the Google cache so we can move them to the other site.

http://conservativeprincipals.blogspot.com/

As his popularity falls amongst the general electorate, he continues to reel in the superdelegates and is closing in on Hillary. Hillary, meanwhile, is catching up, according to the latest poles, in North Carolina and pulling further ahead in Indiana. Despite what Howard Dean said last week regarding a candidate having to pull out in June, this baby's going all the way.

Can I get a "Thank you, Jesus!"

As long as we can keep Hillary doing McCain's dirty work for him, life is sweet.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/May/01/obama_closing_in_on_clinton_s_advantage_among_superdelegates.html

According to a story on ABC News, the North Pole could become ice free this year. I really can hardly stand to talk about the weather idiots any more, but I'd like to point out a couple of things:

1) I just saw Al Gore running by my house with a canoe over his shoulder. Wasn't this supposed to cause a calamitous rise in sea levels that would swamp and destroy much of the inhabited coastal areas of the world? This isn't mentioned at all in the story.

2) There is almost no hoopla given to the fact that more new ice formed this winter than last. If it doesn't fit the global warming story, just underplay it.

3) Does this mean I'm not getting anything for Christmas?

Give me a finger in the wind and I will tell you what the next political speech will sound like. Show me a poll of what Americans supposedly want and I will give you the next batch of political promises. What happened to believing in something and sticking to your guns? I want my party to have a solid platform that my candidate solidly supports. I want a conservative to step forward and offer a legacy of true American values and ideas. I want this country to return to a position of prominence and prosperity. I want to end the influence of vocal minorities and special interests groups. I guess in short I want it all! Here is the short list:

1. Conservative Justices: Justices who know the Constitution is not a living document but is set in stone and easily understood. Justices who know that killing equals murder. Justices who understand that the Founding Fathers knew God and he was OK and so should we.
2. Lower taxes: Not a decrease in the rate of increase but across the board permanent tax cuts
3. Decrease in the size of Government: Limit spending, cut the "pork" and balance the budget
4. Privatization: Schools, Postal Service, Social Security etc. "Competition is healthy!"
5. Revamp the IRS: Flat tax, national sales tax or any option that kills loop holes, makes sense and is as fair as any tax can be
6. Revamp welfare (Again): No more hand outs. We are an industrious society where jobs abound. The government should not be in the business, at all, of helping those who are perfectly capable of helping themselves.
7. Defend our borders: Too many leaks allowing in too many illegals and undesirables. We welcome those who come through legal channels. No one else gets in and any who are all ready here get packed up and shipped home. Give the jobs to the welfare recipients referenced above they weren't doing anything anyway.
8. Stop our dependence on foreign oil: Tell the environmental wackos to take a hike. Trust me there are still plenty of lush forests for them to get lost in (hopefully forever). The rest of us would love lower gas prices even if it means a few unsightly oil rigs, a few more refineries and a few more nuclear power plants (even the French figured this one out)
9. Kick the UN out of New York: We are a Sovereign Nation and should care less what other countries think. Frankly if its good for Americans then its the right thing to do, period.
10. You scratch my back or you get no more money: If a foreign country wants financial aid then they better be good and ready to jump when we say jump. If not we want paid back in full immediately (with interest of course).

My dream list could continue but lets start here. I would love for someone to give me good reasons as to why any of my top ten are not exactly what America needs. Great empires come and go. We are still yet a fledgling nation compared to many Empires who lasted many years longer. We need to look to their mistakes and make the right choices. Empires who fell due to thier societies moral decline. Empires who fell to over taxing the population. Empires who fell due to the influence of those with in whose true loyalties fell elsewhere. Empires who fell because they were too dependent on outsiders. Empires who fell because they were afraid to make the difficult decisions. America needs to make a stand so that History will show we learned from the past and stood tall. Where others had fallen we refused to make the same mistakes. We want to be the Greatest Empire. The American Empire! God Bless America!

Eliot Angstead In a story from FoxNews, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas complained bitterly about a lack of follow-through on behalf of the U.S. administration to try to bring substantive peace to the Palestinian/Israeli region. As a modern conservative, it is sometimes difficult to think of the Israeli's as wrong and the Palestinians as right, but in this case it is the truth.

Simply ignoring the agreed-upon "road map" to peace, the Israeli's continuously infringe upon the area designated for the Palestinian state, bulldozing Palestinian settlements and causing continuous friction. In fact, the United Methodist Church just recently threatened to pull its money from Caterpillar because they were allowing their equipment to be used in this foray into Palestinian lands.

And the worst part of this is that it show Bush for the hypocritical leader that he is. Israel knows it can do absolutely anything, including destroying the U.S. peace plan, and Bush will just sit back and wink at them. If we truly want to try to bring peace to this area of the world, we have to address villainy no matter which side we find it on.

The Democratic primary just continues to get uglier. Right now, there is a lot talk from the Obama supporters that they will graciously accept defeat if that is what ends up happening, but they are only saying this because they can't possibly see it actually happening.

According to an article in The New York Times, "The third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives and one of the country’s most influential African-American leaders sharply criticized former President Bill Clinton this afternoon for what he called Mr. Clinton’s “bizarre” conduct during the Democratic primary campaign."

This comes after Clinton donned 'black face' and played the saxophone at a KKK rally. No, actually, it comes after a January comment where Mr. Bill compared Obama's primary victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's win there some twenty years earlier. Obama's campaign fired back that Clinton was trying to downplay the win by comparing him to a marginal candidate. I just assumed, as all us sports fans know, that the reason Clinton compared Obama to Jackson is because Jackson was the only other black candidate to win the S.C. primary. In sports you can never compare a white athlete to a black athlete or a black one to a white one. If a white guy with the exact same skills as Michael Jordan showed up next year, the media would compare him to Larry Bird.

Anyway, Clinton responded to this recently by saying that Obama's team had played the race card. That's when the accusation of "bizarre conduct" came up. For my money, the Clintons have always been bizarre, but I'm pretty sure that this was only politics as usual. I mean, God forbid that someone should mention race in an election or say things that otherwise might be an attempt to win support. But in the charged Democratic primary, standard political rhetoric has now become "fightin' words".

It's a beautiful thing.

Though you couldn't tell it from Obama's long and tiresome victory speech last night, Hillary actually won PA by 10 points, which sends this freakshow onward and keeps McCain free to concentrate on his own campaign and fundraising.

A quick review of the op-ed pieces listed over at Real Clear Politics shows that maybe there actually is a little hope for Clinton afterall. The tide of opinion seems to be turning against Obama. Here's a sample:

Obama: Wilting Over Waffles - Maureen Dowd, New York Times
Hillary Builds Her Case - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard
Obama Can't Close the Deal - Walter Shapiro, Salon
A Bad Omen for Obama in the Fall - John Judis, The New Republic
Is Obama JFK or Adlai Stevenson? - E. J. Dionne, Washington Post

In politics, particularly in primaries, it is often about the media's turn of opinion. And right now, it seems to be turning from Obama. I don't know if that's a great thing or not. I don't believe there is any way that Obama can win the general election, but at least this keeps the fires burning for some time in this Democratic primary.

At one time, Hillary Clinton had an enormous, double digit lead in Pennsylvania. This was prior to Obama paying much attention to the state. In fact, "paying" is the optimal word. In the month of March, Obama spent over $30 million on his campaign (not all in PA). Now the Real Clear Politics average shows Clinton up by only 6%. A win by anything less would be a national disaster.

Popular talking head opinion has been that if Hillary wins by less than 6% or so that she will be pressured to drop out of the race. Whether she actually would drop out or not is debatable and might depend on exactly how close the election ends up, but it is essential that she stay in the race and keep Obama spending that money.

After spending $30 million in March, you would think he would be about broke, but he actually raised $41 million in March (McCain raised about $15 million). One can only imagine how much money he would have to fire commercials at a gullible American audience if he didn't have to contend with Hillary.

There is almost no chance of a Clinton overall primary win (minus shady backroom deals). The way the delegates are divided simply hurts her too much. Even winning 10% more PA delegates than Obama puts her in a near hopeless situation. The race has gone too far and the next two states don't look very good for her. She is being hammered in North Carolina and is barely ahead in Indiana.

Which makes you wonder what she is thinking. Do the Clintons have something up their sleeves? I hope so.

According to an article on Foxnews.com, "a resolution welcoming and honoring Pope Benedict XVI to Washington hit a temporary rough patch on the way to its eventual approval — and the rough patch involved the always-nuclear topic of abortion."

So the Pope is on his way and, first of all, we find it necessary to pass a resolution welcoming him. This is about as useful as government gets. Hopefully they'll address "National Toilet Paper Square Day" next. But let's put this into practical perspective.

The next time your phone rings, get everyone in your family together for a vote on whether or not to pick up the phone and say, "Hello." If anyone in your house doesn't agree that you need a vote, you can't answer the phone. If everyone agrees you need a vote, you'll need to get a majority to say "yay," otherwise you'll just have to let it ring (We all know the answering machine has picked up by this time anyway: "If this is the Pope, leave a message.").

Then we have the problem behind why the resolution was delayed. Per the article, the "offensive" language was, "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life." Of course, Democrats, who don't consider fetuses to be "life", saw this line and could only think about dead babies, thus "refusing to answer the phone" because of previous arguments regarding abortion. They are like an ex-wife who constantly makes nonsensical segues during conversation for the sole purpose of shrieking at you.

To be fair, there was another section concerning the separation of church and state that was argued over. After all, we're welcoming the Pope. What we really need to do is drag all our dirty laundry into the thing. Though I haven't read this resolution, which likely rivals the U.S. Constitution, this "church-and-state" statement probably preceded the one declaring that the Pope had never bailed out a financial institution, which was right before the thirty-four page section on universal health care.

They eventually passed the welcome with altered language. There was no response, that I'm aware of, from the Pope, but I like to picture some congressional page delivering this under the congressional seal, and the Pope, after glancing at it for a moment, declaring for the first time in his life, "What the hell?" That's pretty much the only response, other than a dirtier one, that a person of average sanity could offer. Just another finger paint project from your special needs government.

From FoxNews.com, the Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door for States to Resume Executions by Lethal Injection. Actually, that's not as helpful as my title would suggest, but it's a start.

Seriously, though, I have mixed emotions about this. For one thing, we've seen endless cases of mass jury ignorance. How much do you trust a system that can't get famous murderers convicted in Los Angeles even when their guilt is obvious to all? I can only assume, perhaps incorrectly and without proper logic (but that never stopped me before), that we are not only letting some guilty people go free, but we are letting some innocent people hang.

Second, as the government takes more and more powers for itself, I begin to lose my fondness for some of the ones they already had. The expansion of governmental oppression is staggering these days, which makes the right of the government to take the lives of it's own citizens all the more unpalatable to me.

For a sort of related entry, check a piece I did on France, free speech and political correctness run amok over at my Christian site. Click here to read that piece.

First, let us walk in the shoes of the average Democrat on the street, shall we? This will help us to gain perspective. We are scared. The world is big, and there are people who have things we don’t. People expect things of us. There is a lot of winning and losing, which makes us uncomfortable: we certainly don’t want to compete because we often lose. There is no God, and we’re frightened. We want our mommies, but our mommies are not big enough. People have things our mommies do not have, too. It is not fair. We need something bigger. We need big government. We need to jump up and down and say, “greed, Greed, GREED!”

I cannot tell you how many times people have explained their allegiance to the Democratic Party to me with the simple statement, “The Republicans are the party of the rich.” And I could spend the rest of my life trying to sort through how many times Democrats have ranted to me about “big business”, “oil execs” and “CEO’s”. And I, myself, have used the phrase, “I’m going to throw-up if I hear the word ‘greed’ one more time,” so often that I might throw-up if I say it again. We already know there is no rhyme or reason to Democratic thought, but let us bang our heads against the wall one more time, shall we?

Generous Leaders of the People

There are over 100 millionaires in congress. As of 2006, the number of Democrats in congress who are millionaires is just about the same as Republicans. Already we see a contradiction. Prominent Democrats hoard money just like prominent Republicans, and, as has been publicized just recently, the Clintons have made $109 million dollars in the last seven-and-a-half years.

Democrats like to talk about hunger in America, just to pick an issue, but that is all they like to do. With advocates this wealthy, you would think the poor would have access to sandwiches, but a Democrat’s money is not available to tackle such issues. This is seen in many examples; for one, “red states” give more to charity than “blue states”. For those who do not know the definitions of certain words, that makes “red” generous and “blue” greedy. But Democrats cannot think of themselves this way. For Democrats, blame is something to toss, not accept.

It’s All About Your Stuff

About the only action Democrats feel comfortable taking, outside of spreading thoughtless propaganda, is widespread theft. By demonizing you, I make it more palatable for me to grab your stuff. In the Democrat’s world, no one ever earns or deserves anything. Yet in a strange duality, everyone also deserves everything. To them, fairness is not a matter of working for what you have but making sure that everyone has the same regardless of the amount of effort put forth. It is fair to them that you work sixty hours a week to provide for someone who is able, but refuses to, work. It is unfair to them, though, that you have stuff you’ve earned, and that others who have earned nothing have nothing. We don’t reap what we sow; we reap what others have sown.

Wanting to grab resources that aren’t yours, for those who don’t know, is another form of greed.

The Useless Debate

It is impossible to bring to the discussion floor any reasonable thought when dealing with someone whose gut reaction is always, “Mine! Mine! Mine!” Democrats don’t want to imagine that there is value in good leadership (CEO’s). You can try to demonstrate the value of leadership via Lincoln’s generals during the Civil War, for instance, but it will be a waste of thought and voice. They will probably just get lost in the idea that war is evil. You can point out that the concept of a company not trying to make a profit is a design for failure, but they will just point out that capitalism is evil. Argue well enough, and you’ll soon bet getting all their talking points at the same time, assaulting your ears at a decibel God reserved for moon rockets. The thoughtful conservative will only be able to stagger away, wondering if perhaps there is not something, after all, to the abortion-oil-tree argument ringing in his ears. It was certainly a noisy and passionate argument.

As of this moment oil makes this country go. I personally do not have a problem using a natural resource that God has so graciously provided for us. The United States is an industrial society. We make "stuff". We consume "stuff". We do not apologize for being born in the richest, most successful country in the world. So what if we use more oil than any other country. I really don't care!

Now for where we get our precious commodity. Say all you want about wars that are about oil. The real "war" over oil should be fought here not in the Middle East. We have vast reserves of crude sitting under US owned soil. There is more than enough in Colorado, off the coast of California, in the Gulf coast and yes, of course, in Alaska. We could be completely rid of our dependence on any source of foreign oil should the pathetic, whining, titsy fly loving, tree hugging liberals in this country allow us to, one, drill for the crude and, two, build additional refineries. But what about the environment (OH Boo, Hoo, Hoo)? Just in case any one checks, ANWAR is a big huge piece of ice! Nothing lives there! By definition a wild life refuge requires wild life so the liberals named a sheet of ice ANWAR so we would all be tricked into believing God's creatures roamed free and peacefully here. What a joke! We all need to wake up and pull the wool off of our eyes. As a side note the horrible, terrible pipeline has actually lead to an increase in the Caribou population due to the heat it provides. (Bet you did not hear that from a liberal!) Look I believe we should work to protect what God has given us but God gave us the earth to use. The Bible tells us to be good stewards but that does not mean we should go to an extreme and not take advantage of the gifts we have been given. My final rally cry is "put down your guns and take up a drill." Lets chain our liberal friends to their favorite tree while we go get "OUR" oil. God Bless America!

Over on my Christian site, I've reviewed the movie The God Who Wasn't There. I bring attention to it here because the movie makes blanket statements regarding religious and political conservatism. Let's just say, I'm not a big fan of the movie.

An Unapologetic Review of The God Who Wasn’t There

The hallmark of liberalism is the screeched slogan that is completely devoid of any actual thought. Through a sense of emotional rightness, liberals assume that the correctness of their slogans would be borne out if they only had the time and the brains to think them through. Everything from “Bush Lied, People Died” to the single word, spitted with authority and the jutting, pointing finger of accusation, “GREED!” are assumed by liberals to have some universal truth behind them simply because it feels good to say them. Today I’ll skip “greed” (manifested in liberals through coveting and jealousy) and save that for later this week. Today I’ll look at the anti-war side of the Thoughtless Emotion-Riven Drones (TERD). I’ll not concentrate on their inane slogans, which it pains me to have to listen to; I’ll concentrate on the false idea that quickly pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do.

First, let’s establish some common ground with our TERD friends. Just to get them listening (not because it’s true), we’ll say that “Bush Lied” about WMD’s and that this was the only reason, besides Bush’s greed for “dirty oil money”, that we went to war. If we can’t concede, however disingenuously, these points, then we have to start back further in the argument. This way, we can avoid rehashing the past and just move straight to what needs to be done now.

Let us also adopt the concepts behind the “People Died” statement if we can figure them out. This is a war, so the fact that people died was not to be unexpected. And people were already dying there in vast numbers under the iron fist of Hussein, so we are stuck agreeing with a nonsensical statement. So be it. Anything for the cause of showing the ineptitude of liberal thought.

So Bush lied and we made a mistake going into Iraq. What has been the result of this mistake and what happens if we pack up and leave today? Reports of our successes there are varying, but the general trend is that the situation is still slowly improving and that the new Iraqi government will eventually be able to take control on their own, thus freeing us to come home. But, in a nod to our TERD friends, let’s take the opposite view. We’re hardly making any progress and will be there for years on end. We are in a quagmire.

As for the quagmire, this is merely another TERD catch phrase used as often as possible to instill a sense of hopelessness. Yet, okay, we are in a quagmire. What will be the state of this quagmire in the future? That is uncertain. Conditions have certainly changed in the last year. By all accounts, though there has been a very, very small rise in violence lately, the situation in Iraq has approved. Going by trends, which is all we have to go on, we must admit that the supposed quagmire would be, eventually, broken. But what if it isn’t broken? What is the state of the quagmire today compared to the previous Iraqi administration?

According to the TERD site http://www.iraqbodycount.org/, the current Iraqi civilian body count lies somewhere between 82,000 and 90,000. It should be noted that these figures include Iraqi to Iraqi violence. How does this compare to Hussein’s reign?

Well, in one three year period from 1986 to 1988, Saddam killed 180,000 Kurds. Already, Saddam is winning. In separate events in the late seventies and in 1983, he killed more than 10,000 Kurdish and Iraqis of Iranian descent. In 1991 he killed 60,000 Shiites. In 1992, he killed tens of thousands of Marsh Arabs. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105071,00.html. And these are just the mass killings. Nearly countless political and religious prisoners were killed during his reign. A conservative estimate of the total numbers is about 450,000, or 18,750 people per year during his 24 year reign. Taking the high end of the body count during the first 5 years of the occupation of 90,000, you can see that the occupation is averaging about 18,000 deaths per year. This shows a little advantage to the occupation, but much bigger numbers are coming. Despite what you’ve heard to the contrary, civilian deaths have declined and stayed low of late. Even the so-called recent escalations are far below earlier numbers. Averaging out the figures for the last six months and weighting a little bit more for the most recent months, one can estimate that in 2008 the numbers of civilian deaths will be between 10,000 and 12,000 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/enforced-security/. By remaining involved in this quagmire for the remainder of 2008, we stand to save up to 9000 lives. That’s saving more than three times the number of people who died in the 9/11 attacks.

But this is only part of the story, because withdrawing our forces would cause a mass escalation in violence. The Shiites, who have been so helpful in this process of forming a new Iraqi democracy, have forever soiled their already heretic reputations in the minds of the murderous Sunnis. Any withdrawal before the new Iraqi government is ready to maintain at least a modicum of order is liable to create an atmosphere ripe for mass genocide with both the Shiites and the Kurds once again the targets of Islamic fundamentalist jihad. If you are appalled by the 10,000 who might die under the continued occupation this year, you will surely be appalled three-fold by the numbers who would die if we left. We must maintain, and even strengthen, our course. Lives depend upon it.

And since our conversations strayed last week into Christianity, with the godless TERD’s attempting to sway religious opinion to their side, I will point out that I was never instructed to turn your cheek, only my own. To permit the weak to die under the hands of evil was never, in my mind, the idea behind the New Testament call to peace and certainly does not fit the idea of Christ’s call for earthly justice.

I have been reading numerous posts on the Internet regarding the war in Iraq and I am troubled that this issue is being used to drive a wedge between political segments in the United States.
First, I would like to remind people that the difference between the political right and left in this country is so small as to be virtually non-existent. For example, what is really the difference between the W. Bush presidency and the Clinton presidency? Both passed free trade agreements, sent our troops to fight overseas, lowered taxes and favored welfare reform. The biggest differences seem to be Supreme Court Justices and the current inability to cut spending. If you still don’t believe me, think about this; we consider California our most liberal state, but until the recent national moratorium, California regularly executed prisoners. Yet, in Europe, Turkey’s application to the EU was held up because they still perform capital punishemnt.
The groups that are blaming the war on Bush are using nothing but revisionist history. The only reason Democrats are against the war is because a Republican president started it. If Al Gore had won the 2000 election, we still would have gone into Iraq. After all, Bill Clinton made a speech in 1999 warning the American people that we may have to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein’s refusal to follow United Nations protocols following the Gulf War. And virtually every Democrat in Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
There is no doubt in my mind that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. I made the same argument in 2003 leading up to the war, but people thought I was some kind of anti-American pinko. Needless-to-say, I feel vindicated by the ensuing events.
The real problem with the War in Iraq is its length. At five plus years, it is already our third longest war behind Vietnam and the American Revolution. As Shelby Foote noted in the 1950’s, Americans like their wars short and vigorous. This war has been neither.
But we should never forget why this war began and why it is ongoing. No matter what the Bush administration says, there were two essential reasons why we went into Iraq: because Hussein refused the follow the U.N. directives, and because we wanted to trade the Iraqis TV’s, computers and cars in exchange for oil.
And the reason we are still in Iraq is because, after the fall of Saddam and his regime, insurgents continued to fight. If the insurgents had simply been smart enough to bide their time, we would have left and they could have created all the mischief they wanted without interference from the U.S. military.
But at the same time, the insurgents realized that the United States had gotten itself into a lose-lose situation. Nation building is a quaint notion that only works if the people of said nation are in favor of it. You can’t force somebody to want something; they have to get there on their own. The current situation in Iraq reminds me of the old saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
And there is no way to end terrorism. Terrorists have existed at least since the time of the Romans and will continue to exist ad infinitum. So no matter when we leave, the insurgents will crow that they ran us out. And if we stay forever, the insurgents will say we have proved their point about being an occupying army.
But I must digress. There is nothing to be accomplished by vilifying those with opposing views of the war. Saying one side is murdering liars and the other side is unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers only builds ill feeling between Americans who would otherwise get along. I realize this is a basic failing of a democracy, or in our case a representative republic. If one side favors an issue that can be made controversial, the other side opposes it with all the rhetoric at their disposal in order to drum up votes. The United States would be better off if we would simply put our heads together to think of a way to try to save face in a seemingly impossible situation rather than defaming our political opponents. But that would be putting the good of your country ahead of the good of your political party, something that is very rare in the United States of America.

Okay, make that really, really dissatisfied. In an article today in The New York Times, we find that, "Americans are more dissatisfied with the country’s direction than at any time since the New York Times/CBS News poll began asking about the subject in the early 1990s, according to the latest poll. In the poll, 81 percent of respondents said they believed “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track,” up from 69 percent a year ago and 35 percent in early 2002."

Correspondingly, approval ratings for President Bush and Congress are shockingly low. Just when you think Bush wins the prize at 28% approval the congressional approval ratings show up at 20%.

Gee, imagine that. Passing the blame. Who voted for these people? Who keeps reelecting them? Who decided that subprime lending was a great way to build bank revenue? Who decided that they wanted to buy a house even though they knew they couldn't afford it? Who keeps thinking nation building is a proper use of tax dollars and keeps electing nation builders to office? Who doesn't even know the issues when they wander into the election booth and starts casting votes simply upon party lines?

Ask not for whom the approval ratings toll, they toll for you.

(Editor's Note: I felt it would be a good idea to combine these three columns, which are naturally linked, into a single piece for ease of reading. I haven't deleted the original separate pieces, though. For anyone confused about the references to honeybees, you may want to peruse tafkas' previous columns.)

tafkas--The environment is the most important issue facing us today. We have to get this pollution nonsense under control. I cannot understand why the right, claiming to be more faith based than the left, can ignore this global warming catastrophe. I do not know that global warming is caused by human action. I do not know that global warming is killing the honeybees. I do know that human beings are at a point where we can possibly improve the condition of our climate and our planet if we try. To do this we have to stop the republican, big business, oligarchical juggernaut. We democrats have to stand up to these bullies and tell them we are not going to take it anymore. Why have we let this go on so long? George Bush cannot even pronounce the word "nuclear". He is an idiot. He should have been impeached years ago. President Clinton was impeached for having sex and lying about it. Who got hurt? Maybe his wife? George Bush lied about Iraq. Who got hurt? Thousands upon thousands of innocent, oppressed Iraqi civilians. And, also mysteriously more importantly, over four thousand American soldiers. Why must the intelligent and friendly put up with the stupid and mean? Why do rich republicans refuse to consider the environment in their policies? This environment thing is not about me. I will probably be dead before Chattanooga is an ocean side property. I am concerned about my children, their children and their children. What kind of world are we going to leave them? There may not be much difference on the surface of these three candidates; but, deep down McCain is a republican and he will buckle down and do the bidding of the oligarchy and continue to decimate our beautiful planet!

The second most important issue of this election is who is going to finally step up and give this country Universal Health Care. We have the technology to do this, and it is time. If the democrats will stick together and follow this issue through we can defeat the greedy big business fat cats who are trying to hog all of the resources to themselves. This system works. It has proven itself in every country it has been adopted in. Even the honeybees treat every citizen equally. The government of Canada does not control the alcohol consumption of its citizens. I have been there. Many times. There may be problems with adopting this system into greedy selfish America but it will work. The republicans claim they are the party of the faithful; but they are the party that has fought this tooth and nail the whole way. The Democratic Party is the party of the faithful. We strive to heal the sick, feed the hungry, provide justice for all mankind. These are the teachings of Jesus the Christ. The republicans latch onto to minor issues like gun control and homosexuality and forget about the teachings of Jesus. I will never understand how someone can go to church on Sunday and vote republican on Tuesday.

The third most important issue in this election is the Iraq War. This is an illegal and deplorable example of a dictator gone mad. George Bush, in his maniacal fervor to extend his oil wealth, has lied to the American people in his successful attempt to overthrow a foreign country. There is no doubt that the former Iraqi government was morally bankrupt. They were evil! This still did not give us the right to found an empire and make King George our emperor. Some say the war is not going as expected. The war is taking longer that expected. That is not true. The war is doing exactly what Bush wants it to. It is making billions of dollars in revenue for him and his friends. George Bush does not want a timetable for withdrawal because he does not want withdrawal. He wants us to stay there forever making him rich. No christian can support a war. If you are a person of faith you must do everything you can to stop this bloodshed. Find the candidate that will get us out of there. Support the troops! Bring them home!

Paul Zannucci: It has become a fashionable thing of late to question which party the Christian base should support. After all, Republicans are a warlike bunch who execute criminals instead of forgiving them and who hog the resources instead of spreading them about. Just as Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez announced that Jesus Christ was a socialist revolutionary, the Democratic talking heads also picked up the theme: "Jesus is about taking care of people. He would have been a Democrat." Never mind the ludicrous central notion that Christ would select a political party; let’s look at Christianity and politics and figure out if there really is something here. Perhaps the Democrats do have a point.

Pacifism: It is true that a proper interpretation of Christianity is that it is the ultimate pacifist philosophy. Of course there is that pesky commandment about not killing, but the New Testament is even more explicit. We should turn the other cheek and love our enemies as we love ourselves. In fact, Christ takes all the old laws against violence and makes them tougher. No longer can you simply not murder, you can't even get angry. 

The truth of the matter is that neither Democrats nor Republicans have an edge in the anti-war issue. On the far right you have the isolationists who want to pull back and leave the world to the world. On the far left you have the peaceniks who want peace for the sake of peace. In the middle of both parties are the pragmatists who go to war when the time is right to go to war. Certainly, the current Iraq war was approved by both sides and then criticized by both sides. And outside of that, in other major conflicts there was generally a consensus by the time we went to war. However, because I find the peacenik philosophy more Christ-like than the isolationists, I’ll give the Democrats a slight edge here.

Abortion: This is the bread and butter of the religious conservatives, and they have a point here. Like it or not, Christianity is not in favor of abortions. While abortion is not specifically mentioned in the New Testament, the emphasis placed on valuing the innocent and God’s creations makes the point clear. If that’s not good enough for you, then consider the Didache, one of the oldest Christian documents, likely from the middle of the first century and only a few years removed from the crucifixion of Christ. It is considered to be something of a manual of Christian behavior that was passed around the churches during the time of the apostles. Here’s a segment:

Didache 2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery…thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbour…

Of course, Republicans are afraid of the issue. They talk a good game, but take little action. We’ll call this one ever so slightly for the Republicans.

The Least of These: So how about taking care of the poor--feeding them, providing for medical care, etc. This is where the Democrats make their grand play, but forget for a moment the tired rhetoric slamming corporations and the rich (What was that quote we just had from the Didache? Something about not coveting the goods of thy neighbor?). Truly, would Jesus want the government to take care of everyone? Would Jesus want the government to feed and clothe the poor? Or would Jesus want you to do it yourself? Christianity is not a religion about government. It’s a religion about people and self-responsibility. Christianity is about choices. It’s about Theocracy and the Kingdom of God, not socialism and the kingdom of man. A Christian wanting the government to take care of the poor is copping out, delegating his Christ-given duties to a worldly entity.

In the book of 1 Samuel, the Israelites are afraid of living under God’s rule and ask for a human king. Here is what God has to say about human government:

1 Samuel 8:11-20
This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; 12 and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks: and ye shall be his servants.

Surely no one will be so sophomoric as to suggest that God was speaking only of kingships and not other forms of government. God, here, is giving a soliloquy about the government of man. If you’ve ever read the Bible, you’d know He’s not a big fan of it. Still, Republicans are only slightly less “big government” than Democrats, so we’ll only give them a slight edge here; yet, I consider the issue of personal responsibility to be a foundational tenet of Christianity, so this slight edge in this one category is a huge edge overall. To borrow from a great Democrat, ask not what your government can do for your neighbor; ask what you can do for your neighbor.

So where does this leave us? I suppose with a strong lean to the Republicans and an earnest wish that they would be more true to who they say they are, rather than just another bunch of politicians. But, even more, a Christian should not get too lathered up in the kingdom of man. A Christian should vote Republican and get back to work helping his neighbor and loving his enemy.

Start the conversation on our new message boards!

Paul Zannucci: As millions of Democratic voters take the day off from work (those with jobs) to celebrate their most holy of days with burnt offerings of Marlboro's and episodes of Montel, Republicans reflect on a primary process that has seemed more like an April Fool's Year than just a single day.

First we have America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani, running what had to be one of the most inspirationally stupid campaigns in history. For the first few months of the primary season, the only thing the media could say about Rudy was, "Where is he?" or maybe, "This is an interesting strategy." Not that Giuliani was any great conservative, but he was an excellent administrator in New York and would have been an electable option for Republicans.

Then we have Fred Thompson. All the world waited for Fred Thompson, the true conservative. Once we got him he looked a little different than we expected: old, tired, uninspiring, and uninspired. One day he's announcing his bid, the next he's offering a sort of campaign eulogy, saying that he wasn't all that jacked up to be president, anyway, and that he might consider joining a ticket as a V.P. nominee. That's all McCain needs, Fred: a little bit of your special brand of enthusiasm injected into a life-and-death campaign against, well, death itself. Imagine what that ticket would look like, standing there together, arms raised, the smell of BenGay and funeral carnations wafting out into the audience.

And let's not even talk about Huckster and Chuckster versus the Mad Mitt Mormon. By the time that cage fight was over, there was no one left but McCain and the actual true conservative (but also the poster boy for irrelevance) Ron Paul. And as all the Republican voters were saying, "What just happened here?" Obama and Clinton were out there slickly selling their bill of goods to a willing mass of buffoons, I mean, the youth and special interests.

And this brings us to the moral of this April Fool's Day tale. On the conservative side of the aisle, the fools are the politicians. On the liberal side of the aisle, the fools are the electorate. Happy April Fool's Day Democrats and Republican politicians. This is your day in the sun. Enjoy it.



Start the conversation on our new message boards!

We have an interesting editorial on a court ruling that, essentially, states that women who wear short skirts grant people permission to place cameras underneath them. I wonder if this will spawn a new fashion trend to place a "...without express written consent..." on all skirts? If nothing else, that seems like a trendy message that teens would pick up on.

Read about this strange case here.

I’m a bit of an odd sort, both a Libertarian and a Christian. Ayn Rand would spank me I suspect. (Insert your own sophomoric spanking joke here. By the way, Angelina Jolie is going to be in the film version of Atlas Shrugged if it ever makes it to the big screen. That might make your spanking joke a bit more interesting.) That’s okay. I never quested to be normal, just correct.

Organized religion has become something of a “bad word” these days, much like the term “liberal” thanks to Ronald Reagan. Church attendance has gone up and down through the years, but the trend, over time, is definitely down. So many people state that, as opposed to being religious, they are spiritual. This likely means they have a notion of God that is something akin to a New Age pantheism. In any event, they certainly would not step into a church.

A bit of a backlash against organized religion can be traced back to the organized religion itself, but that is a post for another blog. Most of the backlash, I believe, comes from a pair of insidious groups: televangelists and politicians. I could go on for months about the televangelists, but since this is a political site, lets concentrate on the politicians.

While many in the agnostic and atheist world surely blame religion’s decline on a new era of naturalist enlightenment, the truth is much more pedestrian. The average person of the twenty-first century has no more an understanding of natural selection or quantum gravity than did the average person of the Roman Empire. What we modern humans do have an almost perfect understanding of is the use of the television, which may have supplanted money as the root of all evil. It was once said that all things depraved found a home in Rome…Do I even need to finish that thought?

Television has created a way for politicians to communicate, through mindless sound bites, directly with the American people. To this end, they make superficial use of Christianity as a political weapon. It does not bother me any more that politicians are a collection of predictable, pandering hypocrites. I might as well be bothered by the color of elephants. What bothers me is that they are combining my religion, the television, and their ambitions to help drag Christianity down to political depths at a time when Christianity needs no such help (see Missions to Europe and America).

While it is certainly true that a combination of deists and Christians formed our great nation and that God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the creators of our constitution were very careful (and with good reason) to form this country on secular grounds and create a separation of church and state. Every time some political nitwit attempts to post the Ten Commandments (or suggestions, as the Liberals would have it) in a public place, it gets plastered all over the news. The nitwit wunderkind usually opines that if he’d tried to post the Qur’an that no one would have cared. Statements about prayer in school, burning the flag and apple pie are sure to follow. While many Christians and conservatives jump up and down, wave their hands in the air and say, “Amen!” (I can’t blame them. It gets to me, too), others who are not so committed see this as just another mindless religious attack on our secular foundation.

Now we have a new phenomenon, analyzing a candidate’s pastor. How much Jeremiah Wright’s ignorant and hate filled sermons have actually damaged the Christian cause is open to debate. Perhaps he is seen as such a lunatic that he is given little credence. It is impossible to believe, however, that these sermons, snippets of which have played on the news for some time now, have a positive impact on Christianity. The al-Qaeda press releases that circulate every six months or so show about the same amount of Christian love as his sermons (at least the snippets that made the news).

All of this ends as an act of rhetorical opining. I don’t really see a way out. As long as pandering to the base is politically profitable, there is no end in site. The reality is that our government has been set in place with the sorts of checks and balances that a candidate’s religious views cannot greatly alter our country regardless of the office he or she wins. I suppose that could change if we ever had a candidate who was truly Christian and followed the tenets of “turning the other cheek” but I don’t see that happening. To be a Christian, one must be a Christian truly and in whole. It leaves no room for the primacy of being a publicity whore.

Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free. Oh, how this expression has changed. Now what the population seems to want is a handout rather than freedom. What's in it for me has become the rally cry instead of what can my individualism create. We are quickly becoming a completely dependent society, and the government is always happy to oblige. Witness the most recent "stimulus package". This farce is nothing more than a buy the votes campaign. Amazing how these rebates show up in election years. Don't get me wrong, I will happily go spend my check when it arrives, but the overall economic impact will be marginal.

I personally am not wealthy. My family and I are firmly in the "middle class". My wife and I both work for someone else and probably always will. We most likely won't ever own a business or employ other people. The spending we do at the grocery store or Wal-Mart just doesn't move enough money to create jobs or wealth. If we never spent another dime, trust me, no one would notice. I say all that to remind everyone that the economy only moves by tax cuts and "true" spending cuts, not reductions in growth, but true cuts, by scaling back the gross size of our over intrusive government, a government that desires nothing more than to be in "all" your business, running every aspect of your life. For, of course, they are far smarter than, you and therefore much better equipped to make "all" your decisions for you.

As for tax cuts, here it comes folks, I am talking about on businesses and the "wealthy" among us. In case you hadn't noticed these are the people and places that employee and "pay" the rest of us. Put more money back in the pockets of those who are in a position to start new companies, employee more people, increase salaries, create wealth for others. Lowering the burdensome tax rates permanently will actually increase tax revenues, it works every time it's tried. Until we get over our silly "class envy" we are going to slowly tax ourselves out of existence or at least out of a job.

I want government out of my pocket. I want my money to spend as I see fit. The government does nothing that creates wealth. The government simply redistributes wealth they have taken from someone. Every time you receive a "handout" from your "friends" in Washington, try to remember to thank your friend, your neighbor, your employer who sent their hard earned income in as taxes so that you could receive your check. What has happened to personal responsibility. I was raised to take care of my own and to help others as I could. I certainly haven't and don't ever expect, nor do I want, "The Government" to ever take care of me. I realize that the hand that feeds also is the hand that controls. The last thing that I ever want is for someone else, especially the government, to have control of my life.

I hope and pray that at least one person who reads this wakes up. Let's take back our lives. Pay attention to those you send to Washington. Look for leadership who is pushing for tax cuts and spending reductions. Stop the me first mentality and realize we all benefit when the government is small and taxes are low across the board. As my final plea I ask each of you to take responsibility for your own lives and no longer rely on someone or expect someone else to take care of your needs. God Bless America.

David Zannucci – Not long ago, Bill Cosby, the African-American comedian, actor, writer and producer, received criticism for remarks he made regarding race in America. In several speeches, Cosby criticized the black community for being too accepting of fatherless households and high crime rates, of focusing more on sports, fashion and acting like a tough guy than on education and self-improvement, and for blaming the white community for problems African-Americans can solve for themselves.
For many in the mainstream media and some in the African-American community, these remarks were viewed as insensitive, and were simply the most recent example of how Bill Cosby is an Uncle Tom. Mr. Cosby has been criticized throughout his professional career for not incorporating race into his comedy routines and television shows. Now, the conventional wisdom goes, he has simply become an old fuddy-duddy.
Oh forsooth, gentle reader! I contend that Bill Cosby has done more for race relations in the United States than any man since Martin Luther King Jr. Let’s examine his career and you will see what I mean.
In 1965, Bill Cosby became the first black person to have a recurring role on a prime-time network television series, I Spy. In the 1970’s he created Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids, an extremely successful Saturday morning cartoon. Fat Albert truly helped make Generation X less racist than previous American generations. Have you noticed that polls show the age divide of white people voting for Barack Obama is the early forties? Do the math; these are people who have grown up in the 1970’s and later.
After that, Cosby created and starred in The Cosby Show, an extremely successful sitcom of the 1980’s. In The Cosby Show, the Huxtable family is shown as an upper middle class family of doctors and lawyers who had the same problems as everyone else. Gone were the stereotypical black families of the past who lived in the ghettos and worked menial jobs. This had the simultaneous effect of showing African-Americans that they could aspire to greater things and showed white Americans that blacks really aren’t that different.
Almost simultaneously with The Cosby Show leaving the air, the dreaded ‘N-word’ became common in both comedy routines and rap albums, people started buckling their pants below their butt, and demeaning women became accepted by the culture of rap music. Effectively, the life work of Bill Cosby was undone by a bunch of thoughtless ‘artists’ (I’m using the term loosely here) who care more about making money and having several 'ho’s' than they do about race relations.
And now, when Bill Cosby displays his righteous anger (while once again offering good advice) people think he has gotten old and out of touch. Nonsense. Ask any black person who lived through the Civil Right Movement, Jesse Jackson comes to mind, and they will tell you differently.
Through his family friendly comedy, Mr. Cosby has used the universal language of laughter to show us we all have the same feelings and emotions, black, white or whatever. And this is the true answer to solving the complex puzzle of race in America. Anything that simply points out differences isn’t helpful to the cause. God bless you Bill Cosby, keep fighting the good fight!

I can tell you that a primary reason I attend church where I do is because of the pastor. I listen to him each week because I believe what he has to say. If at any point he took the pulpit and he was preaching contrary to my beliefs or understanding, I would leave and take my family elsewhere. I have never had to say "I don't agree with what he spoke on today" or "I believe most of what he says but not that". I can stand up comfortably every week and say I agree. Amen! I don't believe I am any different than "most folks". For those individuals that attend church I suspect most, if not all, attend because of the pastor and his teachings. The pastor is to be the teacher that a congregation is to learn from. He should be the rudder for the church. I, of course, understand that no man is infallible and everyone sins and can fall. The question at hand is not a single error or mistake but a pattern. A pattern of hate and racial bigotry. A pattern of division and separation. A pattern of teaching that does not lend itself to training members of a congregation to be effective leaders. An individual who sits week after week hearing slurs against others and does nothing is not fit to lead, especially a country. Not only a country but a melting pot of races, ideas and religions. I can honestly say that my thoughts and approach to life are molded every week by what I hear from my pastor. He has a tremendous amount of influence in my life and the life of my family. Having said this I cannot walk quietly away from the statements made by Barak Obama's pastor. Barak has listened to this man preach for many years. He has encouraged his family to be an active part in this church. His choice was his. He was not forced to listen. He chose to listen! He chose to be a part of this teaching. He chose not to leave. Now he expects me to believe that these are not his feelings and that he does not support his pastor in what he has said. As always though, actions speak louder than words. Barack chose to stay! He could have spoken out against this pastor. He could have left this church. Barack choose to stay! Policies aside, most of which I disagree with Barack on, I cannot remain on the sideline while he stands up and says "I don't agree with my pastor statements" or "I didn't know this is how my pastor felt." I must take a stand and shout, "Barack I will not stand up for you". Barack, if you have sat for years under the tutelage of a bigot then my family and I will take our votes elsewhere. Barack, your pretty speeches do not cover for where you have been sitting. God "Bless" America!

David Zannucci – In the Democratic Presidential field, although we don’t know who the nominee is going to be, it is not too early to begin talking about possible running mates. In fact, whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, is the nominee, the short list of running mates is the same: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Florida Senator Bill Nelson.
Of course there is also the possibility that the winner of the Obama/Clinton sweepstakes will offer the Vice-Presidency up to the loser as a kind of consolation prize. Proponents of this plan say this would heal any split in the Democratic Party and form a sort of unbeatable “Dream Team.”
If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I don’t believe Obama would accept a spot on the ticket. He doesn’t need to play second, or even third fiddle to Hillary and Bill, and he could further enhance his resume by running for Governor of Illinois in 2010. If Clinton wins, he bides his time until 2016. If she loses, he comes back stronger in 2012.
On the other hand, if Obama gets the nomination, he doesn’t need to add the Clintons to his ticket. Once again, it is competition for the spotlight that isn’t helpful. Hillary Clinton also brings the baggage of being especially disliked by many in America and Obama is trying to transcend party.
Having eliminated the “Dream Team,” let’s look at the other possible choices.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. The sixty year-old Richardson would bring wide experience to the ticket, having served in the House of Representatives, Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton. Well-respected by his peers, Richardson is from California and hails from the all-important mountain west, where the Democrats need to make gains if they plan to win the election. In addition, Richardson is Hispanic, a key segment of the voters in California, Arizona and Texas as well as battleground states such as Florida, New Mexico and Nevada.

Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Warner has perhaps removed himself from the proceedings by announcing his bid for Virginia’s Senate seat, but I still list him as a possibility because he would be such a good choice. Warner would interrupt the Republicans southern strategy by placing Virginia in the Democrats column. In addition, he is very popular in the surrounding ‘red’ states of West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and North Carolina. However, as I said, it seems unlikely that he would accept the position. Mark Warner has laid out his own path to the White House.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb. The sixty two year old Webb is a graduate of the Naval Academy and a Vietnam War hero. He served as Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, and defeated the popular George Allen for his Senate seat. Webb would help in Virginia as well as the rest of the South and would also garner votes with military veterans. In general, he would improve the tickets' national security standing, something the Democrats would be conscious of.

Florida Senator Bill Nelson. Bill Nelson, 65, would be a fine choice if we assume he would help the Democrats carry the state of Florida. Alas, if McCain chooses Florida Governor Charles Crist, the strategy would be wasted. A career politician, Nelson really has little to recommend him other than being from Florida.

So it seems to be down to Webb or Richardson. Given his broader experience and his appeal to Hispanics, I would have to go for Richardson, whether Clinton or Obama is the nominee.

Obama-Richardson '08

David Zannucci – As the November election inches closer, people have begun talking about running mates. Well, I thought this would be as good a time as any to give some insight and opinion on who might run with whom.
Obviously, the Republican nominee appears to be John McCain. McCain is a long time Arizona Senator, a war hero from the Vietnam era and a well-known political maverick. At the age of 71, McCain would be the oldest person ever elected to the office of President, so people may look more closely at his running mate than they would do otherwise. Five names that I hear often, and seem likely choices, are Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Florida Governor Charles Crist.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty would add much to the ticket. McCain being a Senator makes having a VP with executive experience especially important and Pawlenty has that. Pawlenty also has credibility with the independent voters, something McCain himself has. The Republicans consider Minnesota a state they can win this time (thus the convention in Minneapolis) and Pawlenty would certainly help in that state. In addition, McCain polls very well in Pennsylvania and in the industrial Midwest, a region where Pawlenty should be strong.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The less likely it appears that Hillary Clinton will be on the Democratic ticket, the more likely it would be that Palin could end up on the Republican ticket. Again, she has executive experience, but age may be a detriment this time, she is only 44. Also, she is originally from Colorado, another battleground state. However, certain segments of our population seem averse to having a woman in a position of leadership, so McCain may make a safer selection and go with a man.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. Once again, a younger individual with executive experience. Sanford would help solidify the south, a crucial area for GOP Presidential hopes. However, there are at least three southern states the Democrats feel they can win (Arkansas, Florida and Virginia) and Sanford, other than being a southerner, has no special appeal in those states.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Youth and executive experience are present again and Huckabee proved himself to be a marvelous campaigner and fundraiser during his recent Presidential bid. Also, he would seemingly assure the Republicans of winning Arkansas, even if they are facing Clinton. Huckabee is extremely strong with the so-called Conservative Christians, but could hurt McCain with the moderate and independent voters.

Florida Governor Charles Crist. Crist, with his head full of gray hair, only appears young next to McCain, but the executive experience is there. Crist is in good standing with the moderates and independents, as is McCain. Crist is also in good standing with the Hispanic community, which is key in states such as Florida, Texas, New Mexico and California. In addition, Crist has some southern credibility, being from Florida. It cannot be stated enough, southerners like voting for southerners.

All in all, I not only think Crist would probably make the best running mate; I believe McCain will choose him. Without Crist’s last minute endorsement of McCain before the Florida primary, we may not be talking about McCain as the Republican nominee.

McCain-Crist '08

Paul Zannucci--Being a front runner is good in a short foot race but bad in a long political one. While the New York Times tried its best, but failed, on McCain, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to attack Obama. The media outlets who were fawning over him just a couple of weeks ago are now digging up dirt at a record pace.

How this will impact Obama in the long term is unknown. Typically the frenzies only last so long. All the dirt will be dug, and the media will be forced to stop repeating the same dirt over and over again. But right now the latest national polls show that McCain has taken a lead over Obama and statewide polls show Clinton narrowing the gap in North Carolina and maintaining a strong lead in Pennsylvania. Hillary, who's husband was once dubbed the "comeback kid" is now being called the "comeback queen." All of this adds to the sort of public opinion forming conditions for Clinton that once led Obama to be considered unstoppable in this race, and with much left to be settled, it may just be the one with the last push from the media who falls into the nomination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120565286419539605.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

Delegate and Fundraising Problems in Michigan and Florida

The Dems are in big trouble in these two states, particularly Florida. Here's an article from The New York Times about it with quotes from donors who may ask for refunds. Inside, I'm weeping for them, I really am. You might could even say I feel their pain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/politics/15donate.html?ei=5065&en=68bdcd72f717cb5f&ex=1206158400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

The Fed Saves Bear Stearns

We're already on the verge of financial panic in this country. Letting Stearns collapse would have been a nightmare. Bernanke finally gets something right. Ah, I remember the good old days of Greenspan when our recession were planned and orderly...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abl8CI.8oF8U&refer=worldwide

The Little Hooker that Could

Despite being so clueless that she didn't know she was servicing the Governor (New York Post), Ms. Dupre kept working it and now she's an overnight sensation who will likely get million dollar offers. Good for her.

http://www.newsoxy.com/ashley-alexandra-dupre/article10547.htm


Talk about it! Discuss this post and politics in general on our new message boards. Help us get them started!

http://politicalbrainfog.yuku.com/

Obama Denounces Chicago Minister's Sermons

According to CNN he said, "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," he added. "I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

It appears that no one associated in any way with a candidate is allowed to speak their mind. This guy was serving on Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee. (edit: Okay, I've seen the footage. This guy's crazy. Amongst other things, he has a sermon blaming the U.S. for creating AIDS for the purpose of genocide. And that's just the beginning.)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Michigan Probably, Florida Probably Not

Florida Democrats essentially rejected any and all proposals for a re-vote, while Michigan is planning on possibly having a full re-vote in June. Party members, particularly Clinton, are concerned over the implications to the general election if delegates aren't seated from those states. Hillary continues to insists the initial elections were fair, despite the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballet in Michigan. $5 says Florida gets to seat delegates without a redo.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/primary.proposal/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/michigan.proposal/index.html


McCain to Raise Money While Overseas

He's putting on a $1000 per plate fundraiser in London on March 20th. Not a lot of details about who is the intended audience, and why they should care.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/mccains-london-fund-raiser/

Oh, Crap. I Agree with Mario Quomo

"Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo said the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could be ``ruinous'' for the Democratic Party if the contest isn't resolved before the August nominating convention."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUH0Dx6snd7E&refer=worldwide




Talk about it! Discuss this post and politics in general on our new message boards. Help us get them started!

http://politicalbrainfog.yuku.com/

Paul Zannucci--John McCain was, as usual, in the minority when it came to earmarks in last night's vote to get an earmarks moratorium pushed through. It failed 71-29, with even many Republicans voting against it. Three Democrats voted in favor of the measure. Guess who two of them were: Clinton and Obama. So don't go trying to use this as a campaign advantage, John, because Clinton and Obama are closet fiscal conservatives.

According to an article at the Heritage Foundation, since the Democrats have taken over congress, earmarks have skyrocketed to a total 11,351 pork projects. And when President Bush tried to push through an ethics bill that would dampen the process, Democrats removed such provisions as "trading of pork projects for votes." For a list of just a few of the pork projects in the 2008 budget, go here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/wm1660_table1.pdf

Democratic budget plans for 2009 also allow for some or all of Bush's tax cuts to expire in three years. I don't blame this on the Democrats. That's who they are. The Republicans had both the legislative and executive branches of government for years and never bothered to make the tax cuts permanent. All they managed to do was involve us in an expensive and unpopular war that gave control of the government back to the Democrats and put conservatives on the endangered list. It's the Republicans we should be angry with.

But where does that leave us fiscal conservatives? Voting Libertarian is like abstaining from the process. Those who feel that they are "making a statement" by voting for the Libertarians are definitely making a statement, but the statement is, "Hey, look at me throw my vote away!" The only thing a third party accomplishes is stealing votes from the main two parties, and the Libertarians don't steal enough votes from anyone to make a difference--and if they did, they'd steal them from the wrong guy.

Despite all the "not conservative enough" cries from Republicans, McCain is one of the few true fiscal conservatives out there. He may not vote for every Republican tax cut, but he is a lion about holding down spending. And yesterday's positive votes by Obama and Clinton on the earmark moratorium just show them for the hypocrites that they are. While Obama has been talking a good game, calling the earmark system broken, he has refused to release his personal earmarks, from before reporting was required, to the public (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/mccain-attacks.html). Last year, while running for office, he was "only" involved in $91 million which placed him in the bottom quarter of senators. Clinton, on the other hand, pushed through more than $340 million of earmarks, putting her in the top 10. As for McCain? His earmarks totaled $0. (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/02/14/clinton_among_tops_in_earmark_spending/6017/)

So if you're a fiscal conservative who's been balking at voting for John McCain, you might want to think again.


Talk about it! Discuss this post and politics in general on our new message boards. Help us get them started!

http://politicalbrainfog.yuku.com/

Michigan Talks New Primary

All I'm saying is that this is typical Democrat M.O. You make a decision, you see how it works out, then you change your mind when it doesn't go as planned. Remember, it's a "living" code of conduct.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble;_ylt=AgCYcjjOgQYbmHJXUZw.eX5I2ocA

Accounting scandal hits House GOP campaign committee

Ah, a politician and your money are soon parted (together--from you).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/gop.probe/index.html


Clinton apologizes to black voters

For Geraldine, for hurricane Katrina, for whatever she can think to apologize for. It doesn't matter; in recent primaries she's fared about as well with the black vote as George Bush did in '04.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/clinton.black/index.html


Talk about it! Discuss this post and politics in general on our new message boards. Help us get them started!

http://politicalbrainfog.yuku.com/

David Zannucci – March 13, 2008.
489 years ago today, Hernan Cortez and a group of Spanish Conquistadors landed in Mexico. And so began what many historians consider the greatest military campaign in world history. Except for the Spanish putting an end to human sacrifice, it has basically been all downhill for the indigenous people of Mexico ever since.
Nearly five hundred years later Mexico is still ruled by the descendents of those placed in charge by the Spanish crown. The so-called “landed-elite” still manages to run one of the most corrupt governments in the Western Hemisphere, if not the world.
And things have gotten worse for the average citizen of Mexico since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since that agreement went into effect, real wages are down in Mexico and millions of their people have crossed the northern border looking for a better life in the United States. To make matters worse, countless more people in Mexico have been forced off their ancestral lands to make room for American owned factories so we can eat our lunch with cheap, plastic spoons.
I believe the quality of human life would improve if only we would return to a simpler lifestyle. If we can’t return to the ways of hunter-gatherers, I would settle for a return to an agricultural society. So in honor of one of the pivotal events of world history, I would like to share a quote from Octavio Paz, the great Mexican poet, writer and diplomat.

“And at last the philosophy of progress shows its true face: a featureless blank. We know now that the kingdom of progress is not of this world: the paradise it promises us is in the future, a future that is impalpable, unreachable, perpetual. Progress has peopled history with the marvels and monsters of technology but it has depopulated the life of man. It has given us more things but not more being…”

Talk about it! Discuss this post and politics in general on our new message boards. Help us get them started!
http://politicalbrainfog.yuku.com/

Clinton Likes the First Results from Michigan and Florida

Saying that the first votes were fair, Clinton encourages the seating of delegates from these two states, or, at a minimum, new elections there.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/NATION/532597165/1002

Ferraro Steps Down (Into the Hole She Keeps Making Deeper)

Geraldine Ferraro stepped down from the Clinton team, citing a desire to continue speaking about whatever she wants to talk about (can't really blame her for that). She says she is the victim of reverse racism because of her remarks that Obama got where he was solely because he was black, and that, simultaneously, Clinton is a victim of sexism.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/ferraro.comments/index.html


Spitzer's Hooker's MySpace Page

Don't really need to say more than that other than that her site is about her music other than her more profitable talents.

http://www.myspace.com/ninavenetta



Obama Keeps Getting More Texas Caucus Delegates

Now he has more delegates from Texas than Clinton. I'll explain how all this works to you sometime later when you're not around.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/11/caucus-win-gives-obama-more-texas-delegates-than-clinton/



Jack Kevorkian, Dr. Death, Plans to Run for Congress

This one has me daydreaming.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VC4A200&show_article=1&catnum=3


Concern About the Influence of Christian Conservatives in the Military

An article about a conflict in the military over church rituals and the flag. I was just certain it was going to be about "Thou shall not kill" or "Turn the other cheek".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/us/08chapel.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=&adxnnlx=1205370186-k81mPoRW+7SSk0cB/ah+kQ



Talk about it! Discuss this post and politics in general on our new message boards. Help us get them started!
http://politicalbrainfog.yuku.com/

David Zannucci – Well, it seems that if we elect a Democrat as President while we have a Democrat congress, then we will finally get universal healthcare in the United States. This is not a good thing.
Don’t misunderstand me, if it were a perfect world and universal healthcare were truly a philanthropic enterprise, I would approve. But let’s face it, money is always the bottom line in this society and we have allowed healthcare to become prohibitively expensive. Our country is in debt up to its eyeballs and once universal healthcare becomes a reality, balanced budgets will become a quaint notion from a time long passed. And yet none of that is why I oppose universal healthcare.
The first thing our government will do is try to control costs, and they will do this by finding reasons to deny healthcare to segments of our population. Through the fallacy of disease prevention, certain behaviors will not be allowed if an individual wishes to receive healthcare.
First, drug tests will be required so that anyone who is using a drug that is not government approved will be denied healthcare. Personally, I don’t want to pee in a cup every time I go to the doctor. Alcohol consumption will be next and then fat intake. What will they think of the Adkins Diet? Exercise will be mandated by the government in an effort to make people healthier. A few pounds overweight? Sorry, we can’t waste our money on you. After all, it’s your fault you got sick. Homosexuals will soon be denied medicine for AIDS. The government will claim they were engaging in risky behavior and should have known better.
And what about speaking English? As English only laws become more and more popular, do we really think we would waste our money on someone who hasn’t learned the language? It gets worse. With ultrasounds and genetic testing, we can tell early in the womb if a baby may have birth defects, mental retardation, or any number of disabilities. Why should the government let women have these babies when they will clearly cost the taxpayer so much money? China won’t be the only country with forced abortions for long.
Soon, those with money will be expected to pay for their healthcare again, despite the massive tax increase they will surely absorb. “Universal” healthcare? Don’t make me laugh.
Lest you think I’m overstating my case, let’s look at other countries with universal healthcare. In the United Kingdom, citizens are already being denied healthcare for questionable reasons. The man who recently couldn’t get ankle surgery until he quit smoking cigarettes is a perfect example. I don’t mean to be offensive, but we are an extremely greedy country; any money saving steps that have been taken in other countries will be multiplied here.
Currently, anyone can walk into an emergency room and receive care. That will not be the case for long. I have a friend who has been on disability for years. Since I have known him (about five years) I have never known him to have a job, health insurance, or much money. And yet, last fall he had both gall bladder surgery and open-heart surgery and wasn’t expected to pay a thing. He has a handful of prescriptions and they continue to get filled, despite his inability to pay. I have no problem with this; it simply makes me wonder why we need such drastic changes when the poor are already receiving care.
I am in my thirties and I have several friends around my age without health insurance. They don’t really need it because they never have to go to the doctor anyway, but most of them have been convinced by the media that they are somehow suffering because they have no insurance.
There are certainly things we could do to lower costs and these should be tried before resorting to a health care system that invades our privacy at every opportunity. But universal healthcare makes a good sound bite and bumper sticker for politicians wishing to be elected and the media plays along, convincing people they need something they really don’t. Although changes should be made, let’s think before we open a Pandora’s Box that leads to a bigger police state than we already have.

Talk about it! Discuss this post and politics in general on our new message boards. Help us get them started!

http://politicalbrainfog.yuku.com/