Message '09

It's not coming in a bottle, nor is it coming in a telegram. It's coming from people. It's coming from people who feel they are not being heard right now, people who are being overrun by an out of control government. The message is loud and it is clear.

But will they hear?

Robert Gibbs said that the President would not be watching returns last night. Maybe it was true, maybe Obama wasn't watching. But I guarantee you, someone in his Administration was paying close attention. And not only that, I can assure all of you that Congress was watching, especially the blue dog Democrats and corrupt incumbents in both parties.

Will they take heed? Or will they continue on the same destructive path?

CNN's analysts are saying the result of lat night's two state GOP victory isn't a referendum on Obama. It's tempting to say this is in part an attempt to spin away from the discontent that has been developing agaisnt the President. But I think in a larger light, we must view this as discontent against an ideology of big government. People have said through the tea parties, they are tired of high taxes, the indiscriminate spending of their hard earned money, and huge deficits that are mounting up and will be placed on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. Yesterday, many of them got to demonstrate their unhappiness in the ballot box.

So these dimwitted pundits can spin this anyway they wish, but they must know that the same ideology being promoted by the President is the one that was beaten back yesterday. It is the same ideology shared with an out of control Congress led by the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

Let's look at some things for a moment, shall we?

Just one year ago, Obama won the state of Virginia 53%-47%, which is a 6% spread. Yesterday, the GOP's McDonnell beat the Democrats' candidate Deeds 59%-41%, an 18% spread. That is a 24% swing in 12 months. I'd say this is significant.

New Jersey, a state that is saturated with community organizers and union thugs, couldn't even steal this one. Christie won over the incumbent Corzine, by a 4% margin. It may have been even more had the Independent candidate not been on the ballot. You must keep in mind that NJ went for Obama 57%-42%, and it will be easy to see that this is a strong message.

So, as a progressive Democrat, you may want to point to the NY-23 race where the Democrat Owens beat back a withdrawn RINO and a Conservative Party newcomer, in a traditional GOP district. And that's fine, but let's consider this further than the superficial surface.

What the dimwitted pundits may not point out is the fact that Hoffman was drafted around a month ago, because the GOP candidate shared as much of a progressive ideology as any Democrat. In one month's time, he was able to significantly out-poll the RINO which caused her to tuck her tail between her legs and support the Democrat, after some concern from high profile Dems in the state like Charles Schumer. They did share a conversation just prior to her announcing her withdrawal and her announced public support for the Democrat.

Think about it. In just one month, this political tea party newbie has garnered around 46% of the vote in what is primarily a GOP district. So, to think that the tea partiers are not making a difference in the political climate in this country, would be a strong delusion of the largest magnitude. Keep telling yourself this, Dems. This is precisely what we want you to believe.

With all of this in mind, we can see and hear the message that has been sent. The naysayers will do what they do best, but it's still there for all to see.

Message 2009 is over. Now it is time to look toward next year, where we can (and will) create a wholesale turnover of the filth and slime that is known as the U.S. Congress.

So if you are a blue dog Democrat, it would be wise to study each and every proposal that comes down the pike from here on out. Maybe you would do well to stop talking and lecturing to your constituents, and listen to them for a change. Because if you don't, you will be hearing from them next year and you had better have an updated resume in hand.

Maybe this is why Harry Reid and company are now saying there will be no healthcare bill by the end of the year. We have stalled it, but it has not been defeated. So, more work will need to be done until it is no longer being discussed and other more pressing items can be dealt with, appropriately.

Obfuscation 101

What would happen if one of us went into a job interview and didn't know the answer to a question? Better yet, what would happen if we went into a job interview and demonstrated that we knew nothing about the job we had applied for?

Well...here is the Democratic candidate for Attorney General in the state of Virginia, in one of those embarrassing moments:



(Shamelessly lifted from one of my favorite blogs, I Hate The Media.)

Isn't it time we start demanding better choices?

Look at what we were stuck with in 2008 for President? Look at what we ended up with. That's what we will get again, if we, the people, do not demand better service from our elected officials.

If the people of Virginia elect this fool, they have no one to blame but themselves. I don't know how much better the GOP candidate is, but I would be willing to bet that he has to be better equipped than this Bozo.

Electing a clown like this is precisely how a Barney Frank or Charlie Rangel is born. Let them BS their way into a job and next thing you know they are so entrenched and so disconnected to the people they are supposed to serve, you will have a difficult time getting them out.

Think about it America. Think long and hard before you pull levers for con artists, dressed in $1000 suits.

A Vision Realized

When thinking of renaissance visionary prose, most people immediately think of Nostradamus. But just one generation before him there lived a quintessential political scientist, by the name of Niccolò Machiavelli. One of the more poignant passages he wrote was this:

Each candidate behaved well in the hope of being judged worthy of election. However, this system was disastrous when the city had become corrupt. For then it was not the most virtuous but the most powerful who stood for election, and the weak, even if virtuous, were too frightened to run for office.

How prophetic does this sound?

Today, the city that I see as corrupt is Washington. Just let a person like me try to run for President or any other office and see how much dirt they can dig up about my past. Granted, it's nothing that would result in criminal charges. But if it wasn't juicy enough, rest assured they'd make something up along the way. Just look at how they treat Sarah Palin.

Since there are no perfect people, it stands to reason there are no perfect candidates. So, if this is the case, why do we get stuck with the most morally depraved of all people, to lead us? I think Machiavelli has provided us with the answer.

The Specter Of Hypocrisy

As most of us know by now, Sen. Arlen Specter has changed parties.

Big whoop.

Without a doubt, it has caused a few jaws to drop. But I fail to see why anyone would be surprised. Along with RINOs Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins the Senators from Maine, he voted for the Obama shopping spree that effectively put my five-year old grandson into debt.

Specter has been left-leaning for longer than many people realize. He replaced a Rockefeller Republican named Richard Schweiker and like former U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker from Connecticut, he has historically voted moderate to liberal -- all the while retaining the Republican label.

So when Specter, Snowe and Collins all chose to vote for one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the United States of America, it validated what many have already believed to be true. It showed who they really were and confirmed that they are not to be counted on to uphold good fiscal policy.

Let me say, it doesn't irritate me that Specter changed parties. Others have done so before him, and I suspect that others will do so again in the future. But what does bother me is the way he went about it. He has tried to make it clear, by saying his change of heart is about principle, not politics. And that would be okay, if I thought he could be believed.

Here's why I don't believe him:

In a March 17th interview, he denied having any plans to change parties:



He claimed he was concerned about preserving the balance of power. But when he realized that he could not win a primary fight, he sold out his affiliation very quickly and seemingly did it without any regard for his previous statements and denials.

Another flashback tells the story of Specter. Some of you may remember that he was highly critical of Jim Jeffords for bailing out on the GOP, back in 2002.

Now that Arlen Specter has stunned Washington by switching parties, it's instructive to take a look back at Specter's own reaction with Sen. Jim Jeffords bolted from the GOP to give Democrats a majority in 2002.

Ironically, Specter proposed a rule change to prevent Jeffords' actions from being repeated.

"I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in mid-session, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting," Specter said. "[I]t is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator."

But similarly instructive is Specter's emotional response to Jeffords' decision, a response that indicates Specter was well aware of the damage he would do to his party with his own switch.

"For 13 years, Jim Jeffords has been one of my closest friends in the Senate and he still is," Specter said on the floor of the Senate. "We have had lunch together every Wednesday for years….He had never given any hint to me of such a move."

He wanted to change the rules after Jeffords left at such a critical juncture. But today, when it's he that wants to pull a stunt like this, he doesn't even blink an eye.

After putting the March interview alongside this little tidbit, it clearly shows me that he is no different than any other hypocrite I have ever seen, heard, or known. Why is hypocrisy such a despicable trait, in my book? Well, let's consider this little quote from the late Hannah Arendt:

What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.

Hits the nail hard, doesn't it? Because it demonstrates a motive, an intention, and a conscious decision. It's not a mistake in judgment, it comes from an impure mind and heart. It is greatly motivated by self-interest.

How about this one from Raisa Gorbachev?

Hypocrisy, the lie, is the true sister of evil, intolerance, and cruelty.

(Ouch.)

So if lies and other forms of deceit are by-products of hypocrisy, why do we tolerate such radically evil character (especially when it is demonstrated so openly)?

Who knows?

But the last laugh may yet be on Mr. Specter.

A Quinnipiac University poll shows Tom Ridge as a formidable candidate in the general election, before any campaigning starts. To which I can only say: Run Tom, run.



(HT on the Ridge Poll -- Chuck Thinks Right)

Sunday Reflection: A Call For Political Introspection

Dr. James Dobson is resigning from the organization, Focus On The Family. He is the organization, always has been. He has been a lightening rod for secular progressives, but a standard bearer to those who buy his books, listen to him speak, and spiritually follow his ministry.

The overall mission of this group has been modified and altered through the years. Whereby it may have started out as a sincere Christian Fellowship to teach families about family issues, like any other large entity that gains a large enough following, it has branched out. It has expanded its sphere of influence into the political world, and has become a sizable force within conservative political circles.

In the early stages of 2008 presidential campaign, Dobson began to communicate his views on a certain candidate. He even threatened the Republican Party with staying home on election day, if this candidate was nominated. The only reason given for this withholding of support was the man's religion. He is a Mormon.

Mormons are not considered "mainstream" by fundamentalist evangelicals, despite the family values they seek to apply to their daily lives. They are still considered a heretical religion, with many preaching the likes of them into hellfire and damnation every Sunday. Many see the fringe polygamists as what Mormonism represents, and they unfairly assign that set of values to the bulk of Mormons everywhere. So with all of this negative input, it only stands to reason that many fundamentalists are never going to support a candidate like Mitt Romney.

I had problems with him at first, but not because he was a Mormon. My reservations were on the foreign policy front, whether or not he had the experience on the international level to deal with the threats we face. I really believed that he would have made a better running mate for McCain than Palin. As a VP he could have learned more about international issues, while being the chief architect of getting the economy back into swing, the right way. And looking backward, had he been nominated for President, he certainly would have been a much better candidate than McCain. He would have been a better President than Obama.

Because Dr. Dobson carries a lot of influence in a large sector of conservatives, Mitt pulled out for lack of support, McCain did not consider Mitt as a running mate for fear that he would have lost the Christian Right support, and now we have Barack Obama screwing up the country so badly, we may not recognize it in four years. Wonderful, isn't it?

So, while many of my readers may be sorry to see Dobson step down, I am actually happy to see him go. And while I am not trying to point fingers toward my evangelical friends, I would hope that during the next four years (while watching Obama wreck this nation worse than you could ever imagine), you think about what I am saying here. Not every conservative is going to belong to a church you deem to be mainstream enough and for a leader to picked on the basis of whether or not he/she is "Christian" enough is absolutely ludicrous, as we can now see.

I am not a Mormon, never will be. I, too, have some issues with the Mormon doctrine. But many of them live better lives than me, many of them are probably in closer favor to God than I am, and I am not going to sit in judgment of them. Certainly many of them are better suited to serve in elected office than me.

When I vote, I am not looking for a pastor. I am looking for a President that will not spend this country into oblivion and open this country to a new influx of people that will seek to destroy it. I want someone that will protect my freedom, not curb it because I do not jive with mainstream thought processes.

Dobson and his followers did a good job of alienating people solely based on their personal views of theology. They flexed their political muscles, despite the fact that Christ spoke of the separation of church and state. Now, instead of Willard Mitt Romney, we have Barack Hussein Obama. And while there is no guarantee Romney would have won had be been the nominee (or on the ticket), he would have debated Obama better, ran a better campaign, and would have articulated better economic solutions on the campaign trail. He would have been a hundred times better, than this clown we have now.

So my friends, you can shout from the housetops or mutter under your breaths how I am going to hell, if that makes you feel good. I am at peace with myself and God, right now. While I am far from perfect (as Mustang will readily tell you at the drop of a hat), I must suffer under the leadership of this wretched bunch in power now (like all of us). But even at this, I am at peace knowing that I didn't cut my nose off to spite my face in this last election.



UPDATE:

Romney Wins Straw Poll.

Fresh Faces: Meet Mike Pence

I thought I'd try something a little different here and see how it goes. Here is the first installment of the new PYY feature, called Fresh Faces.

As Democrats take their turn at screwing things up even worse than they already are, Republicans must take the opportunity to reevaluate their approach to governing. They were entrusted to run the country by calling for less government, less spending, lower taxes, and balancing the budget. But once elected, they didn't carry through very well. They didn't lead, they followed. They did not act, they reacted. They had the majority of both Houses of Congress and the White House, but failed to deliver the goods.

If they are to regain power in the near future, they will need to hone the message only a little. More importantly, they will need some fresh faces that can articulate that message. They need someone that can convince people that if they are given another chance, they will carry out their promises. They must have spokespeople, who will not allow themselves be Dem Lite. They will need to draw a definite distinction between their ideology and philosophy and that of the Democrats.

One of the rising stars on the national scene is Rep. Mike Pence (IN-6), the current Republican Conference Chairman. He is not my Congressman, but I wish he was. If you get time, take the time to listen to him speak in this video. The speech is 15 minutes long and is followed by a short Q&A session:



This one is quite a bit shorter. Here is a recent House speech on the stimulus package that just passed the House:



Keep your eye on him. He's very smart and is squeaky clean, up to this point in his career (in relation to the vast majority of politicians).

A Funny

Sometimes it's the art that imitates life and there's nothing more artful, than a good joke. This is especially true when the joke speaks truth to power. Even though the post was written awhile back (after the election), I stumbled upon this one tonight. I am not sure how old the joke is, but I am sure you'll find it amusing.

The blog is Witnit and featured on the PYY blogroll.

In Their Own Words

Evidently, Nevada Senator Harry Reid "can't stand John McCain". This revelation comes to us courtesy of the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman on Wednesday after the former Democratic vice presidential nominee accepted a speaking slot at next month's Republican convention in Minnesota.

"He has a close personal relationship with John McCain. I don't fully understand why he does," said Reid, who said Lieberman called Tuesday from the Republic of Georgia to alert him to the move.

"I told him last night, 'You know, Joe, I can't stand John McCain.' He said, 'I know you feel that way,' " Reid said.

This is the same Reid who said in 2002 that President Bush was approaching the Iraq situation in the right fashion and voted to authorize the use of force; the same one that later told us the war was lost.

So who really knows how Harry Reid feels at this juncture. He has turned out to be one of the biggest liars in the history of the US Senate.

But there are some Democrats that like and respect John McCain:



What a world we live in.

Obama Press Conference Fails To Deliver

Before my weekly journey to run Saturday errands, I happened across the same press conference Mustang did. Which is a funny thing to say, if you saw it - press conferences for Obama are not built in the mold of the traditional press conferences. I say this because the press conference was a bit of a joke, for someone who has become some living breathing human panacea, capable of drawing forth great emotion and packing stadiums after free rock concerts. So far there's only one short clip on You Tube.

I also say this because the professionalism of delivery was severely lacking in both emotion and substance. Of course you had to know that the media hammered him with powder puffs. But even with the softball questions, Obama failed to persuade in any form of a convincing style.

There were no cheering adoring crowds, no national political punditry types holding the evening news casts from it, and no real reason to cover it other than it would have made Obama look like the greenhorn he really is. Also missing were the carefully crafted speeches rolling off of the teleprompter.

He looked a bit dazed at times, he tapped danced around questions, and generally had a significant amount of trouble, with very little exerted pressure from his adoring fans in the media. In short, he appeared to be on the defensive for most of it and almost constantly in a personal search for the right words.

The only news network to carry much of it was Fox. CNN didn't have it. I didn't check MSNBC, I figured they would rather cover an old real life murder mystery from some repeat NBC Dateline show, from ten years ago. In one of the tenser moments (if you want to call it that), a reporter had asked about the Obama dollar bill, and McCain's charge of him playing the race card. Here's what followed:



In this (the only clip I can find right now), the first thing he says is, "I don't come out of central casting when it comes to presidential races". This is the part he hopes the non-thinkers will miss, because you will have a hard time convincing any of them that Mark Alexander, David Axelrod, and others aren't having daily huddles with him (coaching him, and carrying him through this role).

Then, if that's not enough, he complains about the negativity in the criticism leveled towards him by McCain and those that are skeptical at the very least. But from what I see and hear, this criticism is fair game and I'll tell you why. The man has no foreign policy experience (unless you count a tour of speeches). He has no record of doing anything at the federal level and he had a pretty leftist agenda in the Illinois State Senate. If we were interviewing for a private sector job, we'd want to observe, study, and analyze our candidates with all prudence and circumspection, wouldn't we? Why should this be any different? Why should we not be able to look at the positives versus the negatives?

McCain questions his experience, Obama says this is negative. McCain questions his positions, Obama says it's negative. McCain questions his daily campaign remarks, Obama cries negative. Do you see the pattern? Do you see the objective? You are not allowed to criticize him, without it being deemed negative. This is the very crux of his campaign.

He started out the darling of the Left, because his past ties were from the Left. His inner circle (prior to the beginning this current traveling snake oil sales team) has consisted of people that have (at very least) sported a strong dislike for the country and the system that governs it. This is fair criticism. Since we have nothing else to judge his actions on, why would it not be?

John McCain and those of us who are not fooled by the cult of personality have every every right to ask tough questions. We have the right to hear the answers.

I cannot help it if Obama has none. He doesn't. I can't help it if he isn't charismatic during press conferences. He isn't. I cannot help it if his past affiliations creep into the debate. They do, and for good reason. When you are an upstart to the national scene who hasn't led anything of any real importance, this is all there is to evaluate. (Personally, I don't think he could lead a group of hungry homeless people to a buffet table. But that's another post.)

No folks, words are great. But past actions and affiliations are far more important. It's easier to believe the words, when one has something solid to back up his/her words. Promising the world to the masses, is easy. Promises are like pie crust, easy made and easy broken. And I refuse to buy into this empty emotionalism and conference room politics, when they are based on weak and faulty doctrines.

Besides this, Obama hasn't showed us anything up to this point. We are right to talk about it and ponder it. We are right to base our decisions on the entire resume of any given candidate, for better or worse. He has the right to say it's negative if he wishes. But if I were hiring someone and there were negatives like this in their work history, I'd not cast it aside just because I felt desperate for change.

Things are screwed up, most of us all agree on this. But letting someone that has no tested mettle at this point in time is unwise and foolish, at best.

Nineteen Year-Old Elected Mayor Of Muskogee, Oklahoma

From the Muskogee Phoenix comes this article:

Voters catapulted John Tyler Hammons into the mayoral seat on the Muskogee nine-member City Council.

Hammons, who will be sworn in Tuesday, beat Hershel McBride in the mayoral race by a nearly 40 percent margin. Hammons racked up 3,703 votes, or 69.62 percent, to McBride’s 1,616, or 30.38 percent.

I have never been there. But Muskogee is a city with a population of around 38,000. Although it's no chic metropolitan area, it isn't some one-horse town found at the intersection of two county roads either.

Personally, you wouldn't catch me running for precinct committeeman, much less mayor or council member no matter what the size of the town or city. But the people of Muskogee have entrusted a teenager with the operation of their city. I say, "good luck". And to quote my good friend Mustang, "be careful what you ask for, you may just get your wish."

The message is sent, the easy part is getting elected. But after the election's over, one must be prepared to govern.

Who Do You Trust?

Here is a little report card on the polling organizations from Survey USA. It shows the average median error of polling organizations that conducted polls, within seven days of a presidential primary election. The lower the number, the more accurate the polling organization has been.

I do not particularly like the market being flooded with polls prior to elections, because I think they can persuade some voters from voting. If their candidate is way behind in a pre-election poll, they may just think their vote will not count and blow it off altogether. If the poll is skewed, if enough people see it and do this, it effects the election.

But, no one cares what I think. So, poll they do. At least this gives us an idea which polls are more likely to have the more accurate information.

Check it out, when you get a chance.


Addendum:

For what it's worth, here is Survey USA's average mean error report.

Obama Slips, Hillary Clawing Back; Dems Are In The Tank With this One

In the latest two Indiana polls, Barack Obama has definitely lost some ground. Note this PPP poll, as well as this poll from Survey USA. Clinton now enjoys an eight and nine point lead, respectively.

Most experts are thinking it's the Rev. Wright Rampage Tour. I happen to think it's a combination of this and the elitist comments - some of which were made in a room with a bunch of San Francisco elitists, when he thought no ears but theirs would hear.

But just what makes this Rev. Wright thing so concerning, to many of us in the mainstream?

Part of this can be answered in this essay by Heather Mac Donald, from the City Journal. Much of it has been said and debated, but there are some new twists and angles that should be looked at carefully.

Take this for instance:

At the NAACP meeting, Wright proudly propounded the racist contention that blacks have inherently different “learning styles,” correctly citing as authority for this view Janice Hale of Wayne State University. Pursuing a Ph.D. by logging long hours in the dusty stacks of a library, Wright announced, is “white.” Blacks, by contrast, cannot sit still in class or learn from quiet study, and they have difficulty learning from “objects”—books, for example—but instead learn from “subjects,” such as rap lyrics on the radio. These differences are neurological, according to Hale and Wright: whites use what Wright referred to as the “left-wing, logical, and analytical” side of their brains, whereas blacks use their “right brain,” which is “creative and intuitive.”

Looks like Rev. Wright is making statements very similar to some contentions that are presented in the book, known as The Bell Curve. Mac Donald doesn't use these exact words in her analysis, but she does in so many words:

One would hope that Wright’s audience was offended by the idea that acting out in class is authentically black—it was impossible to tell what the reaction in the hall was to the assertion. But one thing is clear: embracing the notion that blacks shouldn’t be expected to listen attentively to instruction is guaranteed to perpetuate into eternity the huge learning gap between blacks on the one hand, and whites and Asians on the other.

Instead of using overall intelligence as the marker of Wright's flawed assertions, he focuses on how blacks learn best. His contention that blacks cannot be expected to sit still in class and learn by reading, thinking, and discussing, is flawed and Ms. Mac Donald calls him on it. For this reason, I think her article is a good read.

But Rev. Wright is not the only reason for Obama's slip in the polls.

More than all of this, many have refused to recognize the fact that at this moment in time, there is a battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party going on in this election. Everyday, the split is looking more and more like a battle between both the elitists and hard left-wing factions of the party (supported by George Soros and the likes), and the working class Democrats. Obama represents the one and Clinton other.

This is becoming very divisive and causing a lot of hard feelings in the ranks.

Hillary does not have the support of the money machine that has been operating as the base of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean and the other Soros puppets are trying everything they can to deny Hillary a chance at the nomination. They are pressuring super-delegates to commit, before more damaging material about Obama's "pastor disaster" and more elitist statements can be brought to the forefront.

They want Hillary out, even though she is making some ground among Democrats (and despite the fact, Obama is looking more and more like a the more flawed candidate of the two). The longer this goes on, the less attractive he is looking to moderates (some of which were enamored with him early on, before his hard left connections were brought to light). Many have already had some second thoughts, despite the party elite being under intense and widespread pressure to nominate him.

If they strip the nomination from Obama at this stage of the game, they are in trouble deeply. They do not want to lose the black vote. (They won't lose it to McCain, they just won't get it. Blacks traditionally stay home when they are unhappy.) But with so many people having these second thoughts, how can Democrats overlook this late surge by Clinton?

They can't, but they will. It's already been decided.

Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Voter ID Law

Here is the story from the Indy star.

The Supreme Court, in a fractured decision, upheld an Indiana law today that requires voters show a photo ID issued by the federal or state government.

“States should have the ability to implement appropriate and constitutional steps to protect their electoral systems from fraud,” Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter said in response. “We can move forward in Indiana with a process that provides constitutional protections to its citizens protecting their vote from potential fraudulent activity.”

Naturally, MSNBC is reporting that Obama has weighed in on the decision.

Obama said he was disappointed today in the new Supreme Court decision that has upheld Indiana's voter ID law, calling it "wrong," and emphasizing that the law could suppress turnout among minorities and poorer voters.

"I am disappointed by today's Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's photo identification law -- one of the most restrictive in the nation," Obama said in a written statement.

Translation: Now we will be disenfranchising the poorest demographic of all voters, the dead voters.

He referenced his decision to file an amicus brief when Indiana's voter ID law was first challenged, saying he did it because he believed that "it places an unfair burden on Indiana residents who are poor, elderly, disabled, or members of minority groups."

Malarkey.

The state is offering state IDs to all that cannot afford them, for free, no charge. Nada, zip, none, zero. Just fill out a form, sign your name, and presto change-o abracadabra, you will have an ID card. You can then, take that card to the polls and vote, provided you are registered.

When you cash a check you need an ID. When you rent a movie, you need an ID. To get into a bar, you need an ID. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that voting requires one too?

But the saddest argument of all? Many of the opponents are saying this puts an undue burden on these "poor" people. Because now, they will have to find a ride to get the ID. They will have to take time out of their busy day (while waiting on the mail to bring their government checks) and go get it. They may even have to ask a family member or friend to drive them down. I know gas is high, but it only has to be done once.

I guess desperate people say and do desperate things, when they're wrong.

Good for the Supreme Court, for getting one right.

A Thought To Ponder

Listening to Jesse Ventura on Neil Cavuto today, he made a very simple but poignant statement. It's about the state of the two-party system in America today, I will paraphrase:

We have two candidates to vote for. That's one more than the Soviet Union used to have, along with Cuba and North Korea.

He went on to use an analogy of soft drinks, stating that if you have just Coke and Pepsi to choose from, it leaves a whole lot of choices out of the mix. Think about it, you wouldn't get 7-Up, RC Cola, Dr Pepper, Root Beer, etc.

Discuss.

The Embellishing Ego Of Hillary Clinton

There's something always true about a pathological liar: They cannot be trusted.

Those that lie a lot (and often) will many times begin to start believing their own lies. Now, I cannot say that Hillary believes her lies, or not. But one will have a very difficult time convincing me that she simply misspoke in this Bosnia story. She made up the Sir Edmund Hilary story (whom she said she was named for) and she embellished this thing, for the specific purpose of padding her resume. She cannot help but lie.

The thing that puzzles me is, why she thought she needed to exaggerate. Obama was bleeding from the Rev. Wright story and all she had to do is coast for awhile. When the truth would have done just fine, she chose to lie when it was anything but necessary. And, she got caught.

This simple truth says much about the character of Mrs. Clinton. It also says that Americans cannot trust her. this is important because, if she will lie on unimportant issues when it's not necessary and can be found out, you know she will lie on important matters that cannot be found out.

When we think about what drives a person to do something like this, we can only deduce the obvious. A person that is blind in their ambition and is so hungry for power, will say and do anything to get themselves elected.

Ego is a dangerous thing sometimes. Sometimes it causes a person to shoot themselves in the foot.

Just another day, where it is not good to be a Democrat.

Just Another Split In The Seam

I find it interesting that the "first black president" Bill Clinton is being told to lay off the criticism of Obama. Here, House Majority Whip and member of the Demcocratic Black Caucus, Jim Clyburn says the former president needs to "chill a little bit". From the article:

Bill Clinton's attacks on Obama, Clyburn said in a CNN interview, were unfair because a former president's viewpoint "carries with it extra weight."

"I think they would say in 'Gullah Geechee' country he needs to chill a little bit. I hope he understands what that means," Clyburn told CNN.

"I can understand him wanting to defend his wife's honor and his own record, and that is to be expected. But you can't do that in a way that won't engender the kind of feelings that seem to be bubbling up as a result of this."

"Gullah Geechee" refers to African-Americans who live in South Carolina's Low Country region near the Atlantic coast.

"He is revered in many sections of the African-American community, and I think he can afford to tone it down," Clyburn added.

Not fair? Obama threw his hat into the ring and said he wants to be president. Is he so thin-skinned that he cannot take criticism? If he were to get elected and his policies and proposals come under scrutiny like every last president before him, would they then cry, "not fair"?

Then, we read that the mayor of Atlanta (a black lady) said some things yesterday, as well:

Speaking at the 40th annual MLK commemorative service at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Franklin said the country is on the "cusp of turning the impossible into reality. Yes this is reality, not fantasy or fairy tales."

Could somebody direct her to You Tube, so she can hear the entire "fairy tale" statement again? If that doesn't work, try to explain it to her - one more time.

As you may guess, it's now boiled over into the debates and the intense dislike for each other has become even more evident.

Personal antipathy and pent-up anger boiled over as Democratic foes Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama accused each other of twisting the truth, in a fiery 2008 campaign debate Monday.

The two senators stared one another down, gesticulated and constantly interrupted one another, flinging accusations and counter-charges at a vital stage of their quests for the White House.

Some of this is the creative writing skills of a sensationalist reporter, wanting to make this sound like a bare-knuckled street fight. But what all this boils down to is evident. By the time, the Democrats' nominee is known, the party will be grievously split. I cannot imagine that this much animosity will ever be forgiven, by either side. The real question will then become: If Hillary wins, will the Obama camp support her or will they stay home in the General Election?

Now that the debate is over, the hacks will be out in force. The media jump starts it, the hacks spin it out of control. The longer this goes on, the more harsh things will be said. The more harsh things that are said, the deeper the divisions will go. And the deeper they get, the harder it will be to reunite them come November.

Clinton, McCain Win in New Hampshire

Hillary Clinton and John McCain have scored victories in the New Hampshire primaries. McCain's victory was not unexpected, despite the fact his closest rival was well within the margin of error in some of the pre-election polls. On the other hand, Barack Obama led Clinton in every poll since Iowa, with one showing him ahead by 13 percentage points. So we can safely score this one as a clear upset for Hillary. (Usually, this many polls showing such a large margin are right.)

Hillary beat Obama by 10 points in the women's vote, so maybe the crying did help. If it wasn't the crying, it had to be the indignation shown by her in the final debate or her husband Bill, when he called the Obama campaign's claim of consistency on the Iraq War, a "fairy tale". Whatever the reason, the emotion got her back in it and now she's back in the saddle, far from folding her campaign.

What this vote tells us now is, we have a horse race in both parties. And although the GOP race is far from over, the Dems could be poised for a longer fight than expected too.

But in all of this analysis we will hear today and in the coming days, one thing has to be clear. The media has to eat some crow over their premature anointing of Obama as the nominee.

Once a favorite of the media, the Clintons have found themselves shut out of the most favorable coverage they received, in months and years gone by. They came to N.H. fully prepared to slug it out with greenhorn Obama and his campaign supporters. And they used the media to their advantage on this one. They beat them at their own game, which is playing on people's emotions.

As a side note, it is a sad state of affairs that someone can waltz onto the political scene with little experience running anything, make speeches about hope, vision, and change; only to have people following him around as they would the pied piper and claiming some kind of rock star status, with no record behind him. This is the media's doing. This is what they do best.

The man can make good speeches, but I find little substance in them. And as far as specifics go, there are none. At least Hillary leaves the specifics out of her well-defined issues. She may not tell us how she will fix it, but she does tell us what she will fix. Obama is all about generalities and wants to ride some magical wave that catapults him into some kind of JFK status. That's good for college kids and it may work with them. But those of us that lived through the Kennedy era know he isn't anywhere near that magnitude.

So here we are, again. We are waiting for the next round of voting, get ready for more sound bites, more rhetoric, and more negative spins by all sides and factions. Nothing has been decided. Stay tuned.

UPDATE:

I watched interviews on the Today Show with Hilary, Obama, and McCain.

Hillary looks tired, it's amazing how much this campaign has aged her. Makeup isn't doing as well as it once did. Taking into consideration that she was tired, she still didn't sound as sure of herself in answering the simplest of questions.

Obama was very nervous, his answers weren't flowing like his speeches. Understanding he too was tired, he still seems to have trouble with live interviews. The interviews I have seen have all been taped before this one, and it makes me wonder how much editing goes on behind the scenes before these things get aired.

McCain sounded the most comfortable and looked to be the better rested of the three. He didn't fly off into a lot of long answers, but did do a good job of communicating his thoughts. Experience in the fine art extemporaneous speaking pays off great, at this level.

Closing The Deal

Very seldom is there a group of people that can come up with with a true consensus on a given topic. Philosophies vary greatly among those in a given profession. But, if you were to put a group of sales managers and/or trainers in one room and ask them what's the secret to a successful sales career, you'd hear one consistent answer: You have to close the deal.

Once, many years ago, I was a salesman for a subsidiary of a huge mega-corporation. The man that hired me led me to believe that just the name of my company (and the corporation that owned it) would be enough to get me in the door and likely would be enough to make the sale. In some respects he was right, but not completely. It was work, and work is never guaranteed. There was much to be done.

Everyone I talked to, knew the company and the corporation and there were very few that didn't. But the real test was, convincing them they needed what this company had to offer. The "#1 in its industry" corporation owned a company that was not #1, in its. My job was to do my part to get the company to #2. I was able to get it to #3 in certain areas, but the hours were ungodly.

Name brand recognition wasn't going to get it done, but first, I had to convince the customer that it could be done. I had to work long hours to take care of the people that were already doing well with the company and still find time to expand the customer base, in order to realize the vast marketing potential that could have been achieved.

Despite being a a fairly well known name owned by an even bigger name, it was a tough sell. I had to persevere through a of rejection. But, there were some real successes.

In politics, it's no different.

In reality, a president is a salesman. And when I think back to some of the presidential campaigns of yesteryear that have occurred in my lifetime, I see some defining moments where the winning candidate closed the deal and made the sale with the American people.

Being a household name, who could forget Reagan's moment in 1980? America was in a funk and here comes this actor saying he wants to be President. Capitalizing on discontent and a malaise that had been brought on by four years of ineffective and incompetent leadership, Mr. Reagan seized a moment during his last debate. After all of the specifics were both hashed and argued out, he made one final plea to the American people, as to why they should buy what he was selling.

He looked into the camera and said something to the effect of:

If you think that you are better off now than you were four years ago, then, Mr. Carter is who you should vote for. But if you think we can do better, then you should vote for me.

Right there, he closed the deal. He made the sale. And subsequently he won the election in a landslide.

Not such a well known name, Bill Clinton had his deal closing defining moment too. In his case, it wasn't what he said but what he did. Going up against an incumbent that was perceived as being out of touch with common people, he did something that candidates of years gone by, would never have dreamed of doing. He played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall's show. Granted it had little to do with policy, hope, or vision. But it demonstrated to a younger generation that he was more like them, than the incumbent president. He went on to win a lot of the younger demographics and I truly believe that it was at this point in time, where he sealed the deal.

I could cite more examples, but here's the point I want to make in all of this:

Hillary Clinton (the subsidiary) has made some grave mistakes. She assumed that the name brand recognition would carry her through to the nomination. She also has been under the delusion that Bill Clinton (the mega-corporation) would be able to close the deal. Before the tide was rolling, she took much for granted and did not take into account the need to close the deal, based on the same principle with something as simple as making a sale. She never expanded her base, she never convinced people that she was an agent of change (which is what people, particularly the Democrats and independents, are clamoring for). She, like the company and corporation I worked for, sorely miscalculated the importance of closing the sale.

You see, the company I worked for did just that and it failed, for that reason. It was subsequently sold off in increments to various other parties, by the corporation. And, it is no more. But lucky for me, I saw it coming and bailed after I had made some good money, and before the break-up. It worked out good for me, as some of the money was used to go back to school and seek a different profession. The rest was used to pay off my attorney bills I had been forced to accrue, in the midst of a tough divorce.

When Voter Apathy Turns To Anger

As we see the approval numbers that Congress is pulling in these days, we see that voters are not a bit happy with the performance of their elected officials. As I reported from the heartland this week, the voters were not happy with their leaders in Indianapolis and in turn, they demanded change at the ballot box. I stated in one of my several posts on the Indy municipal election, this was a microcosm of the mood and the feelings of the entire nation.

What the nation's leaders need to desperately realize is something they may not realize, until they are made to realize it. People did not vote for the Democrats, they voted against the GOP. The same thing happened in Indy four years ago. The GOP controlled the city's legislature, they people had enough of their mismanagement and voted for change by voting them out and giving the Dems a chance.

The local Dems, not unlike the national, promised that a new crew would do better and would end the corruption. But what we got here and what we still see in Washington is a worse case situation, much worse. The Dems have taken our support lightly. They have thumbed their noses at the electorate. It now worse, than before.

Today, it apparent to me that as a nation, if we will thumb our noses at them when it's time to vote, we can and will send them back to wherever they came from and replace them with someone else. There is nothing more satisfying than to send a corrupt and/or incompetent politician a clear message, by putting them out of work.

If you doubt my thesis, just watch the news articles and op-eds in the coming months. A good place to start is with this piece, right here.

There will be more like this one, I am sure. I know I plan to say up on it, I would love nothing more than to see an anti-incumbent sentiment swell to the point that something actually gets done. More dissatisfaction will grow and it will manifest itself, at the ballot box.

One of the news talk shows here locally credited the local bloggers for helping get the new mayor elected, since he had no money to get his message out. If this can happen here, it can happen anywhere.

Terre Haute Elects Republican Mayor

Not only did the city of Indianapolis do what no one expected (by voting out a strong incumbent), another Indiana city has gone against the grain in a huge way.

Terre Haute, Indiana, has been a Democratic strong hold for decades. Not since the late 60s has there been a GOP mayor. I remember when I lived there, the union mentality was so pronounced and so entrenched into the people's value systems, I witnessed a picket line at a drug store chain.

And we all know how unions gravitate to the Democratic Party.

But yesterday another upset occurred, something that no one in that city of 60,000 (or so) would have ever expected. The western Indiana city best known for its strong union presence, home of Indiana State University, and the birthplace of Eugene V. Debs, Socialist Party candidate for President in the early 1900s, elected a Republican mayor named Duke Bennett.

This demonstrates the tide of anti-incumbent sentiment. Incumbent Mayor Kevin Burke became the fourth consecutive incumbent to go down in defeat, something that has happened since 1991. Until yesterday, all of those incumbents were voted out in the Democratic primaries. Until yesterday, the primaries were the points where the elections were decided, because a Democrat was always guaranteed victory in November.

So, to my national and international reading audience, I say look at what some hard work at the grass roots level can do. Whenever people say, "I think there's nothing that can be done about it", maybe it's time to think again. Well-funded machine candidates can lose, if the people choose to vote them out. It's simple, just go to the polls and place a vote. If enough people can do it, the results can be different than in years past.