from the Clinton and Edwards camps. The Clintons would see Kerry's endorsement as a slap in the face because the Clintons believe themselves to be entitled to leadership positions and the party, at least up to now, have obliged. As far as Edwards is concerned, Kerry endorsing Obama is a slap in the face considering Edwards was Kerry's running mate in 2004. Although there was friction between the two near the end of the 2004 race, Edwards not getting Kerry's endorsement can be seen as a slight to Edwards.

As much as some grassroots Democrats have said the Democrats will cruise to victory in November, that victory may be undercut by the feuding going on within the party itself. Politics is personal, and with some of the personal slights, real and imagined, at work here, it will take a lot to put the party back together again.

Speaking as a former Democrat, I don't think it can be done because there are too many people in it for themselves. Washington, DC, is a city of agendas, political and personal, and the unscrupulous will do whatever it takes to advance those agendas, including stabbing people in the back. Although it was easy in the past to put aside past grievances, this year isn't shaping up like that for the Democrats. There have been too many personal attacks, too many times where the truth has been stretched beyond recognition, and too many unchecked egos.

And that's a recipe for defeat.

The Most Dangerous Lies

2008-01-25T21:34:00.000-06:00

With Bill Clinton back on the campaign trail, Democrats are getting to see the old Bill in action. Drawing big crowds. Fighting for important issues. And lying through his teeth.

Once upon a time, Democrats by and large didn't have a problem with Bill playing fast and loose with the truth because it served both his needs and the needs of the party (or at least what they thought were the needs of the party). Now, the lying from Bill...not so cute anymore. Now, some Democrats are talking about how outraged they are that Bill would lie on the campaign trail.

As much fun as it would be to say, "Gee, we've been telling you Bill's a liar since 1991," I just can't bring myself to do it (I mean, aside from saying it above). Having gone through the "falling out of love with the Clintons" stage in 1993-1994, I know where a lot of Democrats are coming from. After spending time and energy defending the man, I got to a point where I realized that Bill and Hillary are in this political thing strictly for themselves. They could care less about how the Democratic Party does, so long as their own objectives are met.

Now, more than a few Democrats are seeing through the Clinton smokescreen and seeing them for what they are. In doing so, they're going to have to deal with the most dangerous lies of them all.

The lies we tell to ourselves to avoid reality.

A Nightmare Scenario for the Democrats

2008-01-25T06:13:00.000-06:00

Fast forward to July 2008. By now, Hillary Clinton has more than enough delegates to win the Democratic Party's nomination for President, but she's not as well-liked as one would hope. There's another candidate who didn't get as many delegates and super delegates as Hillary, but did manage to fire up the Democrat base in a way few have seen since Bill Clinton: Barack Obama.

This poses an interesting question for Democrats. Do you go with who won the delegate count, or do you go with who won the popular vote?

This is a bad situation for the Democrats on two fronts. First, the fight that will ensue would be like a miniature Election 2000 with people picking sides and squabbling over details. Although it would be funny to watch Democrats who think Gore won because he won the popular vote arguing against Barack Obama winning the nomination for the same reason, it would ruin the Democratic Party as we know it.

The second front has to do with minorities and how Democrats react to them. There are a lot of white Democrats who will do anything African-Americans want out of a sense of "white guilt" where they feel guilty about being white and about what whites have done to African-Americans over the years. And what issue has started to blow up within Democratic Party ranks this election season? Race.

On the other hand, Democrats have also been proud that they've championed women's issues. They've long said that women are just as capable as men to handle big decisions. In fact, some have gone so far as to say it's past time for America to have a female President. Since Hillary Clinton is the only woman in the race right now, that puts her in a good position if the Democrats' logic on women holds up.

This sets up a problematic decision for Democrats: support Hillary getting the nomination and be seen as racist, or support Obama getting the nomination and be seen as anti-woman. A no-win situation no matter how you spin it.

Hillary's Charm Offensive

2008-01-24T20:18:00.000-06:00

Barack Obama made a comment at the South Carolina debate about not knowing which Clinton was running for President. Although it was an off-hand remark, it was an astute one. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are working on a plan to help her win the nomination and, possibly, the Presidency.

One of Hillary's most damaging weaknesses is her inability to really connect with people. She's tried any number of tactics to make herself appear more human, such as the crying incident in New Hampshire, but it hasn't really worked so well. On the other hand, Bill has a way with people that is amazing to watch. He captivates audiences with his words and mannerisms like no other politician, living or dead. (Of course, the dead politicians have to do a lot more to captivate an audience, what with the cries of "The dead have come back to life!" and all...)

What Hillary's campaign has done is split the Clintons. One does the actual hard campaigning (Hillary), and the other does the softer touch campaigning (Bill). This strategy can be effective if done properly and if both parties remember what they're supposed to do. When there are breakdowns, like Bill yelling at reporters or lying about Obama, it throws sand in the gears of an otherwise well-oiled machine.

Right now, the focus is on the question of whether Bill helps Hillary. Clearly, he helps her because he adds an element to her campaign that isn't there without him: likability. The gaffes and the attacks on Obama sting, but don't really hurt Hillary overall because there are enough Democrats who wistfully remember Bill's two terms in office to want him back there come January 2009. And putting Bill to work to stump for Hillary is one way to do it.

But there is a caveat to this. Bill needs to stop with the attacks on Obama and focus more on what Hillary brings to the table if he wants Hillary's charm offensive to be more charm and less offensive. The more Bill shows off his angry, darker side, the bigger the risk to Hillary's campaign. A jovial Bill is good. An angry Bill is not.

We'll see if Hillary's two-prong campaign approach will earn her the nomination, but I'm betting it will. And then, Hillary will get crushed in the general election, so it all works out in the end.

Top Ten Reasons Fred Thompson Dropped Out of the Presidential Race

2008-01-22T20:01:00.000-06:00

Fred Thompson announced today that he was dropping out of the Presidential race. I will admit that I was a Fredhead for a time, then settled on Rudy Giuliani. But, I still respected him for putting up with the crap of the 2008 Presidential election.

Still, I couldn't help but think there was more to it than just running low on money and support. So, in the spirit of David Letterman, I came up with the Top 10 Reasons Fred Thompson Dropped Out of the Presidential Race.

10) Received frantic calls from Mitt Romney asking him to drop out because Romney kept wetting his "magic underwear" by Fred's mere presence

9) He's cryogenically freezing himself to run in 3008.

8) He's going to be the next American Idol. Not hoping to be; GOING TO BE.

7) Volunteered to give toughness lessons to Chuck Norris

6) He was kidnapped and replaced by a badly-made French clone.

5) Lost a "Loser Leaves Election" match to Rudy Giuliani

4) His message was lost on most Americans because we couldn't understand Badass.

3) Come on. Have you seen how hot is wife is?

2) He didn't quit the race. The race begged him to stop running.

1) Couldn't stand being next to Ron Paul in the Republican debates without being able to clock him

2008-01-21T21:06:00.000-06:00

If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. --- Martin Luther King, Jr., speech, Detroit, Michigan, June 23, 1963

Today, we celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in our own ways. I was not fortunate enough to have seen Dr. King while he was alive, but he still transformed my life, and the lives of everyone reading this post right now.

King rose to prominence at a time of great social and political upheaval. Blacks in particular had been freed from the bonds of slavery, but they were still slaves to terror and racism. Dr. King sought to change that by conveying a message of hope and of duty. His words and actions put a mirror beside our culture, and we didn't like what we saw. Rioting, police using tear gas on people who only wanted to be treated as equals, beatings, protestors being knocked down with fire hoses. No, we didn't like what we saw, so we embarked on a path to change it.

Where are we now? Some would say we haven't made much progress at all, based on smaller details and numbers crunching. Others would say we've gone quite a ways, so far that blacks and whites can co-exist happily. I'm somewhere in the middle, but closer to the latter than to the former. African-Americans in this country have made tremendous strides and are rightly taking their places beside whites.

But we still have miles to go before we sleep. Gang violence, drugs, teenage pregnancy, school dropout rates, all of these and more have plagued African-Americans and continue to do so. And, unfortunately, those who speak out about these and other issues, they get branded as "race traitors" or maligned for "acting white." Yet, rappers and sports stars are glorified, no matter how horribly they act, because they're "keeping it real."

Yet, Dr. King's message resounds through the ages, giving hope and fire to anyone who cares to listen and take action. And as he stated in the quotation I quoted above, he was willing to die for his beliefs of racial equality. He may not have lived to see it and we may not have gotten there completely yet, but we're making progress nonetheless.

And that's keeping Dr. King's dream alive more than anything.

Weekend Winners and Losers

2008-01-20T04:44:00.000-06:00

Yesterday saw the Nevada and South Carolina primaries. It didn't have a snappy name like Super Tuesday, so I'm calling it Kinda-Neato Saturday. And as you might expect, I have a few winners and losers from Kinda-Neato Saturday.

Winners

- Hillary Clinton. Hillary picked up another win in Nevada, making it two in a row for the former First Lady. What made this victory significant is that she was able to overcome concerns about her position on African-Americans, motivate Hispanic-Americans to vote for her (remember "No mother can be illegal"?), and pull off a win in the polls. However...

- Barack Obama. ... Barack Obama won the delegate count. (Don't ask me how because I don't understand it, either.) That's a victory for Obama because any time he gets more delegates than Hillary, it cuts into her delegate lead. Plus, the way he personally handled allegations that he was playing the race card nationally after the Clinton campaign made comments seen as demeaning to Obama and African-Americans. If the racial element of the Democratic race continues to be an issue, Obama's reaction will do more to make him look Presidential than any Democrat running.

- John McCain. Winning in South Carolina validates his position as a serious candidate. His campaign was written off as dead in the water before Iowa, and now he has two wins under his belt, which puts him one behind Mitt Romney in the total number of wins. He's still winning the more independently-minded votes for now, which continues to keep his head above water.

- Mitt Romney. He won Nevada and came in fourth in South Carolina, but time, momentum, and the delegate count are still on his side. The upcoming contests will play into Romney's strengths and undercut the very support base McCain has used to win New Hampshire and South Carolina.

- Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. I've lumped these two together to a) save space, and b) to point out how both needed a good showing in South Carolina to remain viable. Beating Mitt Romney qualifies as a good showing in my book. Huckabee drew on the evangelical vote to take second, and Thompson picked up the rock-ribbed conservative vote to take third.

Losers

- John Edwards. Is he even competing anymore? The media are already ignoring him for the most part to focus on Hillary and Obama. The best thing he's been able to do is come out first against Obama for saying something nice about Reagan, and that wasn't anything great because people liked Reagan. It's like coming out firmly against Snoopy. Pack it in, dude. Nobody's listening anymore.

- Rudy Giuliani. Any time you're ready to start running, let me know. You're getting beaten by Ron Flipping Paul, for the love of Pete! Waiting until Florida to make your big move appears to be backfiring because people are either starting to lose interest in your campaign or don't remember you're in the race to begin with. In politics, you need to be visible, and you're not that visible right now. The only way you can get back in is to win Florida, and that's becoming less likely with each new contest and each passing day.

- CNN. I was chatting with a friend of mine who was watching the CNN coverage of the South Carolina results and she relayed to me some of the things CNN's "political experts" were saying about the race. Thompson was in cahoots with Huckabee. John McCain's win in South Carolina helps him appear to be a real contender. CNN is the most trusted name in cable news. Laughter abounded repeatedly when I saw CNN repeatedly missing the target on what's going on with the Republican field. I'm surprised they didn't project that Dennis Kucinich won Nevada. If anyone from CNN is reading this, take a moment to realize that the "political experts" you have on air have nothing but air between their ears. Hire someone who knows something about politics...like me.

Coming soon, Super Tuesday!

I Finally Have Something Nice to Say About Ron Paul!

2008-01-19T19:44:00.000-06:00

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, after months of mocking Ron Paul, I finally have something good to say about him. He's preventing John McCain from being seen as a viable first tier candidate.

John McCain's success is completely dependent upon attracting as many independents as he can. This is because he has blown any chance of getting many of the votes of other traditionally Republican voting blocs, like the evangelicals and the rock-ribbed conservatives, with his past antics. That leaves more liberal Republicans and independents to draw upon for support, and he fares well with them.

However, so does Ron Paul. So far, Paul's been drawing in double digits in the caucuses and primaries we've had so far. If Ron Paul were not in the race, most likely those votes would go to McCain since he more closely represents the Paulite voter mindset than do any of the other candidates. That acts as a drag on McCain, and when you consider even a ten percent uptick in McCain's numbers in some of the contests we've had so far, that ten percent or so that Paul is pulling in could have turned McCain from a media curiousity into a real political powerhouse.

So, on behalf of Americans who see that McCain is unfit to be President, I say THANK YOU, RON PAUL!

Barack Lieberman?

2008-01-18T19:31:00.000-06:00

Recently, Barack Obama did something that is unthinkable in modern Democrat circles: he praised...Ronald Reagan. Within a day or two of Obama's comments that Reagan was an agent of change (which he was), Hillary Clinton and John Edwards came out and blasted him for it.

This sets up a possible two-prong strategy between Hillary and Edwards. I've long believed that the two of them have been working together behind the scenes to take down Barack Obama. Remember, John Edwards was the one who got Bill and Hillary's support in the 2004 primaries, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could be working together.

Especially considering they have a common foe in Obama.

The way I think they'll approach it is the same way Democrats approached Joe Lieberman since 2006. When Ned Lamont came into the picture, Democrats flocked to him to unseat Lieberman because he was anti-war, anti-Bush, and easily more liberal than Lieberman. At the time, and even today, the fringe left consider Lieberman to be nothing more than a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. Lieberman's voting record shows differently, of course, but nobody ever said the fringe left was playing with a full deck of cards.

You can already see a bit of this sentiment creeping into the campaign from Hillary and Edwards. Don't be surprised if one or both of them come out and question Obama's Democrat credentials, and don't be surprised if that puts a crack in the foundation that Obama's started building.

On the other side of this, I have to say it's sad that a Democrat can't praise a Republican like Reagan these days without being seen as a traitor. Obama shouldn't have to defend or clarify his statements to anyone. If he truly believes Reagan was an agent of change, he should have told Hillary and Edwards to sod off. Instead, he's trying to straddle the fence between Old Democrats and New Democrats to give him the best possible shot at winning his party's nomination. It's going to be tough, but it can be done.

Just ask Joe Lieberman.

Cloning: Are We Ready?

2008-01-16T19:15:00.000-06:00

No, you didn't accidentally click on the wrong blog. I'm actually going to do a blog post that doesn't have to do with the current election!

The FDA recently okayed the consumption of meat and milk from cloned animals. As big of a fan of science as I am, I'm a little scared at the prospect of having a Cloney Burger with some Vitamin DNA enriched milk on the side.

My trepidation isn't baseless, mind you. For a while now, I've been asking if we're socially ready for cloning, and so far I haven't been convinced we are. We're still in the "OH WOW!" phase of cloning where we're so busy figuring out what we can do that we're not figuring out what we should do. We've cloned animals and human body parts already, so it's not that much of a jump to clone human beings.

And once we do, we're going to open up whole new debates, and we're not ready to do the deep thinking necessary to tackle them. Do clones have souls? Are they elgible to vote or run for office? Have even one tenth of the people reading this thought about either of these questions? And how many more questions are there that have yet to be asked, let alone answered?

I also have a problem with the FDA making the call. Some people think this is one area where the federal government does good by us, but that depends on your perspective. How many drugs did the FDA say were safe to use before they got yanked because of unforeseen side effects? Of course, if you're a fan of taking drugs for years that will make you have a psychotic episode every time you hear a Rolling Stones song, then you shouldn't have a problem with the FDA. For those of us who happen to like living, we don't like it so much.

This is one area where privatization might be a boon to health care. Some people (usually the same folks who think the FDA is so keen) say if we let the free market take over this situation it will lead to big business being able to bypass the testing process. And if they did that, they would pay in the court of public opinion. If a company releases something that the public finds out is bad for them, the public won't keep buying from that company. Just ask Tylenol how much they suffered because someone tampered with the bottles. The free market isn't anarchic at all; it does have rules, and one of the biggest is DON'T KILL YOUR CUSTOMERS!

So, I think I'll pass on the cloned meat and milk for now, regardless of what the FDA says. I'd rather be safe than mutated.

Michigan, the Aftermath

2008-01-16T05:13:00.000-06:00

You know the drill. Let's go over the winners and losers of the Michigan primaries.

Winners

- Mitt Romney. Don't listen to the media hype about this being a "must win" for Romney. This was a "nice to win" because Romney's father was the Governor of Michigan. Winning by double digits over the "surging" John McCain and running away with the delegate count leaves Romney in the catbird seat for the Republican nomination.

- John McCain. This was almost a wash for McCain, considering he won the Michigan primary in 2000. What nudged him into the Winners category is the fact that he was able to sustain some of the momentum from his New Hampshire primary victory. Whether he can sustain it...that's another question that will be answered in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday.

Losers

- Mike Huckabee. This really was a must-win for Huckabee after getting blown out in the New Hampshire primary. He didn't, and it wasn't even close. Another third place finish well behind the second place finisher, John McCain (14% to be precise).

- Hillary Clinton. She won the Michigan Primary, but it was a hollow victory. First, thanks to the national party stripping Michigan of its delegates, there was nothing at stake and Hillary didn't add to her delegate lead. Second, she didn't really run against any of her big rivals since they had already pulled out, leaving only the also-rans to run against her. And perhaps the biggest knock against her, she got 55% of the vote...but 40% of the people voting voted Uncommitted. You cannot count such a decisive victory against a weak field for nothing as a victory. It is nothing short of an embarrassment.

- Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. They're both in the same boat. They need to get their acts together and start winning, but neither one has lit up the primaries and caucuses yet. Granted, we've only had four contests so far, but when you consider Ron Paul tends to outpoll the two of them in the contests we've had, it's time to either get going or get out.

- The Democratic Party. For all of their talk about supporting the little guy, their decision to pull the delegates from Michigan because they moved up their primary was a horrible move. In effect, the national party rendered the state of Michigan politically impotent. And Michigan is full of people the Democrats claim to support. If voters remember this come November, Michigan may come into play for the Republicans, which might be just enough for the GOP to take a "blue" state.

- The media. After blowing the Democrat call in New Hampshire, they spent a lot of time trying to figure out what went wrong. It doesn't matter; their polls aren't worth that much anyway because they tend not to poll a significant number of people who will be voting. But in Michigan, they went completely nuts saying it was a "must win" for Romney. A guy who leads in the delegate count and has a win and two second place finishes in three contest needed to win Michigan? I know you guys are trying to create a horse race atmosphere, but you don't have to stoop to lying about the race to create it!

Coming soon, Nevada, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday! Then you won't have to see these posts anymore! :-)

What Color Is Your Donkey?

2008-01-14T20:39:00.000-06:00

Watching the Democrat candidates for President right now is a lot like watching a demolition derby but with a lot more spin doctors. The African-American community is coming after the Hillary Clinton campaign for comments made that seemed to diminish the role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the civil rights movement. Hillary's campaign is firing back, saying that Barack Obama's campaign is playing the race card. And now John Edwards's campaign is firing at Hillary's campaign over the comments.

At the heart of this situation, though, is a voting bloc that has traditionally gone Democratic: the African-American vote. Democrats have done a masterful job in keeping African-Americans on their side politically, but that may be changing. With people like Bill Cosby and Chris Rock making pointed, yet accurate, statements about the declining state of African-American culture in today's society, it's getting harder and harder for voters to ignore.

Part of the problem lies with the people who have stepped up to become self-professed leaders of the African-American community. People like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the late Johnny Cochran are or were seen as leaders who were looking to help African-Americans in any way they could. And these folks played this role to the hilt. Yet, when compared with their private lives, there's more than a slight disconnect. These self-professed leaders seem only to lead themselves to the promised land of money, fame, and power, leaving the rest of their people to fend for themselves. This should leave African-American voters wondering what's in it for them to vote Democratic if all they're getting is table scraps and false promises.

And this is a question the Democrats didn't want to have to answer at this point in time. With control of the White House and at least one house of Congress within their grasps, they needed a united front. What they've done, unfortunately for them, is create more division within their ranks. With Bill and Hillary Clinton leading the white liberal "we know what's best for your" contingent and Obama trying to pull together a coalition united in spite of their racial, political, gender, or religious differences, the Democrats are looking at a full-fledged race war of their own making.

Now, I'm a white guy from Iowa, so you can take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt if you'd like. I think it's time for African-Americans to choose, not which Democrat they want to back, but whether the Democrats deserve their votes in November or any other time. And unlike some, I won't presume to tell you what to think. I only ask that you do think and make the decision that's best for you and your race.

Mike Huckabee, Wrong for the White House

2008-01-13T06:18:00.000-06:00

I'm not a big fan of Mike Huckabee, mainly because he's using religion as a political tool to get him votes. Granted, Republicans and some Democrats have been doing that for years, but since I came back to my Lutheran roots, I'm a bit more sensitive to how politicians have used religion, and Huckabee is a master at it. But, fortunately, his future as a Presidential candidate is dimming quickly.

And you can thank Stephen Colbert for it.

For those of you unfamiliar with Colbert's work, he's a comedian who has a show on Comedy Central, "The Colbert Report," where he's parodying Bill O'Reilly. For those who are in on the joke, it's hysterical. For those who aren't, it's confusing because you don't know if Colbert is being serious. (And for the record, it's not that tough to figure out if you're savvy.)

After hearing some of the clips of Huckabee on "The Colbert Report," I can't tell whether he's in on the joke. The tone of his voice suggests he's confused like he's not sure where Colbert's coming from.

What does this have to do with the White House? Plenty. There will be times when a President will deal with people who are less than honest with him or her, so it's important that the President be smart enough to figure out the truth from the lies. Granted, people can be deceived, as George W. Bush has been with Vladimir Putin in particular, but it should be a rare occurance. What does it say about Huckabee that he can't tell whether Stephen Colbert is pulling his leg?

It says to me that he's not qualified to be President.

Temperature in Hell Today: COLD!

2008-01-12T06:04:00.000-06:00

It's rare that I defend Bill and Hillary Clinton because I disagree with them on so many levels, politically, socially, and morally. But every so often a situation comes up and I put my objections aside to defend them.

The recent flap over comments Bill and Hillary made that seemed to diminish Barack Obama and African-Americans in general is one such time. After reviewing the statements made, such as Bill calling Obama's media image a "fairy tale" and Hillary saying it took a President to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, some African-Americans have taken offense and said it's a pattern for the Clintons.

As much as I find the Clintons being the victims of having the race card played on them enjoyable in a schadenfreude kind of way, I have to say it's not right. To connect the Clintons' statements to a "pattern of racism" is weak at best. I'm not saying they've done all they could to promote and defend civil rights, but I don't think they're real racists. They're more of "accidental racists" like people who tell a joke in mixed company but don't know they're in mixed company. If anything, they've been conscious of race to an extreme, usually for political purposes, but conscious all the same. That should not be discounted in this situation at all.

Something that troubles me about this is how many pro-Obama people are jumping on the "Clintons are racists" bandwagon. Obama himself isn't the one raising the subject and has, in fact, worked to break down the walls between whites and blacks by trying to appeal to and comfort both. When Joe Biden made his awkward comment trying to praise Obama, Obama took it as it was intended, not as some have interpreted it. With this situation, Obama and his campaign, by and large, have not seen fit to fuel the fire.

But some of Obama's surrogates have, including one Jesse Jackson, Jr. That creates a problem for Obama in that it makes it look and sound like Obama is a race hustler by virtue of the statements of those defending him. Making comments that deflect the issue will only take you so far, but there will come a time when an explanation will be due and you will have to make a definitive statement.

For Obama, that time is coming up with the South Carolina contest. The South is an area where some racism still exists, but so does an atmosphere of racial hyper-sensitivity. People don't want to be called a racist (except for the racists, of course), so they're willing to do anything it takes to make African-Americans like them. This becomes a political boon for Obama, but it could become a political boondoggle unless he completely disavows the notion that the Clintons are racist and publicly takes his surrogates who believe the Clintons are racist to task. After running with a message that encourages racial unity, the last thing Obama needs is a bunch of race hustlers undercutting that message.

So, Satan will be cruising online for some long underwear, thanks to me. You're welcome, Satan.

Campaign Quick Hits

2008-01-10T19:25:00.000-06:00

Things have been happening fast and furious the past couple of days, so here's a quick rundown of what's going down.

- Hillary wins New Hampshire...sorta. People are trying to get their heads around the polls being wrong about Hillary losing New Hampshire. That doesn't matter. What matters is that the media may have had a bigger hand in it than we realize. Forget cries of voter fraud and Hillary's tears, what helped her the most was the media helping her campaign lower expectations so any showing above Mike Gravel would be seen as a major victory. Plus, the media need a horse race, given that they've spent the better part of a year and a half covering the 2008 campaign. If Obama ran away with it early, the media would be out of a story, except for the Republicans (and we all know how much the media love the Republicans, right?). So, with a little work, the media helped Hillary overcome Obama's win in Iowa.

- Bill Richardson drops out...and nobody notices. Actually, some people did notice, but it wasn't like Richardson was burning up the polls. He was far enough back that his dropping out of the 2008 race was not a matter of if, but when. I will say this: he did have some of the best commercials out there, Democrat or Republican. The only time I laughed harder at a political ad was when Ron Paul tried to convince people he was a "real conservative."

- John Kerry endorses Obama. Is he doomed? People are abuzz with the talk that John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama and what impact it would have on the 2008 race. Before we can think of the how, we have to think about the why. Some see it as a passing of the torch, while others see it as a way for Kerry to get back in the limelight in an attempt to help boost his reelection chances. Personally, I think it's akin to what the Democrats did regarding debating on Fox News. Nobody wanted to be the first big name to do it, but once John Edwards did, everybody did. Watch for Democrat Senators to line up behind candidates en masse soon.

- John McCain, Unplugged. Winning in New Hampshire gave McCain a much-needed boost, but where does he go from here? Not very far, if his victory speech is any indication. He looked old, tired, and unmotivated, and his attempt to latch onto Bill Clinton's "comeback kid" line from 1992 was laughable. Watch him to fade quickly now that he's met his goal of winning New Hampshire, which is pretty much like buying up Baltic Avenue in Monopoly.

- Romney in a "must win" in Michigan? Once again, the talking heads are whispering that Mitt Romney needs to win Michigan or else he's dropping out. (Aren't these the same talking heads who said Hillary would be out after New Hampshire?) One first place finish and two second place finishes plus a delegate count lead means Michigan is not a "must win." Sure, he'll want to win because his dad was Governor of Michigan, but if he pulls off a second or third place finish, he's not finished.

- Huckaboom to Huckabust? But Huckabee might be finished if he doesn't start winning. He took third in New Hampshire, but it wasn't even a close third. People think he'll do well in South Carolina, and he very well may, but what's next? His chances of being competitive after Super Tuesday are getting dimmer with each passing day that people aren't talking about him. And right now, he's barely attracting more attention than Janet Reno wrestling Madeline Albright in chocolate pudding.

And finally...

- Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden drop out. After getting a whopping 0.5% of the vote in Iowa, Christopher Dodd announced he was dropping out of the race for President. And true to form, Joe Biden copied Dodd.

New Hampshire, the Aftermath

2008-01-09T05:13:00.000-06:00

A night of surprises in New Hampshire leads to another blog post about the winners and losers in the aftermath.

Winners

- Hillary Clinton. She needed a win and got it. It wasn't nearly as decisive as it could have been, but any victory you can walk away from is a good one for Hillary. But I wouldn't read too much into the "stunning upset" angle because it was so close.

- Barack Obama. A second place finish in New Hampshire wasn't what he was looking for, but by keeping it close (2%), he established himself as a real candidate, not a flash in the pan. Combine this with the number of Hollywood liberals looking to back him and Obama comes out a winner.

- Mitt Romney. A second place finish is also good for Romney for 2 reasons. First, he's still getting delegates. As long as the people who manage to beat him in these high profile primaries fail to impress in other primaries and as long as Romney continues to get second place, it won't matter how many second place finishes he gets.

- Rudy Giuliani. Again, he pulls out a decent showing (4th place) in spite of not campaigning that much in New Hampshire. As much as people have questioned his strategy, to date, it's turning out to be a pretty sound one.

- John McCain. He was in a similar position as Hillary Clinton. He needed a win to remain viable, and he won, but...

Losers

- John McCain. ...it won't matter. McCain still trails in the national polls and in the polls in the upcoming caucuses and primaries. One victory does not constitute a comeback, especially when it was pretty much a fait accompli. Come back when you stun the Republican field after New Hampshire.

- Mike Huckabee. Remember how the media fawned over Huckabee and said the Iowa Caucuses would propel him to the Republican candidacy? It propelled him all right...to third place in New Hampshire. And it wasn't even close. Romney beat him by TWENTY POINTS, and he only beat Giuliani by 2%. The Huckaboom...has become a Huckabust.

- John Edwards. A third place finish out of a race that is essentially a three person race for the Democrats. And it wasn't even close (20%). At some point, Edwards is going to realize that he's third banana in this situation and will either waste money to stay in or get out and hope for a VP slot.

- Fred Thompson. After beating McCain in Iowa, he barely showed up on the radar in New Hampshire. If he's going to be seen as a serious candidate, he needs to place in the top three on a more consistent basis.

- Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Why are you two even in the Democrat race? Kucinich barely beat Gravel, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden in percent of votes cast for him, and the latter two aren't even running anymore! And Gravel coming in behind Biden in the vote count has to hurt. You guys aren't even also-rans. You're more like also-limps.

As it stands, after two "events" as it were, Obama and Romney are still the strongest of their respective fields, and no amount of spin and "upset victories" will change that.

Mumia and Me

2008-01-08T19:45:00.000-06:00

There are many adjectives that can be used to describe Michael Moore. Propagandist. Patriot. Liar. Hero. Well, I'd like to add one more to the list. Well, two more actually.

Amoral scumbag.

On August 9, 1995, Michael Moore was a signatory on a full page ad in the New York Times that said cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal deserved a new trial. To date, he has never denied doing it and has even made a joke about it in his book Dude, Where's My Country in a "satirical" chapter about how to start a conversation around the dinner table with a conservative relative. In an interview with Democracy Now, Moore said he didn't know if Mumia killed Danny Faulkner, but that he deserved a new trial.

Gee, Mike. If you don't know if Mumia killed Faulker, how do you know he needs a new trial?

Hope you enjoy backing a convicted cop killer who has never denied killing Danny Faulkner.

Four Campaigns at a Crossroads

2008-01-07T20:25:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow is the New Hampshire Primaries. (Unless, of course, you read this tomorrow. Then it's today that's the New Hampshire Primaries.) Candidates on both sides are hoping for a good showing or even a win for their respective parties, but I see two Democrats and two Republicans who absolutely need to win in New Hampshire.

- Hillary Clinton This one's a no-brainer. Hillary's third place in finish and meltdown in the national polls are signs of a campaign in serious trouble. In short, she needs to stop the bleeding that has been going on since she flubbed the question about whether she supported giving drivers licences to illegal immigrants. A win in New Hampshire will help her look like she's back in the hunt for the Democrat nomination.

- John Edwards This one isn't so much of a no-brainer, but it is no less important to consider. John Edwards needs a win in New Hampshire to stave off the notion that he's an also-ran with good hair. At first blush, Edwards's second place finish in Iowa is impressive...until you consider he also came in second in Iowa in 2004. A lot of his success in 2008 was sewn in 2004, but he didn't get the job done in 2004. If Edwards doesn't do well in New Hampshire, if not out and out win it, he will have to deal with people thinking he doesn't deserve to be in the top tier of candidates.

- Mike Huckabee Again, it's a seemingly odd pick, given that Huckabee came in first in the Iowa Caucuses for the Republicans. Whispers on the ground have said that he spent a lot of campaign money in Iowa, but he hasn't picked up that many endorsements. Not every state will have a load of evangelicals willing to vote for him, so he'll have to come up with a way to keep up the Iowa Caucus momentum. A win in New Hampshire will validate Huckabee's campaign in a way that a lower finish just won't be able to match.

- John McCain New Hampshire is McCain's last stand. He won New Hampshire in 2000 and self-destructed. Now in 2008, he's facing a tougher challenge because of Barack Obama. Sure, McCain's big with the independents, but so is Obama. The key to McCain's success is whether the independents will side with McCain, who came in fourth in the Iowa Caucuses on the Republican side, or Obama, who came in first in the Iowa Caucuses on the Democrat side. And let me tell you, if the independents think Obama is more viable than McCain, McCain will be out of the race shortly afterwards.

Four campaigns, two political parties, one goal. We'll see who's left standing after the dust settles in New Hampshire.

A New Post by Stella Rondo

2008-01-06T14:54:00.000-06:00

Mr. Edwards Goes To Washington

Wow! Did you hear the passion in John Edwards voice the other night at the Dem debate, as he railed against those evil corporate interests? I was about ready to march to the gas company with a pitchfork in my hand, weren't you? People seem to love wild expressions of unfocused emotion, don't they? Nothing gets the blood roiling faster than a good old auto da fe! Off with their heads!

But while populism has tremendous emotional appeal in this age of unfettered self expression, the sentiments behind it beg a few questions. For example:

1) Mr. Edwards, you mentioned a poor man who couldn't afford an operation for his cleft palate. You're a rich man - why didn't you just offer to pay it for him? For that matter, you could have paid for that poor girl's liver transplant too, no?

2) Mr. Edwards, you complain about corporate greed. Does that mean next time you win a malpractice case, you'll only take 5% of the settlement instead of 25%, which would leave the victims with more money?

3) Mr. Edwards, you complain about how CEOs of gas companies and insurance carriers make horrendous salaries. When you cripple the profit making potential of these companies, will you up for the raises the workers will no longer get out of your own pocket?

4) Mr. Edwards, you seem to strongly imply that government should regulate the internal operations of business. As I understand it, that's also what happened in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and the Soviet Union and those seem to be thriving and successful economies today. Which model do you think works best, the fascist, the Nazi, or the communist?

5) Mr. Edwards, you say you're for the "little man" and not the rich. Then why are you living in a 6,000 square foot house? Don't you know the number of poor people who could fit in your house, and why don't you offer to take some in?

I think I've finally figured out Edwards' game plan. He is continuously praising his parents and grandmother for the hard work and sacrifices and poverty they endured to make it easy for him, and rightly so. He seems to suggest that were it NOT for their hard work and sacrifice and poverty, he would not be where he is today. So what he REALLY wants is for the rest of US to be equally as poor and hard working and sacrificing as his parents were, so our children can have what he has today.And you know something? Were Edwards to get a hold of the presidency, that's exactly what would happen.

And THAT'S the Bottom Line.

How Huckabee Won

2008-01-04T18:55:00.000-06:00

People across the country are scratching their heads after last night's Iowa Caucus victory for Mike Huckabee. The bulk of the analysis focuses on how Huckabee was able to attract evangelical voters (i.e. the dreaded "Christian right") to his message and get them to caucus for him instead of the other candidates. They're onto something, but I don't think they've gone deeply enough into the psyches of the evangelical voters to get at the heart of the victory.

Right now is a scary time for believers in Christ. At home, we seem to be straying further and further from something that even resembles a Christian nation. (Yes, I know, this is a bone of contention with some, but evangelicals by and large believe America is a Christian nation, so that point is key to understanding the Huckabee victory.) Abroad, there's a relentless enemy that wants to enslave or destroy America by any means necessary. Those are pretty big things to try to address for any person, let alone a Christian.

Huckabee didn't run a campaign that overtly played into that fear, but he really didn't have to. By reaching out to evangelical voters, he sent them a message: I understand your fear, and I will quell it. Then, human nature kicked in, and Huckabee found himself a devoted group of voters who propelled him to victory in Iowa.

Now, the question becomes whether Huckabee can duplicate that formula in other states. Personally, I think he can with some states in the Bible Belt, but whether it will translate into a Presidential candidacy depends on the remaining caucuses and primaries and whether he can build on his Iowa experience. With a clear win, he can expect money to come in, but money may not be enough. He's going to have to draw on the unspoken fear among evangelical voters to keep the momentum going.

The problem I foresee with this strategy is that not every Christian is an evangelical, and they aren't all afraid of the world around them. Speaking personally, I'm not afraid of society being so crass, nor am I afraid of Islamic extremists who want me dead. Once you get rid of that fear, you see Huckabee for the man and leader he is.

And that's what Huckabee is afraid of.

Iowa Caucuses - The Aftermath

2008-01-04T04:40:00.000-06:00

As the balloons and confetti are being swept up and the candidates back up their campaigns to head out of Iowa, I thought it would be a good chance to review what happened and figure out the winners and losers of the Iowa Caucuses.

Winners

- Barack Obama: This was anything but a foregone conclusion, in my opinion. Hillary had the money, the name recognition, and the media blitz going for her, but Obama had the drive to win. After being down early (as every Democrat candidate was), Obama cut into the lead and once he got it, he never looked back. Also, when you consider the Democrat who wins the Iowa Caucuses tends to win the nomination, it's looking very good for Obama.

- John Edwards: Edwards ran into the same problem Obama did early, but came through with perhaps the most surprising finish of both major parties. It may not be much of a victory, but getting more votes than Hillary in Iowa is an accomplishment. Then again, it may not be much of a surprise, considering Edwards came in second in Iowa in 2004 behind John Kerry.

- Fred Thompson: Everyone was talking about Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and John McCain in the last couple of weeks, which left Thompson with an opening. When push came to shove, Thompson pushed his way into a third place finish, which is significant for two reasons. One, people had pretty much written him off after lackluster performances at the debates. Two, the Republican who comes in second or third at the Iowa Caucuses can win the nomination. (Just ask George H. W. Bush.)

- Rudy Giuliani: Yes, he came in a distant sixth behind Ron Paul, but consider Giuliani didn't really spend that much time campaigning in Iowa. Yet, he still got votes. His strategy is to win later states when other candidates may be scrambling for money or weakened from other election battles to fight back. Whether this strategy will work has yet to be seen, but winning even one vote in Iowa can be seen as a victory for Rudy.

Losers

- Hillary Clinton: Ouch! Spending all that time and money in Iowa, and you come in third? You're the Republican version of Mitt Romney with regards to underperforming in spite of the advantages you had going in. Of course, blowing off the press in the final week of the Iowa Caucuses and the other foibles you've made for the past couple of months don't exactly help you.

- Mike Huckabee: Wait! Didn't he win the Iowa Caucuses? Yes he did, but he's exposed himself as someone who might not be as honest or upright as we've been lead to believe. It doesn't really matter that Huckabee didn't spend as much money as Mitt Romney, the more we see Huckabee, the more he shows us a side of him that makes him appear less Presidential.

- Mitt Romney: A second place finish isn't normally a bad thing, but in Romney's case, it's a cause for concern. Much like Hillary, he had all the tools to win, but he lost his lead and his image of election certitude by letting Huckabee get ahead of him. Then, he didn't play catch-up effectively and wound up spending a lot of money and time to underperform. Romney needs to do better soon if he wants to keep going.

- Ron Paul: I've received emails from Ron Paul supporters, taking me to task for ripping into their candidate and telling me to get ready to eat my words. Well, the winner of so many straw polls early on...wound up fifth, which is where he usually winds up in polls and when the votes matter. So, to all you Ron Paul supporters who wrote me emails and told me he was going to be the big winner, let me say this: YOUR GUY CAME IN FIFTH PLACE!

- John McCain: Coming in fourth in the Iowa Caucuses is nothing to crow about, especially for someone who had the media talking about his "surge" in the polls in recent weeks. To have someone like Fred Thompson sweep by you, if only barely, in the polls to take the third place spot is a sign that it's just not in the cards for you. Feel fortunate that Iowans overlooked your campaign finance reform, voting against the Bush tax cuts, and immigration blunders.

I'll write more about the Iowa Caucuses on my website, CommonConservative.com, later. Now, I can enjoy peace and quiet not having to answer political phone calls and throw away junk mail.

Spare Some Change, Mister?

2008-01-02T21:14:00.000-06:00

Change is inevitable. Just as inevitable is politicians talking about it in the hopes of attracting voters.

Yes, the very concept that propelled Democrats into control of Congress in 2006 is what is being talked about today in 2008. Barack Obama talks about change. Hillary Clinton talks about change. John Edwards talks about change (although in these cases, I'm not sure if they're referring to an alteration of the status quo or the change in our pockets.)

As much as we like to talk about the need for change, we never seem to answer the question why. Just because someone says we need to change doesn't mean we do. After all, that person could be crazy or drunk or Britney Spears, but I repeat myself. Without asking why change is necessary, all we're doing is letting our emotions replace our thinking.

Which is exactly why politicians talk so much about change.

I blame Ross Perot for this phenomenon. His whole strategy was mentioning "reform." He even named his party after it! But few people if any asked why things needed to change. This lead to not just one election run for Perot, but two, but also gave Pat Buchanan and Jesse "the Body" Ventura a place to go politically. But people ate it up, and still do.

You may not think things are going exactly right for the country, but before you buy into the notion that a change is necessary, remember not all change is positive. The Democrats in 2006 made all sorts of calls for change and won on that agenda. Then, when they got into power, they didn't make many changes, except to Congress's approval ratings, which went down faster than Bill Clinton's pants at a sorority party. And things haven't gotten much better since the change. And remember, Democrats have another year of leadership ahead of them. If you thought this year was bad, I can only imagine how much worse they'll get this year with an election and President Bush's last year in office. I guarantee there will be more mud slung than at a monster truck rally.

And remember, people voted for this.

Next time you hear a politician talking about how we need to change, there's only one change you'll need to keep your sanity.

Change the channel.

New Years Resolutions for Other People - 2008 Edition

2007-12-31T07:04:00.000-06:00

For those of you who follow my other website, CommonConservative.com, I've done New Years Resolutions for Other People for the past couple of years. This year, I'm going to do it on my blog. :-)

The concept is simple. I'm very bad at making and keeping New Years resolutions, so one year I decided to help others by making resolutions for them. (And, yes, I'm using "help others" very loosely here.) If they decide to try to keep my resolutions, it saves them time and might actually do them some good. If they don't, they don't have to endure the guilt of not living up to the resolution. It's a win-win situation all the way around! And I do it...because I CARE, dammit!

So, strap yourselves in and prepare for the 2008 edition of New Years Resolutions for Other People!

- To George W. Bush, I resolve that you get some better people around you so that you can serve out your final year as President without the drama of the past 2-3 years. Half the headaches you had to endure seemed to have come from the people around you and their deeds or misdeeds. If you want to have any chance of salvaging any legacy that isn't written by your political opponents, get better people around you.

- To Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, I resolve that you both start looking for a Plan B. What you two knuckleheads have done in the House and Senate is nothing short of disastrous. When you promised change in the way Congress did things, we didn't think you meant negative change! Get your acts together and LEAD or you two will see yourselves out of the jobs you worked so hard to convince people you deserved.

- To Hillary Clinton, I resolve that you go to Al Gore to learn how to act and seem more human. If there's ever been a candidate more stiff, more scripted, and less appealing as a human being running for President, I haven't seen him or her...and I'm glad of that fact. Drop your guard and let us see the real you. Then, we'll feel a lot more comfortable voting against you because we'll have a legitimate reason.

- To Mitt Romney, I resolve that you let your guard down regarding your faith. Of course people are going to try to malign your faith because they don't understand it, and most Americans don't either. Your speech about faith went a ways towards rectifying that, but not far enough. If we're going to get comfy with your Mormonism, you have to trust us enough to open up and remove the mystery.

- To John Edwards, I resolve that you level with us for a change. I know you're trying to convice voters that you're fighting for the common man, but you made a fortune off hurting big companies with lawsuits. Who do you think got the axe? The people you claim you're fighting for if you become President. You don't need to pretend to channel a dead child to know that's not doing right by your voting base.

- To Ron Paul, I resolve that you spend the next four years paying attention to the Middle East. Some of your ideas make sense to me, but your foreign policy and terrorism approaches leave a lot to be desired. Before you get to have access to "The Button" I want you to get a serious education on what's going on in the Middle East and understand that America isn't to blame for it. They hate us for reasons other than our foreign policy, and the only thing that the extremists will understand is force.

- To Rudy Guiliani, I resolve that you make public amends with your past. The press will be relentless when trying to uncover anything you may have done wrong, from an overdue library book to shady dealings with shadier people. The sooner you exorcise these PR demons, the better you will be, and the more electable you will be.

- To the parents of Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears, I resolve that you stop trying to create stars and start being real parents. You've screwed up two kids so far, and once they realize it, there will be a reckoning you won't be prepared to face unless you face up to what you have done and make amends.

- To Hollywood, I resolve that you get some ideas and talent. Seriously, do we need another "American Pie" sequel? Or another movie based on a TV show? Or another horror film on the verge of being a snuff film? Or another romantic comedy so predictable even Kelly Pickler could figure it out within the first ten minutes? You guys say you're only giving the public what it wants, but remember your box office numbers have been declining in recent years. Gee, there might be a connection!

And finally...

- To the readers of my website and blog, I resolve that you keep me on my toes and call me on the carpet when I screw up. I'm a smart guy, but there are times when I don't see a problem, so I rely on you all to let me know what you think needs to be improved. (And, no, me not writing anymore is not an option.) You know how to contact me, and I will listen, even if I don't take your advice.

Happy New Year, everybody!

Predictions for 2008

2007-12-29T15:19:00.000-06:00

As we're within days of a new year, I thought I'd give a few predictions of what we're about to see. I should mention that I'm not a professional prognosticator (or a professional anything, for that matter), so please, no wagering. Not to mention, if I'm right you can marvel at my precognitive skills, and if I'm wrong you can mock me. It's a win-win for everybody!

So, without further ado, here's what I think will happen in 2008.

- Republicans retain the White House and retake the Senate. Democrats retain control of the House due to the sheer number of seats the GOP has to keep and obtain. But the Senate is attainable, thanks in no small part to voter dissatisfaction with Democrat leadership in both houses of Congress.

- President George W. Bush will serve out the remainder of his term, not without controversy, but without a serious impeachment threat. Some will chalk it up to the length of time Bush has been in office, others will chalk it up to Democrat inaction, and others will chalk it up to there being a lack of impeachable offenses.

- Cindy Sheehan will fail in her bid to unseat Nancy Pelosi, but will pull enough votes away from her to make the race competitive. This will further empower the Sheehan Wing of the Democrat Party, further dividing the Democrats.

- Agents Compean and Ramos will be pardoned, if not in 2008, then by no later than the middle of 2009.

- An anti-war movie will win a Best Picture Oscar. And nobody will care.

- Hollywood's box office slump will continue with a summer movie season filled with some big ticket films flopping badly.

- The price of oil will go above $100 a barrel briefly, and then stay in the $90-$100 range.

- President Bush will use his veto power more frequently in his last year in office, which will further cement the notion that Congress is a "do-nothing Congress."

- Due to a combination of talk of the "housing bubble" and the rate of foreclosures, the housing market's lean times will continue. But the hidden truth is that the housing market will continue to make gains, albeit at lower-than-expected levels.

- The surge in Iraq will continue to get positive results, which will get no coverage in the press.

- John Murtha's legal woes will continue and he will have to face the slander charges against him in relation to comments he made about Marines in Haditha. It will hurt him in his reelection bid, but it will not be enough to unseat him.

- The media will try to turn the 2008 election into a referrendum on the Bush Presidency, but it will not be. It will be a referrendum on whether the public trusts Democrats to run the country.

And finally...

- I will finally finish my first book. Whether it gets published...that's a different story. :-)

Merry Christmas!

2007-12-24T10:11:00.000-06:00

Before I left on my holiday trip, I wanted to wish all of my readers (even the ones who disagree with me) a Merry Christmas. And for those of you offended by people who say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," I have a special message.

Merry Frickin' Christmas. Now, shut your pie hole.

A Family Affair

2007-12-22T05:45:00.000-06:00

I caught a bit of CNN yesterday and they were making a big deal about Hillary Clinton bringing out her mother and Chelsea to campaign with her in New Hampshire. Hearing CNN talk about it, it was the greatest campaign idea ever! (Then again, CNN is the Clinton News Network.)

This campaign cycle, families have taken on much more importance. Usually, families are brought out to introduce a candidate or to stand behind them as the candidate gives a speech, but this time they've actually become key parts of the campaign. Elizabeth Edwards, for example, has come out and made statements on behalf of the campaign that John himself couldn't make because of the impact it would have on his campaign. (Of course, going after Ann Coulter while there were important issues like the war on terrorism is rarely advisable, but what do you expect from a guy who spent $400 of his campaign's money on a hair cut?) Michelle Obama has also made statements on behalf of her husband's campaign, although her comments were against candidates and positions, not against conservative authors and speakers of no real portent to the 2008 election.

Families can also be used as shields against criticism. Bill and Hillary Clintons were masters of this during his Presidency, but lately some Republicans have gotten into the act. Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guiliani have both used their families (Rudy to a lesser extent because his offspring don't much like his new wife) to deflect or blunt statements or allegations made about them. Who could continue such blistering assaults on a candidate when his family is right there behind him, supporting him? (I mean, besides me.)

In some cases, family can even become targets. Pundits have attacked Fred Thompson's wife, Jeri, as being a "trophy wife" because she's much younger and more attractive than Fred. Yet, the same statements aren't being made about Dennis Kucinich's wife, who is equally as young and attractive as Jeri. Then again, that would require the media to pay attention to Kucinich, and we know that ain't happening anytime soon...

It's not unusual for politicians to use members of their families for one reason or another, but you have to wonder how strong the family unit is that would allow itself to be used for political purposes. On the one hand, it can be said that the family is part of the candidate's life, so they should be willing to step up and do whatever is necessary to help the candidate fulfill his or her dreams. On the other, it can also be said that using family members for personal or political purposes dehumanizes the family, turning the members into mere pawns to be moved around as needed. Over time, that has to wear on a family, or at least wear on the family that recognizes what a family is supposed to be. Speaking personally, I know I wouldn't ask my mom, dad, and brothers to defend what I say on a daily basis because a) it would cause a strain on our relationship, b) they may not agree with what I say, and c) they might just tell the truth about me.

It's nice to have your family support you in a particular venture, but when politics and family mix, it can degrade the heart and soul of the latter. And an elected office just ain't worth it.

I'll Be Outsourcing for Christmas?

2007-12-16T05:29:00.000-06:00

I was listening to a recent episode of the Laura Ingraham Show and the subject was Christmas decorating. Apparently, there's a new industry for the on-the-go people who just don't have enough time to put up decorations. They're hiring people to do it. Whether it's making out Christmas cards or stringing up lights, people are hiring a company to take care of the "little details" of this season because they're just too busy.

The hell?????

I understand that some of the people out there who put up more lights than the Vegas Strip might need to prepare a couple of months in advance, but who doesn't have time to write Christmas cards? You don't even have to write a long greeting, either. Just sign the thing and move on. And if you throw in a "year in review" piece, all you have to do is write one and make copies. Not much effort in either case. If you're hiring this out, maybe you should cut back on an activity or two for a day.

Even the people who take the calls for this service don't do everything. If you need help hanging lights, the company will hire out someone else to do the work. That means there's another company making money off this really odd practice. As much of a capitalist as I am, there are some things you shouldn't hire out to have done. Unless you're working every waking hour on curing cancer, AIDS, or the absolute suckiness of "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" you can make the time to take care of the holiday "chores."

Decorating the house was always a big day in my house growing up. Putting up the tree, putting on the garland and foil icicles, finding spots for the ornaments, listening to Christmas songs on the stereo. These are memories I wouldn't trade for anything, and they are tasks I would hire anyone else to do in my place. And these are memories you can make with your children or just for yourselves with only a little shuffling of schedules. Christmas isn't about the decorating or the cards; it's about the feelings you bring to the work. Hiring someone to do the holiday chores for you may save you time, but you lose the heart and soul of the holiday.

Still feeling good about your decision to outsource for Christmas?

Michael Moore, Nostra-Dumbass

2007-12-15T20:16:00.000-06:00

I was watching a Canadian documentary about Michael Moore titled "Manufacturing Dissent" by Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine, and there was a scene from Moore's 2004 college tour to try to get college students to vote and unseat George W. Bush. (And we all know how well that turned out.) Here is a quote from Moore's speech at Central Michigan University during said tour:

George W. Bush has run out of troops. There is no way he can continue even this war without bringing back the draft and that's exactly what he's going to do if he gets another four years. You're going to be called up. You're going to be called up. You're going to have to go and fight George Bush's war.

Let's see...the surge is working with no draft. George W. Bush has a little over a year left to be President and the draft hasn't been raised as an option by the Bush Administration, only by...New York Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat. The war has continued without a draft, and contrary to what Moore and his ilk have said, the war has gone relatively well.

Then again, what would you expect from a man who thought Ralph Nader and Wesley Clark were Presidential?

The Shape of Things to Come?

2007-12-14T07:30:00.000-06:00

A year ago, Democrats were confident to the point of cockiness with their election wins. They had control of the House and functional control of the Senate, and they were ready to make a difference. It was going to be a new day in American politics.

With their first year in the Congressional driver's seat almost over, things are not looking good for last year's victors. The Washington Post is reporting that Congressional Democrat leaders are pointing fingers at one another about who's to blame for the collapse of the Democrats' plans. The House is blaming the Senate, the Senate is blaming the House, and everyone's blaming the Republicans. A real change in leadership there.

The lack of progress in Congress is translating into declining approval ratings. Bush may not be lighting things up in the approval ratings, but when you consider Congress has dropped from around the mid-thirty percent range to barely sneaking over 20%, and close to 10% in some polls, it's clear the public may be regretting their Election 2006 decisions. Big talk with little action after the fact doesn't sit well with people. The Democrats promised change and honesty, and they delivered...pointless show investigations and naming post offices. Not a good way to leave a lasting positive impression on history.

After the 2006 elections, Democrats, their followers, and pundits all started talking about the country moving to the left. They've had a chance to pick up some seats here and there, but there were more than a few elections that should give the Democrats a reason to be concerned. One was the governorship of Louisiana. The public may not be that keen on Republicans, but Bobby Jindahl, a young Republican, won the gubernatorial election in what proved to be somewhat shocking to Democrats and their allies, given the electoral makeup in Louisiana. But it really wasn't as shocking as some might think. After the disasterous reign of Kathleen Blanco during Hurricane Katrina, the very way Democrats swept into control of Congress came back to bite them.

But one gubernatorial election does not a trend make, right? Not so fast. This past Tuesday, Republicans ran and won elections for open seats in Ohio and Virginia. Some have tried to write it off as a fait accompli due to the makeup of those respective districts, but if the country truly did distrust Republicans in positions of power, the Democrats should have taken those seats. The fact they didn't should be a matter of concern.

Then, there's the Democrats running for President right now. I'm going to torque off supporters of Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, but there are only three main candidates for the Democrats: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Clinton is polarizing and has been looking more like Wile E. Coyote than a President. Obama has a good heart, but I don't see him convincing enough people that he's ready for the Oval Office. Edwards has been lagging behind Hillary and Obama and hasn't been able to put together a strong message to show how he'd be different from his two main rivals. The Republicans may not be much better in this regard, but remember it's the Democrats who have to take back the White House. All the Republicans have to do is retain it, which may be easier than people think.

With Code Pink targeting Hillary for her support of the Iraq War, Cindy Sheehan mounting a campaign against Nancy Pelosi, and the fringe left starting to make noise to get Democrats to dance to their tune, the Democrats are facing problems from their left flank. But to appease their left flank, they risk alienating their right flank, which helped them take control of Congress in 2006. This political schitzophrenia may be the very thing that keeps the Democrats out of the White House in 2008.

Put simply, the ground is being laid for Election 2008 right now. The Democrats are hoping to ride the Election 2006 results into further success, but the cards aren't there for it to happen right now unless the Democrats take some actions to address the multiple problems they face. Unless they do, they'll fiddle while their 2008 hopes burn.

A Christmas Wish

2007-12-13T07:36:00.000-06:00

With there being 12 days until Christmas, most people have a lot on their plates between shopping and writing Christmas cards. If I may presume to make a request to add one more thing on your list of things to do, I think you'll find it's for a very good cause.

Ever since I heard the case of Jose Compean and Ignancio Ramos, I have been outraged at the Bush Administration. For those of you unfamiliar with their case, Compean and Ramos were two U. S. Border Patrol Guards who were sent to prison for shooting a known drug dealer sneaking across the border into America. Due to a series of highly questionable events, the drug dealer and lawyers under Federal Attorney Johnny Sutton testified under oath and got Compean and Ramos sent to federal prison. But the part of the case that cannot be overlooked in this miscarriage of justice is the fact that the drug dealer, the attorneys, and Sutton all lied and have been called out on it. Yet, Compean and Ramos still sit in prison for doing their jobs.

This is where my request comes into the picture. If you are so inclined, please send Compean and Ramos Christmas cards if for no other reason than to brighten their days. Whether you agree with President Bush on this issue or not, you have the ability to show the spirit of the season to two men who need a bit of it.

Their addresses are as follows:

Ignacio Ramos #58079-180
FCI Phoenix
Federal Correctional Institution
37910 N. 45th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086

Jose Compean #58080180
FCI Elkton
PO Box 10
Lisbon, OH 44432

This Is Your Campaign. This Is Your Campaign on Drugs. Any Questions?

2007-12-12T20:56:00.000-06:00

Has the Hillary Clinton campaign lost its ever-lovin' MIND???? Granted, that's assuming they had a mind to lose, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here because something as stupid as what they did today could only take the keen calculating mind of a complete moron.

The national co-chair of Hillary Clinton's campaign, Bill Shaheen, called Barack Obama on the carpet for his past drug use, saying that it could be used against him by the Republicans. Here's what Shaheen said:

It'll be, "When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?" There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome.

Of course, Hillary's people tried to distance themselves from the comment, but you'd have to be a Clintonite to think this wasn't planned out. Let's not forget the fact that Obama has been making great strides towards taking the frontrunner position from Hillary in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the first three tests en route to the nomination. And with the multiple gaffes from the Hillary campaign in recent weeks, it's a pretty safe bet that Hillary is looking for anything to stop her slide.

But going after Obama's drug use and blaming it on the Republicans? Please. You were on more solid ground when you lashed out at Tim Russert for "playing 'gotcha'" at one of the recent Democrat debates. It was a weak and dirty trick that reeked of desperation. You're a Presidential candidate, for the love of Pete! Start acting like it!

As for Obama, I can't say as I agree with what he did in his past. But I'm leaving it where it belongs: in the past. If it comes out that Obama's tooting on the campaign trail or shooting smack in between campaign stops, then he should be questioned about it. In the meantime, making stupid mistakes in the past shouldn't disqualify someone unless it directly impacts the present.

Like thinking Hillary Clinton is presidential.

Helping People...Into Globalism?

2007-12-11T20:19:00.000-06:00

President Bush's plan to help out customers with subprime mortgage loans seemed like a gesture of good will and smart money. Freezing interest rate on some subprime mortgages will certainly help some people, but not everyone. Certainly there will be people who will not be able to make their payments even with the rate freeze. Then what?

Knowing government like I do, it will only be a matter of time before some government type tries to help even more by suggesting another solution, perhaps a federal program to help subprime mortgage customers make payments. And if that doesn't work, there might be another solution and then another solution. Before you know it, there's going to be a call for someone to set up an agency to address this situation.

They won't have to look too far for a model. All they need to do is look to the World Bank.

For the uninitiated, the World Bank's job is to loan or grant money to underdeveloped countries for infrastructure and other important needs. The loans are often low interest and usually don't have to be paid back within a certain timeframe. If the country needs more money, the World Bank can grant or loan more money with few strings attached.

See the pattern here? Both Bush's solution for the subprime mortgage crisis and the World Bank are joined at the hip because of the type of people being helped. Most likely, the people helped by either are not capable of meeting their financial obligations for one reason or another, which makes them prime targets for additional assistance. Each new person on this dole becomes a way for government to expand.

Now, let's say for the sake of argument that a governmental type here decides America can't handle the subprime customers' needs. It's only a slight change of stationary for the subprime mortgage crisis to come under the pervue of the World Bank. That, ladies and gentlemen, would bring us more in line with globalism. If that happens, say goodbye to American sovereignty as we know it.

But hey, at least some subprime mortgage customers get to keep their homes a bit longer, right?

Example #536 of How Government CARES About You

2007-12-08T06:03:00.000-06:00

Senator John Kerry is a lot of things. A guy who flip-flops more than an IHOP cook on speed working commission. A Senator from a state that spawned the man-whale that is Ted Kennedy. A political opportunist with a horrible sense of timing.

And now, he's showing his true colors as a football fan. Kerry recently sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell and National Cable & Telecommunications Association President and CEO Kyle McSlarrow regarding the NFL Network showing some high-profile games only on the NFL Network. There's been a lot of finger-pointing about this, but it's nice to see that a powerful and well-known Senator used all of his governmental power...to write a letter.

Before you get on Kerry's bandwagon, let me point out a couple of things to you. First off, this situation has been known for quite some time without Kerry even acknowledging it. But now that the New England Patriots (who, surprise surprise, play in the very state Kerry represents) is on the verge of possibly having a perfect regular season schedule, Kerry all of the sudden CARES! And guess who is having a game broadcast on the NFL Network in the very near future? The New England Patriots!

Pandering for votes so soon, Senator?

Here's the other side of the equation to consider. The NFL Network is a premium network, meaning not everybody will get it. If you have the money and desire to get it, you can. And the NFL is in the business of professional football to make money, and the NFL Network is a way to do that. (An admitted stupid way to make money, I grant you, but a way to make money nonetheless.) In order to make money, you have to offer an attractive product or service, so the NFL Network would have to pick some of their high-profile games for them to make their service attractive.

Now, here's the radical part. They're giving customers...what they want!

As far as who's to blame for the limited number of people who can get the NFL Network, it doesn't matter. If a particular game means that much to you, you can either buy the service or you can go to some place that has. Any sports bar worth its salt will have it, so all you have to do is go there and have a good time. What the people complaining the loudest about the NFL Network don't get is that they have the power to fix the situation if they thought about it instead of whining.

Or getting a waffling Senator from Massachusetts to whine on their behalf.

Right Speech, Wrong Time

2007-12-06T18:42:00.000-06:00

I managed to catch some of Mitt Romney's speech today on faith. From what I've heard (and from what I've heard from commentators after the fact), it was a moving, powerful speech, one that should lay to rest any doubts people have about whether Romney's Mormon faith would play a role in his Presidency should he be elected. I was impressed, but one fact bothered me.

This speech should have been given months ago.

Almost since he announced his intention to run for President, Romney's faith has been a point by which he could be attacked, mainly because not enough people know what Mormons believe. That level of ignorance can lead to irrational fear, which can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations. That, in turn, can lead to distrust, which is fatal to any political campaign.

When Rmoney's faith was attacked by the left and the right, Romney kept quiet. That has two results: 1) it adds to the mystery, and 2) it makes people believe there's something to the criticisms, no matter how absurd they may have been. (Case in point: the "magic underwear" comment that has been overblown and repeated ad nauseum.) The time to diffuse that situation is not a month before the Iowa Caucuses, but at the point of attack.

By waiting as long as he has, Romney has opened himself up to a criticism, one I haven't heard anyone bring up yet: his speech was pure political posturing. No matter how good the speech was, the timing of it smacks of a manufactured event. If Mike Huckabee had been sucking Ron Paul's vapors, would Romney have come out with this speech today? Probably not.

Should he have given this speech? Absolutely. He needed to quiet his critics and speak to how the left in this country has done to make religious faith into something to attack or something to use as a shield for certain candidates. It needed to be said, and Romney was the best man to say it, given his faith. Huckabee couldn't have pulled it off with the same effectiveness as Romney did.

Now, if only he'd done it sooner.

A Hannukah Gift

2007-12-05T19:23:00.000-06:00

To any Jewish readers of my blog, I wish you a happy Hanukkah. Although I don't share your religion, I have a deep respect for Israel and Judaism.

Part of it is directly connected to my faith. As a Lutheran and a follower of Jesus Christ, my faith wouldn't exist without you. And contrary to what some might claim, I fully acknowledge Jesus was a Jew. How can I not love a people that gave me my Savior?

Part of it is based on Israel's history. Throughout the centuries, Israel has been an underdog, a people who have endured the machinations of those who wanted to wipe them off the face of the Earth. Yet, they've not only survived, but they've thrived. Out of their little corner of the Middle East, they have carved out an existence that is nothing short of miraculous. It's a testament to who they are as a people and their potential to survive in spite of those who would do them harm.

Part of it is what Israel's presence in the Middle East represents. Compared to the other counties and religious factions in that neck of the world. Israel represents an oasis, both literally and figuratively. Israel is proof that a democratic or near-democratic form of government CAN exist in the Middle East. Consider the scientific and technological giants that have come from Israel! That alone should make a fan of Israel out of most people.

I don't always say it, but my actions almost always reflect it. I am a proud supporter and ally of Israel. To some, that makes me a target for hatred, criticism, or worse. So be it. I'll gladly suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous criticism to defend a country and a people I've grown to love and respect.

God bless you, Israel!

Has Bush Just Beaten Iran?

2007-12-04T20:15:00.000-06:00

President Bush has done some things that have had me shaking my head in disbelief on more than occasions. Other things, I've been able to see where he was coming from, even when I didn't agree. Yet other things, I think he's been True North while the rest of us have been trying to fold the map.

With the recent National Intelligence Estimate report stating Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and the White House's reaction to it, originally I had one of those WTF moments. What would possess the Bush Administration to give Democrats, faux liberals, and the media ammunition to further criticize the war on terrorism and the Administration as a whole? Granted, they'd do it anyway, but to give them a reason to do it is political suicide.

Or is it?

Regardless of what criticisms I have with George W. Bush, one thing I have always maintained is that he is a "big picture" thinker and he has reasons for what he does. They may not always make sense, but they're his reasons. That's what made me stop short after my initial reaction. Bush took this action for a reason, and after seeing the whole picture, I think it may be his most brilliant strategic move ever.

One aspect of Muslim society is honor. If you shame a Muslim man or question his honor, he takes it very seriously and can get violent as a result. And guess who is a Muslim? President Imadinnerjacket of Iran. He's been running his mouth for the better part of a year or so, saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map and destroy America. One of the ways he intends to do it is by building a nuclear arsenal, as he believes a nuclear war would bring back the 13th Imam. Furthermore, he's said Iran has a right to get nuclear capabilities.

Now, what do you think it does to Imadinnerjacket to have America say Iran stopped any nuclear programs it had in 2003?

Let me put it this way. Imadinnerjacket ain't happy right now. With two moves, George W. Bush has embarassed him in front of the world...and in front of his Islamic allies. Now without the ability to make good on his threats, Imadinnerjacket becomes a joke, even more that he already has been so far. That means he'll have to do something to regain the respect of his Islamic buddies.

Which will prove George W. Bush was right all along about the potential threat Iran is.

There is another way Imadinnerjacket can react, which is to tone down the rhetoric and make sure he doesn't draw attention to himself. Granted, this is a pretty big and most likely unrealistic hope, but it could happen, albeit remotely. If that happens, Iran will become less of a threat.

Which will give George W. Bush another victory, one without firing a shot.

Am I spinning events? Maybe. Am I being unrealistic or overly optimistic? Could be. Am I right? Time and history will be the judges of that. But if I'm right, Bush may have pulled off the biggest win-win situation of his Presidency, and that will go a long way to securing his legacy.

Just Say No to Conspiracy Theories

2007-12-01T17:57:00.000-06:00

The hostage situation at a New Hampshire campaign office for Hillary Clinton ended, thankfully, non-violently and the hostage taker is in custody. But even before the standoff was over, something so sad occurred. Without knowing much hard information, people were already claiming the hostage taker was a Republican. Then, Republicans chimed in and said it had to be a Hillary supporter trying to divert attention from her campaign planting supporters at Wednesday's Republican debate.

But here's the truth. The guy was a nutjob whose sanity went south on him a while ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. Not as sexy as the conspiracy theories being tossed about, but a lot closer to the truth.

These days, it seems more and more people are willing to suspend disbelief and put their faith in conspiracy theories. There are a number of reasons why people do this, but the one I think hits closest to home is that it helps to explain those things we can't get our heads around. Think back to all the conspiracy theories that surround 9/11. On a single day, our national psyche was altered, and not everyone was or is prepared to handle it. People search for answers that make sense to them, even if it's to believe some fantastic story about secret shadowy forces setting pawns into motion. As odd as it is to say, conspiracy theories become our security blankets at times. And just like with Linus from "Peanuts," getting us to let go of that security blanket and move on can be a monumental task.

Lately, though, conspiracy theories have gone beyond the usual crackpot notions and into the realm of political rhetoric. Now, anything that happens has the potential to be turned into a conspiracy theory linking groups of people that more often than not don't really go together. Seriously, would the Hillary campaign go out and find a raving lunatic to hold a campaign office hostage? Probably not. Would the Republicans do it? Probably not. Not to mention, there's the time factor to consider. Finding a crazy person in New Hampshire who would be willing to pull off a stunt like that all in around 48 hours' time would be a big feat in and of itself. Plus, there's a huge possibility that it could backfire because the mentally unstable don't think like the rest of us do and, thus, they may not be too keen on following directions.

It may be fun to spin a tale of conspiracy, but remember there are people out there willing to believe anything. What you take as fun, some people will take as gospel. (Case in point: Michael Moore's followers.) And as fun as it is to use conspiracy theories to take jabs at someone from the other side of the political aisle, we need to be careful that it doesn't replace reasoned thought, especially in situations where there are innocent lives at stake. At those points in time, politics should be the last thing on people's minds.

So, take a cue from your ole pal Thomas Lindaman and just say no to conspiracy theories.

Restoring America's Image?

2007-11-30T05:42:00.000-06:00

It's time that we lay to rest a campaign line Democrats are using in their attempt to get back into the White House in 2008. The line I'm referring to is "restoring America's image around the world." As much as they like to think President Bush has ruined our image around the world, the fact is...he didn't.

Democrats point to our actions in the Middle East as proof that the world now hates us, but it's hard to overlook the fact that many of the countries they point to as now hating us already did. Many of the Middle Eastern countries already held a healthy contempt for us, if not an out and out hatred of us. Yes, even during the Clinton years when, allegedly, the world loved us. If you trace back Middle Eastern sentiments towards the US over the past couple of decades, you'd find they really didn't dig us that much to begin with, and they felt that way long before George W. Bush was a candidate for President. But their hatred of us has to be because of Bush?

What about the rest of the world? Certainly Bush's foreign policy has to be the cause of things going so bad, right? Not so much. Europe has held a healthy, if unhidden until recently, contempt for America due in part to our economic and social conditions. In Europe, socialism is still practiced and considered to be a serious socio-political system, while America has pretty much regarded it as a joke. Europe's social mores are looser than ours, which tends to make them look on us as being behind the times. Remember their lack of concern over Bill Clinton having a mistress? That's who's calling us socially backwards.

Another element to consider has been the constant flow of Muslims into Europe. Some countries like France have seen Muslim immigration skyrocket within the past decade or so. Certainly this would have an impact on elections which would impact the country's opinion of America. And considering the Muslim rioting in France just within the past 3 years, Muslims aren't afraid to flex their muscle to bring attention to themselves and to get what they want.

What Democrats keep overlooking is that there are some countries around the world who have not given in to the temptation to bash us (such as the former Eastern Bloc nations), and some who have in the past because of our Middle East policies (like France and Germany) have elected pro-America leaders. So, we may be seeing a positive change in world opinion towards us occurring, slowly but certainly. Sure, there will be countries who still hate us, but that's to be expected. Nobody can be loved all the time, and even leaders will find detractors.

But let me leave you with how misguided Democrats' approach to world diplomacy has been in recent years. Remember Kosovo? We went in, deposed their leader, and helped a bunch of poor oppressed people, right?

Not so much. As it turns out, we chose to side with Muslims, which wound up helping al Qaeda's drug trade, didn't solve anything because the "ethnic cleansing" that was going on was still happening under different (read: Muslim) management, and it did nothing to quell the Muslim hatred towards us.

And Democrats want to lecture us about improving our image around the world?

As Dumb As A Plant

2007-11-29T05:15:00.000-06:00

CNN has stepped in it again. After the CNN-sponsored Democrat debate in Las Vegas, conservative bloggers found some of the "undecided voters" asking questions of the candidates were actually Democrat plants. (So much for "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.") This situation left CNN with egg on its face, so what did they do?

They let Democrat plants in the Republican debate last night.

Conservative bloggers have found more than a few Democrat operatives supporting Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards asking questions of the Republican candidates, also under the guise of being "undecided voters." How bad was it? Someone from a previous CNN-YouTube debate wearing an Edwards 08 t-shirt was allowed to ask a question while wearing a shirt that did not note her previous allegiance.

Boy, if you think CNN had egg on its face after the Democrat debate fiasco, they have an entire henhouse on their face right now. Anderson Cooper said in an interview before the debate, in essence, that it wasn't his job to weed out the plants. Then, as soon as he found out there were plants, he said CNN would have reported it had they known. Well, gee, wouldn't you have to be trying to FIND the plants to know they were there, AC?

CNN loves to tout how it's the "most trusted name in cable news." After being caught twice allowing Democrat plants in debates, I think it's time to strip them of that title, if in fact they are the most trusted name in cable news. On the other side, CNN should have an independent investigator look into their practices regarding the debates and find out where the failures occurred. Then, CNN needs to do the right thing and fire those individuals publicly and with full disclosure.

Will it happen? I doubt it. CNN will issue a mea culpa, promise to do better next time, and be allowed to skate. Media critics , both in the mainstream media and in the new media, should not let that happen. At best, CNN showed a lack of oversight in not screening the questioners better. At worst, it's an example of overt media bias.

There will be those who will dismiss the Democrat plant story as no big deal. Let me ask you: would you feel the same way if Fox News had used Republican plants in its Republican debate? And if you say that Fox News already did, I want proof. And if they did, I'll criticize them, too. Any media outlet that actively tries to deceive the public as CNN did deserves to be criticized, regardless of ideological affiliations.

Either way, CNN was dumb for participating in the purposeful deception of the public. One would expect a cable news channel to have higher standards.

Pat Buchanan: A Seer, or A Broken Clock?

2007-11-27T19:29:00.000-06:00

Pat Buchanan has a new book, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart, that has been getting attention in conservative circles these days. Buchanan's previous books have also gotten a great buzz because it seems as though Buchanan is on the cutting edge, seeing issues that escape people until they're on top of us.

Yet, I'm not quite so eager to proclaim Buchanan as a forward-thinking conservative as of yet. Back in my youth, I supported Buchanan and worked on his 1996 Presidential campaign. At that time, he was what I considered to be a true conservative message. Small government, lower taxes, morality paramount in the culture, everything my ideological side was hoping to find.

Then, both of us changed. After voting for Bob Dole and being disappointed with Congressional Republicans, I left the GOP for the Libertarian Party in 1998. On the other side, Pat changed, also. He went from being the rock-ribbed conservative I respected into something of a turncoat to conservatism. When he ran as a Reform Party candidate, I listened to his platform and was shocked. The man I admired now sounded a lot less conservative than I remembered.

Since then, I've considered Buchanan to be the male version of Arianna Huffington: only conservative when it suits his needs, and his needs all revolve around whatever will get him the most attention. He may have been right on immigration, but I'm not sure it's because he actually did the homework to come to that conclusion or if it's for some other less noble reason. Plus, it's no secret that he's had serious objections with the Bush Administration, bordering on or even jumping headlong into Bush Derangement Syndrome. At times, he's even sounded like a faux liberal drooler.

That's why I can't completely trust Pat Buchanan, no matter how accurate his "predictions" have been. And that's why I won't read Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart. I simply cannot separate the man who is making the rounds on conservative talk radio and television shows from the man who turned his back on conservatism and continues to do so except when he's hawking a book. And as far as his "predictions" are concerned, there's only one thing I can say.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The Solution to the Writers' Strike

2007-11-27T06:37:00.000-06:00

Television and movies have been at a standstill since writers have gone on strike. It's gotten so bad that "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" has been running reruns of shows from when Jay began hosting. And it still sucks out loud.

Negotiations are going on to try to get writers back on the job, but it's going to have an impact on our favorite shows and films that are still in production. In today's entertainment-fueled society, that could be disasterous if the strike goes on much longer. We need our entertainment and we want it as soon as we can get it.

Television networks are ramping up game shows and reality shows to pick up the slack, but I don't think it's going to work. Sure, there's no need for writers on either show, but reruns, reality shows, and game shows can only take you so far before people get bored. Being the solutions-oriented guy I am, I think I've figured out a way to get us our entertainment fix and save movies and television.

Hire bloggers and online fiction writers to write the shows and movies at least on a temporary basis.

Having been in the blogosphere for about a year now, and having seen some other blogs out there for far longer, I can tell you there are some great writers out there just waiting to be discovered and paid for what they do. Some write smart comedy, some write fantastic prose, some even give insightful commentary that could easily be woven into a drama. And when it comes to great ideas, the fan fiction sites out there showcase some of the creativity that's out there to be tapped.

There is a caveat here, though. If the writers' strike ends soon, the blogger idea goes out the window because there won't be a need for them to help out. But having them out there as a possible resource may be a way to salvage the TV season and save movies that are in the middle of production and aren't completely written or rewritten yet.

There is another reason to consider using online writers: competition tends to create a better product. Within the past few years, we have seen absolute dreck passed off as a "hot new show" or a "must-see movie." Seriously, "Little Man" by the Wayans brothers was a rip-off of an old Warner Brothers cartoon, and, deservedly, it tanked. You may have some bright spots, but most of the entertainment industry these days is just trying to crank out whatever it can, regardless of whether it deserves to see the light of day.

At least some of the problem can be traced back to the writers. Take "The Simpsons" for example. In the 90s, it was truly a never-miss show because the writing was so good and made you laugh even if you disagreed with the sentiment. As time went on, however, the show has declined in quality. What used to be never-miss has become full of misses. There are only so many times you can see the same script idea recycled before you start looking for something else to watch.

Want to change that dynamic? Give the writers competition by farming out some of the writing duties. If they know that they may not have a lock on their jobs, it should fire up their imaginations to come up with better ideas so they would get their scripts approved for air. Then, we might not have to see another season of shows that run for 2 or 3 episodes before getting yanked.

So, if you're listening, Hollywood, give online writers a chance. We may surprise you. And we can't be any worse than the writers on "Baywatch."

Fear Me, For I Have the Power to Destroy You?

2007-11-24T06:17:00.000-06:00

A couple of items caught my attention on the Drudge Report yesterday, but they have a common theme. One was a story from the UK Daily Mail about women who are having abortions or getting sterilized because they want to battle overpopulation, a problem they feel threatens the planet. One of the women quoted in the story said the following:

Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet. Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.

And apparently, she was born without a sense of irony. The women in this article remind me of a point I've brought up in terms of the abortion debate. Have you noticed that all of the people who support the "right" to an abortion are alive? They should thank whatever deity they worship that their parents didn't decide to exercise the "right" they advocate.

The other story was from the London Telegraph reporting on two American cosmologists who believe humans are responsible for shortening the life of the universe. I'm not a scientist, but I'll do my best to explain the logic here. The hypothesis/philosophical debate is that the universe changes when we look at something. Using that logic, astronomers may have brought us closer to destruction by observing dark energy. Dark energy, according to the article, is an "anti-gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the universe." I'm not so sure about the validity of the idea that looking at something changes it, but I can say that people not looking at something has destroyed the film careers of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez.

The common theme in both of these stories is the assumption that humans have the power to destroy the planet and, apparently, the universe. As nifty as I am, I know my limitations, and I know I don't have the kind of power the anti-overpopulation women and the cosmologists think I do. And neither do you. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, the Earth has the ability to adjust to anything we do. Does this mean we should rush out and start dumping nuclear waste in our backyards? No. But it does mean we shouldn't worry that not recycling is going to cause the Earth to spin hopelessly down a spiral of environmental disaster.

But there is a flip side to the "humans are destroying the planet" idea. Could it be that the same people who think humans destroy the environment...also believe humans can save the environment? It fits with their general belief that if people listened to them, the world would be a better place. And what better way to feed your ego while appearing to be environmentally conscious than to elevate yourself to the level of God? That's why some people think of modern environmentalism as a cult or a religion.

But let me reiterate my main point: we don't have the power to save or destroy the environment on a massive scale. We are a part of the system, not above it, not below it. We're in it. And as such, what we do can be undone by other forces in nature.

Kinda puts your place in the universe in perspective, doesn't it?

Happy Thanksgiving!

2007-11-22T15:54:00.000-06:00

This year, I heard a story where some schools are telling students that Thanksgiving is a day of mourning because of what our ancestors did to Native Americans. (After the amount of money I've given back to Native Americans in their casinos, I'd say I've more than said I'm sorry.)

But that's not the way we should see Thanksgiving. Sure, American history is full of instances when we haven't exactly treated people with the respect they deserve, but we have the rest of the year to consider that. To me, Thanksgiving is a time to reflect, count our blessings, and give thanks for what we have. In that spirit, I offer the following.

I'm thankful to God for blessing me with my life and my talents.

I'm thankful to the President and our armed forces for protecting our freedoms, even when we don't agree with their mission.

I'm thankful to my family for your love and support over the years.

I'm thankful to my friends for enriching my life in so many ways.

I'm thankful to my readers for their insight and support.

And, yes, I'm thankful to my critics for keeping me honest, and in most cases, keeping me doing what I'm doing.

A time to be mournful? Hardly, when there is so much to be thankful for if you really take the time to think about it.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

Crazy Like a Fox, or Dumb As a Bag of Hammers?

2007-11-18T05:40:00.000-06:00

I have a special disdain for John Kerry beyond the disdain I have for most Senators. If ever there was someone who lived up to the stereotype of a rich white man utterly disconnected with the world, it's Kerry. This became abundantly clear when he ran for President in 2004 when he tried to fit in with "regular people" and always came off looking awkward at best.

During the 2004 campaign, Kerry's military career and the awards he won were called into question by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In a series of ads and in the book Unfit for Command, the Swift Boat Vets laid out an argument against Kerry's suitability for President...and Kerry didn't say very much about it, according to Kerry himself, because he felt it would give the Swift Boat Vets credibility.

But now Kerry's fighting back. He recently sent a letter to T. Boone Pickens, who issued a million dollar challenge to anyone who could prove the Swift Boat Vets' claims wrong. Now, Kerry's looking to collect, promising to donate the money to the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

At first blush, I laughed out loud. After all, it's 2007, and Kerry's still trying to argue a point he should have addressed in 2004? He may blame the Swift Boat Vets for his loss and may be trying to clear his name (or as he says it, prevent other candidates from being "Swift Boated"), but there's a time and a place for everything. That Swift Boat sailed a looooooooooooooooong time ago, John.

Then, I stopped to think about the circumstances a bit more. In the midst of a Presidential campaign season, people might overlook the Kerry story for the same reason I did: namely, because we have lives and Kerry was sooooooo 2004. But that works to Kerry's advantage because it becomes a no-lose situation for him. If he proves the Swift Boat Vets didn't tell the truth about him, he gets vindication. If he doesn't, nobody's paying attention close enough for him to be damaged.

The question is whether Kerry's thinking strategically or whether he's just extremely slow on the uptake. Given what I've seen of the man on the campaign trail and in the Senate, I'm guessing the latter. Making strategic blunders was a staple of the Kerry campaign in 2004, and more than a little of this entire escapade is tied to his ego. When you combine ego with desperate stupidity, bad things are sure to happen. Have we learned nothing from the "Gigli" debacle?

In the end, the only one who really cares about this situation is the one who stands to gain the most if it turns out favorably, John Kerry. For him to take on the Swift Boat Vets now is either an exercise in vindication...or an exercise in stupidity.

Brother Can You Spare A Vote?

2007-11-17T07:06:00.000-06:00

There's a news story making the rounds that disturbed me on so many levels. A New York University journalism class polled more than 3000 NYU students and found more than half would trade their right to vote for more personal reasons. For many (66%), a year's tuition to NYU would be worth giving up their right to vote. For 20%, all it would take to give up their right to vote...is an iPod Touch. And to give up their right to vote forever, 50% would take a cool million dollars.

Oh, but these same students recognize the importance of voting. Ninety percent of the students who would take a million dollars to give up voting forever said voting was important. Even 70% of the students who would take free tuition for their right to vote said one vote can make a difference, out of the 70.5% of students who said one vote can make a difference.

A lot of numbers, to be sure, but all leading up to one big problem for the country: a country of young people who really don't understand the right to vote. Voting isn't and shouldn't be a commodity to be traded for material goods. And remember, I'm a big fan of capitalism, so it takes something pretty important to get me to say something isn't worth giving up for money. To have college age adults simultaneously say voting is important, but not so important that they wouldn't give it up, should be disturbing to every American.

But something tells me many Americans would want to know how they could get in on the action. One of the great losses we've had in recent decades has been the loss of knowledge of, and dare I say respect for, civics, and it turns out that disrespect and ignorance has been passed on to a new generation.

And, no, I don't buy the students when they say voting is important or that a single vote can make a difference...after they're willing to give up their vote for a flipping iPod. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy to say voting is important, but you can't be bothered with it. Maybe the fact you're willing to sell away your right to vote should be a sign that you don't get how important the right to vote is or what sacrifices have been made for you to have it in the first place.

Just remember, some places in this world don't have a vote to sell. Be thankful you have a right to vote in the first place, even if you aren't willing to treat it like the treasure it is.

Kids or "Mini-Adults"?

2007-11-16T05:21:00.000-06:00

A 10 year old boy who was responsible for setting some of the California wildfires because he was playing with matches will probably not see any legal repercussions due to his age. Prosecutors and legal experts agreed that it would be hard to secure a conviction because of the boy's age, and this seems to be the most compassionate, sensible position they could take on the issue.

Ah, but I have a problem with this decision because other situations have arisen where the age of the offender has not been taken into account. I'm speaking of schools who have punished students as young as six for "sexual harassment" for doing such things as...get this...hugging another student. How we let these predators attend public school is beyond me... (and yes, I'm being sarcastic here).

In none of the cases where schools have punished young children for sexual harassment did age come into play, even though these situations should consider age in their decisions. Children don't really start to notice differences in gender until around the age of the 10 year old boy responsible for some of the California wildfires. So, when they hug or kiss a fellow student on the cheek, it's not really sexual. Yet, the adults infuse the situation with sex and ignore the age of the "offender," which winds up making the adults look overbearing and foolish.

The 10 year old boy, on the other hand, cannot or should not claim ignorance due to age. When you're 10, you should know by then that you shouldn't play with matches. Yet, this concept is being lost in an attempt to look compassionate. Of course, some would dismiss the comparison I've made based on the circumstances, but it cannot be ignored that at their bases there are adults making decisions that directly impact a young life.

And it also cannot be ignored that these adults are using different standards to arrive at their decisions. With the California boy, the 10 year old is "just a child." With the 6 year olds expelled for sexual harassment, they're "little adults." What kind of message does this send to kids? You can play with matches when you're old enough to know better, but don't you dare make an innocent gesture of affection?

No wonder kids are growing up confused.

Why the Dems May Be Doomed in 2008

2007-11-13T20:20:00.000-06:00

Another Republican, this time Dick Armey, came out this week and painted a rosy picture for Hillary Clinton. Armey joins a growing list of Republicans and conservatives who say Hillary winning the Presidency is a fait accompli. But, I have to wonder if these people are seeing the whole picture. The Democrats are in a weakened state, one that the Republicans can exploit if they're smart enough.

Here are the problems that plague the Democrats right now.

1) Hillary as a front runner is too polarizing. There are very few undecided folks when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Most people love her or hate her. And she's had over a decade on the national scene to reach as many people as possible. Judging by her negatives nationwide, she's not going to be able to pull off a stunt like she did in 1992 by going from strong, independent woman to cover girl for Good Housekeeping. People know who she is...and many people don't like her.

2) The Democrats will fight...themselves? You read that right. The Democrats are in a state of disarray right now, and not just because of the candidates running for President. The party is splintering for a number of reasons: ending the war, impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the direction of the country and the party, and so on. And when you have people whose egos are so invested in their politics as the modern left's are, that's going to lead to lost votes.

3) The likability factor. Look up and down the list of Democrat candidates and you'll find a nearly universal trait: they don't appeal to people. Aside from Barack Obama, the Democrats don't really have anyone that people like. Hillary? John Edwards? Too slick. Bill Richardson? Joe Biden? Not exciting enough. Mike Gravel? Too rocky sounding. And the rest of the candidates aren't much better. In politics, a likable candidate can beat a qualified candidate. That's what happened with Al Gore in 2000 and look how he turned out.

4) The blogosphere strikes back! Although the modern left is starting to come around to the power of the online community, it's still dominated by conservatives. That puts any Democrat running for office in a difficult position, as whenever they say or do something the bloggers may not agree with or like, up it goes. And with the blogosphere being the way it is, one story can have legs well beyond what a newspaper or TV news show might. Unless the Democrats can counteract the blogosphere, they're in big trouble.

5) They haven't shown they can lead yet. It's hard to find a leader these days, and within Democrat ranks, it's even more difficult. This is the devastating effect that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's failures will have on the 2008 election because they're the ones trying to man the fort while some of their big stars are out stumping for votes. With an approval rating anywhere from 11-24%, they need to show they're relevant in 2007 and 2008, and the only way to do that is to lead and let people see that leadership in action.

6) Overconfidence can lead to under-preparing. Since before Election 2006, Democrats have been predicting the GOP's downfall, and for once their predictions came true. Instead of looking at how they won, they started planning the victory party for 2008. Ah, but pride can cometh before a fall, as we saw with Hillary's recent MSNBC debate performance. If the Democrats arent' careful, they might be looking at a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

There may be other factors involved, but the point is the same. Democrats aren't nearly as strong as we're being lead to believe they are, and as long as Republicans are afraid to test this outh, we'll see more pieces like the one Armey wrote.

Because Some People Have Too Much Time On Their Hands

2007-11-12T19:41:00.000-06:00

The following is an IM conversation I had with a faux liberal drooler harassing good people for jollies. The name has not been changed, as it is someone cloning another chatter, and it's screamingly obvious. Enjoy. :-)

Jjetrangerb2O6: I KNOW WHO YOU ARE SON
Jjetrangerb2O6: BELIEVE THAT
AceofSwrds: Yeah, because I've done such a good job hiding who I am... ROFLMAO
Jjetrangerb2O6: NO NO NO I HAVE HAD YOU CHECK OUT
Jjetrangerb2O6: CHECKED*
Jjetrangerb2O6: ;-)
AceofSwrds: Oh. Wow. I am...not impressed.
Jjetrangerb2O6: I WILL POSTING ALL TONIGHT ON OUT BLOG ABOUT YOU
Jjetrangerb2O6: AND HOPE YOU DENY IT OR TRY TO SUE US
AceofSwrds: Thanks for the traffic. :-)
Jjetrangerb2O6: LIKE I SAID I PRAY YOU TRY TO SUE US
AceofSwrds: Feel free to post whatever you want. I could care less.
AceofSwrds: After all, I guarantee you will be wrong on much of what you post. :-)Jjetrangerb2O6: OHH NO WE ARE NOT.. WE HAD YOU CHECKED OUT
AceofSwrds: Fine. When's my birthday? :-)
Jjetrangerb2O6: LOLA
ceofSwrds: Should be simple to pull out if you did have me checked out like you claim. :-)AceofSwrds: Tick tock... :-)
Jjetrangerb2O6: ILL POST IT ON YOUR BLOG AND OURS TONIGHT. ILL EVEN PHOTO SHOT THE AGENCIES REPORT FOR YOU TO SEE
AceofSwrds: LOL! Scared to answer a simple question about me? I thought you said you had me checked out! LOL
Jjetrangerb2O6: BYE BYE SHIT STAIN
AceofSwrds: Come on! Answer the question! LOL
AceofSwrds: I see one little cloner who just got BUSTED! LOL
Jjetrangerb2O6: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO THIS IS...............
AceofSwrds: Doesn't matter. You have just established you haven't done ANY research on me. :-)
AceofSwrds: That means you've been caught in a lie. :-)
Jjetrangerb2O6: OH YESSS WE HAVE
AceofSwrds: Come on! Answer the question! LOL

Jjetrangerb2O6 signed off at 7:39 P.M.

Now, I'm waiting on them to make good on their threats. And since I am one of the parties of the IM conversation, I am releasing it to the public, fully within the confines of the law.

A Tip for Hillary

2007-11-08T19:43:00.000-06:00

They say politics make strange bedfellows, and for once, I'm jumping into bed with Hillary...in a figurative sense, of course. During a recent Iowa swing, she stopped in a Maid Rite restaurant and had a good meal on the house. She didn't leave a tip, but her campaign left a $100 tip for a $157 bill. Not a bad tip, really.

Then, it came out today that the waitress who waited on Hillary didn't get a tip and said as much. People who dislike Hillary jumped on this story as "proof" that Hillary doesn't care about the little people. Hillary's defenders said it was much ado about nothing. As you might have guessed, I'm coming down with the latter group. Hillary and her campaign did right by the situation by giving the $100 tip. What happened to it is outside of her influence, so she can't and shouldn't get blowback because of it.

But (and you know there had to be one in this case), Hillary missed a golden opportunity to not only make herself look caring and compassionate, but to erase the memory of last week's MSNBC debate debacle. Imagine the PR buzz that would have occurred if Hillary had given the waitress the $100 tip herself. It may not have been enough to wipe out the memory of her MSNBC debate debacle, but it would have softened the impact of it or at least given her an out afterwards. As it stands, she didn't, and the "no tip from Hillary" story doesn't help her image, regardless of its truthfulness at this point.

So, Hillary, the next time you're in a restaurant, at least offer to tip. It will work wonders for your political image.

2 Parties, 2 Turning Points

2007-11-07T18:50:00.000-06:00

During a campaign season, there are moments when a candidate will rise to the occasion or fall by the side of the road. Rarely will those moments happen to both parties on the same day, but today it did.

For Democrats, the turning point happened with Barack Obama. In an interview with Fox News, Obama noted that Baby Boomers (like Hillary Clinton and most of the other candidates running for the Democrat nomination) are not equipped to handle the problems of today:

There's no doubt that we represent the kind of change Senator Clinton can't deliver on. And part of it's generational. Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done. And I think that's what people hunger for.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

Obama's sentiments have the potential to change Democrat politics for years to come if people are willing to take a hard look at the makeup of the party right now. The people who hold most of the power within the Democrats are Boomers. And under their leadership, the party has experienced a combination of highs and lows, with most of the experiences being lows over the past few years. Democrats need a fresh start, and for better or worse Obama represents that fresh start. And he is right about the Boomers and their inability to address the problems of today. Heck, a good number of them caused the problems in the first place. I hope Democrats take Obama's message to heart.

For the Republicans, the turning point happened with Rudy Giuliani. For the longest time, we've heard how Rudy won't ever win the votes of evangelicals and the Christian right due to his divorces and position on abortion. That changed today when Pat Robertson came out to support Giuliani. Granted, my opinion of Robertson isn't that high to begin with, but the fact that he would come out to support someone who is seen as being morally flawed. What this does is not only destroy the myth that Rudy can't get evangelical votes, but it shows his ability to draw in people from all walks of Republican life. Democrats who thought it would be a cakewalk if Rudy were the GOP nominee now have reason to be concerned.

Two parties, two turning points. And two parties whose worlds may be shaken to their foundations if they realize just how major these turning points are.

The Ballad of the Screen Berets

2007-11-03T16:38:00.000-06:00

It's funny how and when inspiration can hit you. After dispatching a faux liberal drooler who claimed to have been in the 82nd Airborne (while completely missing the question of when the 82nd actually came into existence), I got to thinking about what motivates those who sit in chatrooms and lie about being in the military. These "screen berets" have become more and more prevalent as the War in Iraq has gone on. More often than not, they're faux liberals trying to pull rank on those of us who support the war effort but did not serve in the military.

So to honor their "service" to this country, I offer the following song, "The Ballad of the Screen Berets" [with all apologies to Robin Moore and SSgt. Barry Sadler, the writers of "The Ballad of the Green Berets."]

Fighting soldiers from the sky
(That's if you believe their lies)
Men who claim to be what they say
But they are just Screen Berets

Chicken wing sauce on their chests
Covering their big man-breasts
One lying man will test today
If folks believe the Screen Beret

Trained to live off Mom and Dad
A paying job not to be had
Men who lie, both night and day
Telling tales of the Screen Berets

Chicken wing sauce on their chests
Covering their big man-breasts
One lying man will test today
If folks believe the Screen Beret

Spouting lies, giving not an inch
In their praise of Kucinich
Hoping for Innaugural Day
When the Dems will praise the Screen Berets

Chicken wing sauce on their chests
Covering their big man-breasts
Afraid of folks who will all day
Expose the lies of the Screen Berets.

My Top 10 Conservatives in America

2007-11-02T20:02:00.001-06:00

As promised, here is my list of the top 10 conservatives in America. Again, this ranking isn't how I like them, it's how much power, influence, and potential they have. Here we go!

10) President George W. Bush - This one was a toughie. On the one hand, you can't leave off the most powerful man in the world of a list of top 10 conservatives. On the other, he's not really all that conservative and he hasn't been able to use influence to get what he wants. The tipping point for me on this one is the fact that Bush has set into motion policies and politics that won't be so easily wiped away in 2009 when the new President takes over. Love him or hate him, Bush has already impacted the future, possibly more than we realize.

9) Bobby Jindal - The Governor-Elect of Louisana did something few people thought he could: run as a Republican in post-Katrina Lousiana...and win. It was a race Republicans were predicted to lose by pundits all over the country, but Jindal defied the odds and the critics to become the first Indian-American to run a state. And at 36, he's indicative of the "new breed" of conservatives and Republicans. If Republicans can duplicate Jindal's strategy, they may be able to duplicate his success. Plus, it rips apart the notion that the GOP is a "rich old white man's party." He's not so influential now, but give him time and he may become the blueprint for conservative electoral victories in the future.

8) Newt Gingrich - Gingrich is the intellectual heart and soul of the modern conservative movement. I've listened to him speak and to his book To Renew America, and there is no doubt as to the man's intellectual capacity. His intellectualism gives him a decided edge, but it's his way of seeing the much larger picture that puts him in the top 10. Give him half a chance, and Newt will think circles around you and have you thanking him for it by the time he's through.

7) Dr. Thomas Sowell - With the passing of Milton Friedman, Sowell is now the main voice in favor of a free market economy. I have never heard a more passionate and brilliant defender of capitalism, surpassing even Ayn Rand. And Sowell has influenced so many minds, young and old alike, that he deserves a spot in the top 10 of any list, not just mine.

6) Karl Rove - The mastermind behind George W. Bush's political victories had a bit of a stumble with the 2006 midterm elections, but that doesn't make him dead in the water. On the contrary. His political instincts failed him then, but as any good strategist does, he adapts to the new environment and finds a way to thrive. He may not be the most popular man in the world, but Republicans, including George W. Bush, are still asking him for advice. That's power, my friends.

5) Rick Santorum - The Democrats cheered when they managed to defeat Santorum and take his Senate seat. The problem: he didn't fade away. Santorum is still out there giving speeches, making known his position on national security issues. And he's still a young man, relatively speaking. He will be around for a long time yet, giving the left plenty of headaches for years to come.

4) Glenn Beck - Yes, I know there are a number of you screaming "Fix!" because I happen to like the guy, but hear me out on this one. While other talk radio hosts are busy saying the same things over and over again, Beck does a fantastic job of researching topics in ways most people may not have considered and relating this information to the audience in a way they can understand. What makes Beck so influential is his fearlessness when it comes to controversial subjects. He leads with his gut, and it shows in his work. Keep an eye on Beck. He may surpass Rush Limbaugh by the time he's done.

3) Chief Justice John Roberts - George W. Bush's pick for Chief Justice will definitely have an impact on the world for years to come. With his conservative bonafides in order and presumably a number of years ahead of him in the Supreme Court, Roberts might be one of the few lasting parts of the George W. Bush Presidency.

2) Rupert Murdoch - The owner of News Corp, the parent corporation of Fox News, the New York Post, and now the Wall Street Journal. With Fox News, he gets millions of viewers daily, as the ratings will attest. With the Post, he reaches out to the "common man" newspaper reader by not being as stuffy and elitist as the New York Times. And now with the Journal, Murdoch has instant credibility in the international financial markets since the paper is widely regarded as one of the top financial newspapers in the world. Without a doubt, Rupert Murdoch has left a huge footprint on conservatism.

1) Rush Limbaugh - A staunch conservative, Limbaugh has rules the talk radio airwaves since the 80s and still commands a large audience eager to hear his take on the news of the day. Getting time on Rush's show is like being on "The Tonight Show" when Johnny Carson was hosting. That's when you know you've made it. For that, Rush gets the #1 spot.

My Top 10 Liberals in America

2007-11-02T18:51:00.000-06:00

The Daily Telegraph out of the United Kingdom ran a list of the top 100 liberals and conservatives in the US. There were some obvious entries, some surprising entries, and some controversial entries. But I do know a good idea when I see it, so I'm going to do something similar. I don't have the attention span or desire to do 100 liberals and conservatives, so I'll just do 10.

Before I do it, though, let me point out that these are not necessarily my favorite liberals and conservatives. These are the ones I think have the most power, influence, and potential. Let me know what you think.

In the interest of fairness, I will let the liberals go first. :-)

10) Harold Ickes - Hillary may be the candidate running for President, but Ickes is the kingmaker. He cut his teeth in the Clinton White House and is known for being a hard-nosed political force of nature when it comes to Bill and Hillary Clinton. He will do whatever he can to make Hillary a contender. That kind of potential impact on the 2008 race puts him at number 10.

9) Mark Warner - The former Governor of Virginia and current candidate for the US Senate has good looks, decent verbal skills, experience running a government, and a more moderate streak. But the thing that lands him on the list is his youth. He's only 52, which is relatively young in political years. Even if he waits 8 years to run, he will be 60, which would still be young enough to run for President while being old enough to avoid being labled as too green to lead. Watch this man and you will see one of the people who may change Democrat politics as we know them.

8) Michael Moore - Say what you will about his less-than-truthful documentaries, the fact is Moore can bring people from both sides of the aisle together on a subject and make them all agree with him. "Sicko" may not have been as big a movie as "Fahrenheit 911" in terms of box office, but people still relied on what he said about the American health care system to raise concerns. That shows Moore still has power and can use it to move a nation.

7) Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. - Sulzberger, known by many as "Pinch" as a play on his father's nickname "Punch," is the owner and publisher of the New York Times. The print media may be losing readers, but when most of the media outlets in America rely on the Times for what stories to cover and how to cover them, "Pinch" still has an impressive amount of stroke.

6) Bill and Hillary Clinton (tie) - No, this isn't a typo. Bill and Hillary tie for 6th in my list because they rely on each other to give them both credibility. Bill has the looks and the moves, but he lacks credibility with women because of his infidelity. Hillary has instant credibility with women, but lacks the looks and the moves to be an effective leader. In short, for the two of them to have any sort of power, they have to be together in some form. Including on my list.

4) Sen. Joe Lieberman - This is going to be an odd choice to some, but it makes sense in the larger sense of the Senate makeup. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the Senate has 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents. One of the Independents is Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The other? Joe Lieberman. Sanders tends to side with the Democrats, but Lieberman doesn't always. One vote from Lieberman against the Democrats and there's a deadlock. Forget Harry Reid. The real Senate Majority Leader (or in this case Senate Majority Maker) is Joe Lieberman

3) Marcos Moulitsas Zuniga - You may not know the name, but you know the website. Marcos is the creator of DailyKos, an online community for liberals to gather, exchange ideas, and, oh yeah, blame Bush for everything. The Kos influence was felt in the 2006 elections when they helped to defeat Joe Lieberman in the Democrat primary, and they have the goods to do it again in 2008.

2) Barack Obama - The only thing stopping Obama from being #1 is the fact that he doesn't have the kind of influence yet to change the face of the left. But if he stays in politics and stays true to himself, you will see Democrats and their ideological allies shift in a way that will ultimately end the division in this country and make us all Americans again.

1) George Soros - The man has the means to run the Democrat Party because he can deliver two things they want, need, and love: money and votes. And as the money man behind many groups like Media Matters and MoveOn.org, his influence looms large over the modern left. Whether that's positive or negative is yet to be seen in full, but one thing's for certain. Soros will be in the thick of it.

I'll do the top 10 conservatives in the next blog post. See you there!

The Empress Has No Clothes

2007-10-31T20:24:00.000-06:00

After last night's Democrat debate on MSNBC, two things became abundantly clear. The big one is that Hillary may be vulnerable after all. Her responses to Tim Russert's questions and to the responses given by her opponents were...how can I put this delicately...less than stellar for a front-runner.

If you get a chance, watch her response to Russert's question about New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's proposal to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses. She never really said she supported it. Rather, she gave an evasive answer, saying she thought it was a "good idea." Although Sean Hannity says this is an indication she supports it, I'm giving her a bit more leeway. Having said that, her answer was confusing at the very least, and contradictory in spots. But, more importantly, it made her look weak and evasive, neither one a good quality to have as a President.

To further complicate matters, members of Hillary's campaign and Hillary herself were caught whining about the other candidates taking her to task. Gee, Hill, did you expect everyone to bow down and kiss your backside because you're Hillary Clinton? Maybe you missed the meeting on this, but in a political campaign, your opponents are out to try to beat you. Watching you and your campaign attack Tim Russert and the other candidates for "ganging up" on you may win you some sympathy votes, but it's not exactly the way a President should act in a crisis. You may not agree with President Bush, but he's decisive, and Presidents need to be that way, not waffling and seeking out scapegoats.

But the lowest of the low? Attacking Tim Russert. He didn't make you dodge questions or look peeved. You did that all on your own, Hill. And as a result, you looked a lot less Presidential last night and today. Of course, it may not mean anything in the grand scheme of things. You have the other Democrats in the race eating your dust in the polls, and this little hiccup in your coronation won't turn away the true believers in your midst. But you should know that your weaknesses are showing, and Republicans are watching.

Oh, and the second thing? When Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson start seriously talking about UFOs, it's clear the Democrats really have their fingers on the pulse of the American people...who use supermarket tabloids as their source for news.

Sisters Are Doing It TO Themselves

2007-10-30T18:44:00.000-06:00

The Sacramento Bee recently reported that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's approval rating has dipped below 30%. On the surface, this isn't that big a deal...except when you consider the poll showing these low numbers was of Californians.

Ouch. From the first woman to be Speaker of the House to the first woman Speaker of the House whose approval ratings may bottom out around the approval rating of toejam. Democrats polled say Pelosi's low approval ratings are due to what they see as a lack of commitment to ending the Iraq War and holding George W. Bush accountable. And Pelosi has blamed the Republicans for holding up legislation, while at the same time claiming the House under her leadership has done so much. A female politician who blames Republicans for things going wrong and takes credit for accomplishments she had a marginal role in.

Sound familiar?

Actually, there is potential that Pelosi's woes could negatively impact Hillary's Presidential hopes. Pelosi isn't exactly a wallflower, and she has made no bones about the fact that she's the first female to be Speaker of the House. In fact, that's pretty much all she talked about for the first couple of months after Election 2006. Yet, after the honeymoon was over and Pelosi was expected to lead, she made some serious mistakes that someone with more experience or common sense would have been able to avoid.

Hillary, whether she knows it, will have to overcome the obstacles Pelosi unwittingly put in her path to the White House. Hillary cannot run on her record of experience because in reality she has none. She can't run on putting Bill back in the White House because he won't be the one making decisions. The best he'll be able to do is offer strategy suggestions, which puts Hillary squarely in the position of having to take a position and stick to it for more than a speech. And Hillary hasn't distinguished herself as a leader.

In short, Hillary is already starting off with negatives that can hurt her campaign, but the biggest hurdle in front of her may be Pelosi showing the world what a woman unprepared for power can...or can't...do. If Hillary has any shot at the White House, either Pelosi's going to have to be a smarter leader or Hillary is going to have to prove why she's not like Pelosi.

A Lot of Hot Air

2007-10-30T04:57:00.000-06:00

After Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, hurricane forecasters (and faux liberals) predicted that 2006 would be a big year for hurricanes. The faux left jumped up and down and said global warming was causing hurricanes with their usual disregard for facts and logic. And 2006 proved to be...relatively quiet on the hurricane front.

Then, the same crowd predicted 2007 would be a big year for hurricanes, and the same faux liberals blamed global warming. With nine weeks left in hurricane season, 2007 is proving to be...even more quiet than last year.

Well, it's obvious what's happening. Global warming is preventing hurricanes.

Seriously, what is happening is that science and politics are merging in a way that isn't healthy. When you let politics infect science, it taints the results. We saw this with studies conducted by the anti-gun lobby where they considered young adults as old as 22 to be children for the purpose of whipping up hysteria over children being killed by guns in the house.

And who could forget the walking (or should I say limo-riding, jet-flying) contradiction that is Al Gore? Environmental scientists are having to either disavow what Gore says or try to play both sides of the fence to try to appease both sides of the global warming debate. And in the latter case, they look foolish.

Politicians don't get off so easily here, either, mainly because in most cases they're not prepared to discuss the science. Today's political environment is such that if you can't summarize and simplify issues, people won't bother to listen. After all, there's "Survivor: China" and that's much more important than whether the planet is burning up! When you simplify an issue, there is always a risk that you will leave out important details for the interest of time. That doesn't serve to advance the science and winds up making the politician look foolish when people find out that the politician is full of it.

The faux left believes in the separation of church and state. I'd be happy if they'd take up the separation of science and politics.

Special Guest Blog Entry

2007-10-30T04:47:00.000-06:00

This is from my good friend Stella Rondo. Enjoy!

Rightly Blaming the Victim

Unless something changes, it appears that all that remains for the coronation of Hillary Clinton as president is placing the crown in her head. I know that thought strikes something akin to nausea, dread, and panic in the hearts of all conservatives, many moderates, and a lot of right-leaning independents. I know it does me.

But here's the bottom line. If Hillary wins this election, it won't be because this Machiavellian she-wolf is so capable. It will be because we conservatives let her win.

What's this, you say? You're blaming the victim?

Yes, I am. The slow erosion of our culture and of our country's basic principles by the left has been no secret over the past number of years. The left is nothing if not predictable. We have always known that they are, in spite of their occasional veers into faux support of the troops and feigned angst at excessive government spending, all for a weakened socialist America. It's WE who have given up the ground in the blind hope that a) maybe they'll like us, b) maybe they'll stop, and c) it really can't happen here.

Well, they won't like us and they won't stop and you better believe it could happen here. And the more conciliatory and timid we act, the more they will take advantage of our weakness.

We keep hearing how America is basically a conservative country. It was just a scant 20 years ago that Ronald Reagan was elected in a landslide, and all that electorate hasn't died off just yet. Even George Bush, as much as he's disappointed conservatives in the past eight years, wasn't beaten by the markedly liberal Kerry just 3 short years ago. So clearly the forces are there that can defeat Hillary.

The problem is that conservatives can be just lousy at the political game. They are not mean enough. They want to be liked too much. They accept the world view of the liberals, entering their Bizarro world of red herrings, non sequiters, and ad hominem rather than rightly attacking the Buick-sized holes in their reasoning.

And they let perfection be the enemy of progress. Already some GOP/conservatives are saying, well, if Rudy/Fred/Mitt is the nominee, I just won't vote! I'll vote third party! I'll write in Ron Paul! I'm certain they forget that very principled stand got us Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Way to go guys! Boy, that showed THEM, didn't it? Enjoying your noseless face, are you?

There is no reason Hillary Clinton's presidency should be a foregone conclusion. She's slick all right, and calculating, and a terrific politician (although I don't know why anyone would think that's an accomplishment.) But she got her power the old fashioned way - she slept with it. Once her Marxist ideas are not obscured by the Vaseline filter of a fawning press in the debates, it shouldn't be that hard to defeat her, even if she's raised a gazillion dollars.

Provided the purist conservatives have decided not to throw in the towel because our guy may not be Reagan Redux. I hope the lesson we learned from 2006 is no matter how much you may yell and scream from the sidelines, if you're not even on the field you can't influence the game.

And THAT's the Bottom Line.

The Spy Who Came In From the Cold...With A Book Deal!

2007-10-29T18:49:00.000-06:00

After a few blissful moments of being Plame-free, Valerie Plame is back on the scene promoting her new book, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy. During a recent speech to a lecture sponsored by Vermont Woman newspaper, Plame gave what could best be described as contradictory sentiments.

On the one hand, Plame sounded defiant and determined to stay around until she gets to the bottom of who outed her:

They would like nothing more for us to than be silent and go away. We are not going to give them the satisfaction.

Then, she sounded dejected at being in the spotlight:

We have every desire to move beyond this. We do not want to be defined by this. This is an important story...But I want to be able to move on.

Okay, I can overlook the awkward sentence structure of the first quotation, but I can't let the second quotation go by without comment. Maybe it's the $1 million dollar advance talking, but Plame chose to write a book and then do a speaking tour to promote it! She reminds me of the rock stars who work so hard to get noticed and then lament the fact they're noticed. And not unlike those rock stars, she's portraying herself as a victim of fame who is striving to achieve a bigger, more important goal in life.

And just like those self-important rock stars, I consider very little of what Plame has to say to have any intellectual heft. (Yeah, look who's talking...) Seriously, though, the contradictory concepts in her recent speech reinforces my idea that she's not the brains of the operation, but Joe Wilson is. Wilson stands to gain the most from Plame prostituting herself for the "Bush Administration outed me" idea because as long as people are focused on the lie, they don't focus on the facts. And having done some digging of my own, I've found where the facts don't exactly support Wilson and Plame.

I doubt I'd get the chance to ask Valerie Plame a question, but if I did, I would make it a good one.

"Ms. Plame, does the name Aldrich Ames ring a bell? It should, considering he was the one who really outed you as CIA, not the Bush Administration."

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

2007-10-28T18:36:00.000-06:00

I strive to be intellectually and morally honest with you, but there are some times when it's unbelievably difficult. Those are the no-win situations where your heart and your head battle for hours and days on end trying to get to something that resembles a compromise.

I came across one of those situations recently involving Rev. Fred Phelps. For those of you unfamiliar with Rev. Phelps, he heads up the church that goes around and protests the funerals of soldiers who died in the current Iraq War, saying God is punishing America for being permissive of homosexuality. Well, one of the parents of a slain soldier, Albert Snyder, is suing Phelps and his church for invasion of privacy after the church protested at Mr. Snyder's son's funeral.

Phelps and his lawyer are using a free speech defense in the lawsuit, claiming that the protestors were 1000 feet away from the church and down a hill where they wouldn't be visible. Personally, I find Phelps and his church to be utter scumbags on par with Larry Flynt for what they've done and the personal anguish they've caused over an unrelated point. Having said that, Phelps has a legitimate free speech claim to an extent.

That extent, ladies and gentlemen, is a concept in First Amendment law known as "fighting words." There are some statements that are designed to provoke a physical action or an emotional response. These words are called "fighting words" and may or may not qualify as free speech. So, Mr. Snyder should be on stronger ground, right?

Not so much. Mr. Snyder's invasion of privacy suit is on somewhat shaky Constitutional ground in that there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. Courts have ruled we have a privacy right, but that doesn't mean it's there; it simply means the court believes it to be there. But given that there is a precedent for a "right" to privacy combined with the outlandish antics of the defendant and his followers, Mr. Snyder may be able to win this one.

But it doesn't make me feel any better. If the court rules in Phelps's favor, he will continue unabated and perhaps with even more vigor because a court justified his actions. As a human being, it offends me deeply and I can't abide by his actions or statements. If the court rules in Mr. Snyder's favor, it can be used as a model for how to shut off offensive speech. On the surface this may sound pretty nifty, but it can also be used to silence folks that someone else finds offensive, but you don't. As an advocate of free speech, I can't abide that happening, either. Defend a scumbag, or defend free speech.

Like I said, a no-win situation.

An Article of Faith

2007-10-28T04:25:00.000-06:00

I was listening to an episode of the Laura Ingraham Show featuring Dan Barker, a former preacher who turned to atheism and current host of Freethought Radio on Air America. Barker was featured in a segment with Dinesh D'Souza, author of What's So Great About Christianity, on the subject of faith. As you can guess, Barker's position was not exactly friendly towards Christianity. Hearing Barker talk about how he "grew up" after he rejected Christianity and how he professed the superiority of reason and logic (which he claimed proves the Bible wrong) brought back some painful memories.

When I was young and stupid, I took Barker's position. Boy, did I ever! I was arrogant and thought God couldn't possibly exist because I believed He didn't touch my life in any way in spite of years of faithful service in my youth. I fell out of faith later in my teens after a particularly rough year and felt my youthful intellect was superior to God. As I got older, I found God never really left me, even during those tough times. What happened was that my understanding of God didn't grow up as I did.

When I opened my heart to God again, I reexamined my faith and came to terms with my past. The "I'm smarter than God" attitude fell away and was replaced with humility and respect for God's works. Instead of thinking facts and reason were at odds with faith, I found that they work in concert with faith. Opening up my heart opened up my life, and things continue to get better every day.

Barker's comments brought back a lot of memories, not all of them good. I am ashamed of the way I used to be, but without it, I would not have been able to find redemption now. I think one of the big areas where atheists fail is in not questioning their lack of faith. I firmly believe that in order to be comfortable with your life philosophy, you must question it from time to time. I didn't, and it's clear Barker hasn't yet.

Another area where atheists fall is when they become arrogant with their lack of faith. I've known atheists and agnostics over the years, and most are regular folks who respectfully disagree with people of faith. But there are those, like Barker and Michael Newdow, who have made it a holy crusade (ironically enough) to "prove" Christianity wrong. They place their faith (ironically enough again) in facts and logic, according to them. Yet, facts and logic can fail if one has incomplete or inaccurate information. But try telling that to someone like Barker. He's too busy proclaiming his superiority to Christians...setting himself up as a...god.

Irony abounds with the arrogant atheist front, doesn't it?

Listen, I have no problem with you if you question your faith in God or if you out and out reject God. That's your call, and you're welcome to it. But don't try to come off as though you're superior to me because I happen to believe in God. I've been down the "I'm smarter than Christians" road and it lead to a dead end for me. If it doesn't for you, great. But if you want me to respect your lack of faith, respect my abundance of faith.

Pride Cometh Before The Fall (of 2008)

2007-10-25T19:19:00.000-06:00

Reuters ran an interesting article on October 24th about Democrats possibly being overconfident about the 2008 elections. The story references the recent election of Massachusetts Democrat Niki Tsongas over Republican Jim Ogonowski by 51-45% in a special congressional election. It may have been a victory, but Democrat strategists were expecting the margin of victory to be much wider than it was. But that's not quieting the "Democrats are gonna win" talk coming from politicians and grassroots Democrats.

I've said for a while now that the Democrats are ignoring a problem coming from their left flank. People who would normally be marching right beside them, like Cindy Sheehan, the Daily Kos-monauts, and the MoveOn crowd, are starting to demand action from Democrats to impeach Bush and Cheney and to end the Iraq War, among other things. Democrats, being politicians and, thus, wanting to hold onto what power they have, aren't so keen on wading hip-deep in the Soros-controlled waters. Naturally, this gets the "freak left" as I call them upset. After all, MoveOn said they bought and paid for the Democrats, and they're going to start demanding a return on their "investment."

Of course, pandering to the Soros folks doesn't appeal to the more mainstream Democrats. They may want to end the War on Iraq, but they're not looking for an immediate pullout. They may want to hold Bush and Cheney accountable, but not impeach them. That's going to create friction, which will in turn create fissures in the Democrat Party. That means the party is going to have to walk an exceptionally fine line to not alienate voters. If they want to keep the power they have, they will need every vote they can get by trying to please as many voters as possible. The problem with that, however, is that it's next to impossible to do, even with the promise of Bill Clinton being back in the White House as a selling point.

Plus, Politico had a story about Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi being at odds with one another over national security issues. Granted, Politico called Hillary an "authentic hawk," but the overall point remains. If such a division exists, even if it's a slight division at this point, it can grow if not addressed and resolved. If that wasn't bad enough, people to the left of Hillary are starting a PAC to stop her from winning the Democrat nomination.

If taken separately, the Democrats wouldn't have much to worry about. Put together, it signals a bad trend for Democrats at a time when they're in a relatively good spot politically. And the longer they ignore the potential problem of a challenge from the left, the easier it becomes for their dreams of taking back the White House to go up in smoke.

A Quick Constitutional Lesson

2007-10-24T20:35:00.000-06:00

Whenever people get together to talk about politics, sooner or later the topic will have a connection to the U. S. Constitution. (Wonder why. I guess it's because it's only one of the most important documents in our history...) Unfortunately, too few people have taken the time to read and understand what the Constitution actually says. Granted, some of it is tough to get the first couple of times through, but for the most part it's pretty easy to understand if you're willing to put in the effort to do it.

Unfortunately, some of the people who don't want to put in any work on it happen to be in the media. David Lightman of the McClatchy Newspapers wrote an article/opinion piece titled "Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ." This sentiment matches what the faux left says about President George W. Bush and how he's "spending us into debt." Nice rhetoric, but there's a teensy little snag in it.

Yep, you guessed it. The Constitution.

I quote from Article I, Section 8, first clause:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imports and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... [emphasis mine]

There are other clauses from Article I, Section 8, that mention Congress paying for something, but you get the picture from the first clause. When looking at Article II, which deals with the powers of the Executive Branch, you find...nothing relating to the spending of money. In other words, the President doesn't spend the money; Congress does. Blaming Bush for the rising debt is like blaming your boss for you spending your paycheck on sloe gin and fast women.

Got it? Good.

Class dismissed.

Stark's Raving Mad!

2007-10-23T19:01:00.000-06:00

When it comes to the House Democrats, I've come to realize two things. One, John Murtha always looks mad. And, two, they're not that swift on the uptake. After the MoveOn "Betray-Us" ad fiasco blew up in their faces and how the Senate Democrats got smacked around by Rush Limbaugh, you would think the Democrats would have had a huddle and told people to take a break and let the heat die down.

Enter California Representative Pete Stark. During a speech concerning President Bush's veto of funding for the SCHIP program, Stark made the following comment:

You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.

Nevermind the fact that Bush would be out of the White House by the time the children Stark talked about would be of age to join the military. Nevermind the fact that the "innocent people" Stark is talking about may not be as innocent as he thinks they are. The very fact he suggested the President enjoys soldiers dying in Iraq is at best ignorant, at worst slanderous.

I've seen the President consoling the families of the slain. You may not like him, you may not like his politics, you may not like the way he's run the Presidency, but you had better recognize that George W. Bush is a human being and he cares. No President takes war lightly, and no President takes joy at soldiers dying. To suggest otherwise is partisanship at its lowest.

As a result of Stark's comments, House Minority Leader John Boehner and other House Republicans sought to get Start censured. By a vote of 196-173 today, that vote failed. Out of the House Democrats, only five broke with their party and voted for censure. Some might call the censure motion partisan, and they would have a point, but it's about time that someone stepped up and tried to put a stop to the kind of crap people like Stark have been allowed to get away with under the cloak of dissent. If you disagree with the President, fine. But a lot of what passes for dissent is nothing more than slander wrapped in the First Amendment and the American flag.

Stark apologized for his comments about Bush, saying, "I hope that with this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be." Personally, Representative Stark, I hope you do, too. And you will have earned your one-way ticket to obscurity by using vile and spiteful rhetoric to try to score points for your side. Yes, Representative Stark, you do deserve to become insignificant because you've shown America that you're not fit to be a Representative.

Politicizing Tragedy

2007-10-22T18:16:00.000-06:00

Within the past couple of years, whenever there was a hurricane or some other natural disaster that hit in the "Red States," some members of the faux left took it upon themselves to proclaim "God is punishing the Red States for electing Bush." On the one hand, it's nice to see the faux left acknowledge God's existence after trying to drive it from the public square, but on the other it's a cop-out. Natural disasters happen, and trying to inject politics into them shows very little respect for the victims.

Now that southern California is enduring wildfires, it's easy for conservatives to give into the temptation to rub the faux left's rhetoric in their faces. But I urge you not to, no matter how much you want to because it sets a bad precedent and continues the cycle of hate. There are plenty of people, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, who are enduring a nightmare right now, either having to evacuate and rebuild or worry about loved ones in the middle of the inferno.

At times like that, politics has no place.

What makes America such a wonder of the world is the fact that we have nearly limitless compassion in times of tragedy, at home and around the world. But that compassion gets undercut by politics, greed, and deceit from people of low morals. Fighting our baser instincts is key here, folks.

If you're a conservative who can't resist the urge to pull the "God is punishing California" card, know that you'll get some major pushback from me. Believe me, if God wanted to punish California, He could do it with something a lot worse than a wildfire.

And if you're a liberal or faux liberal who want to use the wildfires to bash Bush for global warming, remember these could be your family and friends having to rebuild their lives, and I don't think global warming will be that damn relevant to a family that sees their house and all their belongings go up in flames.

We may be a country divided along bitter ideological lines right now, but we shouldn't be. Close down the politicial bickering and open your hearts for a change. Then maybe, just maybe, we can take the first steps to being a UNITED States of America again.

Anatomy of a Conservative Smackdown

2007-10-19T18:57:00.000-06:00

By now, you've heard the news of Rush Limbaugh making history with an eBay bid of $2.1 million for the letter sent by 41 Senate Democrats asking Clear Channel to demand Limbaugh apologize over his "phony soldiers" comment, of which Rush has said he will match. Beyond the wonderful outpouring of generosity, the flap over Rush's statement is instructive because it shows how Rush was able to turn the tables on the Democrats yet again, and how conservatives can do the same when faux liberals come after them.

1) Refute the charge early and often. From the moment the faux left targeted him, Rush didn't let his critics define what he said. He went back and explained it, even adding in context that someone who only heard part of the conversation wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Then, he repeated it to anyone who would listen. By doing that, he refuted the charge and started turning the scandal in his favor.

2) Test your opponent's mettle. After taking command of the situation, Rush took the next step and put the letter Harry Reid and 40 other Senate Democrats signed up on eBay. Then, he went a step further and said he would match the winning verified bid. And then he challenged the Democrats who signed the letter to match his bid. Three steps, one moment that puts the Democrats on the spot. To date, the Democrats have not said whether they would rise to Rush's challenge. And I don't think we will.

3) Let your opponent make the mistakes. While Rush was promoting his charitable giving idea, Democrats tried to regain the momentum by attacking the "phony soldiers" comment more. When that didn't work, they got quiet. And after the bidding was over, Harry Reid came out and praised Rush's generosity. All three moves were mistakes in my view. First, you rehash something that was suitably debunked, so nobody else was paying attention. Second, when you realize nobody else was paying attention, you stop talking altogether, which gave Rush additional credibility especially after he issued the challenge to the 41 Senate Democrats to match his matching bid. And Reid's comments? Total damage control moment. And don't be surprised if nobody, not even Reid himself, buys it.

Put simply, Rush turned a potentially bad PR situation into a winning PR and politicial situation. And once again Democrats are left wondering how they got beaten again.

In-Fighting, Out of Line

2007-10-17T18:42:00.000-06:00

As you may know, my opinion of Congress over the past few years has been pretty low. Didn't matter if it was a Republican or a Democrat-led Congress, I got sick of politicians doing exactly the wrong things for the country and then blaming the other side for the faults.

When Democrats came into power in Congress in 2006, there was a part of me hoping they would change the dynamic and make good on their promises to clean house and be a Congress of the people. Have they?

I believe The Who put it best: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Since Democrats have taken control of the House and control by procedure only in the Senate, they've been very busy...blaming everyond but themselves for their failures. House Democrats from Nancy Pelosi on down have blamed Senate Democrats for their lack of action on several House bills that have been passed up to them and their failure to curtail President Bush's directives. On the other hand, Senate Democrats have criticized House Democrats for not understanding the procedural differences between the House and Senate and for gumming up the works by opposing measures that would have governed security groups like Blackwater. And both sides are crowing about what legislatives successes they've had as opposed to the other body of Congress.

But there is one thing they agree on: the Republicans are to blame for slowing things down.

I know a thing or two about leadership, and there are some things good leaders don't do. Laying blame on others for failures is one of them, and right now, Congressional Democrats are proving that they're no better than the Republicans before them were at leading. With critical issues on our plates right now and not so far down the road (like Social Security reform, alternate energy, and, oh yeah, those Muslim extremists around the world who want to kill us), we need people in office who care more about doing right by the country than by themselves. I am utterly ashamed of both major parties for not only taking part in this disgraceful act of selfishness, but for keeping it going for as long as it has. For once in your lives, live up to your responsibility of representing the people of your districts and your nation.

Democrats, stop blaming Republicans for your failures. You have the power and the ability to compromise, but you aren't doing it. Instead, you're looking and sounding like spoiled brats fighting over a toy. You're supposed to be the leaders, so start leading!

Republicans, I know you think it's cute to beat the Democrats at their own game with procedural tricks, but it's time to start reaching across the aisle. In the House, there are conservative Democrats looking for opportunities to break with their party and do right by their constitutents. This is your opportunity to do the same. Start working with these people and come up with some real bipartisanship for a change.

Then, maybe your approval ratings won't dip into single digits.

Err America Lives Up to Its Nickname

2007-10-16T18:42:00.000-06:00

One of the biggest faults I find with talk radio most often is that the hosts resort to overly simplistic explanations for what's going on in the world. For the right, the hosts blame everything on liberals and liberalism. On the left, the hosts blame everything on conservatives and conservatism. Sometimes they're right, but most of the time they're wrong.

And boy was Air America's Jon Elliot wrong.

After Air America host Randi Rhodes fell in Manhattan, Elliot went on the air Monday and...blamed conservatives.

Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own? Are we threatening them? Are they afraid we're winning? Are they trying to silence intimidate us?

I don't even have a radio show and I'm beating Air America in the ratings, so it's not fear. But go on left-wing blogs and websites after the incident and you couldn't convince the majority of the posters that it wasn't a conservative hit job.

At least, until the NYPD, Rhodes's lawyer, and Air America said it wasn't a mugging, but rather an accident (or as Air America called it, an "incident"). Oops.

To his credit, Elliot apologized for his faulty reporting of the situation...kinda. In a written statement, Elliot said the following.

I shouldn't have speculated based on hearsay that Randi Rhodes had been mugged and that it may have been an attack from a right wing hate machine. I apologize for jumping to conclusions based on an emotional reaction.

Wellllll...I'm not sure that's gonna cut it. Are there conservative whack-jobs out there that would do something like this to Rhodes or any Air America host? Absolutely. But more often than not, conservatives don't do something like that and when it happens, they're some of the first people to chastise the whack-jobs. And when you consider New York City is lacking in the conservative population, which in turn limits the conservative whack-job population, it's highly unlikely that it was a "right wing hate machine" that made Rhodes fall.

But it's pretty damn easy to accuse them of it if you're an Air America host, isn't it?

After staying pretty much under the radar for a while, an incident like this can only hurt them in the short run and the long run. In the short run, jumping to conclusions in the post-Nifong era that don't pan out makes them look foolish and untrustworthy. In the long run, it doesn't get much better. They're already in a ratings hole and with Don Imus coming back, it puts more pressure on Air America to perform. Given their track record so far, that's a Yao Ming-sized order.

And all because someone tried to make political something that wasn't.

No wonder I call them Err America.

The Return of the I-Man

2007-10-16T05:29:00.000-06:00

Yep, you read that right. Don Imus is coming back to broadcast radio as of December 3, 2007, and on the nation's biggest radio station, WABC out of New York City. Fans are excited, foes are silent, and Media Matters and Henry Waxman's Senate folks will have something to do.

I'm of two minds on Imus's return. On the one hand, I feel strongly that he should have never been forced off the radio in the first place. Behind all the bluster about the "nappy-headed hos" comment was the machinations of race-hustlers who care more about getting paid then fighting racism. The Rutgers women's basketball team played a role in the plan by claiming to be victims. I said it then and I'll say it now: If these women were so scarred by the comments of Don Imus, the real world will eat them alive. Was the comment in good taste? No. Was it worth getting Imus fired? Nope. And was it worth demeaning the incredible season the Rutgers women's basketball team had just to get on television and maybe make some money off the deal? Absolutely not.

On the other side, Imus's return may also signal a return to something I dislike as much as the aforementioned race hustlers: the coarsening of the culture. Imus's gimmick is that he is edgy and that you never know what he'll say at any given moment. He's done that throughout his career and it's worked well for him, but does it enhance the culture in some way? Not from where I sit. Imus's shtick doesn't elevate, inspire, or motivate in any way. As much of a free speech advocate as I am, I also recognize the power of words and do my best to use my words carefully. The First Amendment gives us the right to free speech, but it also gives us the duty to use that right responsibly. Imus, unfortunately, doesn't.

Although Imus getting fired was a travesty, his return may not be the best thing for the country, either. Fortunately, we have the power to alter the impact of Imus's return with a simple act.

Turn off the radio if he offends.

Campaign Slogans I'd Like to See

2007-10-13T19:41:00.000-06:00

With the 2008 Presidential election a little over a year away, we're seeing the candidates trying to promote themselves to us in the hopes of getting our votes. But something is missing: campaign slogans. I don't see too many slogans out there, and the ones that are out there aren't memorable. So, in the interest of livening up the process, I've written some campaign slogans. Enjoy!

Hillary Clinton: Because we've never had a President who knew how to cackle like the Wicked Witch of the West.

Barack Obama: If ya smelllllllll....what Barack.....is cookin'!

John Edwards: He knows the importance of conditioner. He knows how to lead America.

Joseph Biden: It's morning in America.

Bill Richardson: He's Hispanic! And he's Hispanic!

Christopher Dodd: Because you can't spell "doddering old fool" without Dodd.

Dennis Kucinich: With someone who looks this weird, he has to be smart!

Mike Gravel: Get a piece of this rock!

Mitt Romney: He has better hair than John Edwards.

Rudy Giuliani: He's the crossdressing man for the job!

Fred Thompson: Vote for me or I'll just glare at you for a really long time until you're creeped out.

Mike Huckabee: You like Applebee's? You'll love Huckabee!

John McCain: Still crazy after all these years.

Sam Brownback: I'll secure this country from illegal immigrants.

Duncan Hunter: No. I'll secure this country from illegal immigrants.

Tom Tancredo: Hey! Illegal immigration is my issue!

Ron Paul: Two first names as a name makes him twice the man of anyone else!

A Lawyer on the Edge...and the Law School That Loves Her

2007-10-13T05:41:00.000-06:00

Remember Lynne Stewart? If you don't or if you've never heard of her, Stewart is a classic example of someone who let politics get in the way of common sense.

Stewart was a lawyer who represented the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing, Omar Abdel Rahman, more commonly known as "The Blink Sheik." During the process, she apparently got a variation of the "Stockholm Syndrome" and started relaying messages from Rahman to his terrorist buddies. One tiny problem with that: it's illegal to do. After Stewart was caught, she was disbarred, convicted, and sentenced to 2 years in prison.

Fast forward to today. Stewart has been asked to participate in a legal ethics conference at Hofstra University Law School to talk about "lawyers over the edge" as it's being billed by the university. A representative from Hofstra defended their decision to have Stewart appear saying that she represents a cautionary tale of what can happen when the lawyer-client relationship gets too personal. Of course, that doesn't require them to actually have her appear, but hey, why let logic get in the way of getting a known criminal and disbarred lawyer to show up for a conference and generate publicity?

That's what's at the heart of Hofstra's decision: publicity. By bringing in Stewart, they're bringing national attention (and outrage) to the conference and the university. That will invariably bring in the potential of students and their parents' money. But before the administrators start patting themselves on the back for a PR coup, let me remind you of something Stewart has said:

Institutions that perpetuate capitalism and institutions of government have to be attacked.

Oh, did I mention Stewart is an avowed socialist?

And if Hofstra is using Stewart for publicity, that would make them a target. It's hard to tell which of the particulars in this situation is more guilty of rampant stupidity: Stewart for willingly helping a terrorist, or Hofstra for setting themselves up to be attacked by Stewart and her cohorts by using her to promote their conference.

Well, in the interest of fairness, I'm going to be nice and call them both dumbasses.

What Do the Nobel Committee and Imadinnerjacket Have In Common?

2007-10-12T20:37:00.000-06:00

President Imadinnerjacket of Iran is famous (or should we say infamous) for his believe that the Holocaust may not have happened. Whenever he's asked about it, he usually gives a vague answer that suggests that Jews weren't slaughtered in concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Anybody with a shred of honesty and intelligence knows he's so full of baloney, Muslim cannibals can't eat him and stay true to Allah.

But now we might have another group as odious as Imadinnerjacket. You might know them better as the Nobel Prize Committee. When they handed out the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore for...well, for agreeing with the faux left's preconceived ideas about global warming, they overlooked another nominee, one who some, including your humble blogger, would say deserved the prize more than Gore.

Her name is Irena Sendler. During World War II, she helped save the lives of 2500 Jewish children from becoming victims of the Nazi concentration camps. If anyone did more to advance humanitarian efforts and peace, the very core values of what the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to represent, I haven't seen one nominated this year.

Yet, who gets the Peace Prize? Al Gore, because he parrots the faux liberal line on global warming independent of those pesky things we like to call facts.

Does this mean the Nobel Committee is anti-Semitic? Maybe, maybe not. I can't speak for them because a) I don't know them well enough to speak for them, and b) I'm not Norwegian. But it doesn't speak well for them that they would let politics blind them to a real champion for peace.

An Inconvenient Nobel Winner

2007-10-12T05:00:00.000-06:00

It was bound to happen, and it was pulled off with the grace of Joe Cocker dancing The Nutcracker Suite. Al Gore begged off a campaign appearance for a Democrat to fly overseas to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. Even Stevie Wonder could have seen this coming, what with the politicization of the Nobel Committee in the past few years. But, Gore might just have his sights on one more prize: the Presidency of the United States.

Yes, I know Gore's denied it, but remember he's the guy who took the initiative in the creation of the Internet (which was already in existence by the time he was in Congress), so we have to at least consider the possibility that he's bluffing. Combine that with the groundswell of support for Gore among Democrats not happy with the current crop of Democrat candidates, as well as the notion that Gore was robbed in 2000, and the fire may reignite. And if you've ever seen Al Gore fired up...you can't tell the difference from when he's calm.

Regardless, Gore has time to consider his next move, and his entrance into the race would hurt just about every Democrat candidate. The lower tier candidates would get swallowed up like Gore swallows up a Twinkie. And considering all but Hillary, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are lower tier candidates, he could break through into the upper echelon relatively quickly, picking up supporters from the lower tier candidates with ease. Edwards is teetering on the verge of being irrelevant, so Gore's entry pushes him out of the top three. With Gore being the new anti-Hillary and Obama not sounding all that Presidential these days, Gore could overtake Obama and take a number of Obama supporters with him.

That leaves Hillary. The history between the Clintons and the Gores makes the Hatfields and McCoys look positively chummy. Bill Clinton used Gore to deflect criticism from his lack of a military record and did nothing to help him in 2000, partially because Gore didn't want his help, and partially because Bill had campaign volunteers with Hillary's Senate run to hit on. Hillary and Gore jockeyed for position during the Clinton years for Bill's ear, and Hillary usually won. (Fortunately, they had conceded control of other parts of Clinton's body early on, as Monica can attest.)

The Hillary-Gore matchup would be a dream for Democrats because either way, they can't lose. With either candidate, they get someone who will spend a lot of money on pet causes and weaken America. What's not to like with either one if you're a modern Democrat? And if Gore doesn't win the nomination or doesn't want to take on Hillary directly, he could always run as a third party candidate and undercut her that way.

In either case, Al Gore becomes an inconvenient alternative to Hillary.

Jimmy Carter: Toothless Pitbull for the Left

2007-10-11T19:49:00.000-06:00

Former President Jimmy Carter is not what you would call a friend to the Bush Administration. In recent years, Carter has been highly critical of everything Bush has done, regardless of whether it actually did any good. Lately, Carter's been teeing off on Vice President Dick Cheney, saying he's been a disaster as VP. Of course, given Carter's past and present, I'd say he's an expert on all things disastrous, but even experts can be wrong.

This got me wondering why Carter went from being a quiet humanitarian to a public moonbat. Part of it is how Democrats treat losers, and let me tell you, it's not well. When a Democrat fails, the modern party barely recognizes they exist, only dragging them out on special occasions. Need proof? Anyone heard from Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale recently? Carter was pretty much persona non grata in Democrat circles after getting his butt handed to him by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Then came Bill Clinton. With Clinton calling on Carter for high profile gigs and advice, Carter had a second chance, and he wasn't about to let it go unused. And since the modern left is all about hating Bush, he latched onto it and hasn't let go since.

At the heart of Carter's Bush-hate is a combination of Bush's support of Israel and Carter's knowledge that he wasn't that great a President. Carter's hatred of Jews is legendary, almost as legendary as his blunders as President. Some, like the botched attempt to rescue our Iranian hostages and stagflation, are well-known. Others, like his complete capitulation to the Soviet Union and overseeing crooked elections while promising everything was fine, aren't, or aren't remembered that much anymore. But to someone like Carter, each failure weighs on his psyche, so he projects his anger onto people like President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

It may give him an outlet for his anger, but it doesn't heal it. That's where the Democrats are failing Carter the most. Instead of giving him the help he needs to get past his failings, Democrats use Carter as an attack dog and then defend him as a statesman and humanitarian. Maybe it's me, but I don't think you can be that much of a statesman or a humanitarian with hate in your heart.

Put simply, not much of what Carter says these days can be taken seriously because it's not coming from an intellectual or moral core. The only things Carter's drawing on are hate and personal embarrassment, and neither one adds any weight to his arguments. It may get him fans on the faux left, but it will leave him empty and, thus, more susceptible to the hate and personal embarrassment within.

And it only gets more depressing from there, kids.