Linda McMahon's Face the State Appearance

Unprepared, unqualified, and uninteresting.

These three words came to mind as I watched Linda McMahon's lackluster performance on WFSB's Face the State this past Sunday.

I think people understand that I favor former Congressman Rob Simmons over Linda McMahon. And now, after her appearance on Face the State, anyone can see precisely why. Linda is playing far out of her league and some must be asking exactly why she is going to drag the Connecticut Republican Party and Congressman Rob Simmons through a bloody, expensive, and frivolous primary that is bound to damage the GOPs chance of taking the Senate seat in the upcoming general election.

It takes a great deal more than having $50 million dollars to spend to run for Senate. Part of me wanted to see a Linda McMahon who represented Republican issues, and values well; focused, articulate, and engaging. After all, this is a Republican primary race, isn't it?

Unfortunately, when it came to substance, Linda simply didn't have any. She was offered several opportunities to lay out a simple platform for Connecticut voters, and at best, all she could muster was that it was difficult to do business in the State of Connecticut, and she understands the bankruptcy process because she went through it in the 1970s with her existing company. Neither of these two points impact the majority of the roughly 3.5 million people who live in Connecticut, whom are neither business owners, nor involved in the sports entertainment industry.

Moreover, while the interview was fair, and the questions at times - somewhat pointed, it exposed her and her campaign as completely inept. When did you decide to run for Senate? What do you have in common with the average Connecticut resident? Why do you want to run for Senate? Why aren't there any policy positions on your website? What politician do you find yourself aligned with from an ideological standpoint? Folks, these are not tough questions. These are the kind of questions that politicians from any persuasion would die for. Linda should have hit a home-run on each of these, had she been prepared for the interview.

Instead, we learned that Linda just recently decided to run for Senate, she is still trying to figure out what she stands for, she doesn't really know why she's running, and she likes "Maggie" Thatcher. And then we learn that she voted for Joe Lieberman at the time for ideological reasons. Not very Republican. What ideological reasons? What positions did Joe Lieberman hold that your fellow Republican, Alan Schlesinger didn't? Isn't Joe Lieberman the kind of career politician that you claim you're sick of seeing in Washington? Or is there a set number of years that he must stay in to reach career politician status? Hello? Is anyone home? Is anything clicking? Is anything coherent?

Here's the thing, Linda. When you get a great opportunity to go on television for free and market yourself, you are supposed to take advantage of the opportunity to tell the voters who you are, and what you stand for, and how you intend to make their lives better by putting you in elected office. When the media asks you simple open-ended questions, you are supposed to hammer home a simple and clear message that resonates. Instead, we got nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Republican voters expect to hear more than she is walking around the state, and talking to people. That's not impressive. And by the way, most politicians formulate their political platform before they run, not at some point when they get around to it. The implication is that this Senate run is a quick grab at a position of power, and that details don't matter. But believe me, they do. They do on the other side of the aisle, and they do to us Republicans too.

And the two minute tug-at-your-heart-strings story about Linda's car being towed and going to the bankruptcy courthouse because the McMahons ran their company into the ground is not really compelling. In fact, Stamford Advocate's Brian Lockhart seemed a little miffed by her tale which didn't seem much connected to the question asked as to why Connecticut residents would feel compelled to vote for someone of her wealth and background. The bottom line was that her response was just bizarre.

But we also learned that Linda's big issue with Rob Simmons is "card check". To the residents of Connecticut, card check means absolutely nothing. They are just two words together that leave people scratching their heads. I'm sure Connecticut residents stay up to all hours of the night worrying about "card check". Oh, and let's not forget "cap and trade". Oh brother! Another phrase for Linda to fit on an index card that she can fit into memory and blurt out quickly before she forgets. If this lady is our nominee, Richard Blumenthal is going to have a field day grinding her into the ground on the issues. I came away wonder just who the heck prepped her for this show, anyway!

But I have to conclude my review of her appearance with the obvious, and probably more damning material on our would-be candidate - her opinions and thoughts on her own company. Earlier in the program, she made a point to say how proud she was of her company, focusing on the charity work it does and not the content of the product.

When asked about the deaths and drug use, Linda pointed to a roughly new, three year old Wellness Policy which seemed to come out of necessity as a result of a media pressure from questions arising from mounting deaths and injuries caused by drug abuse and accidents within her WWE company. At one point to skirt the issue, she directed the panel members to the website instead of articulating details like most CEOs are capable. I took this as a sign of trying to distance herself and deflect from what is a primary concern about Linda's background. It's hardly appealing to be seen as having a "you win some you lose some" attitude, particularly when we are talking about life and death. That seems to be a very cold and calculating position to take on such basic human issue. I didn't get the warm and fuzzy thought that I would want to be in Linda's employ, that's for sure. Talk about being just a number, or a sad statistic. I also found particularly damning, was her response to a later follow up question where she confirmed that her employees sign contracts that limit WWEs responsibility for injury or death under her employ, and that she doesn't provide Healthcare benefits for her employees.

If that wasn't enough to expose the strange hypocrisy of both her and her company, Brian Lockhart's final question where he asked Linda McMahon about a WWE show where her son in law was simulating sex with with a corpse must have been the iceberg that sunk the Titantic. Having not been familiar with wrestling storylines, even that question even caught me off guard. Understandably, Lockhart declared the episode to be personally offensive to himself, and others. Other than glancing a look in his direction, Linda didn't have much of an answer for such a damning question about the content from the company she has amassed her millions from, and the industry that produces such horrifying dribble.

Real United States Senate candidates don't field questions like this. The whole thing is just surreal.

Richard Blumenthal must be licking his chops at the prospect of debating complex issues with the likes of Linda McMahon. The prospect of facing off with an extreme amateur with little knowledge of Connecticut or National issues must be incredibly appealing. And then there is their career comparison, as she told us on Face the State - negotiating "wrestling contracts" versus Blumenthal's ten year experience as Connecticut's Attorney General, negotiating major contracts with international companies, states, and entities. Oh please, God help the GOP.

Knowing that Linda doesn't even know where she stands on the issues, must be a dream for a guy that probably wanted to be Senator since he was age two. If Richard Blumenthal had a choice, I'm sure he'd rather run against an opponent like Linda McMahon, rather than an experienced Congressman, and experienced intelligence and military leader like Rob Simmons. At least Rob Simmons can stand toe to toe with Blumenthal on the issues, without the event becoming an embarrassing spectacle for Connecticut, and in particular - Connecticut Republicans - as it would with Linda McMahon on the debate stage.

The McMahon Senate campaign has quickly become much like the Bob Backlund's bid for the Connecticut First Congressional District in 2000. Which I should add was spawned from Backlund's phony Presidential bid as part of a WWE storyline. With that unfortunate mocking of our political system created by Linda McMahon and the WWE, several people are still concerned that there is a professional wrestling tie-in with Linda McMahon's current Senatorial bid. Since its not unlike the McMahons use shock storylines to attract viewers, such as faking the death of Vince McMahon, some are waiting for the next shoe to drop which is nothing more than a chance for her to boast her ratings, and gain ground with the networks. I can distinctly remember how the Connecticut Republican Party, including the sitting Governor wanted nothing to do with the WWE or Bob Backlund's campaign. Connecticut Republicans wanted nothing to do with exposure and linkage to such unpopular and violent television programming.

From what I can gather here - the Linda McMahon tag-line is that she would like Connecticut to know her as successful CEO of a major Connecticut Company, an outsider who will come in and straighten out the good ol' boys club in Washington, and who will (somehow) bring jobs to Connecticut. Ok, sounds good. But the reality is quite different.

Linda McMahon is the CEO of a very controversial company which has made front-page news for work and employee related deaths, drug and steroid use, she claims to be an outsider who doesn't seem to know much about Congress let alone know the name of anyone who works there which will actually impede her ability to get anything done for Connecticut. In fact, she wants to bring jobs to Connecticut, then perhaps she should be running for the local statehouse where those decisions are made. In the end, the McMahon campaign is probably a great networking opportunity for her and the WWE. But for the people, of Connecticut - its a big embarrassment.

A few additional thoughts:

Although you can find a million articles online about Linda McMahon and World Wrestling Entertainment, I feel the need to make a brief mention here about this aspect of her background, because after all - if it weren't for the WWE, Linda McMahon most likely would not be running for Senate as this is the company from where she is claiming to have all of this business background which somehow qualifies her to be Connecticut's next U.S. Senator. Fair game, right?

In the 70s and 80s, wrestling seemed more cartoonish, which is what it competed with on Saturday mornings when it was run by Vince McMahon, Sr. After Vince McMahon, Sr. passed away, and Linda and Vince took hold of the WWE promotion, and molded into a new brand of entertainment which moved professional wrestling to never before seen low-brow form of entertainment that uses violence, sex, death, controversy, emotion, loud music and feigned physical competition to get the viewers juices going. The McMahon's succeeded in finding stations to carry the show at 8pm to compete with prime-time programming, and thus the new era of Pro Wrestling was formed. Do they get credit for a new brand of creativity and expansion of a once small time regional company? Absolutely. But that's not the point nor the concern here.

Simply put, parents find Professional Wrestling to be a very negative influence on their children. Besides the scripted in-ring fighting that goes on, and the fact that kids world-wide are emulating wrestlers by putting each other dangerous choke holds and and what have you, you also have storylines showing people trying to run each other down with vehicles, destruction of property, fire, and pushing the envelope on bad language and sexual content.

The McMahon's, who have profited handsomely from attracting people through their darkest vices, seem to take a very distant view on their responsibility for their creation. Linda McMahon wants to be the CEO of "creativity" but not be linked to its elements of sex, violence, drugs, and death. Well, it doesn't work that way. That's a lot like Dr. Frankenstein taking credit for his creation but not the murders associated with monster. It's hard to stand on the sideline and not claim for a smidgen of accountability for the hundreds of kids injuries, and even deaths associated with emulation of professional wrestling tactics used by children which are directly related to her product. A simple search on Google will find you plenty of news articles about wrestling related injuries.

Most people do not know or care about the internal workings of professional wrestling. I believe most people see it for what it is - more violent garbage on TV. And its a bit of a stretch for Linda McMahon to present it as if it were a mainstream company that produces clothing, or computer parts. And impossible to present it as a company that goes on day-to-day without episodes of deaths or injuries, and controversy. At the end of the day, people just don't like the Professional Wrestling that is on TV today. And Republicans, who tend to be the more serious types, aren't likely to support Linda McMahon on the the notion that she's just another CEO of a company. Sorry. It's just not going to work. Most Republicans would rather Linda McMahon take her $50 million dollars and reinvest it in some area of the economy that creates jobs.

Linda, for the good of the party and herself, aught to just leave well enough alone. Enjoy the experience she's had so far, save future embarrassment and just go back to her WWE desk. Let's leave the Senate race to qualified people like Rob Simmons.

The last thing Connecticut needs is Linda McMahon

During his 1966 campaign for the Governorship of California, Ronald Reagan once said, ""Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." But what if that so-called Republican was a new convert to the GOP, and who only recently gave a huge donation of $10,000 to the Democrat Congressional Committee in 2006. What if that same person donated large sums to Democrats directly to unseat incumbent Republicans Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons during the 2006 race? Would that person really be a true and loyal Republican? I think not.

Well meet Linda McMahon, our brand new United States Senate candidate alleging Republican credentials. Famous for her appearances and ownership of World Wrestling Entertainment, which beams into households around the world each week feigning entertainment and teaching our kids to punch, kick and hit each other, demean women, scream at the camera, and do all kinds of things that McMahon claims is less violent than the news, and merely falls under the category of PG rating.

Ok, so granted she claims she's donated more to Republicans than Democrats overall, but what she might have called smart business, normal people call - lack of conviction and simply hedging your bets. And when the people of Connecticut needed job growth and stability the most, Linda was working to undermine pro-business Republicans in favor of high tax and spend Democrats who she suddenly tells us in her latest TV ads - are hurting Connecticut's business climate. The fact is that Linda McMahon worked to unseat good people like Representative Rob Simmons, who fought tooth and nail to keep Groton Sub-base open so that jobs would stay in Connecticut's second district, and not simply be moved to Virginia or elsewhere.

If I didn't know any better, this might be right out of the WWE storybook; she couldn't have written a better Heel-Face turn than the one she's been performing over the last three years.

McMahon has never showed any political aspirations having never bothered to run in any local city or Connecticut State political races. She has occasionally made appearances to defend Pro Wrestling against family organizations that have taken issue with the violent impact wrestling has on children, but little else of consequence which directly impacts the creation of actual policy on a state level.

But any wolf can smell blood. With President Barack Obama's job performance in the tank nationally, and Connecticut U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd limping from poll to poll from self-inflicted wounds caused by his own egotistical power grab involving real estate deals and other typical political cronyism, Linda McMahon suddenly found an opportunity of a lifetime. Just like the packaging she does for her WWE characters, McMahon remade herself into Republican (she could have easily put on the costume and persona of a Democrat - which some argue might have been an easier path), and starting running commercials about the ills of those in power making life impossible for those in Connecticut. The very people she donated huge sums of money to get elected in the first place - by the way!

What also irks me is the way someone completely uninvolved in state politics finds support in less than meritable ways. Linda McMahon has been writing check after check to local Connecticut town committees with the obvious intent to buy votes or if that is too strong for you -- let's just go with -- influence votes. Some votes which might be oh so valuable at say a ... Republican State Convention. Hmmm?

And shame on Connecticut GOP Chairman Christopher Healy, a man who has no loyalty and no shame. While saying nice things about Rob Simmons on the one hand, its been widely reported that Healy's wife, Suzan Bibisi, is now on Linda McMahon's payroll as a campaign consultant making over $100K to help defeat Rob Simmons and Peter Schiff. I hope Rob Simmons was able to pause long enough to take the knife out of his back. But I'm sure the Healy's just see it as just - business. And after all, I'm sure they needed the money. Oh yeah, all of us understand. A Republican State Chairman that puts his personal interest first and the rest of the party in the gutter. Sorry Healy, we don't buy that malarkey that your wife is her own person. Your reputation is seriously damaged as we watch you stradle your loyalty between two camps - just like Linda McMahon - hedging your bets. It shows you are just another individuals without conviction. Another reason why Republicans do so well in Connecticut. What did Rob Simmons due to deserve such loyalty from his own State Chairman?

Much like her predecessor, P.T. Barnum, McMahon can read a good opportunity and recognizes that "there is a sucker born every minute", which is why there are people like WDRC's Brad Davis fawning all over McMahon for his 10 minutes in the spotlight. Davis, who spends hours on his morning radio program reciting facts and figures to his listeners seems to lost sight of the McMahon track record on her donations, handling of campaign spending (which as of this writing may be questioned by state or Federal authorities), or her own voting experience. One has to wonder what size check Mr. Davis received for suddenly becoming ignorant of the facts and jumping on the McMahon pay-wagon.

We all know that Rob Simmons doesn't have 30 million dollars plus to buy votes, run commercials, and hire long-time friends and associates out from under Linda McMahon. But at least Mr. Simmons has a record of hard work and accomplishment in Connecticut's second district. And maybe he isn't the perfect conservative, but he has a solid record of many other patriotic accomplishments like 37 years of military service, working as a member of the Intelligence Community, and fighting for Connecticut jobs - all which dwarf the running of a circus act that doesn't even bother to provide health insurance to its employees.

Connecticut Republicans - the ball is really in your court. Ask the hard questions about Linda McMahon, and her true background - as a business owner, as an employer, as a voter. Read how her employees see her. Watch how she influences town committees with her checkbook and see how she's been rebuffed by Republican Town Committees like the one in Preston which sets the standard, and who prefer to make their own decisions without a pay for patronage scheme.

The bottom line is very clear. Republicans must chose a candidate who is consistent by their record and by their actions. Connecticut Republicans - principle and convictions do still matter. Let's show Linda McMahon that our votes are not for sale. Let's show her that there are more important things than the almighty dollar.

Watch this space for more on Linda McMahon. And on a hard-working gentleman that truly deserves Connecticut's support to become the next legitimate United States Senator from the State of Connecticut - Mr. Rob Simmons.

Germany's Conservative Merkel secures big win in liberal Europe

Sunday's result in the German Election is a huge boon for not only the Federal Republic of Germany, but also for the world community. In a time when the American President is actively peddling his plans for a second great society of expanded government and increased taxation, the German people seem to moving in the opposite direction.

Of course, we shouldn't get to carried away by describing Angela Merkel as a conservative in the American sense (she still favors VAT taxes, socialized medicine and is a huge advocate of the Global Warming theory), but for a European politician, she may yet be one of the most conservative minded on the European continent. Merkel has long been a strong ally of American foreign policy - supporting American initiatives in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Merkel, despite Islamic fundamentalist threats, continues to be an advocate to resist Islamic cultural incursions into Germany and Europe, and has deployed at least 4,000 German troops abroad in the cause of liberty. This is of course a difficult line to walk, given both internal and external reminders that Germany that it has had its own history of military ambitions at one time and the ghosts of those days are still fresh to some. That aside, Merkel has managed to win support from right, left, and center.

American conservatives can view this victory with a sense of irony. Just a few years ago, the United States under President George Bush saw a period of thawing of German-US relations as then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was vastly opposed to supporting American action in the Middle East referring to them as mere "adventures" instead of recognizing the jihadist threats as legitimate. When Frau Merkel came to power, US-German relations turned positive almost over night and cooperation improved to levels not seen since the Kohl years. Sadly, since the election of Barack Obama, relations have once again soured. And perhaps the beginning in a change in relationship between the two countries may have occurred when Obama decided to use the Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop during the Presidential campaign tour. Little did we know that such bad judgement was a sign of things to come.

But what's clear is that this change in the winds is not just due to political philosophy. Obama, a foreign policy novice, appears to have ruffled feathers in Berlin, London, and Paris - a trifecta. This is historic in its own right as even as Gordon Brown, who is closer to Obama in his politics, was snubbed by Obama who, last week, refused to make five minutes for him. While Obama thought this attitude acceptable, the foreign press recognized the insult without hesitation. Hardly the way to treat America's greatest ally in world politics.

What American Conservatives (and European, as well) can take most delight in from this moment is the fact that the Obama phenomena doesn't have legs. There isn't some global move to the left, which sometime follows a shift when Americans make drastic political change. Conservatives won outright this time around. It may even be said that Obama's policies which have so negatively impacted the US economy may have actually helped the Christian Democrats win this election. The example of a downward trending economy caused by irresponsible spending and anti-business policies have shown to be a fair warning to all that such backwards policies are damaging to one's own national interest.

Merkels win is also historic in that her party managed to kick the Social Democrats down eleven percent from the last election, and moved the Social Democrats down to the lowest total vote count since the fall of Weimar Republic in 1933. We may have a new Iron Lady at last.

According to Bloomberg analysis, the Merkel government was successful in that it "delivered the lowest jobless rate in six years and the highest tax surplus since 1949. Germany's economic expansion is radiating across Europe, leading to a European Commission prediction of 2.6 percent growth this year in the 13 nations that share the euro, outpacing the U.S. for the first time in six years."

So perhaps it wasn't luck. And it certainly wasn't media manipulation. It was more likely reward for reform and success even at a time when the Global Market has suffered from fraudulent bank loans, and bad economic practices. Merkel campaigned on tax cuts, and deregulation which is nearly the opposite of the rhetoric heard by President Obama and his cabinet. Yet the results are in. And Frau Merkel and her ministers are leading the way, maybe its time that America follow their lead for a change.

Barack Obama and The Coming Race War

This essay is going to be hard for some to swallow. And some people may even become upset with me, and my choice of words here. But there are some things that must be said, plain and simple.

There is no use denying it.

The Obama administration is clearly hell-bent on expanding government over our lives, business, and culture to an extent never before seen. In their minds, they feel justified in doing this based on a false premise that last year Barack Obama won convincingly over John McCain, and that Americans understood that this didn't mean reinventing government but rather remaking America. Further, they have falsely created the notion that Obama's victory was one based on political ideology and therefore he has carte blanche to do as he pleases even if it means uprooting our belief system. Obama and his followers have come to this archaic belief that somehow that Americans have embraced his brand of socialism and asked him to replace our capitalist model with a new form of totalitarian rule.

The reality couldn't be farther from the truth.

The fact is that John McCain ran a poor campaign. He said little in his own defense or in the defense of current policies. He and his ragtag campaign staff laid down as the Obama army walked (if not waltzed) over him all the way to victory. Obama promised Hope, Change, and a list of other generalized upbeat approaches to government. He didn't say what those changes were - he never said he was going to spend like a madman, or dismantle the healthcare system. No, he didn't say that because had he said it, he would have lost - even to a man as somber and uncreative as John McCain.

Over the past few months under Obama-rule, the people are waking up; we've began to see a stir of emotion but not from Conservatives like myself, who are usually up in arms about taxation and spending, and our normal key hot button issues. But for the first time in a long time, I'm beginning to see an outrage from people that for years and years have been nothing more than the walking dead; zombiing their way through the newspaper, eyes a-glaze, or nodding at the daily televised newscast. People, who normally hate politics or steer away from political discussions are the ones that are doing the talking it up at cocktail parties, and in the workplace. And hell, they are even getting on buses traveling to D.C. to be heard! In a lot of ways, its surreal.

And they are going to "tea parties", and town hall meetings, and making calls to people out of recognition of what Obama represents and what he's trying to do. I see old people, and young people, and working class blue collar people involved, all fighting back against the Obama tide. And I'm scratching my head since these constituencies only months ago, were doing all the flag waving and crying for Obama to be our Savior.

So there is a real backlash out there. People are frustrated and confused - not by what Obama claims is the peddling of false rumors about his healthcare plan, but by the facts about his plan as they exist. And they are outraged by the never ending Obama propaganda machine that is selling bits and pieces of a plan that are hardly intelligible. Of course the snitch on your neighbor plan didn't appeal to people either. People also fear this rush to pass this something, a something without details describing what they are proposing, how they are going to pay for it, or how it would be administered.

OK, so far?

So as the protests grow, we see a lot of -- and this where I'm turning up the heat -- white folk out on the Mall holding signs. I see a lot of white folk making calls, and showing up at Town Halls expressing outrage, but what I don't see, except for the rare exception, are black folks stepping up to confront the dangers of an overzealous government. And that my friends is a very unfortunate matter. That is an area of concern that few people are willing to shine a light upon.

Generally speaking policy making rarely becomes race related. There are exceptions where black folks get upset - most notably when it comes to police arrests and judicial sentencing, because there is a claim that due to imagined racial profiling that black people are more likely to get arrested, or land in jail. Of course, rarely is this a reasonable argument unless one only draws attention to the number of minorities in jail which is solely the result of them committing crimes and being caught by police. These statistics are quickly overlooked by black activists.

But when it comes to this President, it clearly seems that the Obama team has deemed that race has become the overall reason for outspoken disagreement against the President's plan. In perfectly time collusion, over the last several weeks, the media has spent a lot of time playing the race card. Over this last weekend, on cue, The New York Times ran an irresponsible column by left-wing apologist Maureen Down alluding to racism for the reason of Joe Wilson's outburst on the House floor. Can someone legitimately make such a case? Simply try to destroy a man for his disagreeing with the President? Of course not, but that doesn't stop Democrats and their media friends from using this sure fire, stop gap measure to stop the advance of the President's critics.

Democrats do this because they know that making this claim automatically stops sensible debate and shines a different light on the antagonists at hand. It's akin to using a paralysis drug on the central nervous system. People sweat, tear up, and freeze. They begin to second guess what they've been saying and go into a defensive mode that makes them forget what they were saying and spew idiotic things like, "I'm not a racist, I like black people, some of my best friends are black." And thus it snowballs out of control. And before you know it, your fifty miles away from the real issue at hand.

This lowbrow approach is dangerous for Democrats and the left because calling someone a racist is just another tactic. It's an antibiotic that the general public has gotten used to. In similar cases, the left often claims that Obama is compared to Adolf Hitler (which I've actually never heard used in an argument by the way by conservative, although I distinctly remember seeing a lot of left wing propaganda depicting Bush as Hilter, etc), and so the endless argument that Obama is no Hitler merely serves as a distraction from the real issues at hand. Yet eyes are glazing over. And only Hitler's ghost and reputation seem to benefit from the dumbing down of Hitler's atrocities.

So then we have Obama's interference in the police arrest of his friend Professor Gates, and then we have an appointment and dismissal of black militant Van Jones. And we see that reaction in the black community is hardly in keeping with what might have been expected by whites if a neo-nazi were appointed by a white president. The irony is amazing.

Moreover, polls show that black folks favor the President's approach (Gallop poll: 93% last week) and give him a high approval rating when people from other races find themselves split (with a slightly higher margin opposed to his policies).

The Obama administration isn't the only one playing the race card. California Representative Diane Watson went out of her way last month to play the race card saying, "So remember they [meaning opponents] are spreading fear and trying to see that the first president who looks like me, fails; don’t misunderstand what is at the bottom line [suggesting racism]". I see. Or perhaps we all see, all too well.

From the looks of things, if black folks remain in lock step with whatever Obama proposes, then it will be hard not to imagine charges of racism coming from both camps creeping into the oncoming debate. And with the media fanning the flames as they did with the Gates story, it hardly unimaginable that thing could degrade to a very uncomfortable level, and even to the point where violence is possible.

What's next? Will polices for Government run healthcare be seen as "pro-black" and the private sector option seen as "pro-white" or "anti-black"? Will the Congressional Black Caucus continue to push in lockstep as a unified group for Government run healthcare despite that all Americans are against this notion? Will Jesse Jackson show up on the scene to make a connection to between "his poor children on the streets" and the greed of Ronald Reagan's white society?

Will the debate get uglier? Will Obama's failure been summed up as merely whites not allowing a black man to succeed? Will phony arguments about race take center stage over clear economic rationale?

I hate to say it, but stage one of the race war has begun. And the win-at-all-cost White House won't hesitate to go in any direction that gets them a win. I see the atmosphere of the OJ Simpson era reemerging.

I hope the President and his attack dogs know what pain they are unleashing on America.