The Gas Tax debate, an issue we are told is so important it could determine the next President. Not quite. But you have to forgive the media after the hideous job they've done the election season. When they finally get to an actual issue, they of course, pick one of limited importance and then pick the wrong side to take.

With all the media bashing aside, my view on the gas tax is one of basic economics. The gas tax exists only to hurt low-income people. It serves no other purpose and not only should we suspend it we should eliminate it on the federal, state and local level. Consumers should never have to pay a penny in taxes for gas.

In fact, he tars and feathers John McCain and Hillary Clinton for their correct stand on this issue. But what's worse is how he deceives. McCain and Clinton have been honest in saying this really isn't going to change the forces behind the high cost of gasoline, this is a small step in the right direction. One we must make and follow it with many others.

Obama was asked by Katie Couric what his plan was to help the price of gasoline come down. "Well...uh...I meet Americans every day who are really hard hit...you know...they're seeing...uh...a hundred bucks out of their pay checks because of rising gas prices that could make the difference in whether or not they can pay their bills. But...uh...understand this Katie...uh...the idea of a gas tax holiday is a phony approach. It is a gimmick. Notice he doesn't actually answer the question. The man is all fluff and no substance, he makes Sarah Jessica Parker look like Susan Jacoby.

Barack Obama talks of helping the poor saying they should buy gas efficient cars and take mass transit missing the common sense that dictates that if you can't afford gas at $3.67 you cannot afford a Toyota Priuius and that 90% of this country doesn't have mass transit. Obama is not just wrong for this country; he's Marie Antoinette in drag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=long%20wait%20in%20massachusetts%20health%20care&st=nyt&oref=slogin

There are many flaws with the idea of universal health care that don’t need to touch on the beliefs of a CEO of a HMO worried about their profit margins. Who amongst us has not experienced ER hell, tapping our feet in a waiting room who after waiting three hours wish we could trade fates with the gunshot victim who got wheeled in right away.

Can you imagine how long the waiting would be if everyone just showed up because the thought process of “Oh, what the hell, we aren’t paying for it anyway” would prevail. It’ll make anybody with insurance ponder if the ER visit is really necessary when they cut of one of their fingers by mistake.

One could make a good political argument against universal health care, in the pure Milton Friedman free market ideology. But really if the medical world could handle the extra case loads, perhaps many on the right myself included would quiet down. But since hospitals can’t handle their current case load, one would be remiss to support universal health care as proposed by both of the Democrats.

Another problem is this, right now, businesses, individual small business owners, and government agencies provide the vast majority if not all of the current people with insurance. In the competitive global market, many businesses in particular are cutting health care to their employees and telling their employees to go to the government for care. Wal-Mart for years has been accused of this for years, although recently reports indicate they have improved but still the movement in the market goes with dumping health care coverage.

So with employees guaranteed coverage under Clinton and Obama expect a huge if not complete stoppage of coverage covered by the private market. If that goes into effect expect the same coverage if you are a white collar employee as a mother on welfare.

Which brings me to the last substantial flaw with universal health care, in the movie John Q, a 2002 action picture starring Denzel Washington, a boy is denied a heart transplant even though he has insurance, albeit basic. While it may not happen all at once, once the basic guidelines of universal health care coverage take place, they will be a push and gradual success to provide premium health care coverage.

Everything must be covered otherwise the mainstream media will saturate the marketplace with weeping mothers who cry saying “If only it had been covered, my baby would have lived”. Congressional Democrats who will remain in power for the next decade if not longer will weep and continue to push “absolute and complete universal health care coverage”.

It’s a bleak picture one that will become a reality if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton becomes President (all political analysts don’t expect either legislative branch to be in play for the Republicans until at least 2012 and by then it could be much worse). As FDR, taught us the damage one President can do has no bounds. Imagine the circumstances when Democrats think more bureaucracy is needed in the medical world.  

Still in favor of a McCain boycott? It could be dangerous to your health.

When hearing this, John McCain, current Republican nominee for President, continued his fight for cleaner government and pushed hard for ethics reform. When looking to award the contract, again only Boeing put in a bid. McCain, angry at the monopoly of it all, helped push Northrop Grumman to compete with a bid. Northrop Grumman came to win, with cost saving planes that provided overall better security and a better plane for our troops.

Democrats and a few of the new "populist" Republicans, noticeably Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, screamed foul because Northrop Grumman is a US/European joint company as opposed to Boeing which is just a US company, ignoring the fact that the planes would be assembled in Alabama. Now many are trying to get rid of the deal, wanting to put delays on new jets to our soldiers, making sure they get planes of less quality and making sure taxpayers pay more for it.

Any Republican in the 90s remembers getting into an argument over the Clinton impeachment. They played on Republican moral ADD, bringing the conversation back to defending immorality instead of that little matter of perjury. It worked. In Detroit, for those outside the Motor City let me fill you in.

But Kilpatrick, who's list of ethic infractions grows with every headline, some related to the "Sex and Text" scandal others not. His press secretary got arrested for domestic violence and then was paid with tax money for a position that did not exist. Additional texts show him giving government contracts to friends purely because they donated to his campaign. An exotic dancer who "preformed" on the Mayor, and was slapped by his wife at the Mayor's never confirmed ghetto version of a Gatsby party was killed by someone placing a hit on her. Shot over forty times, she was killed by a police issued firearm.

And what about the whistleblower suit? The mayor then agreed to an out of court settlement giving the two officers, $8.4 million dollars in tax money as long as they turned over the text messages. Not only did he use hush money, he used taxpayer money from the citizens as his hush money. This all sound like some grand conspiracy theory, right? What if everything could be confirmed with court transcripts? Yes, we now have the court transcripts that confirm everything about the affair and the hush money with an on going investigation with the murdered dancer.

Kilpatrick who has always been hated by the white suburbs is now hated by a vast majority of minorities outside and inside the city. The Wayne County prosecutor will decided on charges within the week, with back room deals being worked on as I write this. The city council will vote on whether to seek Kilpatrick’s dismissal early next week and our Governor can fire Kilpatrick at any moment, while he stubbornly says he won't quit.

All of this makes for great reading and horrible leadership. Kilpatrick's story seems to be the most colorful (although Spitzer's is sounding competitive) but all of this leads to one last person who needs to be talked about, Nicolas Sarsoky, president of France.

Sarsoky and his wife, Cecilia were widely reported to be estranged on the campaign trail, with her out right saying she wasn't going to perform any of the duties of first lady. France elected him over Segolene Royal (who incidentally spilt with her husband about the same time due to his infidelity). After a few months the Sarsokys divorced and he later courted and married Carla Bruni. While the tabloids were happy about the event, the French people replied, "Come see, comme say". Rather bored by the event, almost all accepted it. Which brings to me to this, if one can't say no, simply say yes to a full relationship like Sarsoky did. Don't cause this scandals, simply divorce and remarry and while morally you may look less the stellar simply accept who you love and honor the one you don't by being honest with them in all manners. And the challenge to us as citizens is to accept when a politican comes out either with their sexuality or their relationship with another. It really then, is none of our business. Scandals oui, relationships non.

While the Democrats are on their way to picking the most unqualified candidate of all time for the presidency, the hottest game right now for Republicans is "Who Will Be V-P?” With McCain getting the nomination, it seems everyone has a candidate and an opinion of who he should pick to be his Vice Presidential candidate? I can't be left out so here is an in-depth look at the McCain VP candidates.

The Former Contenders

Mike Huckabee- Yes he still is running and everyone is wondering why. It's actually rather cute, he's hoping to be VP (he's made no hints, he wants it) and wants it to be a stepping stone to get the presidency. This country will never elect Mike Huckabee to the presidency and his supporters while very nice people are not the ones screaming "boycott McCain". Huckabee does nothing but speak well to the far right Christians who as of now are not the ones protesting McCain. Picking Huckabee would be a mistake as he would not help McCain reach any new voters, though in his favor his charm, pleasent attitude and ability to handle media well are all qualities many would want in a VP.

Mitt Romney- The governor is being pushed hard by the far right media, as a sacrifice McCain could give to quell their anger. It's no secret that Romney supporters are the coldest to McCain, yet many have already said they will vote for him. While a few additional people would vote McCain if Romney was at the bottom, most of the absolute diehard McCain haters are not going to change and McCain would do well not to waste his VP slot with a false effort of charity in order to unify the party, as many of the party (myself included) dislike Romney.

The Token African Americans

Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, and J.C. Watts

I like Watts and Stelle in particular but neither of them nor Blackwell of Ohio would be nothing more than a token African American on the ticket. I love the idea of a black candidate but due to some historic idiocy on the part of the Republicans, the party has lost most of them and Obama will take them with historic measure if he is the candidate or even the VP candidate. None of the three candidates, Watts a congressman, Steele a Lt. Governor or Blackwell a sectary of state have any experience to handle the VP slot and they scream it. In their defense they are all more prepared than Obama.

The Female Factor

Carly Fiorina- If one woman gets on the ticket, expect it to be her. She's been everywhere with McCain including the rally for him I recently went to. Her business experience and unquestionable grasp of economics will fill a void some feel McCain is missing. Though she left Hewlett-Packard with some harsh feelings her departure was as clean as it gets.

Sarah Palin- Long time readers know that I am Palin supporter. Her popularity, media-saviness, and high level of ethics (in Alaska of all places) make her an excellent candidate. She does not have a lot of experience behind her and many feel she would be perfect for 2012 or 2016 to lead the ticket.

Jodi Rell, Laura Lingle, and Christie Todd Whitman- Rell, Lingle and Whitman are all popular governors of blue states with Whitman being a former governor. A selection of either of the three would announce a new Republican Party that would reach out to independents and Democrats however they would also cause a backlash among some conservative Republicans. Whitman in addition comes with some (absolutely undeserved) baggage from her time as head of the EPA.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Elizabeth Dole- Both are likable women who are extremely bland and would feel like token candidates although neither would be it. With so many good choices expect these two Senators to get cut fast.

The Men

Tim Pawlenty- The Governor of Minnesota, is young close friend to John McCain and has been with him on the campaign trail but the question remains who would he bring in? That's yet to be determined.

Joe Lieberman- The Democratic Independent Senator and McCain have also been close on the campaign trail and many pick him as the favorite. A McCain/Lieberman ticket would truly show a moderate approach to politics and leave Obama looking politically obedient to the far left that many in this country have yet to embrace.

Bobby Jindal- Excellent guy but he just got elected Governor a few months ago. It's not his time. However make sure to place your order for Jindal 2016 shirts now.

The Wild Card

Colin Powell- Both Obama and McCain want him. His presence could essentially seal the deal for either of them. With Obama he would bring the foreign policy and military experience, Obama desperately needs. Powell has said that he has already begun advising Obama. However Powell is a Republican and agrees with McCain on almost every issue, he would be a strong pick one without personal baggage and bring the just the right amount of diversity and resume that no one could questioned. However Powell has showed a reluctance to enter politics, particularly to run for office, yet these are just the two candidates who could bring him in.

The Bottom Line

Who Will McCain pick?

Did I miss anyone? Let me know.

Could a Republican Senator for Alabama really lose? It seems I'll admit a preposterous idea but a closer look at polling data could tell that this could be the race everyone talks about the morning after the election saying "What the helck?” (Yes I may up my own word hell is too offensive, heck is too hokey).

Session's last numbers in an election (2002) were 59% with 792,561 vs. 538,878 for his opponent. Now look at his 1996 numbers during his first race (1996) 786,436 vs. 681,651. So while now being an incumbent he only gained 6,000 votes. While the Democrats lost 140,000 between the two races. What the huge drop in Democratic turnout? 1996 was a presidential election year, 2002 was not. Not to mention the fact that 2002 was the golden year for Republican elections. Now we have a presidential election coinciding with the senate race once again.

That's not enough information to support my claim yet, so I found out how the two Democrats Alabama elects to the house fared in congressional only elections vs. presidential elections. The difference? Rep. Cramer received 60,000 more votes in 2004 than 2002. He was unopposed in 2006. Rep. Davis received 30,000 in 2004 than 2002 for a combined 90,000. Add in another 50,000 of Democrats in Republican district and it's clear they'll be showing up in November.

But still, this race is only competitive because it happens this year, 2008. If Barack Obama is the nominee the seat remains one to watch. If it is Clinton it will go to Sessions without a doubt. What Obama will do in the general election and his big selling point to Democratic voters worried about electabiltiy is this: African Americans will vote like never before, all that can be, will be registered. And almost all of them will vote obviously for Obama. Almost every single legally eligible African American will vote in this election, the organization and enthusiasm will be mind blowing. (I do not consider him much more electable than Clinton but this is his only legitimate selling point).  Besides winning in the Alabama primary, Obama and Clinton were both remarkable for bringing in so many to a primary with 542,000 Democrats voting. Do the numbers this was a primary that more Democrats voted in than voted for the Democratic candidate in 2002. This was also before we will fully see the Obama-mania hit the black community.

Also the candidate makes the difference with the Democrat now being Vivian Figures, an African American woman. Sessions previous challengers were both white. Sessions has had quite a back ground with race relations having been rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee for his views on civil rights. He prosecuted civil rights workers (who were found not guilty), used Hurricane Katrina to push through unrelated legislation, said he was against civil liberties, voted against the Voting Rights Act, attacked the NAACP calling it "un-American", and was the main opponent to comprehensive immigration reform. Here's the line you'll see in television spots quoting from the junior senator "I use to think the KKK was ok". Oh and the cherry on top, he was recently tagged with accepting illegal funds to his campaign.

Expect race to be the hot topic of the campaign with Sessions on the losing end. But in order for him to go down like another bigot turned Senator (Frm. Sen. George Allen) Figures must make Whites uncomfortable with aligning with Sessions, to the point a Sessions bumper sticker causes stares from other whites. She can't win the white vote or come even close but if she depresses it, if McCain turns off some southern racist whites into voting altogether, if Obama gets the nomination and causes the greatest African American voting by huge margins, if the DNC actually supports Figures as a viable candidate. If, If, If.

I remain unconvinced at this time nor do I endorse Figures. But the pieces are there, should they fall into place, they could make one very bizarre puzzle this November.

Senator Barack Obama is in a very good position to get the nomination from the Democratic Party. Wonderful. I can't explain this feeling inside my heart it's so warm and fuzzy. The sun is starting to appear over the clouds, wait a rainbow too! Suddenly I want to hug someone.......

........(Note to self: Do not hug perfect stranger when feeling good about Barack in the future). But wait, during all my feeling good did I miss something? Maybe, that little fact that if Obama gets the nomination he has done so by perverting democracy in order to get the nomination.

Caucuses are a basic affront of democracy in every way, from the obvious violation of privacy to other more sinister actions. Such as the fact that it purposefully disenfranchises the working poor who have to work the night shift. Stories came in such as one about a waiter who favored Clinton but had to work serving food to Obama supporters after they decided to have a bite out from their caucus. And while being shamelessly smeared by the mainstream, it is true the rich liberals favor Obama while the blue-collar folks desire Clinton. The same ones left out by the caucus system. But many victims abound such as the disabled and elderly who often can't make the trek to vote due to their age and medical conditions. The same people poll after poll tells us favor Clinton and who would have cast their vote for her if allowed.

Besides benefiting from a system that by designed doesn't allow the poor, elderly or disabled to vote. Besides the fact that Obama's candidacy relies on the violation of the private ballot. There are other factors such as his campaign making sure that Michigan and Florida which both went to Clinton do not get counted. However they have been flexible enough to say they may, mind you may, be open to a revote but only if the states vote by...you guessed it...caucuses.

I would have thought a half black Democrat would be nicer to Florida but that's just me and Al Gore. Now with the final primaries/caucuses on their way, Obama feeling confident now won't allow debates between him and Clinton. Effectively making sure that voters in those states do not get to fully assess the candidates. And with talk of the general election coming already, McCain has said that he will do public financing if Obama does as well. That shouldn't be tough since Obama pledged to do such a move, if the Republican agreed. Now that McCain agrees, Obama is going back on his word made just a month or so ago.

For all the Clinton loving that I espouse, do not think me a fool. I know very well that the Clintons would be doing the exact same thing if in the same position that Obama is in now. But they are the Clintons. Are we suppose to set the ethical standards of political campaigning from them? God help us. Something is very clear, Obama is not change or a different type of politics he is much more of the same with better teeth and bigger lies. Much of his book title seems true not the "hope" part but the "audacity". 

              

It really may be the most revolting thing no one in politics is talking about. The constant smearing of Hillary supporters and flattering prose given daily to Obama lovers. You've heard, seen, and read it multiple times. Poor, uneducated, and the old are for Hillary while the young, college educated and wealthy are flocking to Obama. They've called Hillary supporters "lunch box" Democrats, i.e. a bunch of hicks. We all know the press is in lust in Obama, when a reporter from The New Republic went to an Obama rally he was asked by his fellow reporters many from "un-biased" news agencies quote "So when did you fall in love with him?” And of course, the reporter from The New Republic went on to write an adoring piece about our first substantial half black candidate.

I think the discussion has to go a little bit deeper in order to understand the Democrats. Barack Obama supporters are idiots. All of them. With the exception of the congressional Democrats who want to make sure their seat is safe this November. Michael Medved, the only voice in talk radio still worth listening to, asked Obama supporters to actually describe what Obama was going to do when he became president. The same clichés about unifying the nation, bringing us all together, and joining in group hugs was said. Hell we could have had Oprah just to do that. Then Medved actually read verbatim Obama's policy stands from his web site, which made fortune cookies look like things of substance.

 

Again and again, we hear that young people love Obama. As a good blogging friend wrote, "They also love "Family Guy". A reporter (can we still call them that) said and I quote "If you're under 25, you love Obama". Last time I checked I'm still 5 months shy of my 21st birthday an event I want to transpire more with each passing Obama-adoring headline. Yes, college students can be brilliant but their naivety (many of my more conservative readers, will lump me in with them) knows no bounds. Knowledge untested by the reality the world brings is useless.

Hillary Clinton is a smart woman. But she has also worked hard for everything she has attained. And as Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times her detailed policy positions blow Barack out of the water. It's easy to understand why she's frustrated, with her turning in meticuliously written and thought out ways to change this country and Obama simply saying two words "change" and "hope" and reaping the rewards. It's clear McCain is the Republican nominee but he could very well lose come November and we cannot afford to have Obama in the White House.We may disagree with Clinton but her competence cannot be questioned when compared to Obama’s.

There's been quite a shake up in the Middle East scene as it seems Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is coming out of the closet. And who can say they're suprised... after all how could we miss the signs?

                    
            From his recent outing to go see Hanana Montana/Miley Cyrus 3D

                     
 Who can forget his bizarre version of Que-er Eye for The British Guy
                                    during the kidnapping of UK soliders. 

                               
                      To the morality police to make sure he never
                                     has to see a woman's body

                              
                         Finally to his talking at Columbia when he said that 
                         Iran had no homosexuals. Considering the fact that 
                         he was on American soil, it may have been the only 
                                            time he has told the truth.

         

Get used to the title because on Wednesday it will become a reality. I am being completely and totally presumptuous and yes I know the danger of this. Just last night, when the Giants won the Superbowl with a touchdown in the last thirty seconds of the game. I looked at my brother and said "All across this nation everyone is saying "Wow...I just lost a lot of money". And of course anything is possible. But the results from tomorrow are clear with McCain with double Romney's numbers nationally and Romney's doubling Huckabee's. In the Republican race, McCain will win and Huckabee and Romney will drop out on Wednesday morning. If I have egg on my face so be it (if it doesn’t happen Tuesday night the end result will be the same), but we need to get over the primary discussion and move on to the general election.

The first emotion I feel with McCain winning isn't happiness or relief, it's nervousness. I love John McCain and as long time readers know, I have supported him consistently through this entire race. Now many good Americans who supported a national hero Rudy Giuliani have given their support to the Senator making him unbeatable to get the nomination. The good news is that we as a party will have time to heal from the division that a primary (and to be fair it does so by design) invokes. Friends who supported Bush and local Republicans in 2002, 2004, and 2006 became competitors and some enemies. A sad effect, which is why I hate primaries. Democrats no matter how big a happy face they put on it are very much in the same boat.

Their race will go on past Super Tuesday, the division will continue. And the general election question posed to the GOP is now this. Do we let the division continue past the primary or do we rally to the most conservative legitimate candidate in the general election? Yes McCain is no Reagan and as a moderate Republican I like that. But I also liked Reagan and to that note Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr., and Bush. Each one changed the party and the country with a mixture of liberal and conservative thought that formed their presidency, their legacy. The reason for this is that a Republican is not in the White House to represent only conservatives in this country. He is there to represent every American and while the solutions he proposes and enacts are more likely to coincided with the beliefs of a certain people, they affect everyone. Not to mention the fact that the solutions he enacts are not only his to make but also a shared responsibility with the members of Congress and the Supreme Court.

And so that is my whole problem with the false conservative litmus test being used by a few in the party and many more in the conservative media. The belief that only a conservative, their conservative, should lead this country. If it were up to me only moderate to liberal Republicans should lead this country. But "should" is the wrong word, because it exists only in the abstract. The word that is correct is will. Someone will lead this country.  “Should” is our choice and it is over. Our next president will either be one of three people John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And if you are one of those very conservative people who say that McCain is not a conservative. That is not the argument. For the very conservative, though they may have a list five feet tall of disagreement with McCain, it is undeniable that the list doubles in size with either Clinton or Obama. So the question to the most conservative of voters with McCain getting the nomination is this: Will you pick the leadership that best fits your beliefs or let your pride (and be honest that is what it is) engulf you and betray your duty to pick the best legitimate candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.

          

Note: I asked my brother, a patron of the Saw films, who also saw the film how the violence compared. His response "It was like Sesame Street". I suppose if you want to kill "Tickle Me Elmo" (and who of us hasn't?) that would be a true description.

Recently I went to go see a new movie called "Untraceable". But I had many qualms about it before hand due to the reviews it received it the papers I read. The Detroit Free Press called it "torture porn", The Detroit News called it "torture porn" and The New York Times called it (surprise) "torture porn". Leave it to members of the media to turn anything into porn. The movie plotline is that a killer is streaming video of the killings on his website, with the FBI close on his heels. I wondered if I were to see this film, was I no better than the people clicking on his fictitious site? And really how violent was the movie? The MPAA gave the movie an R rating for " some prolonged sequences of strong gruesome violence and language". That sounded bad. But on the other hand the film had an awesome preview and starred two of my favorite actors Diane Lane and Colin Hanks (son of Tom).

 

Finally I decided to go see it with the understanding that if it got too violent, I would walk out. But then something interesting happened. The film was if anything underwhelming with the sort of “hype” it received by the reviews. Something I was extremely happy for. There's something about graphic violence that makes me get a little queasy (morally). But then with my over analytical mindset, I grew concerned again. Had I become so desynthesized by the media that watching a few brief (very brief) scenes in which someone dies didn't bother me? Yes and no.

I don't watch films fake snuff films like "Saw" and "Hostel" or anything in which mutated aliens eat everyone like "The Hills Have Eyes". I like mysteries, grew up reading Agatha Christie progressed into Grisham and then finally to books like Patterson (a step backwards). My personal tastes are much more light like Christie and detail orientated like Grisham. But ultimately what really matters is whether or not in a fictitious story, book or film, is whether the focus is on the killing or on catching the killer, and Untraceable while many will disagree, belongs with the later category. But to the whole question of being desynthesized, the film was no worse than an episode of CSI, the number one show enjoyed by millions of Americans across this country. Does that make them sick? No. Crime is by itself fascinating, fraught with so many pieces that for many of us, it captures our attention a real life version of a jigsaw puzzle.

What really is disturbing is my daily copy of The New York Times, though not for the usual Republican reasons. What the Times does is actually give coverage to world events that barely make a few sentences in most of the daily papers that most of us read, if the stories get mentioned at all. Seeing the actual pictures of a victim of a suicide bombing, a child whose face though covered has been killed by ethnic fighters, and even in this nation a young black man covered with his own blood by gang violence and his own self-destruction.

Everything else seems kind of fake after that. And even a good film like “Untraceable” never gets rid of the feeling that we are watching an actor pretending to get killed by another actor. After you see the absolute devastating effect of humans killing one another, whether by a glimpse in the news or in real life situations, everything else pales in comparison. Somehow though, I doubt the average teenager who while sneaking into see "Saw 5" (trust me it will be made) cannot name our Secretary of State (sad but true factoid) will leave with that mindset. That's what scares me.

                

I'm a logical person. So I can't get around how we as voters in the two major political parties have gotten so illogical. Polling clearly showed John Edwards was the best Democrat to win for the party. He's stands on positions were equal to that of Obama-Clinton. So why did Democrats pass on Edwards? The answer clearly is that the party wants to be the first to nominate a half black candidate or the first woman. Talk about going double or nothing, because physical diversity is fine but the candidates that inhibit those traits are not. One is Barack Obama who yes has won the hearts of many a wealthy, white liberal. But the average voter still doesn't know the junior Senator. And when they find out he was a state senator just three years ago, some will have serious doubts. The other candidate is Hillary Clinton with her high negatives, though she is winning over some skeptics (myself included). Even though this is a "Democratic" year as we are told by the mainstream media, if there's a way to screw up an election, leave it to a Democrat to find it.

 

I'm used to Democrats making stupid decisions. But we Republicans are generally more given to common sense. That's why, it's so remarkable that so many in our party want to lose in 08. Last time I checked the office of President was something we wanted to retain. So unless, there are huge, and I mean huge, deficits in a certain candidate we would do well to pick the most electable. Many Republicans across America are now choosing (wisely) John McCain to be our candidate for the 2008 election. McCain if given the nomination will face an extremely tough race and could very well end up losing. That's the reality. Only after FDR and Truman did one president get a "third" term. That of course being Reagan. And as much as I love President Bush he is no Reagan (in terms of national love). In fact the nation does not often give a party with a President with a 29% approval rating a third term and none of our candidates could bring success. Obama though certainly will face tougher scrutiny by the voting public is coming close to unbeatable should he get the nomination (the good news is the Clinton should end up getting it). Clinton can win, even against our best and certainly against our worst (yes you Mr. Romney). And America will survive.

We now have five candidates (six scenarios) that could conceivable get the nomination. Just take a look at them faced off. And then envision their numbers come next November.

Obama vs. Huckabee              Clinton vs. Huckabee 
Obama vs. Romney                 Clinton vs. Romney
Obama vs. McCain                   Clinton vs. McCain

We need a winner. It just happens that the only one who can win is McCain and yes I like him the best. But at least I could understand the logic of picking another candidate if they could actually win. Romney has been shown that he cannot in various articles that document his failings. I'll talk later over the lesson I learned about a Romney politician in 06 and how he went on to a huge defeat. Huckabee is a nice man, but can you actually see independents going for him? And what about the "country club" Republicans. Obviously he'll lose the Northeast by the biggest margin in modern political history. He speaks well for a certain part of the base and no one else. So in closing, I plead for a return (and for what's it worth, it seems to be coming) to common sense and logic. Not from the Democrats but for the party I love. We could build a lasting legacy on the Supreme Court, continue fighting a strong foreign policy and protect our homeland, continue to make sure taxation doesn't kill the middle and lower class, and protect human life by finally turning over Roe vs. Wade. We can do all of that with a McCain nomination or we can ensure the next president will be Obama or Clinton. The choice is up to us.