A few thoughts

It has been ages since I posted, but thought I needed to vent a little on the election.

Some thoughts/predictions:
- The people have spoken.
- The country voted for change, and that is all we will wind up with in our pockets: change.
- By the time of the mid-term elections (Nov. 2010), gas will be approaching $6 per gallon.
- If the Republicans develop a solid conservative leader (like Reagan or Gingrich) the landslide in 2010 will drastically dwarf the Republican revolution of 1994.
- Hillary Clinton will be a Supreme Court Justice. (A huge payoff for keeping her mouth shut.)
- Again, a wishy-washy Republican flames out.
- The last truly conservative nominee to lose the presidency was Barry Goldwater.
- The last "moderate" Republican to win was Eisenhower.
- Jimmy Carter will no longer be considered the worst president in the last 100 years.

With Friends Like This...

Here is the Obamassiah's chosen running mate heaping scorn upon the Obamassiah. Geez! With friends like this, who needs the "Republican attack machine"?

The President and Judicial Appointments

Conservatives are told that we have to vote for McCain even though his convictions are more in line with Barrack Obama than Ronald Reagan. The one area that seems to be a huge argument is in the arena of judicial appointments, especially on the Supreme Court.

Let's examine the record of Republican Presidents and Supreme Court appointments:

• Dwight Eisenhower gave us Earl Warren, who wound up being very far to the left. (Roe v. Wade.)
• Gerald Ford gave us John Paul Stevens, who was not as far left as Warren, but just the same votes liberal.
• George H. W. Bush gave us David Souter. He did give us Clarence Thomas.
  
• Even the great Ronald Reagan gave us Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor. Sure he gave us Antonin Scalia (who should be Chief Justice).

A President McCain is not guarantee that justices will be conservative. In fact, he is one of the Gang of 14 that sold George W. Bush's conservative nominees down the river.

Food for Thought

Thomas Sowell's recent column gives us something to think about in the upcoming election.

I Guess This Makes Everything Alright

A contrite Mike Huckabee has apologized for his ridiculous comments about Obama having to evade a would-be assassin. Every thing is hunky-dory now.

In our day and age, a politician can make the most outlandish comment, apologize, and resume his verbal diarrhea as though nothing happened.

Sure, we have all made dumb comments that we wish we could take back as soon as we utter them. Public figures should be more careful. The best way to avoid having to issue an apology is think before you speak.

Speaking about the potential attempt on the life a President or presidential candidate is morally reprehensible (or, the attempt on anyone's life, for that matter). Within the last fifty years, one President has been assassinated (John F. Kennedy), two more have had at least one attempt on their life while in office (Gerald Ford--twice--and Ronald Reagan), and two more candidates have been targets (Robert Kennedy--killed in 1968--and George Wallace--paralyzed in 1972). It not funny to joke about such things. As near as I can tell, not too many in the audience of the National Rifle Association laughed at Huckabee's remark.

Response to Mike Huckabee's Stupid Comments

The Reformed Poser pointed this out. It is from those insightful political commentators, RUN-DMC. Click the link to view, unfortunately the embedding feature has been disabled for this video.

Just Shut Up!

Mike Huckabee makes one of the most stupid comments.

Voting

I went and cast my ballot for a plethora of positions, today. As a registered Republican, I did not participate in Rush Limbaugh's ingenious "operation chaos." I went counter to conventional party line voting on a couple races. Most notably, I could bring myself to vote for the Democrat-in-elephant's-clothing, also known as John McCain. Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Alan Keyes were on the ballot. I was surprised to see Keyes there. Huckabee is a McCain wannabe. Ron Paul is just nutty. So I filled in the little oval next to Alan Keyes. I know he will not win, but it is principle. Keyes is for limited government.

Politics of the Easy Answer

As much as I hate to admit it, Barrack Obama is right. Suspending the gas tax for the summer would not bring down gas prices long term. The savings would not really amount all that much for the average American. While I am all for cutting taxes, the temporary suspension of the gas is a ridiculous idea. It is nothing more than a campaign ploy by those advocating it, namely McCain and Clinton. It amounts to buying votes.

While Obama is right about that, his energy policy is wrong. Energy independence means drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. One thing confuses me about the debate over drilling in Alaska. Somehow, it is environmentally unfriendly. What environment are we trying to protect. This semester I had a student who lived in Barrow, Alaska, which is as far north as one can get in the United States. (The next thing after Barrow, Alaska is Santa's house.) She commented that there is noting up there but ice and mud. There are no trees, bushes or anything green. On top of that it is night for about two months each year.

This is a symptom of our time. Everyone wants an easy answer. Everyone wants an immediate solution. Everyone wants the fix now. NOW! I tell, you, NOW! In an era of the Internet, microwaves and other tools that give us instant gratification, we need to realize that some answers take time.

We also need to realize that gas prices will never again be $1.00 a gallon. Those days are gone, along with the horse and buggy.

Listening to the Candidates

As I mentioned previously, all three major US presidential candidates believe that government is the solution to various real or perceived ills. When they are asked a question about health care, jobs, gas prices, trade, etc., they have the start to the answers, "The government would..." They go on to list what the government would do, or how the government would spend money--for which they often use the word "invest."

Here is something that will help you understand what they really want to do. Whenever they say, "The government will pay for" something, substitute the phrase "you tax payers" for the word "government." Then it will read, "You taxpayers will pay for..."

Promises are so abundant during political season. Be smart and realistic about what the candidates are promising. Ask yourself, "Who is going to pay for this?" The answer is that you will pay for it, if you have a job. The government's money is confiscated from the taxpayers. If you would not pay for it on your own, why should the government.

Why Is This True?

In a statement of the incredibly obvious, a reporter from our local daily rag, made the following observation:

A slip of the tongue seems to provide better ammunition nowadays than policy differences in the race for the United States presidency, officials say.

My initial response to that statement was, "Duh!" Every election year we groan and complain about the lack of substance in political campaigns. Everything is mudslinging, name calling and personal attacks. What else is there? Can Obama and Clinton debate on policy? They agree on everything as far as policy. A Clinton administration would look almost identical to an Obama administration. The reporter acknowledges that there are few differences between the two Democratic hopefuls.

My thought is concerning McCain. No matter who the Democrats nominate, one could use this quote in reference to the general election. Is there really any substantial difference between McCain and Clinton or Obama? I submit that the answer is no. McCain is Democratic-Lite. Every problem that McCain addresses has the solution being more government action, another government agency or government based solution. Where are the candidates that say we need less government, not more?

Not Caring What Others Think

If you were ever picked on as a child, someone (parents, teacher, or someone else) probably told you not to worry what others think.

I had a conversation with someone yesterday about the upcoming presidential election in the context of how Europeans are watching the election. He commented that western Europeans really do not like President Bush, although eastern Europeans tend to like him. My thought is, "Who cares?" He is not the President of any European country. Sure, each countries foreign policy impacts other nations. We should not elect a President on the basis of whether or not some foreign country like or dislikes a candidate.

The Problem With the GOP

I was born a Republican. I have voted Republican in nearly every election (I have voted for a few Democrats). The Republican Party is doing its best to alienate me. I grew up with Ronald Reagan as my president, even though I was too young to vote for him. (I did vote for him in the mock elections we had in school.)

The thing Ronald Reagan is that he inspired people to be great, but not with the help of government. Reagan's vision was a country where the government was less intrusive. He sought to cut taxes and reduce the size and scope of the government. Sure, he was not as successful as he had hoped.

Modern day Republicans bear no resemblance to Reagan. Reagan would be horrified at the big government Republicans. There are no major Republicans advocating Reagan's vision. They are intent on passing new laws. When Barry Goldwater went to Washington as a senator from Arizona, he sought to repeal laws.

John McCain is not a small government Republican. But then neither were any of the Republican contenders, with the exception of Ron Paul, and perhaps Fred Thompson.

I have no idea who I will vote for. It sure will not be Obama or Clinton. McCain does not have my vote. I may leave it blank or vote third party.

Wake up, Republicans, or become a permanent historical party, just like the Whigs.

This is So Clinton

Is there anything that surprises you about the Clinton machine? The Clintons claimed a "mandate" in 1992 and 1996 when Bill failed to receive 50% of the vote.

Now, with Hillary trailing in total popular votes, total pledged delegates and primaries/caucuses won, the Clinton machine floats the idea that the leader in all three, Barack Obama, should take second place to Hillary. Do not get the idea that Hillary will ever take the second spot.

More typical Clinton behavior. Do we really want another four (or [shudder] eight) years of this stuff?

What's in a Name?

The Democratic front runner for the party's nomination is Barack Obama. There has been a lot said recently about his middle name: Hussein. Many conservative types have been using his name to stir up sentiment against him. His campaign has also been very thin-skinned about the whole thing.

Since when is wrong to use someone's middle name? We use middle names frequently when talking about presidents: John Quincy Adams, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight David Eisenhower, etc. I see nothing wrong with saying Barack Hussein Obama, after all it is the guy's name.

As someone who is quite sensitive about his middle name (What on earth was my mother thinking when she gave me my middle name?!), I can sympathize with Obama's sensitivity. But grow up, for crying out loud.

At the same time, are we supposed to withhold our vote for him simply because his middle name is the same as the last name of one of the worst tyrants of our time? Just because Saddam Hussein's last name and Barack Obama's middle are the same is no reason not to vote for Obama. If anyone does not vote him solely on those grounds, they are a fool

I can think of plenty of valid reasons to not vote for him:
-Socializing health care
-Raising taxes
-Foreign policy naiveté
-His liberal policies, in general (He makes George McGovern and Walter Mondale look like Rush Limbaugh)

Oh, Puh-leez!

Does anyone buy this? I mean, give me a break. This is so calculated.

This Takes Way Too Long

No, I am not talking about how long the college bowl season lasts.

The political process in the United States is way too long. Most of the candidates have been running for better than a year now. Even Fred Thompson was sort of running while he was not officially running. The campaign kicked off shortly after the 2006 mid-term elections. Except for John Edwards, who never stopped running after the 2004 elections.

In this age of over saturation of the media, from talk radio to the Internet to twenty-four cable news channels, space has to be filled. I doubt that anything will ever stop it. It will probably get worse before it gets better. In many ways, I am glad I do not live in a early primary/caucus state. I would probably have thrown something through my television set.

Only ten months to go. Then we get to hear about John Edwards campaigning in Iowa, again.