Return of the King/Barack's Bad Choices

Everyone is entitled to a little time off now and then.

The truth is that the last several months - particularly since the Convention, its been a tough pill to swallow to recognize that the GOP's candidate was doomed. An old, tired, moderate Republican who was willing to split the difference too many ways. An old war hero who ran his campaign into the ground, or worse his campaign helped run him into the ground. It's hard to tell which was which, but alas it didn't matter.

And to make things worse, the geniuses in the McCain campaign decided to keep us entertained by finding mediocre vice presidential candidate who instead of helping the ticket, served as an easy target for comics and Saturday Night Live audiences. The hockey mom that either on bad advice or no advice got slaughtered by Katie Couric and others. It was embarrassing. Let's make our own history, put a woman against a black guy and see if we can gain ground. The campaign stunk so bad that they made her substitive experience questionable while Obama's lack of experience doing much as out of bounds.

In the wings, stood Barack Obama who is barely qualified to manage a corporate retail office nevermind serve as CEO of the Free World. While folks like me barely could muster a cheer for McCain, we had silently hoped that an inexperienced, black upstart with an arab name and no resume would fall on his own. But the winds of change blew a storm that knocked the GOP on its arse.

Obama's cry of change and the emptiness of his plans beat out the old and tired. Conservatism was never in play. The names that McCain called out - Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan must have been turning in their graves at the thought of being involked by the likes of Big Mac and his empty rhetoric. The debates were embarrassing for the GOP. Everyone I know cringed; they tried to find a beacon of hope in pure confusion and darkness.

So election night came and went. I didn't want to write long diatribes about what was and what could have been. Mac lost me at the convention, and he probably lost America then too.

So I decided to take a few weeks and recharge.

So now the war for America is lost. And as of this writing it looks like the left wing will take the Senate with a filibuster proof majority (now that Alaska and Minnesota appear lost). So now we have a full blown war for the heart and sole of the GOP.

So what is it going to be? Are we going to be the liberal media's dream child? With John McCain as our leader wobbling too and fro and selling us out on the issues that mean the most? Or are we going to go back to what made us successful? Conservative principles - both economic and social. Will the party have the courage to make Newt Gingrich the next GOP Chairman? Or are we going to find some middle of the road collaborator who'll settle for second best, or worse choose a minority to impress high-minded liberals at the NYT?

Well the first shots have been fired.

Obama has already started down the road of making terrible choices. His new cheif of staff, Rahm Emmanuel is a well known liberal who has long time relationships with the Clintons and the rest of retreads from Bill Clinton's eight years of embarrassment.

But the worst choice possible for Barack has to be the shortsighted decision to put Hillary Clinton in the role of Secretary of State. Hillary and Billary will be calling the shots and Obama will lose and sense of control for the rest of his tenure. Is he just out of his mind? The Clintons and their allies back in power? Hillary serves Hillary's best interest. Obama can expect no loyalty and no support whatsoever.

If this turns out to be true. The choice of Hillary Clinton will be Obama's first undoing.

What a shame.

The big question

Doomsday Arrives

At the time of this writing, we are hours from real election day. I use this term because all of the early voting madness is the kind of stuff that fraud stories are made up of... I mean the horror stories about Acorn, telephone voting, and drive up voting, etc during what has become election month.

With Republicans trailing in most polls its hard to fathom anything but an Obama win. That is unless the polls are all inaccurate, and there's a huge left wing conspiracy - well, we know there is at CBSNBCMSNBCABCPBS - all of which is very much in the Obama camp, certainly by everything we hear and see. The bias has never been so unbelievable open as it has this election cycle.

That being said, Republicans have run a terrible campaign. Shamefully inept, if not poorly coordinated. If Republicans cannot muster a win against a man who loves socialists and socialistic policies, then we are our own worst enemy. If a war hero and patriot with a strong record of accomplishment cannot defeat an unknown, unaccomplished, weak candidate like Obama then we deserve to lose.

If Republicans cannot defeat a man who for 25 years has attended the Church of a white hating, race bating minister who says "Goddamn America", who Barack Obama gave $50k over the last two years, then we deserve to lose.

If Republicans cannot defeat a man who hung out in the apartment of a traitor, Bill Ayers, who bombs buildings and served time in the Federal Pen, claiming afterward that "he did not do enough" then we deserve to lose.

If Republican allow a Democrat to lie openly about Democrat tax policy and let him get away with it, if not outright obsconding the tax issue all-together, then we deserve to lose.

I guess much more can be said, and will be said over the next several weeks.

Say a prayer, call your fairy-God mother, say a Hail Mary. There is this strange notion that perhaps if you wish upon a star that McCain may pull this one out. The notion that the world is lying to every pollster seems a bit remote even for this Sci-Fi fan, but who knows.

I guess we will tomorrow night.

This article was so well-written; it deserves to be posted here

This column appeared in the Washington Post. It couldn't be more accurate.

October 13, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Fire the Campaign
By WILLIAM KRISTOL

It’s time for John McCain to fire his campaign.

He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama’s. The Obama team is well organized, flush with resources, and the candidate and the campaign are in sync. The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed.

He may be anyway. Bush is unpopular. The media is hostile. The financial meltdown has made things tougher. Maybe the situation is hopeless — and if it is, then nothing McCain or his campaign does matters.

But I’m not convinced by such claims of inevitability. McCain isn’t Bush. The media isn’t all-powerful. And the economic crisis still presents an opportunity to show leadership.
The 2008 campaign is now about something very big — both our future prosperity and our national security. Yet the McCain campaign has become smaller.

What McCain needs to do is junk the whole thing and start over. Shut down the rapid responses, end the frantic e-mails, bench the spinning surrogates, stop putting up new TV and Internet ads every minute. In fact, pull all the ads — they’re doing no good anyway. Use that money for televised town halls and half-hour addresses in prime time.

And let McCain go back to what he’s been good at in the past — running as a cheerful, open and accessible candidate. Palin should follow suit. The two of them are attractive and competent politicians. They’re happy warriors and good campaigners. Set them free.

Provide total media accessibility on their campaign planes and buses. Kick most of the aides off and send them out to swing states to work for the state coordinators on getting voters to the polls. Keep just a minimal staff to help organize the press conferences McCain and Palin should have at every stop and the TV interviews they should do at every location. Do town halls, do the Sunday TV shows, do talk radio — and invite Obama and Biden to join them in some of these venues, on the ground that more joint appearances might restore civility and substance to the contest.

The hope for McCain and Palin is that they still have pretty good favorable ratings from the voters. The American people have by no means turned decisively against them.
The bad news, of course, is that right now Obama’s approval/disapproval rating is better than McCain’s. Indeed, Obama’s is a bit higher than it was a month ago. That suggests the failure of the McCain campaign’s attacks on Obama.

So drop them.

Not because they’re illegitimate. I think many of them are reasonable. Obama’s relationship to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is, I believe, a legitimate issue. But McCain ruled it out of bounds, and he’s sticking to that. And for whatever reason — the public mood, campaign ineptness, McCain’s alternation between hesitancy and harshness, which reflects the fact that he’s uncomfortable in the attack role — the other attacks on Obama just aren’t working. There’s no reason to think they’re suddenly going to.

There are still enough doubts about Obama to allow McCain to win. But McCain needs to make his case, and do so as a serious but cheerful candidate for times that need a serious but upbeat leader.

McCain should stop unveiling gimmicky proposals every couple of days that pretend to deal with the financial crisis. He should tell the truth — we’re in uncharted waters, no one is certain what to do, and no one knows what the situation will be on Jan. 20, 2009. But what we do know is that we could use someone as president who’s shown in his career the kind of sound judgment and strong leadership we’ll need to make it through the crisis.

McCain can make the substantive case for his broadly centrist conservatism. He can explain that our enemies won’t take a vacation because the markets are down, and that it’s not unimportant that he’s ready to be commander in chief. He can remind voters that even in a recession, the president appoints federal judges — and that his judges won’t legislate from the bench.

And he can point out that there’s going to be a Democratic Congress. He can suggest that surely we’d prefer a president who would check that Congress where necessary and work with it where possible, instead of having an inexperienced Democratic president joined at the hip with an all-too-experienced Democratic Congress, leading us, unfettered and unchecked, back to 1970s-style liberalism.

At Wednesday night’s debate at Hofstra, McCain might want to volunteer a mild mea culpa about the extent to which the presidential race has degenerated into a shouting match. And then he can pledge to the voters that the last three weeks will feature a contest worthy of this moment in our history.

He’d enjoy it. And he might even win it.

Choosing Obama: Rationale and Analysis

The most complicated thought process is understanding why someone would support Barack Obama. I think that generally speaking when you lay everything out, he's an incredibly hard sell. But there are those - those looking beyond merit and experience, who are squarely in the Obama camp.

Let's analyze their arguments to see what we come up with.

Rationale: I'm voting for Barack Obama because we've had eight years of George Bush and Republicans and we can do better.

Analysis: George Bush can take both credit and blame for a lot of things. This writer has found many faults with Bush as a leader, communicator and President. But President Bush's biggest downfall is his inability to articulate positions and ideals in a manner understood by his general audience. This gap hurt him and Republicans tremendously because principles and ideals could not be advanced by the man at the top. If you can't communicate economic policy or defense policy in other than non-complex terms, or draw analogies (or paint the picture) then its hard for folks to buy into your way of thinking. In fact, the Bush Administration has been mostly about the various military conflicts abroad, and less about domestic policy - which required far more attention than it received.

Few people, even on the Republican side, are sad to see George Bush leave office.

Republicans dug their own hole with the public by proving that they are no better than Democrats at dipping into the til to spend money on pet projects. Newt Gingrich spoke most plainly to this by saying that Republicans began to act like Democrats, except that the pork spending went into Republican districts. Republicans were promoted to control of Congress after putting together the Contract with America and committing to hold the line on frivolous spending. Republicans were seen to be no better than Democrats, and as memories are short - Republicans got the boot. And they deserved to get the boot. The problem with this argument though, is that Democrats have controlled Congress over the last two cycles and have been less productive then just about any Congress in the history of the the United States.

Democrats cannot claim to be part of the solution since their Congressional record is beyond dismal. Even with a poor communicator like George Bush in office, Democrats couldn't muster a counter-argument to any policy. Senate Leader Henry Reid (D) came across bitter and angry; and made himself irrelevant. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) seemed at best distracted and disengaged. Surely, no Congress has ever done so little with so much ammunition. And Democrat activists are coming unglued about the lost opportunty to have possibly advanced their agenda. And with both Presidential nominees coming from the U.S. Senate, we must admit that they are both part of the problem, and both fall within the 7% approval rating that Congress so justly deserves. That rating is far below the President's approval rating even at its lowest peak.

The other part of this faulty argument is that John McCain is not George Bush. In fact, the leadership styles are very different. Are the political stance different? Not quite sure on that one. We know that McCain has differed with his party on more than one occasion, but just because some agrees on where we need to get to, doesn't mean that they would follow the same path. In this respect, tying McCain to Bush is dishonest by any intellectual standard. While its true the platforms for Democrats and Republicans are different, approaches, plans and ideas should be evaluated on an individual basis, not a party line evaluation - particularly when it comes to John McCain.

Rationale: Obama is new and exciting. He's not an insider.

Analysis: It's true that Obama wasn't an insider at the start of his U.S. Senate career some 147 days ago before he was a Community Organizer. But one would have to say that he's probably just as much an insider as anyone is in the political establishment. The process to become a U.S. Senator, regardless of party, is rooted in favors, money, donations, pacs, special interest groups and a litany of other things that candidates seem to be always rallying against.

It's true he's new. But he's too new to know how things work. We do not elect dictators that come in on day one and start calling the shots. And moreover there are plenty of entrenched politicians in Congress, Lobbyists, and civilians lifers in every department that tend to be the ones that make the engine chug. Barack Obama has barely been in the Senate, he's barely proposed any solutions, and he's not managed to get a single piece of legislation approved by his peers. How do people expect him to come in and advance change on a global scale, when he cannot advance change in his own Chamber?

Rationale: Barack means change.

Analysis: Change to what? Change what? Barack Obama hasn't laid out any detail plans that reflect change we can believe in, let alone change we can't believe in. He's made the same general statements that most politicians wish to adhere to: better lives for middle class, getting along with our neighbors, ending the war on terror, better health care for everyone, on and on and on. In this respect, he's no different. But in one respect, given that the election is only two months away, he hasn't given out a hint of how all these wonderful goals can be achieved.

The only change we see is the one that he has gone out of his way to point out - that's he of a different ethnic background, and comes from a non-traditional background. But that alone isn't reason enough to select Obama.

Rationale: I hate Republicans. I'm voting for Obama.

Analysis: This by far is the most legitimate reason to vote for Barack Obama. The reason is that because behind this rationale, there is not need for discussion on merit, experience, resume, or detailed plans; its pure emotion and pure politics. There is no way to change the mind of someone that thinks like this (and there are those on the conservative side that will vote for McCain by the same argument).

Depending on where you come down on certain issues - we call such voters "one issue voters" that either McCain or Obama will be your candidate no matter what. For example, a die hard pro-abortion person will choose Obama, and a Christian conservative pro-life voter will choose McCain. But these issues are few and far between and make up a minority of the population. Their votes are already cast. It's the people in the middle - the independents, the loosely affiliated - those that may be members of a party but don't adhere to much of the platform, and those that are members of a party but may be so by chance or because they chose a party 20 some odd years ago.

If people really want new and untested. If they want to break the mold - they thing that seems to really excite the media because they enjoy a fairytale ending, then Obama will win in November. If Americans take the election seriously, and want the Nation governed by an experienced (work and real life) person, then McCain will get the nod.

My guess is that the college crowd (those who are still living in a bubble), the unions, the liberals, and minorities will show en masse for Obama. And the conservatives, the small business owners, the Christians, and the guy who watches his wallet will probably hold his nose and vote for McCain (against the unknown underachiever).

As for Palin and Biden. They add little; they are merely distractions from the main event.

Obama time

Democratic operatives have been fast to create something out of nothing after Barack Obama's less than perfect nomination speech. A careful review of the speech finds that Barack has the usual list of Democrat complaints about George Bush, big plans for big spending to give out free stuff, and no details about how the complaints he raises can be addressed.

_

Barack Hussein Obama has received more than a free ride over the past several months. In part, the media aided Obama by giving him favored treatment over Hillary Clinton - as a neutral observer with no horse in the race - that is pretty much a fact. In some ways it was enjoyable to watch the Clinton's get a dose of their own medicine after eight years of the same treatment that Republicans received while Bill was turning the White House into a fundraising center.

_

The Obama factor is an interesting one. The free week long commercial always puts the candidate (particularly the Democrat one) in a positive light. The media laid off of Barack for the week, and didn't question the lack of specifics on energy, defense, or economic positions that he mentioned. There was a lot about Barack being different. The media loves the fact that Barack is black, has a non-traditional name and is the underdog of underdog's in a white man's world. They can't help but root for him and want to push him over the top to shake up what is considered the "status quo".

_

Hillary Clinton was quoted during the primaries as saying that "[Barack] he can't win." She is right. When push comes to shove its hard to imagine Barack Hussein Obama, just a few years after 9-11, becoming President of the United States.

_

Honestly, we really don't know much about Barack Obama which is because there isn't much to tell. His leadership and business experience is literally non-existent. All he can boast is that he was a "Community Organizer" in Chicago. No practical executive experience is a scary concept when you are applying to be CEO of the largest, most important agency in the free world.

_

Something different isn't a substitute for qualification nor competence. And when we start seeing debates and tough questions about what Obama will do or won't do in different situations will be all telling. So the free ride is just about over (although I expect that some media circles will cheer lead for Obama all the way through the November election), and sooner rather than later conversation will turn to substance and qualification.

_

The Obama camp know they are defeated. Whatever Obama says will not be based on experience but rather coached talking points by hired Democrat operatives. Everything you hear from Obama will be 'manufactured' and packaged - which is why experience does matter in the end.

_

This week Republicans are setting up for their convention. Although it will be preempted by Hurricane Gustav (if not ruined). Watch carefully as the media's analysis turns cynical and dark in contrast to last week's nearly enthusiastic support by the media outlets.

_

According to CBSNBCMSNBCABCPBS - Democrats can do no wrong, Republicans are always wrong. That's the message. It will be up to McCain and Palin to show America that they aren't Bush III, and they are more than a reasonable alternative to an upstart, unqualified, inexperienced Obama.

Hillary's Unity...

It must have been agonizing. Standing there in front of throngs of supporters, wishing that she was giving an acceptance speech rather than filling the Tuesday night runner up spot.

-

There is a lot to be gleaned from Hillary's less than mediocre performance last night. First, we can zero in on her relentless talk about herself - why she ran, what she's done, who she is, and how grateful the Democrats should be that she has made them what they are today - well, OK - she didn't say that, but she came close.

-

If I were Barack Obama I would feel pretty good this morning that I didn't choose Hillary as my running mate. I would be excited that I wouldn't have someone upstaging me at every whistle-stop tour across the 50 states. And I'd be elated that bumbling sour-puss Bill wasn't going to be lingering with his half-baked comments and allusions to what could have been with Hillary in office.

-

Liberals Democrats will spend the day praising Hil' for her courage, and strength last night and a false allusion that she came out gang busters for Obama. They will spin this into something that it clearly wasn't - a heartfelt, personal, and genuine endorsement of Barack Obama. Or a personal plea for his nomination based on his positions and her respect for him. It's hard to make the case that a speech that amplifies your own positions and underscores your own accomplishments with a few tag along assertions that Barack believes what "I" believe in is anything more than sour grapes and gratuitous rhetoric.

-

Last night we heard about woman's suffrage, 35 years of fighting for children, and and an endless campaign for national health care (which has pretty much fallen flatter than flat). We heard the usual mud-slinging comments that can be heard on the Senate floor by just about any Democrat against Republicans - we dislike Bush, no McCain, no-way, this administration... blah, blah, blah. What people wanted to hear is not trashing of the Republican Party but specific policy reasons to support for Hillary, er I mean Barack.

-

Well, we got what we got. And of course she had to make this speech. You can imagine what the news reports would have printed this morning had she said less than what she said last night or declined to make a speech at all. What we saw last night was the start of Hillary's 2012 Presidential Bid.

-

And when the smoke clears, and Barack turns out the loser - the apologies will flow. Those who failed to support her will find themselves dethroned from posts, and chased away from every nook and cranny of the Democrat Party. The Clinton machine got caught flat-footed once, they underestimated an upstart novelty that they thought wouldn't last beyond March. The Clinton's won't make the same mistake again. Clinton loyalists will be positioned in every office across the land, from major city mayors to small town dog-catchers.

-

For now Barack Obama is really on his own. He'll find his treasurer chest filled by all the Bush-haters who will be out in full force - mostly those from Hollywood and abroad, who will do their damnedest to paint McCain as Bush - which no one buys at all. Most of the people shouting his name are on emotional overload with little to offer of substance and policy.

-

So after two lousy nights in Chicago and a lackluster convention so far, it looks like Barack will need to hit a solo home run to find momentum. This morning he's down four points, this surely can't be what they wanted out of Hillary night.

Is McCain only days away from throwing away the election?

Sadly, major news stations are reporting that presumptive Republican Nominee John McCain is just days away from selecting his Vice-Presidential Candidate. The alarming news is that McCain is actually considering Liberal Democrat Joe Lieberman as his running mate! Such as suggestions is repulsive to the conservative and even moderate end of the party.

First of all, a life long Democrat and social liberal like Joe Lieberman has been a Democratic party line voter for years. A little bit of rhetoric showing he understands the Republican viewpoint doesn't make him the "moderate" that the media often portrays him as. Singularly, he has been a supporter of United States military action in the Middle East, and has shown concern for reducing violence on television - but these votes alone do not qualify him to hold a post that should be reserved for a Republican - after all this is supposed to be the GOP nomination.

Herein lies more of the problem with John McCain. He boast of being a maverick, but is he too much of a maverick? Too out of touch with his party? Unwilling to fight for the principles that have defined the GOP over the years?

It's nice that he has a few friends across the aisle, but the Presidency is about more than putting your buddies in high places. And moreover, did anyone at GOP headquarters ever think that a life-long Democrat would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency should McCain's health deteriorate? Then what would happen when it came to cabinet, courts, economic policies, etc?

Let's hope John McCain isn't REALLY thinking about Joe Lieberman as his VP choice. In doing so he will alienate the Republican base, give his party no one to support, and give Barack Hussein Obama an assured win in November.

And surely, John McCain would have secured his place - as the worst nominee - in GOP history. To which I'm sure he'd reply as he does to everything else in our grand old party - "So what?

What a mess!

I can honestly say that if Lieberman is on the ticket, I may have to sit this one out or vote third party. And why not? If my party won't nominate Republicans then why should I support them?

Let your state chairman know that this doesn't sit well with you. And that you do have an alternative should Leiberman land on the ticket.

Obama sighted at Hammonassett Beach

Just back from his world-wind tour of the Middle East and Europe, Barack Obama was sighted over West Beach at Hammonassett State Beach Park in Madison, Connecticut.

Obama was easily spotted from as far as 5 miles away descending toward the beach. He was easily identifiable as black, round head with menacing eyes and large tentacles; most notable was that he was alleged to be full of hot air.

Reports were that he was pickpocketing bystanders from on high in order to demonstrate his new found proposed method for taking new revenue from middle class wage earners in order to advance his new spending agenda based loosely on the Robin Hood legend of take from those who have and redistribute to those who don't work.

Of course, this isn't Obama - it only looks and acts like Obama. It's actually a kite that we saw from Meigs Point. Pretty cool though.


"Look out Lady, Obama is headed for your pocket!"

Obama's Propaganda Tour

This article was originally posted on Radiofreewesthartford.com

Even the neutral observer would have to agree that the last few weeks for Barack Obama have been nothing short of stellar in terms of publicity and photo-opportunities. Meeting with heads of state, dining with kings and diplomats around the globe gives the Senator would-be standing in the world community. In contrast to the Victory Tower in Berlin – which Obama used as his most recent campaign backdrop, John McCain’s visit to the Sausage Haus, a German Restaurant in Columbus, Ohio was a sad attempt to either poke fun at or upstage Obama in some way. Its days like these that make you wonder whether or not the McCain campaign takes Obama as serious as they should. While Obama spoke in front of thousands of people to a world-wide audience, McCain should hands with a half a dozen people over beer and bratwurst in a dark lit restaurant.

The troubles of the McCain bid are a story for another day. To be fair, McCain and his campaign team are their own worst enemy. Tired, uninspiring, and reactive won’t produce the intended result in the media age of energy and glitz. That isn’t to suggest that substance and policy don’t matter – it does – but delivery is also a key element of any successful leader. And right now the McCain campaign has a long way to go to inspire even its own supporters.

Lately, and in the eyes of the media, Obama can do no wrong. Both the American and International Press coverage has been incredibly friendly – if not overtly pro-Obama, as few reporters have challenged him on his policy positions. Yesterday’s Lehrer NewsHour was a perfect example of how the media is aiding the Obama campaign. The PBS show invited three European journalists who instead of providing straightforward news analysis, opted to sing praises of Obama while at the same time being very clear that McCain, while somewhat respected by Europeans, represented views not welcome in Europe. The continuous references by our national media to “Obama-Mania” sweeping the continent are enough to make you question the fairness in news coverage. Could PBS’s news coverage do any more to support Obama? Jim Lehrer, once regarded as somewhat impartial, should be ashamed at the coverage of his news team. Not one challenging remark to anything Obama says or does. And his somber delivery of the news summary isn’t a substitute for fair, impartial reporting. Oh sure, he’s not responsible for the words of his guests, but he is responsible for the questioning by the segment host, and selecting guests with alternative opinions and mindsets.

In fact to show further evidence of further bias, yesterday afternoon MSNBC decided it was time to run a short story on President Bush’s twisting of words and phrases in the same segment as Obama’s European tour. Purpose? Overtly try to diminish our current President in order to make Obama look appealing and more presidential. It’s a sad commentary on MSNBC when executives can use their programming to help the Democratic Party achieve its goals.

Most of us know what Barack Obama’s international tour is really about. It is frankly nothing more than a planned attempt to quickly improve an otherwise poor resume – which lacks in experience on the international stage and understanding of complex international policy issues. The lack of substance in Obama’s speeches reflects his inexperience. Anyone can talk about a defeating tyranny, collaboration among nations, and working together for a brighter tomorrow. But those are the words of a dreamer and not a pragmatist, particularly when they aren’t backed up by substance and plans of any sort. Surely the media must recognize that for all the hype, Obama’s words equate to nothing more than poetic cheerleading on the world stage - words that appeal to emotion rather than thought. When previous American Presidents gave speeches in Berlin, they had something to say – not so with Barack Obama who says little, and calls for an empty appeal for change.

Obama says, “Now is our time.” Who’s time, and to do what? These are empty statements. And yet the propagandists in the network newsrooms found amazing ways to shape this into a meaningful speech of some sort. No one dared question his point and its purpose. No news anchor dared go against the script.

The fact is that this whole tour is embarrassing and shameful. United States Presidential Campaigns have sunk to a new low. Would-be candidates taking their propaganda, dog and pony shows on the road in front of international historic landmarks is sickening. Shouldn’t the media be asking if the words of Mr. Obama meet the same quality and stature of what the memorials he campaigns in front of stands for?

Well, of course not. That’s not the media’s job. For the last several years, their mission has been the same, well documented and observed – to tow the line of the Democratic Party, and to cast a dark shadow on Republican viewpoints (except of course when the Republican goes against his own Party). If this is a sign of what’s to come, McCain surely has an uphill battle.

Super - Malarky... Superdelegates and cross over primaries

They say if you have nothing nice to say about someone you shouldn't say anything at all. At least that's what our parents and grandparents used to say.

Just imagine what that would do to Presidential campaigning in this country.... particularly on television.

60 second spots of dead air.

Think of the public service in all of it. Quiet, silent, speechless candidates. How wonderful. Of course, that's a mild starter to what I really wanted to post about today....

It's two factors that seem to undermine the very fabric of a process meant to be - one person, one vote, and allow individuals with like-minded ideas to debate issues and choose their best candidate to run for President on behalf of that consititency or group.

Yeah right. What crap. Here's my huge beef with all of this. I was watching C-SPAN this morning, and a caller was talking about theories of people crossing over to vote in the Democratic caucus to help either Hillary or Obama out do each other to rig the election. Meaning Republicans going out to cast a vote for Obama or Hillary (depending on your point of view of conspiracy) to tilt the nomination one way or another.

I guess I have a HUGE problem with states that allow this kind of behavior. And for once, I have to give Connecticut a pat on the back here. In crazy Connecticut, if you are a registered Republican you can ONLY vote in the Republican Primary, and if you are a registered Democrat, you can ONLY vote in the Democratic primary.

It's not like I can just wander into the Elks Lodge without being a member and vote for their new Grand Bazzola or whatever. It's not my business to involve myself in their business because I'm NOT a member.

This seems to make sense.

Why should anyone be allowed to participate in a political party primary who isn't affiliated with the party conducting it?

Seems to me that it only makes sense that those deciding who is nominated from a particular party should be card-holding members of that party. Why should anyone else get to muck around in someone else's business? Seems F'd up to me that some states allow people to cross over and impact other people's business.

These are the kinds of things that make me think that we are REALLY screwed up.

Now there are talks about Superdelegates. The role and use of Superdelegates seems to be a very underhanded tactic to me. The whole things smells of Democratic treachery and deceitfulness; its a great way to throw the race and play games by bypassing the will of the voters. Superdelegates are open to bribery and pretending to be someone their not.

Yeah, sure. They willl play the game of trying to appear to be "more thoughtful", meanwhile the fix is in. In the 11th hour, after the wheeling and dealing has been done, here comes superdelegate to save Hillary from her deserved defeat. Super-delegates can screw over their state and decide to vote as they wish. Or perhaps how they've been paid off to vote.

For all of the nasty and cut throat approaches within GOP primary circles, I have to at least give Republicans one bit of credit - they kick each other in ass in broad daylight. They cut and slash on televison or triple team candidates with the cameras rolling.

Not Democrats. Oh no. For people who are supposed to be "working on behalf of ordinary people" - they seem to be working with the special, elite people, and leaving the voice of their own every day people in the toliet. Superdelegates..... more like Supermalarky.

If Hillary wins by Superdelegate defections, count the fix as in. And if I were Barrack Obama, and I lost because of this electioneering.... I'd go on TV the next day, and endorse John McCain.

National Review supports Mitt Romney!

Citing some of the reasons that I cited yesterday and many more, National Review - the conservative magazine of record, endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

The arguments that NR brings to light in support of Mitt, and against the other candidates in the field are very compelling.

It's interesting to note the story today that claims that Democrats are leaving Mike Huckabee alone since they declare him easy to beat in the General Election. Boy, I bet neither Hillary nor Obama would want to see Mitt Romney in the opposition debate spot!

Time to give Mitt a second look, folks! We are in this thing to win! And with the field of tax and spend (and give aid to Al Queda crowd) creeps running on the Democratic ticket this year, we'd better be in great form!

Where ya' leaning King?

It's funny, but we are only a few months out from Presidential primary elections and I find myself pondering the tough question of who I plan to support this year for the Republican Nominee.

I have to say that no one immediately stands out as the hands down winner when I weigh all of the issues and perspectives that they bring to the table. And I don't find our field particularly strong when it come to charismatic figures that sweep me off my feet.

A lot of this commentary is probably short-sighted since I haven't devoted hours, twisting and turning over the pros and cons of each candidate. I simply look at the field, squint, and say BLAAAAAHHH!

_

The problem for me is that I take all the nominees and ask, "Which one of these is MOST LIKE Ronald Reagan?" Of course, that's like asking which hamburg meat tastes like filet mignon? And the answer will always be the same - no comparison. And its remarkable how often "Double R" comes up in speeches by these candidates.

_

Here Mitt Romney uses Ronald Reagan's restrictive tax policies to attack Mike Huckabee.

_

Here Mike Huckabee's Reaganesq points are carved out by a blogger (same fashion as stated by the candidate himself)

_

Here Fred Thompson is compared with Ronald Reagan

_

Here John McCain's staff invokes "The Gipper"

_

And the rest do the same, over and over again, you hear the cries that they too are the direct decedents to the Reagan legacy and throne. Well, not really guys. You might think you are like Ronald Reagan, but you are all far from it.

_

So where does that leave me? Not very far I imagine.

_

Since its easier to talk about what I don't like, I guess I'll start there, and work backwards to a decision:

_

John McCain - Historical record of collaborating with the left on some issues - most notoriously on campaign finance reform. They are going to put that on his grave stone when he dies. Further, he doesn't look very well health wise, and I'm looking for someone to pull a healthy eight year term.

_

Mitt Romney - While I think his faith makes him a conservative on many issues, he still strikes me as willing to spend a boatload on unnecessary programs. I'm concerned about how he'd tackle health care and manage the budget. I'm not concerned about his religion whatsoever.

_

Mike Huckabee - Has a record of suggesting tax increases across the board. To me this guy is an unknown quantity, but he's leading in Iowa at this point. He will require a lot more study before ruling him out. And here's my other question... is this guy electable against the Democratic front runner? Or is he just a nice guy from "out West".

_

Fred Thompson - Too old. Lack appeal. Spends a lot of time in Hollywood. Might have conservative tendencies, but I don't see him as picking up steam at all. I can't see him beating an energized Obama, or debating Obama. This is a funny idea gone mad.

_

Alan Keyes - Enough already. Bright guy, solid conservative, and a fabulous debater on the issues. But this train has no steam; this campaign has no legs. And for some reason, he's not attractive in the South.

_

Tom Tancredo - Time to drop out. Thanks for playing.

Duncan Hunter - Love 'em. Wish he had more money to get his message out. But no chance in heck.

_

Rudolf Giuliani - Yeah he's America's mayor and all that, but he's got a lot of scandals and issues of his own to contend with. And he's a guy that reformed himself on a dozen views just recently for the election. I believe people can change views, but this guy was pretty liberal a few months ago. What if he goes back to that line of thinking after he's elected? Who wants a Bloomberg style Presidency? Not me.

_

Ron Paul - Who the heck is Ron Paul? I know Libertarians love this guy. He seems to be gaining some popularity, but can he run with the big dogs on the stage of enlightenment?

_

So King, where does that leave ya?

_

Slight edge to Mitt Romney at this point over the field based on electability. On the issues, I'm slightly concerned, but he's not drastically out of line with the majority of Republican positions (at least at this stage), and Mormonism seems to be a concern for religion-haters who will push this issue during the general election - but this will be easier to deal with than 50 scandals out of New York. Mitt is articulate, he smiles, he looks the role, he likable, and he's probably one of the most electable of the leaders. I also think he would crush either Obama, Hillary, or Biden in the Presidential debates. He's even tempered, and doesn't get rattled. Yet I bet he can get Hillary twisted in eights. Sam Malone versus the wicked witch of the west. Now that would be something.

_

That's today's snapshot. If the primary where held today, I'd be voting for Mitt. We need to win in 2008.

Coming Presidential Election Cycle

One thing we can all dread, is the coming Presidential Election Cycle.

Anywhere you go, people seem fed up with politics. I can remember when there was excitement in the air back when "Slick Willie" Bill Clinton was in office and after realizing that he was pretty much the same old Washington carpetbagger using the White House as a Whorehouse and a Fund Raising Office (and his wife was lusting for power), and the Republicans made an incredible surge forward under Newt Gingrich and eventually took Congress and the White House - that was excitement and that's the last time anyone had a plan that made sense.

Then George Bush came into office and everything seemed to go south for the GOP. The war is a huge mess. Everyone agrees and the public is dead set fed up with it. It's not cut and run at this point, its cutting our own throats and running in circles like a chicken with its head cut off. It's embarrassing. It's pathetic. It's why the GOP lost Congress to begin with.

It's going to be hard for any Republican to run along a record like Bush's. The GOP's only saving grace is that the Nation thinks less of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Gore and the band of lunatics in the Democratically controlled Congress; everyone agrees that they are worse for America long term than Bush and the lackluster GOP hacks . Every time Pelosi opens her mouth, you can hear the sound of a cash register ringing - cha ching - and the GOP filling its coffers. With all the material that Bush supplies them daily by being himself, they can barely mount an offense. Pathetic creatures.

Back to 2008, today both sides of the aisle are suffering from decent candidates. It's worse than pathetic: Clinton, Obama, Nader, Guilani, Thompson, Edwards, and the rest of the gang are about as stale and boring as it gets. Let's break them down for you here:

Hillary Clinton: Electing her would be Satan's gift to the world. Bitchy, whiny, power mongering pain the ass with a feminazi twist on everything. God help the United States if such a person were ever elected to the White House. Her antics of pretending to be a New Yorker and then switching back to a Southern twang when in front of the Southern Crowd is about as phony and sick as it gets. Yet, no one calls her on it because they are terrified of her. And because the media goobers all love her. And so would every Middle Eastern Terrorist organization. She's a clueless, power-hungry twit. She'd do anything to get elected, just ask Vince Foster. Oh, that's right, you can't. Hmmm. The bead and sandles crowd will be at her beckon call - you watch.

Barack Obama: Yeah right. Everyone in their right mind knows he unelectable. He bucks the establishment way too much - even most Democrats understand that we can't negotiate directly with terrorist states - and I got a kick out of Hillary Clinton eluding to Edwards (caught on camera) that Obama (and the rest of the field) wasn't a real candidate. She's right. But since she changes accents to suit her audience... she's not a real person either. Obama and Usama... that's the connection everyone will make. America isn't electing a Muslim named black guy to the White House. Sorry. Call us in 200 years, and maybe then he might have a chance. Again, the media loves this guy.

Fred Thompson: Funny, witty and charming. A big fat politician that made his way to Television who everyone likes. No charisma, no energy, and no platform. Is he running or just acting. Fred, stay in acting please.

Ralph Nader (or his repetitive ghost). The only people who like Ralph Nader like to buck the world. Sleeps at people's homes during election campaigning, and pretty much spends all of his free time collecting signatures for the next Presidential Campaign Cycle. Very few people really think electing Ralph Nader to the Presidency is a good idea - even if it were in a "made for TV movie". The only thing good about Nader in the race is that he tends to embarrass the other Democrats in the field.

Chris Dodd: Connecticut's own tedious Senator. Again, no charisma. His high point was battling Bill O'Reilly on television. For a guy that's been in there for all of his professional career, he's doesn't seem to have much to show for it. No favors, no energy, nothing. He probably wishes he was back with a certain television anchor or partying with Ted Kennedy. If it weren't for the unions, he'd be history in Connecticut too. In fact, I can't think of one single piece of legislation that distinguishes on the Hill. What have you done for that many years? Chris Dodd's run is nothing more than wasted energy.

John Edwards: Didn't he already make a run? What's he doing out there anyway? Another ambulance chaser in the field. Didn't 2004 tell him something? Uggh. Get out now, stop bickering with the press about your wife. You lost your Senate seat and your respectability. Time to go.

Dennis Kucinich: Bahaahahahahahahaahah. Need we say more. My God, at least look Presidential for at least five minutes, will ya?

Rudy Giuliani: Ok. Showed great stuff in NYC during 9-11. Quite a few skeletons in his closet. New Yorkers have a stigma that most Americans are appalled by. Rudy could be a sleeper, but even Italians don't want to see an Italian President. Not sure what that's about, but there seems to be some issue with all of this. I don't know, Rudy doesn't do it for me. Stay a hero of 9-11 and stay in the public sector.

John McCain: First, the man is a patriot, but he looks like death turned over. And from everything we know he has a major anger management problem. But if I were held in confinement for as long as he was, I'd probably have the same problem. McCain isn't liked in his own party. He's not able to rally the troops particularly when he works so often with the Democrats.

Sam Brownback: Who? Senator from Kansas. Stay in the Senate, you are too boring and mild mannered to sit in the White House. You are Chris Dodd's ghost in the GOP. He just doesn't have as many excuses as you do for not being able the rally the crowd or party support. Nice guys finish last. In your case, dead last. Stay in the Senate if you want to make a difference.

Mitt Romney: Just when you think you've found the next Reagan, he finds religion. A tough hurdle to overcome in states like NC, SC and GA where obscure Christian sects like Mormons and Catholics are deemed foreign and superstitious. He's the best of the entire field, but he'll be defending himself for the next 20 years.

Mike Huckabee: No offense Mike, but one clown from Arkansas for eight years surpasses the two century quota. We'll have to pass. What do you stand for anyway?

Yep, eight years of Bush is seven too many. If he had passed away just after 9-11, they would be putting statues up of him everywhere. Now he's the poster child for speech management classes around the globe. But sadly, his legacy is much to be desired.

I've never seen a group of rag tag wannabees forced on the American Public. And I didn't even hammer all of them.

So, jokes over now. Who's really running?