AND NOW, BACK TO THE FRONTRUNNER

Today, I'd like to examine Barak Hussein Obama a little more closely than I had in Obama Where Art Thou.

Having already outlined his biography, let's examine the man as a candidate. He is young, energetic, and articulate. I won't go so far as Joe Biden, who said Obama was "clean". I doubt that he was talking about personal hygiene. Although, with Biden's track record for unfortunate comments, maybe he was.

Obama is a stunning speaker. He has, as the Irish like to say, "The Gift of Gab". His speeches seem to move people in a way that neither McCain nor Hillary can. He is a welcome change, in a rhetorical sense, from the linguistic manglings of President Bush or the holier-than-thou intonations of John Kerry. And he is (Thank God!) not at all shrill like Hillary.

His technique of speaking is reminicent of Martin Luther King, Jr. His youth and his energy calls to mind John F. Kennedy, as do his looks. Compare this to Hillary. It's been said that a man could listen to Hillary promise him a million dollars, and all he'd hear is his ex-wife yelling "Have you put out the garbage yet?"

That is only the style, however. What of the substance? Well, that is a question, isn't it?

Obama speaks of "Change We Can Believe In." He believes in "The Future" and "All Americans Uniting." His supporters echo his slogan, "Yes We Can."

"Change"? What kind of "change"? What does he see in our "future", of which he is wont to tell us he looks toward?

What are his policy proposals? There, he's a little bit vague. During the primaries, he, Hillary and Edwards vied for who would raise taxes the most and fastest. They argued about who's Universal Healthcare plan would have the most mandates. And all three want to punish Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, and Big Insurance -- everything, in fact, but Big Government. And for a while, it seemed, they were in a race to see who would get out of Iraq first, although only Edwards would suggest a date for that withdrawal. In short, if you heard Edwards or Hillary, you've heard Obama's proposals. They are all interchangeable.

What Barak Obama does is use his soaring rhetoric to hide his extremely Liberal (face it, he's a Stalinist) ideology. He doesn't speak about his policies in detail because then everyone would know he isn't the "Agent of Change" he portrays himself to be. His policies are nothing but warmed over Socialism.

One need only to read his speech today in Janesville, Wi.:

• Universal Healthcare, whether Hillary's or Obama's, would be a Marxist nationalization of one of the largest parts of our economy.


• He describes the current mortgage troubles as if they were President Bush's fault, rather than the result of government forcing lending institutions to write bad loans, lest they be accused of "red lining".


• He is a master of the rhetoric of class warfare, pitting us against the rich and the corporations, never mind that they provide the investments and the infrastructure of our economy.


• He wants to subsidize what he calls "working families" with tax credits and federally funded daycare, all while punishing the achievers who actually made the jobs held by "working families".


• He proposes to "reform bankruptcy laws" to protect "victims of predatory lending".


• Obama wants a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" spending billions, and payed for by surrender in Iraq.

Friends, this is all boilerplate Liberalism, the kind that Democrats have been spewing since George McGovern. The only difference is that Barak Obama looks and sounds better than McGovern.

But, really! All he offers are platitudes. He is like the Miss America constestant that says "All I really want is world peace."

Barak Obama is an empty suit, nothing more. He offers loads of style, mounds of soundbites, and inspires much enthusiasm. But he says nothing new.

Last December, the Boston Globe asked Obama a series of questions regarding the Constitution, the Congress and the powers of the presidency. His answers were stunning, not only in their Liberal naivete, but in their total ignorance of just what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court has to say on these issues.

Let us not ignore the question of race. Obama has been quite successful running as an American, avoiding the issue of race as much as the Clintonistas will allow. It is noteworthy that, among the Republican candidates, no one has so much as mentioned his race. Although Mike Huchabee was reprehensible when he maligned Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

But among the Democrats? Pennsylvania's Gov. Eddie "Don't Call Me Fast Eddie" Rendell had the temerity to say "...I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." This is stunning, aside from the obviously libelous and inflamatory denouncement of white America, when one considers that he is talking about the frontrunner of the Democratic field. I've already cataloged other instances of this sort of Liberal racism in previous columns, so I'll just leave it at that.

My friend, Evan Sayet, wrote today: "Whites WILL vote for a black man so long as he's not running as a black man." He's correct. Previous black Democratic candidates (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, for instance) ran on the idea that America is racist and they were rightfully rejected. Obama, as Liberal as he is, doesn't, and that gives him traction outside the black electorate.

What Barak Obama proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that America is no longer the racist nation portrayed by Civil Rights, Inc. A truly racist country would never have a black candidate do so well. This is especially true given his success in a Party that has its roots in the Confederacy and the Klan.

Of course, Obama is still wrong in so many ways and with so many issues. He is, before his blackness or lack thereof, still a Liberal. And his administration would be catastrophic for our country, despite all his talk of hope and change. If he is defeated in his quest for the White House it won't be because of racism, at least not from the Right. It will be because the electorate looked at his ideas and found them wanting.

Given the almost certain nomination of John McCain as the Republican presidential candidate, I am still certain that either Obama or Hillary will become our next president. McCain is too distrusted by the Republican base to beat Hillary, and Obama is far too shiny and new compared to McCain.

Of course, as noted yesterday in Through Race Colored Glasses 2/12/08, Hillary just might tear the Democratic Party apart along the fault lines of race and gender.

As I said yesterday: "Ah! Life is good!"

Copyright Feb.13th, 2008

NO COUNTRY FOR CONSERVATIVES?

This is going to be one difficult column to write, since I tend to be rather optimistic. Unfortunately, I try to be honest, and this election cycle's prospects don't look too good.

With the nomination of John McCain all but a done deal, Conservatives are left with a serious dilemma. What are we to do, now that our input into the primary process was ignored yet our support for the obviously flawed McCain is demanded?

Time and again, it seems, Conservatives are told by the Republican establishment "Shut up and vote for our candidate". It's bad enough when we are given inferior choices. George W. Bush might not have been our ideal, but he was still a better choice than McCain. This time, we were denied, by the Party bosses, the superior candidate, Mitt Romney, with the collusion of an also- ran, Mike Huckabee.

We've seen this script before. Goldwater was shut out -- too Conservative. Reagan had to be shunted aside in favor of blueblood pick, Gerald Ford. Bush the Elder had to be the guy, because he'd been Vice President. How many times must we Conservatives hold our noses and choose "the lesser of two evils"?

This time around, I am not all that convinced that McCain is "the lesser of two evils", for the reasons I listed yesterday in No Comparison. When you really examine the issues, we are faced with the choice between full-steam-ahead Socialism or Let's-take-our-time Socialism.

There is one school of thought that says we have to support McCain, since failure to do so would result in a Hillary or Obama victory. Given the current Democrat majority in Congress, they would be up to no end of mishief. Even a flawed RINO in the White House would put the brakes on the worst abuses.

But how can we know? After all, McCain has sided with the Democrats on so many issues. Indeed, he even flirted with leaving the Republicans to become John Kerry's running mate in 2004. What would keep him from showing his true Liberal colors once in office.

At this point, the Establishment types would say "Oh! But the Republicans in Congress would work to minimize that sort of collusion." Really? The way they stopped President Bush from foisting a massive new entitlement on us? The way the Republican leadership stopped the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill? Or the way that, despite their opposition, the McCain-Feingold Bill became law?

The fact of the matter is, members of Congress are beholden to the White House when it is held by a member of their own party. This is why so many Republicans went along with President Bush's Liberal apostacies. Failure to support the Party's President is often met with the punishment of witheld Pary support. With John McCain in the White House, siding with the Democrats on so many issues, they would perforce support his ideas. Conservatism, that ideological bedrock upon which the Republican successes of the last thirty years were built, will be all but abandoned.

So! Do we Conservatives, as Ann Coulter suggested, vote for the Democratic candidate? That is unsatisfactory since it would prove to the Establishment RINO's that there really isn't such a great divide between the Right and the Left. It would also be an exercise in hypocrisy (no offense, Ann!) that I, at least, would prefer not to commit.

Of course, we Conservatives could, in good conscience, sit the election out. This would, of course, guarantee a Democrat victory, but we can at least claim noncooperation. Many Conservatives will probably do just that, as we have seen time and again in the past. Even the RINO's know that they can't win elections without Conservative support. Witness McCain's speech yesterday pleading with the members of C-PAK that he really is a Conservative, despite his abysmal track record. Many Conservatives will simply withold their votes, with the result of a Democrat victory.

Here we have the problem that we aren't driving our agenda forward, letting the Left have full control, once again, of our government. Any gains we have seen regarding the make up of the courts will be undone all at once. The eldest, and the coincidentally the most Liberal, members of the Supreme Court, for instance, are holding on to their seats only in hopes of a Democrat victory in November. Once either Hillary or Obama are in the White House, they are going to retire and we get clones of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer.

Perhaps we Conservatives should bolt from the Republican Party all together forming a new Conservative Party and letting the RINO's join the Democrats for real. This would be very satisfying on a personal level, but would leave the Democrats uncontested for a period of years while we build up our party strength. Would the Democrats still allow the New Media its freedom, which we Conservatives have enjoyed for twenty years? That is doubtful, since the Left has been trying to shut down the New Media, calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine. That could blow up in the Democrats' collective face, since it might fire up an otherwise disheartened Conservative mainstream.

For myself, I am going to change my party registration to the New York State Conservative Party, not that it has always been a good fit for my own philosophies. It's just that the New York Republicans have left me, becoming "me too" Democrats in the mistaken belief that Liberalism Lite works better than Conservatism. By changing my party affiliation, I intend to send the message that I am not OK with the Leftward tilt of the Republicans.

But what of November? What should I do with my own precious vote. While anything can happen between now and then, and in politics anything usually does, I think I might actually vote for John McCain, as much as it pains me to say it. I doubt that he can win in the general election. After all, "Given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, the Democrat always wins." My apologies to the shade of Harry Truman!

However, I still believe in miracles, even if the one I'd hoped for wasn't meant to be. McCain might pull it off. And if he pulls it off, he might even govern as a Conservative. I won't hold my breath on either of these possibilities, though.

If McCain were to succumb to his worst tendencies, perhaps the Conservative faithful could hold his feet to the fire, so to speak, and bring him back around. That's also a longshot, but we're talking about miracles, so please forgive me.

Doubts about McCain's orthodoxy aside, he is still going to be marginally better on judicial picks, although don't expect McCain-Feingold to be overturned in the near future. And he is slightly better on the War on Terror. Just don't pay too close attention to the courts handling the Guantanamo detainees.

All in all, there isn't much to like about the picks for the presidency. But I'm still going to vote and I'm still going to change my party affiliation.

Electile Dysfunction, anyone?

Copyright Feb. 8th, 2008

A HYMN FOR HUCKABEE

OK! I've got to write this fast since he might drop out of the presidential race at any minute. At last look, Mike Huckabee was in deep financial trouble, having only won one primary vote and heading into Florida and Super Tuesday.

What can we say about Mike Huckabee? Well, the former Baptist minister who turned politician in 1992, is the Legacy Media's second favorite Republican candidate, right behind John McCain. He has authored several books and he was the governor of Arkansas from 1992 until 2007. Time Magazine named him, in 2005, one of the five best governors in America, while the CATO Institute gave him a grade of "F" for his spending and tax policies.

Mike Huckabee is betting on his ministry in the Church to bolster his electability with evangelical Christians. Unfortunately for him, I doubt evangelical Christians are as one dimensional as they'd need to be to vote for him. Huckabee is, for instance, quite strong on the Life issue, calling for an amendment to the Constitution to ban abortion. Yet he allowed a convicted rapist to be released, only to find said rapist went on to rape and murder another woman in Missouri.

He tries to talk tough on immigration, yet he, for all intents and purposes, tried to turn Arkansas into a sanctuary state.

He cites Ronald Reagan and touts his own tax cuts, but the simple fact is, under his stewardship Arkansas spending went up 65.3%, according to the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, while taxes rose more than half a billion dollars.

Mike Huckabee poses a number of problems for Conservatives, of which evangelical Christians form a subset. He is trying to remake the Republican Party in his own, more moderate image. Unfortunately for Huckabee, Conservatism is the bedrock of the GOP. Without Conservatism, Republican candidates tend to lose, and lose big.

Examples of this abound in elections past: Al Damato, in New York, was reelected like clock-work, until he moved away from his Pro-Life stances. George H.W. Bush lost his presidency by moving to the Left on taxes. Even Mitt Romney lost a Senate race to Ted Kennedy only when he tried to move to the Left. The Democrats that got elected to Congress in 2006 were running to the Right of the Republican candidates.

Conservatism wins every time it is run on. Which will also serve to explain why Mike Huckabee is the second favorite Republican candidate of the Legacy Media.

First, the Legacy Media likes Huckabee for his Liberal stances on some issues: taxes and spending, social programs, immigration, and the like. The Legacy Media has been in the tank for these Leftist causes for decades, and, despite the inroads made by the New Media, show little sign of changing their minds.

Second, the Legacy Media knows that, should Huckabee get the nomination, they and their allies in the Democratic Party, can portray him as a religious nut, who is out of touch even with his own constituency, the evangelical Christians.

Would some evangelicals like to see an antiabortion amendment to the Constitutions? Sure, they would. But would most of them? Not likely, folks! The Pro-Life Movement will be happy with merely overturning Roe v. Wade and turning the matter back to the states, where it belongs. Besides, the Pro-Life Movement wants real solutions, not pie-in-the-sky proposals that will never garner the supermajority they need in Congress, let alone among the state legislatures. A Right to Life Amendment stands no chance of approval at either the congressional or the state level.

And they would certainly be opposed to opening our borders to anybody who can walk across from Mexico. With polling ranging from 60% to 75% opposed to open borders and sanctuary cities and states, I doubt few folks will go along with a Huckabee presidency.

And then there's the issue of health and the government's role in protecting it. Mike Huckabee used to be overweight, until just a few years ago. Upon losing his weight, quitting smoking and going on an exercise regime (all admirable endeavors, to be sure) he decided that he would do for everyone what he had done for himself. Unfortunately, that means a highly intrusive government. He would legislate against fatty foods, smoking, sedentary lifestyles, and anything else he thinks is unhealthy. He has been noted in the media to have proposed banning tobacco everywhere in the United States. These are not at all Conservative ideas.

Taxes and spending, alone, ought to finish Mike off. The Conservative base is looking for someone to wear the Reagan mantle. Huckabee is definitely not that guy.

All in all, while I believe that Huckabee is superior to anyone in the Democratic field, I would hope he is defeated for the Republican nomination. He agrees with the Democrats on far too many issues. And, as has been observed in the past: "When given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, the people will take the Democrat every time!" Of course, that was said by Harry Truman about Conservative Democrats voting with the Republicans, but you get my drift.

You can't beat the Left by moving to the Left. Mike Huckabee is just a bit too Leftish and, as such, deserves to lose the nomination in the Republican Party.

Copyright Jan. 23rd, 2008

THE RODHAM TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Like the title of the Dick Morris biography on Bill Clinton, Hillary is running for president "Because She Can". This is one frightening woman. That's not because I fear powerful women. Have you ever heard her get wound up on the stump? There's a reason some wags call her "Shrillary". It has been said that, when she speaks she could be talking about giving every man a million dollars, and all that man will hear is his ex-wife yelling, "Have you taken out the garbage yet?!"



Hillary Rodham Clinton was educated in that bastion of old fashioned American values, Wellsley. She was radicalized there, eventually doing legal work for the Black Panthers. Big on all feminist causes, she did what Gloria Steinem did: she hitched her wagon to a guy who was going places. Much to her chagrin, it was Little Rock, Ark.



While in Arkansas, Hillary did what any self-respecting feminist would do. She coupled her legal career with Bill's political career, taking time out here and there to destroy the next Bimbo Eruption and make a killing on the cattle futures market. Hillary Clinton was hired by the Rose Law Firm on the day Bill was sworn in as Arkansas attorney general. And on the day he became governor, she was made a full partner.



Bill valued Hillary's input into governance. He put her in charge of reforming education in Arkansas. Ross Perot sang her praises when he pointed out that she took Arkansas from 48th place in education to 50th place, a record only recently broken by Washington DC and Michigan.



Hillary continued her stellar performance as First Lady. Once in Washington she was brought out to do for America's healthcare system what she did for Arkansas' schools. Fortunately for those of us capable of banging the rocks together from time to time, she failed. However, while she was kludging her fiasco into a written policy, she managed to violate a few Sunshine laws, sold whatever healthcare stocks she owned short, and tried to destroy anyone who might be opposed to nationalizing 1/7th of the national economy.



Then came those dark days: the Whitewater investigation, Vince Foster and who sanitzed his office, Travelgate, Filegate, who hired Craig Livingston, Troopergate, Cattlegate, ad naseum!



After all the fireworks ended, she and Bill had succeeded in putting the Republicans in the majority of both houses of Congress for the first time in almost seventy years. It was then that Bill found the perfect job for her: good will ambassador around the world. For the next couple of years, Hillary made appearances in many different countries. She also was an important speaker at a forum for Women's Rights, in the country that's a hotbed of feminist ideology, Communist China. It didn't matter what she did or where she did it. As long as it wasn't in the United States.



Unfortunately, Bill missed Hillary so much that he couldn't help himself: he stained the dress of one of his interns. News broke ten years ago that the President of the United States was having an affair with a twenty-something intern. Now the pressure was on! Now was the time to bring Hillary back into the spotlight!



Masterfully ( or is that "Mistressfully"?) Hillary stormed the networks, defending Bill's honor, which was more than he ever did for it! She denied all the allegations made about Bill, as if she were actually around to witness his innocence. She told Matt Lauer that it was all about "this vast right-wing conspiracy". But, she also said, if the stories were true, "that would be very serious".



Serious, indeed!



Behind the scenes, Hillary had her troops mobilized. Sidney Blumenthal and Paul Begala were the public hatchet men, men who would stop at nothing to end the talk about Bill. Of course, there was also Pelicano and Lenzner, Hillary's PI buddies, who would do the real, but necessary, dirty work: intimidation, blackmail, and the like. Meanwhile, the Legacy Media circled the wagons and said, "What story? It's only about sex! Big Deal?" It looked like Bill, with Hillary's unwavering support might --just might -- find his way out.



But such was not to be. On the day that Monica Lewinski was to testify, Bill sent a few cruise missiles at al Qaeda, careful that Madeleine Albright warned them through the Pakistani intelligence agency, and manfully destroying an aspirin factory and a couple of empty camps. Ken Starr, however, was not distracted by this dazzling show of military prowess, and proceeded to find out that Bill was not only lying to Hillary, he was also committing perjury, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice. Now what should Hillary do?



Well, she swung into action all over again. Now, despite claims back during the '92 campaign, she was Tammy Wynette, "Stand by My Man", and "I forgive you, Bill". She started to go to church with Bill, holding his hand. They went on vacation to the Bahamas, where they were accidentally on purpose photographed dancing in a lagoon, wearing their bathing suits. When no one seemed to notice the photo in the papers for a couple of days, Mike McCurry went out a guaranteed a story by complaining about the intrusion ( at the Clintonistas' insistence) of the photo.



The House of Representatives amassed whole storerooms of evidence about the perfidy of Bill Clinton and his Clintonistas. They voted for impeachment of the President. The Senate, flopping to the challenge, set the rules of the impeachment trial such that it would be impossible to convict, and then promptly ignored all the evidence amassed by the House. Arlen Specter, in a rare show of candor, said that the House manager of the impeachment had failed to prove their case.



Hillary's reward for all of this: she was finally allowed to get out of Arkansas, that land of exile in service to the man who made her what she is today. She came to New York and announced her candidacy for the US Senate, scuttling bids by such New York luminaries as Carl McCall (more about him in a bit) and Nita Lowey. Once she secured her election (this is, after all, in the People's Republic of New York) she bought a house in Chappaqua to satisfy the residency requirement and avoid being called what she really was: a carpetbagger.



In the Senate she quickly eclipsed Chuck Schumer, much to his chagrin, who became the other Senator from New York. She promised on the campaign trail that she would not run for the presidency, although only an idiot would have believed that. She did little in the Senate other than running against Republican earmarks. Once she secured her reelection and was once again in the Majority in the Congress with the 2006 election, she promptly brought home to New York a multi-million dollar earmark to fund the Woodstock Museum.



Oh, while in the Senate, she did repeat the intelligence gathered in the past decade about Iraq and its ties to terrorism, as well as the potential for Weapons of Mass Destruction. No surprise, Bill had made several speeches on the subject and even took out a building janitor in Baghdad to drive home the point. In the end, Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq, only to spend her ensuing years trying to explain why Bush is so stupid that he got us into a war, and so smart that he fooled even her, the reputed "Smartest Woman in the World".



Bill Clinton is once again on the campaign trail, this time to become the First... er... what? Husband? Man? Laddie? I'm not sure, but he's been in search of a legacy ever since the impeachment.



Hillary started off as the "inevitable" Democratic candidate in the 2008 election. She had the name, the pedigree, the (for lack of a better term) experience. She and Bill were serious players in politics. They still had the copies (allegedly) of the FBI reports to prove it. Besides, after all the crap Bill put her through, she deserved it.



Reality, however, can be a real pain! It's proving to be a real struggle for Hillary. She moderated her tone, trading in her shrieks for her cackles, trying to be the strong woman in control of all around her, even crying, in an Oprah moment, about what the press has done to her. Finally, when she won the New Hampshire primary, she told her supporters that she had "finally found my voice". This from a sixty-year-old, '60's radical who tried to nationalize 1/7th of the national economy.


No, I didn't forget about Carl McCall. Although Bill has been hailed as "America's First Black President", despite his pallor, Hillary hasn't exactly been a friend to black Democratic candidates. To get into the Senate, Carl McCall, a very prominent black New York politician, had to abandon all his political aspirations to make way for the carpetbagger... er... I mean Hillary. Now, in the presidential campaign, Hillary's minions are out their suggesting that Barak Obama might have something to hide about his past, hinting broadly at racial stereotypes. Through it all, the Hillary-istas are claiming that Obama is playing the race card. Hillary herself claimed that the primaries weren't about race or gender or even Hillary, while talking endlessly about race and gender and using the pronoun "I" more than a dozen times in one statement.




Oh, Hillary still wants to nationalize healthcare, make no mistake. This time, instead of a 10,000 page opus with detail and penalties all spelled out, she got smart. Her proposal is now a ten page Clift Notes version, without all those pesky details.



And she wants to raise any taxes she can. She wants to confiscate property from the Big Oil, Big Pharmacy and Big Anyone Else who has money in his pockets. She has proposed Baby Bonds, giving each child born in the nation a $5,000 check, just for being born. For a clearer description of Hillary's philosophy on taxes and government programs, please see Montag's Fourth Immutable Law of Nature.



Watching Hillary's various stances on the Iraq War is like being a spectator at Forest Hills Tennis Stadium. She's for it/she's against it, we're winning/we're losing, she'll pull our troops out/she'll leave some in/she'll leave more in/she'll leave fewer in. If this keeps up, we'll need John Edwards to sue her for giving us whiplash!



Hillary says, with the utmost confidence, that she will personally lower the price of gasoline merely with the words of her first State of the Union address. You see, the world will see just how serious she is about making America energy independent (not drill our own oil, silly! Just cut back and try alternative energy) that the oil producing nations will have no choice but to drop their prices.


And let's not ever say that Hillary doesn't know where her priorities lay. In each and every debate thus far, she boldly states who the real enemy is: President George W. Bush. Of course, this ignores that pesky little fact that Bush isn't on the ballot this year. But why confuse the issues with the facts?


Basically, should Hillary get elected to the White House, we can expect a return to those halcyon days of the 1990's: tax hikes, pointless military engagements, stained dresses, scandal upon scandal, and -- oh yeah! Lots and lots of Chinese money.


"It's deja vu all over again!"







Copyright January 20th, 2008

FIRST, THE ALSO-RANS

My look at the candidates for the 2008 presidential race will start with those who are least likely to win their nominations. Let's just get the also-rans out of the way and get to main players. In particular let's examine Ron Paul and John Edwards.

First, let's look at Ron Paul. OK! Who's next? Just kidding!

Ron Paul is a long time Libertarian who was elected to Congress in the party that is most closely aligned with Libertarian ideology, the GOP. On economics, I have to like the guy. He's in favor of lower taxes, fewer regulations etc. But on foreign policy, he will ruin us. Paul is an isolationist. He, like many on the Left, thinks that if we just get out of the Middle East, the Islamo-fascists will suddenly like us again. He confuses military bases in countries such as Saudi Arabia with military occupation. This, in my mind, is not just silly, but is in complete denial of simple facts. Furthermore, it will only embolden our enemies. After all, Ossama bin Ladin himself said that our retreat from Somalia (Thanks, Bill!) was a sign that we can be beaten.

Other than his harebrained foreign policy ideas, he just comes across as a grouchy old man. Worse, he looks like he might be insane. This, of course, is purely superficial, but we are looking for the next president of the United States. Is this what we want? Then again, do we want a president who was endorsed by transvestites and strippers?

Ah! John Edwards! He of the silky locks and $1500 haircuts. What a piece of work this guy is!

John Edwards is campaigning on behalf of that other America. Not those in the neighborhood he lives in, although he did succeed in ridding himself of a poor Republican, gun-toting neighbor who couldn't afford to fix up his property. No, he's out to help the poor, not with his own money but with yours. He gets credit from many on the Left for not being beholden to any special interests. As if trial lawyers weren't one of the most expensive special interests burdening America.

Yes, folks! Trial Lawyers, Those same happy people who brought us the $4 million cup of coffee and the idea that a dry cleaner can be sued out of business for ruining a pair of pants. What has John Edwards done to further the cause? Well, he "worked" his way out of the America he wants to represent into the ranks of the rich America by suing obstetricians for failing to perform C-sections. This was despite the fact that there was no proof that C-sections would prevent cerebral palsy. If that weren't loopy enough, he did it by "channeling" the spirits of these poor kids, in utero no less, giving them "voice" in the court rooms. Not only was he responsible for reducing the number of obstetricians available to pregnant women around the country, he also put those women's lives at risk because those obstetricians still in business performed more C-sections than necessary, all to avoid a lawsuit from the likes of John Edwards.

John Edwards wants, along with the other two Democratic candidates, to nationalize healthcare. Imagine: all the efficiency of the DMV with all the compassion of the IRS. I feel healthier already! If that weren't enough, he has also proposed that folks be mandated for certain tests and procedures. I wonder if that means C-sections for all, whether they need them or not?

Don't forget higher taxes! Not to be out taxed by Obama and Hillary, Edwards is right out there with taxes on anything he can imagine. Naturally, he couches it in the class warfare rhetoric of his "Two Americas". But never doubt that both Americas are going to get C-sections on their wallets. It's the way it's always done by the Left.

Let's recall why, in yesterday's column, I considered him to be one half a candidate: in the 2004 election, he couldn't even carry his own state. Obviously, if the people who know him best don't want him, then he is needed in the White House!

Also from 2004, remember when, in his finest preacher's voice, he declared that Christopher Reeves will walk again if he and Kerry were elected? Who writes his stuff? He could get a job writing for Saturday Night Live -- at least whenever the writers' strike ends.

Not to leave Edwards out of the gratuitous criticism leveled at Ron Paul, let's also mention that, besides his silky hair and his womanly virtues ( Remember when his wife tried to make the case that he was more of a woman than Hillary?) he also blinks continuously. It's annoying. Most people who blink like that are pegged as liars.

Again, purely superficial, I know. But many vote on appearances alone, so I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Essentially, I believe, Edwards is vying for the position of king maker. He's going to drop out sooner or later and see what kind of a deal he can get from either Obama or Hillary. Who ever gives him the most, in policy perks and the vice presidency candidacy, will get John Edwards' pitiful number of supporters.

Honorable mentions also go out to Bill Richardson, for best supporting role to the Hillary campaign; Dennis Kucinich, for representing the terrorists and the UFO community; Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, for pushing the immigration issue; and a very special mention of Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes deserves a few words more than the other honorable mentions. He is a man of undeniable faith, both in God and in Constitutional governance. What he brings to the table is profound respect for life, finding in the Constitution one of the most perfect arguments against abortion and euthanasia. I like his stances and his take-no-prisoners style. Had he more time to run a better campaign for the Illinois Senate seat, Barak Obama would have been in this column as an also ran. Unfortunately, he does not resonate with the majority of voters and does not get anywhere near the media attention he deserves. So it is with deep regret that I grant Alan Keyes this place, however special the mention, in this list of the runners up.

We'll talk more about the leading candidates tomorrow.

Copyright January 19th, 2008

THE RACE THUS FAR

The 2008 presidential race seems far more bizarre than those in past election cycles. For one thing, it seems like it's been going on for a year. Actually, it has been going on for year. And for some, like Hillary Clinton, it's been going on since at least 2000.

On the other hand, if the Hillary camp's opposition research is to be believed, Barak Mohammed Hussein Obama has been running for the presidency since he was in kindergarten. This must be something of a record, although a record of what, precisely, isn't all too clear.

However, there are certain gleanings to be made from the rhetoric of the Democrats and the Republicans. In this first article about the race, I'd like to posit some observations about the overall party differences between the two fields in this primary season.

On the Democrat side, we can be fairly certain that taxes will go up. None of the two and half leading candidates (Edwards' quixotic run only merits the half) make no bones about what they want to do. Hillary wants to "take those excessive profits from the oil companies" to fund research into alternative energy sources. Obama (all two and a half, for that matter) wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, which means that sooner than you think, a $20K annual income will be considered rich. And Edwards, when he is not combing his silky locks, wants to "bridge the gap between the two Americas" -- code speak for wealth redistribution with the resultant higher taxes to pay for it.

Obama and Hillary are claiming that the election has nothing to do with gender or race, while constantly injecting both every chance they get. The accusations flying back and forth between the two camps is stunning. Yet no one calls them on their misanthropy because, let's face it: to the Politically Correct, only white Conservative males discriminate on the basis of gender and race, not us Liberals!

All two and a half of the Democratic leaders will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, differing only in how fast and how thorough their retreats from the war zone will be. Obama, to his credit, will attack another country for terrorism. Unfortunately, that country is Pakistan, one of our allies in the region. The sense I get from them all is that they'd like to see the War on Terror turned back into a law enforcement matter, rather than the all out war it really is.

The one overarching theme of all the Democrats is this: America is filled with victims and victimizers. Americans, of either status, are children who need these enlightened Liberals to tame their excesses and protect the victims from those excesses. Hillary had the famous ad wherein she was wrapping all her socialist programs up as Christmas presents to be placed under the tree for us. Obama keeps talking about hope, even invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, while offering little by way of substance. And Edwards flips his hair, bats his eyelashes, and talks about the one time the insurance companies fell down on the job, allowing a young girl to die before they would cover her liver transplant.

Speaking of health insurance, all two and a half candidates promise to nationalize our healthcare industry, turning America into an eleventh province of Canada. This will, needless to say, mean even more tax hikes, cutting down the profits of the drug companies, rationing healthcare, and even, in the case of Edwards, mandates on individuals to undergo certain tests and procedures.

No one of them is saying much about immigration, although they seem to be supported strongly by those who oppose enforcing our borders or ending the practice of sanctuary cities. Hillary was laughable when confronted with her own words regarding New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. And then Obama, not learning from her mistake, fell for the same question in a later debate. The reason they aren't saying too much, when they aren't sticking their feet in their mouths that is, is that they know that open borders, amnesty and sanctuary cities are losing political stands to take. Hey! They can read polls better than the Bush Administration and John McCain!

In short, the Democrats are talking about wholesale abrogation of American Liberty.

And what of the Republicans?

John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudi Giulianis all talk about lowering the tax burden on all Americans, regardless of income. They are also standing against the worst of Hillarycare (or any of the other onerous schemes put forth) trying to use the free market to solve issues involving coverage and healthcare. Medical savings accounts are making something of a comeback in Republican circles, but no where near the CATO plan, which would cover everyone with just the money from Medicare taxes while eliminating most of the bureacracy.

All the Republican candidates will stand stronger on terror than any of the Democrats, although Huckabee leaves me a little "underwhelmed". Still, they all want to persue terrorists far more enthusiastically than the Democrats, so I guess we can't complain.

And the transcendent thing about the Republican field? With the notable exceptions of McCain and Huckabee -- more on all the candidates individually in later columns -- the other Republicans do not look at Americans as victims and victimizers. All of them have far more faith in America and its people. At the very worst, none of them will expand government as fast and as intrusively as the Democrats.

Watching the New Hampshire debates, I was struck by the difference between the two fields. The Democrats all wanted to "save Americans from themselves", while the Republicans were more concerned with getting government out of the way domestically while beating back the Islamo-fascists where they live, rather than arresting them here in America.

The difference was stark: on the one hand, we had enlightened, superior Liberals trying to save the children (Americans) from their own inadequacies: on the other, we had a faith in the abilities of free men and women, able to make the world a better place, starting right at home, on their own, without the Nanny State to hold their hands.

Where do you stand?

Copyright Jan. 18th 2008