A few months ago, Glenn Beck roared at a caller to, "GET OFF MY PHONE!!" for bringing this up.  Given what's happened recently with the Porkulus, the Census, and the about-faces on his campaign pledges, we need to know whether or not B. Hussein Obama was even eligible to run. 

 

Show us the original birth certificate, Barry.  You keep insisting that you were going to be transparent.  We see right through you as a politician.  If there's nothing to hide, stop hiding that original birth certificate.  If it shows you to be a native born citizen, which the Constitution (Remember that old thing?) requires, show us the original and put that business to rest.  You have nothing to hide, right?  You're out to shut Conservatives up.  Show them where you were actually born before this business comes back to life and takes on a persona all its own, because it will come back. 

I have been married to my wife for over a decade.  This marriage has, at times, been an absolute piece of cake; it has also been the hardest undertaking one could ever imagine.  How do we keep it going?  We make each other laugh.  We listen to one another (most of the time).  We are there for each other.  We also play grab-(butt).

 

WHAT?!  Yes, it's true.  Now and then, one of us will grab a handful of the other's backside; personally, I think it's about fifty-fifty, but I'm sure my wife will say it's closer to seventy-thirty.  (Whatever.)  The fact is, we have this understanding that, as long as our son doesn't see it, it's okay.  By the way, those thuds you are hearing are all the personnel people out there 'dropping' bricks at what I just wrote.  To them, I simply say, "No, I do not believe that sexual harrassment is okay."

 

Get ready for more bricks, folks.  I have always maintained that the point where behavior crosses the line is when the other party doesn't adore you anymore.  So, woe betide us when 'sexual harassment' becomes recognized as a legitimate reason for getting a divorce. 

 

Much of the behavior that takes place in the dynamic of a married couple would be labeled 'sexual harrassment' if it happened in the workplace:  innuendo; touching in certain places; asking for sex in exchange for favors (and vice versa).  In a marriage, such behavior is properly called "just trying to get some".  What if, though, some liberal judge from the Ninth Circuit decides that a person has the right to sue for divorce on the basis of such aforementioned actions having taken place?  What made the behavior acceptable at one time, but not anymore?  Gee, Wally; it sounds to me like one of them just doesn't like the other in the same way anymore!   

 

My principal message is this:  marriage is a wonderful and very special relationship with its own set of rules.  It is set apart from all other types of relationships.  It is unique.  DO NOT try to drag it down to the level of a simple 'working relationship' or a shack-up.  There is nothing equal to it.  It is commitment.  Those of you in promiscuous, free-sex shack-ups (regardless of orientation) do not have the same thing that married couples have.  Same-sex marriage will not harm the institution of marriage nearly to the extent that allowing sexual harrassment standards to apply will have.  Want to destroy marriage as we know it?  Make a man afraid to touch his wife.

Before anyone goes nuts over the title of this post, take a minute to actually read this.

 

I have noticed something over the last couple of years:  some of my so-called friends have reacted with incredulity upon finding out that I'm a Conservative.  "Oh, I didn't know you leaned that way," they say, as though I've just admitted to being a card-carrying Nazi.  Although they don't actually do it, you can see them clucking their tongues and shaking their heads as they walk away back to their sheeps' pen to watch CNN.  One particular person of color refuses to even look at me anymore because I oppose Obama's National Socialism and call into question the content of Obama's character.  (You don't go to the same church twenty years without agreeing with the pastor.) 

 

Look at how we are bombarded every day by liberal media bias.  Notice how we are demonized.  We are being run down.  Everything that represents our values and our beliefs is being systematically destroyed by the liberal National Socialists.  Let's call them what they actually are:  Nazis.  Anything to do with God is vociferously attacked by the American Criminal Liberties Union.  Why?  Well, our God is of Judeo/Christian origin.  As much as I really don't agree with Bishop Spong, he is right when he says that, effectively, we are all Jews. 

 

First, they started blaming everything on us.  The failed policies of the last eight years?  How long did it take to recover from 9/11?  Not long.  Okay, I do see some failures.  The airlines were bailed out and airport security was nationalized.  We can see how that one worked out.  Congress passed a new entitlement for old people's prescriptions.  Did anyone notice that there aren't many old people working to pay for that program?  Even though there was a liberal mentality behind those things, they have been blamed on Conservatives.  Shoot, they even tried to blame 9/11 on US (as well as that absolutely preposterous notion that a huge number of Jews pulled a sick-out that day)!  There were some successes, too.  Southwest Airlines stuck to their business model that made them money.  The Bush tax cuts kept us going until Raines led Fannie Mae into the junkyard and Barney Frank lied about its health.  Poverty was still being blamed on us, despite our policies making it possible to get a job if you really WANTED one.  Things were blamed on Conservatives out of simple convenience.

 

Next, they attacked our speech rights.  No, this wasn't through the legislative process; that would require votes.  Via 'hate crimes' laws and 'hate speech' codes which were lauded as 'political correctness', we have been somewhat stifled in articulating our point of view.  Don't give me this business of how we have Fox News and AM radio; where is our point of view on the so-called MSM?  Think about the term 'political correctness'.  It has nothing to do with being correct; it is all about bowing to liberal supremacy and agreeing with their politics of 'special rights for special people'.

 

Then they attacked our ability to vote.  No, they didn't strike names off the rolls.  They added ILLEGAL names to them.  The Democrats have hamstrung every effort to verify voter eligibility whilst simultaneously streamlining the ability to obtain it!  Call me crazy, but we have something near twenty million illegals in this country, darned near all of them voting Democrat.  Senator Obama's margin was seven million votes or so.  With the absolutely lax methods of voter verification employed in the largest liberal voting sectors, it is not a stretch of the imagination to say that, had no illegals voted, we would have Vice President Sarah Palin right now.  Look at the ACORN folks who are being paid off by the Porkulus Bill.  You don't suppose this is the payoff for the help with the organized voter fraud for which ACORN is renowned, do you?

 

Now, they are coming after our money.  The Nazis are going to Nationalize our banks.  Folks, once that happens, it's not your money anymore.  Who's going to stop the government thugs from taking your money if they think you have too much?  Even if that is a bit far-fetched, you will see your taxes rise when the Bush tax cuts are foolishly allowed to expire.  The state of this recession will get worse.  Look what happened to Bush the Elder.  Some of the tax proposals I've seen are just downright laughable, if they weren't so insidious.  Someone wants to tax the number of miles driven.  Someone else wants to severely hike the taxes on beer and cigarettes.  There will also be moves to nationalize the auto industry.  This means that they will try to seize control of the foreign plants on our soil and force them to unionize.  Oh, my God!  This is what 'Card Check' is all about!  It's not about small business at all.  It's about forcing the other auto companies to go UAW in order to raise the overall prices of their vehicles in a foolish notion of levelling the playing field for our flagging companies.  That gives the foreign companies about twenty years before they decide to just say, "Screw this!" and pull out.

 

What do we do?  Someone pointed out that if we can just get one person each to come over to our side and vote Conservative, we can win this.  There are steps we must take.  We have to become closed primary only.  You must be a registered Repub to vote in ours; no Libs allowed.  Next, we must all vote on the same day.  Republican General Primary Day could take place on what was normally reserved for the GOP NatCon.  Next, we have to be the party of peaceful revolution at the ballot box.  We must adopt the FairTax in order to pay for all of Obama's crapulus while it is in effect (before we dismantle it).  We must forget about appealing to people based on their skin color.  We should approach them based on the Conservative content of their character. 

Back in 2002, a co-worker of mine and I got to talking politics and world affairs.  It turned out that he and I shared many of the same opinions on a variety of world problems.  The starkest difference, though, came down to the 2000 election.  Tom had voted Bush, while I had supported Gore.  Even though I didn't necessarily like President Bush or his policies at the time, I have to say I admired the fact that he had taken the initiative "to find those people and kick their a**" after 9-11; as such, he was earning my respect.  The more I talked to Tom, the more he would point out to me people who shared his (and my emerging) philosophy. 

     Tom urged me to listen to Sean Hannity.  Since I had a lengthy drive to work, this wasn't hard to do.  The more I heard Sean talk about liberals and what their positions were, the more I realized that I had less in common with the Democrats and that I was beginning to agree more with the Republicans.  It was also about that time that I started reading my P.J. O'Rourke books a bit more seriously.  All the Trouble In the World was my introduction to what can be called 'Environmentalist Wackoism'.  Speaking of which....

     After listening to Tom Becka on KMBZ while driving to Lawrence and hearing the news, I began to hear the opening of my favorite Pretenders song.  You know, it's the one with that wicked bass intoduction.  Then a man introduced himself as Rush Limbaugh.  With all due credit to my buddy Tom for planting the seed (as well as being a great boss who looked out for my career), it was that trip to Lawrence, Kansas that solidified my position as a Conservative.  What was so wonderful about that moment was not the discovery that I agreed with a nationally syndicated talk show host whom the 'main-stream media' was doing their darnedest to make me hate; rather, it was the discovery that this giant, this icon, this big-time radio host with "talent on loan from God"---agreed with little, hourly wage-earner ME.

     Hannity and Levin today each had a caller on their show with a herd-mentality bent:  it was interesting in each case to hear about people who fundamentally agreed with the idea of not spending money you don't have and letting people run their own businesses as they see fit, but they voted Democrat because their parents, grandparents, and union bosses voted that way.  I would lay good odds that if you gave each voter an inventory on liberal and conservative positions, most people would find that they actually lean to the right, but they don't know it.  So, how do we fix this problem?

     If we want to win this culture war, it is up to us to seek out those who don't realize where they are on the political scale.  We need to find out how much they like to keep their own money by pointing out how much someone really pays in taxes on each purchase.  We must push the FairTax by showing people the untapped pool of potential FairTax payers.  We must educate them as to who it is that really provides them with a job and push them towards a business-friendly point of view.  It is foolish of us to simply assume that people know the 'main-stream' media is biased.  It is up to us to point out--each and every time--liberal bias wherever it should rear its insidious and ugly head.  We must show how much we love our country.  We have to point out the folly of nationalized anything by demonstrating the superiority of the private sector; have you ever met anyone who didn't want to 'cut out the middle man'?  We have to stop seeking out votes based on demographics and start seeking them on the basis of their agreement with our philosophy.  When we stop looking at the color of a voter's skin, we are seeking out the content of their character. 

     What should our party do?  The Republicans must have solidarity in their opposition votes.  We have to weed out the RINOs.  Seriously, we need to boot Senators Collins, Snow, Hagel, and McCain OUT of the GOP.  Sarah, if she wishes to oust the former Illinois Senator, must take a page from President Reagan and articulate the Conservative philosophy on the radio and on Fox News. 

     How will all this be accomplished? 

     It will be done one person at a time. 

     It is just the approach taken by my friend Tom.

We've been hearing a lot lately about the folks who lost a ton of money in the big $50B Ponzi scheme.  One of the tag lines that you always hear some liberal news reader say is that, "Not all the people involved in this scheme were rich."  Okay, so some people sunk their life savings of over, say, $50K or less into this.  What do these folks have in common with the wealthy investors who got into this?  They were after rates of return that they should have KNOWN were unrealistic.  ("If it sounds too good to be true...")  Succinctly, they were GREEDY!!! 

   This country has the world's richest poor people.  What?  Read it again.  Do you know how many people I run into who love to gripe about how they can't afford shoes for their kids and in the same breath tell me how much they won at the casino last night (they never brag about how much they lose getting those jackpots, though) before they have to take a call on their BlueTooth?  Something's wrong with this picture.  I know that you, as a reader, have had that moment in the grocery store where your ONE cart is behind someone else's TWO carts full of steaks, name brand potato chips, and cases of Coke that the customer paid for with food stamps.  In the effort to suppress your anger, you look at the floor; this is when you notice that they are wearing shoes/boots that cost as much as your entire month's insurance bill (including health)!  You have listened to that morning talk show where some smart-(butt) single-mom-with-three-plus-kids calls in to brag about how she has cable, a BlueTooth/Blackberry/Razor, internet, and a TV/DVD player in every room!  (Seriously, I heard such a call on KCMO a few years back; her oldest daughter was taking dance lessons on your dime.)  What on earth is the matter with these people?  It isn't hard:  they want something for nothing.  They are GREEDY.

     Grammarians might be tempted to say that I am actually misusing the term 'greedy'.  To them, I say that what they are actually hoarding are the resourses allocated to public 'assistance'.  What do many of these people want?  MORE.  The folks who sunk what little they had into a Ponzi scheme wanted something for nothing with the promise of unrealistic high rates of return which were MORE than what their more sensible, conservative neighbors were getting.  They were GREEDY.

     I'm not rich, nor am I poor.  This author is one of those people in Tom Becka's (KFAB) 'Mad Middle'.  Admittedly, I'm on the right side of that group, but even I have to admit that the libs don't always get it wrong.  Like you, I am tired of seeing companies which made bad decisions being bailed out; I am also tired of seeing able-bodied people on public assistance living a better life than I do.

Being born during the first Nixon administration, I had this little three-word slogan RAMMED down my throat during the Eighties.  It was actually good advice.  You didn't have to make a show of things.  All you had to do was just say, "No."  Then you just walked away and let the chips fall where they may.

      The only time it is useful to play retrospective hypothetical games is when you are trying to figure out what you want to do in the event of there being a 'next time'.  The best thing that can happen with our current situation of all these companies is for Uncle Sam is to stay out of things and let capitalism run its course.  If there is any government intervention whatsoever, it should be that Washington should waive all corporate income tax for this year.  Just wipe it clean.

      "Wait a (censored) minute!  Why do I have to pay my personal income tax when none of the corporations have to pay theirs?"  That's a valid question.  If you understand economics, you understand that corporations have NEVER paid taxes; only the end users in the economic chain (that's YOU) pay taxes.  More succinctly, their tax break will become YOUR tax break.  How?  The jobs that will be saved will prevent a large upsurge in EICs, AFDC, WIC, and every other program for which the folks who will lose their jobs will justifiably line up to receive those benefits.  Those are paid for with tax dollars.  What Uncle Sam doesn't pay, you shouldn't pay.

      People do their best work under pressure.  It bites, but that's the way it is.  With respect to the auto industry, they are acting like that deadbeat member of your family who never comes around unless and until they want something.  Do you remember what happens when the relative with the money finally turns off the tap?  Gee, Wally!  The deadbeat finally figures out a plan of action and gets their life together!  At least, we like to think that this is the way this is.  Right now, our auto industry is in bad shape because it is married to that deadbeat wife called the UAW who only wants to take the money and doesn't want to do one solitary thing to help out with the bills.  So, even though they've been married for so many years, it just isn't working any more.  Our auto industry is also hampered by the very parents/inlaws who are furnishing the money.  The logic goes:  since we are forking over this money, we should have a say in how it is spent.  Even though that statement is actually valid, the Washington parents are actually wanting this errant child to spend the borrowed money on things which actually aren't helping that child out at all.  Why?  The parents are so in love with the bride that they can't see her doing anything wrong, ever.  At some point, this man-child auto industry is going to have to kick out the wife and tell the parents to get out of its business so it can grow up.  He may even have to find a different wife. 

      Seriously, what is so bad about the prospect of Toyota owning GM or Honda buying out Ford?  How many readers of this blog know that Nissan is actually a wholly owned subsidiary of Renault?  Did Japan fall off the map, or did we get a pretty cool Z as a result?  Were it not for the Daimler-Chrysler marriage (destroyed by the UAW and the IRS, btw), we wouldn't be seeing so many new street Hemis right now.  If you read the FairTax books, you will know that it would have been Chrysler-Daimler had it not been for our confiscatory tax rates.  People mistakenly believe that the money you spend on a Honda Civic built in Ohio goes to Japan.  Don't insult your own intelligence.  The money you spend goes to the North American companies (and employees) who have a hand in the manufacture of your Honda's components and their final assembly.  So, let's say Uncle Sam does the right things by saying no to the bailouts and getting OUT of the auto industry's business.  There is no disgrace in the American auto industry approaching the Japanese brands and asking for a lifeline in the form of a buyout.  Think of it as capitalism's 'bailout with benefits', but no one is getting (censored) in the deal. =)  Do you really believe a company like Toyota would say no to a chance to own something like the American capacity for production?  A Z is still a Z.  Do you really believe the Corvette or Mustang would go away if their progenitors were Japanese brands which actually had the sense to listen to Deming and play hardball with the unions?  Those brands are icons; in fact, it was the Renault buyout of Nissan which made the new Fairlady Z possible.  Will we finally see the Vette and Mustang lose weight?

      Changing gears a bit (pun intended):  should the government have the sense to say no to bailouts, it will hurt, but it will not hurt nearly to the extent that it will sting if they keep treating a problem that isn't healing because Washington doesn't have the sense that God gave a goose to close the wound?

This has been lifted from an e-mail I sent to a friend of mine.  I'm sorry for the bad formatting!

Optimus Magnus

 

I want a Palin/Romney/Jindahl/George Allen low-tax,
free-market, hardcore, SCREW-THE-LEFT Conservative in
2012.  The thing is, the way to get one is to go to my
National Primary Day.  Sorry, but I got screwed out of
the chance to vote for the best conservative by the
Dems' own Operation Chaos.  Further, screw public
financing for the campaign. 

Have you read the FairTax books yet?  Seriously, make
the time to do so.  People have no clue as to how
business works and how punitive taxes are.  We have
got to make them understand the Laffer Curve.  If
nothing else, we have got to make people understand
how lower taxes benefit ALL of us.  Oh, while I'm
thinking about it, read Michelle Malkin's "Peggy the
Moocher" article at Townhall.com. 

The left out-flanked us, period.  We played by the
rules while they went back on their word about
financing.  The left also booted out anyone who didn't
toe their idealogical line.  This is what we need to
do.  You can be for low taxes, free markets, smaller
government, and strong national defense or you can get
the devil OUT.  If you don't support each and every
one of those principles, you don't belong, and we
don't want you.

Sarah needs to do what Reagan did:  get herself on the
radio with a series of commentaries and articulate
conservative principles for the next four years.
Hussein will give her enough fodder.  She needs to get
her own column on Townhall.com. 

We REAL mainstream conservatives need to tell the Fox
gang where to get off. Fred Barnes?  Pipe and slippers
time, pal.  Bill Kristol?  Have some more pie.  Britt
Hume?  I believe the Muppet Show Live is missing a
bald eagle. 

As for Rush:  make Pop and your dad proud.  RUN FOR PRESIDENT.


     

What I am about to say has already been said by Rush and a few others, but it is not being said nearly enough.  In order to avoid the appearance of any kind of -isms, lending institutions are forced to lend money to people who have absolutely no business buying something as major as a house.  Standards are arbitrary benchmarks which must be met in order for a loan to make a lick of sense.  In other words, a fry-cook (like I once was) should not be given a mortgage for a $250,000 home in some swanky suburb.  But, NO!  Thanks to outfits that know they will be bailed out by Uncle Sam (US), too many mortgages are loaned out with too little regard as to whether or not the recipients can actually repay the darned things.  So, who gets stuck with the bill?  I do.  So do you. 

   I'm sick of hearing this rubbish argument that if the two big entities are allowed to go belly up that it will trigger a run on banks and really collapse things.  Maybe I'm crazy, but perhaps those entities should be allowed to go belly up.  Personally, I don't think they would.  It's time for the Feds to get the devil out of the way and let market forces do their work.   

   Market forces are neutral.  Those loans have been taken out by INDIVIDUALS.  They should be awarded on the basis of the ability of the individual borrower to repay.  Lending institutions are not allowed to do this.  Because they are made to be deathly afraid of being called -ists, they are forced to overlook the poor scores of borrowers in the name of "fairness".  News flash:  market forces are fair.  You either measure up to the given rubric or you don't.

As crazy as this might sound, give this a minute of thought.  Means testing has a precedent in Medicaid; specifically, it pertains to getting government assistance with nursing home care expenses.  People are expected to drain their own savings paying for their own care before they can get any help.  After all, Medicaid is supposed to help the poor.  Were such measures not in place, this nation would go broke trying to pay for universal elder care.  (Does this sound familiar?) 

     I don't like this idea, but unless there are fundamental changes made either to the Social Security program itself or to the way such a program is funded (FairTax, anyone?), the Democrats will force means testing on us as a means of keeping Social Security afloat.  This would be the most sweeping and effective way of preventing the system as it exists from going broke:  deny the payment of benefits to retirees who live off of their savings, pensions, or investment incomes until such time when those sources of income have been exhausted.  These people, God love 'em for being thrifty and doing the right things, don't need their Social Security payments.  Do they deserve them?  Under the auspices by which we were sold the FICA  bill of goods, absolutely they deserve those benefits, having paid into the system for so long.  But will we be able to afford it, assuming that everything stays the way it is?

     Tom Sullivan, a Rush guest-host, came forth with a revelation in 2002:  the Social Security problem will fix itself as the Baby Boomers die.  The argument goes that a spike in births must someday produce a spike in deaths, thus alleviating the number of retirees to whom we must issue entitlement payments, which, by definition, is what Social Security payments are.  Until that time, however, what are we to do?  A crisis is coming.  Are we going to take proactive steps now or are we going to sit back and eventually be forced to take a draconian reactive step?

(Note:  My last entry contained a syntax error.  The line about Obama's openness in regards to his positions should have ended with "he couldn't afford to be open or honest.")

 

The above case deals with legalized sex discrimination against men with respect to dress-codes.  Specifically, it relates to hair length.  Under present law (per this judicial precedent), a company can force men to wear hairstyles which conform to a specific boundary template, while anything goes with women.  The opinion is justified on the basis of "social mores".

 

This language is disturbing.  At one time, racial discrimination was a "social more".  Mandatory retirement ages were once a "social more"; now, anyone at or over the age of forty can pursue an age discrimination case.  Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was once encouraged.  People were once excluded from many fields and institutions because their reproductive systems were carried internally, as opposed to being carried externally.  Despite the apparent coarsening of the culture, I still believe that society at large has learned from the mistakes of its forbears.  But my belief is thrown off kilter when I read company dress codes. 

 

Fast-forward to 2008.  Don't even think of excluding someone on the basis of any of the above categories.  It's okay for men to wear earrings in some companies.  Women can wear their hair as long as they please.  Should it be a potential occupational hazard, they can always tie it back.  I don't have a problem with that.  Women can wear their hair as short as they please (which, by definition, includes many men's hairstyles).  Upon further examination, though, is it really a "social more" for a woman to wear a man's hairstyle?

 

I don't have a problem with people wearing their hair in whatever style they please.  What I DO have a problem with is the idea of being excluded from a set of people allowed to engage in a behavior on the basis of my reproductive system (that which, by definition, defines me as "being male").  Sex discrimination is against the law.  At least, it's supposed to be.  Succinctly, either discrimination upon the basis of sex as a condition of employment is either illegal or legal.  It is WRONG for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia to selectively apply law as they see fit.  The job of those people in the black robes is to apply the law as it exists.  Any snags which arise are to be worked out by those elected bodies called "legislatures".

 

Equality is a "warts and all" proposition.  As Bill Maher would ask, "Does anybody have a problem with that?" 

Okay, Rush.  I get it.  Now that you've got Obama and Clinton sniping at each other and have effectively sown the seeds for Denver '68, McCain is free to go out there and get his message out.  The trouble is, though, that McCain isn't really doing that; he appears to be just sitting on the sidelines and to be watching the other team fight itself when he should get off his behind, grab the ball, and RUN with the dog-gone thing!!  He is "running" for President, is he not?

 

The mask seems to be coming off of Obama's candidacy.  To me, it has always been clear as to why Barack Hussein Obama, the man with the ear-teasing sensitivity, has been empty in regards to his true positions on America's problems:  he couldn't afford to be.  This blowup over J. Wright and his America-hating rhetoric is the perfect highlight.  I don't believe that Obama has the best interests of all Americans at heart.  It has already been made clear that even if Obama gets the White House, it still won't be enough to enable us to put racial differences aside.  I for one just want to go on with life.  I don't CARE what color, sex, religion, orientation, or age a candidate happens to be.  What I want in a candidate is the maximum amount of agreement in relation to policy positions as to where this nation should go.  I don't like either one of the Democrats' positions on anything.  McCain's opinions have not much more appeal to me.  This year, a lot of us will be holding our noses and voting for the candidate who smells the least.  I dislike the notion of giving the bird to all the legal immigrants by granting amnesty to those who did it illegally.  McCain-Feingold is un-Constitutional.  The Keating Five will haunt him for all of his presidency, if he is elected.  At least with McCain, we know where he is.  At present, we have just seen a glimpse of where Obama likely stands.

 

Speaking of the possibility of being elected, shouldn't McCain be getting around to selecting a running-mate?  Being from Missouri, I am pulling for our governor, Matt Blunt.  He is a man who has decided he has done pretty much everything he wanted to do as the governor.  Would he want the job of Vice-President?  The biggest snag, though, is that the drive-by media would seize on the age gap.  It may be best to go with someone like Romney or even Fred Thompson.  Like Reagan, Thompson is an actor.  Hardly anyone mentions this, but one of Reagan's greatest strengths as our President was that he knew how to act presidential.  Thompson would be able to apply that strength to just as great an effect.

 

Even better, a Condoleeza Rice, Ph.D and J.C. Watts ticket would force the Left to really put its money where its mouth is.  I'd vote that ticket in a heartbeat, assuming that ticket and I have the most agreement on policy positions.

As Ditto-heads go, my listenership to the Rush Limbaugh Program is fairly new.  Only in the most extremely rare cases do I ever disagree with the former KMBZ announcer.  When it comes to "Hillary Rodham-Rodham", aka Mrs. Bill Clinton, we are poles apart.  Barack Obama needs to put her away and put her away NOW. 

     Right now, the focus is on the fight between Obama and Clinton; it is not on the lack of substance with either of these candidates.  We need to see just how empty Obama's rhetoric really is compared to Senator McCain's.  Don't get me wrong:  Sen. McCain has some MAJOR flaws which I mentioned in the previous post.  At least with McCain, though, we are aware of what we are getting:  a candidate who may have a conservative position or two, but one who is not a real conservative.  To those who decry such a candidate, I direct your attention to the current occupant of the White House.  If President Bush were a true conservative, he wouldn't have hesitated to veto McCain-Feingold, perhaps the most egregious codified violation of our free-speech rights since the advent of "hate-speech" codes.  The point is, we could have done better as conservatives go, but we could also have done worse. 

     Rush holds the position that we are better off to keep Hillary in the race in order to sow and continue to have chaos in the Democrat party, to paraphrase.  Given the primary results of the past several weeks, it is clear to me that the libs are NOT in disarray.  They have chosen Obama.  As much as I really don't care for the liberal philosophy on things, I have to give them credit for making it clear that Hillary is too phony even for them.  What the lefties are saying, essentially, is that they are tired of flip-flops and doublespeak.  They prefer the vagaries of Obama's "hope for a future filled with hope".  (Taken from one of Rush's parodies.)  What we need to do RIGHT NOW is to get Obama in the spotlight and to pin him down on what exactly his positions, stances, and policies really are and to establish the comparisons and contrasts with Senator McCain's positions.  I guarantee that the positions on the Iraq/Iran situation are akin to the Onion's summary of the Carter/Reagan positions.  ("Let's talk better mileage," and "Kill the bas-----", respectively.)  Given that I truly believe the average American is conservative and just doesn't know it, I'd say that if we can keep the Middle East in the spotlight on this campaign trail as opposed to the phony hogwash on the economy, Obama doesn't stand a chance against McCain, the candidate willing to wipe our enemies off the face of the Earth (if he has to do so).

     There is an uphill battle ahead of us.  The "Drive-By" media will do their absolute darnedest to paint their man in the most glowing terms whilst demonizing "that conservative".  We can deal with that; we're used to it.  As much as it would pain Rush, Sean, Ann, Laura, and Neal to do so, we need them to start establishing that comparison NOW and to keep hammering it into as much of the public's conscience as we possibly can.  Don't count on Fox News to help us.  In fact, I would say our best TV hope for getting this out would be Mr. Beck on CNN-HN.  Perhaps we could get him a two-hour spot in order to bump Nancy Grace.  (If I want to listen to a woman yell, I will leave the seat up.)

For the first time since 1988, I feel that the general election will be an occasion where I will hold my nose and choose between the lesser of two undesirables.  Why not McCain?  The Keating Five, the amnesty bill, and McCain-Feingold are reasons which come to mind.  (To be fair, G.W. ducked his responsibility to veto something he KNEW to be un-Constitutional.)  Why not Obama?  I'm tired of hearing about "hope" and "change".  I "hope" I have enough "change" to feed the parking meter in the morning, okay?  Why not Hillary?  She and her partner (oddly enough, from "Hope", AR) have already HAD their turn. 

     Imagine that we have a system in place on General Election Day whereby certain people were allowed to vote at certain times of the day.  Now imagine that when you walk into that booth, your person has been removed from the list of candidates because not enough of the folks ahead of you voted for him, leading him to make the decision to drop out, a' la Fred Thompson.  What is so wrong with having a set day where every state votes in the National Primary?  Why not apportion the delegates according to the percentages won in each of the states?  Is this not fair?  I wanted to vote for Fred Thompson, but because the states ahead of me voted for McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, Thompson dropped out; thus, my only palatable conservative choice was Romney, who dropped out after Super Tuesday.

     There is an argument to be made about how the current primary system can be a boon to the residents of a town which happens to be on the campaign trail, but who is to say that a town can't be canvassed during the lead-up to National Primary Day (say, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August)?  In fact, let's have a nine-month "gestation period" for our Presidential selection process:  six months of primary campaigning until August, then the last trimester can be the no-holds-barred slugfest to which we're accustomed.  Why such a short timespan?  Frankly, the current campaign began after the 2006 midterm elections.  It's old.  What used to be the national convention for each party can be a national primary watch party. 

     Another advantage of the short gestation would be that it would place the lower funded candidates like Thompson at less of a disadvantage (hopefully).  Okay, Thompson's apparent apathy didn't help, but neither did the considerable lack of coverage by any of the major news outlets, either.  Also, if certain major columnists were so concerned about getting a conservative back in the White House, they would have backed their most conservative choice all the way.  (Due credit to Ms. Ann Coulter, who was unabashedly a Hunter fan.)

     The bottom line is, shouldn't I have a chance to vote for the same candidates as the people in Iowa and New Hampshire?