Clinton's last gasp

As Bill Clinton goes around the country telling Democrats to "chill out" suggesting that the mess that is the Democrat selection process is a good thing and will actually strengthen the party for the general election, Politico.com has just released a story suggesting that the process is all but over for Mrs. Clinton. Despite her latest efforts this weekend to convince the DNC to seat both the Florida and Michigan delegations, Politico has released a story suggesting that Clinton does not have enough support on the Credentials Committee to sit the disenfranchised delegates from either state. You can read more about Clinton's latest attempt to seize power and ignore the Democratic process at http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080401/pl_politico/9298;_ylt=Aq91dpcrEfgxuDQigWxRzIkb.3QA

A return to first principles

As long as liberals continue to view the Constitution as a "living" document rather than a fixed document that protects fundamental key rights, namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness throughout time, we will continue to witness the growth of big government and the erosion of our personal rights. While liberals firmly believe that the state is the people and the people are the state, big government gets to decide which rights we receive and who is entitled to them namely in the form of social security, medicare, medicaid, prescription drugs for seniors, and now universal health care, if either Clinton or Obama are elected. Now, more than ever, we need to return to first principles, namely the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence that are supported by the Constitution. A return to first principles clearly advocates that our rights are natural rights or in other words, rights endowed by God that are unalienable; they are not granted or taken away by the government for government. Furthermore, these first principles include the concept of limited government. Americans need to understand that limited government is not weak government. In fact, government does have a role to play in our society whether it be to protect ourselves from each other or to protect ourselves against tyrrany or to protect us against enemey invasion or from terrorists threatening to do us harm, government has a role to play in our society. However, when government itself violates the very basic principles it promises to uphold, there is a fundamental break down of the purpose of government. When government, not the individual, gets to decide the manner in which we live and how we live it, innately we know we must return to first principles: a government limited in size and scope. Electing either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, who do not support the idea of first principles, clearly would continue the erosion of such inherent rights.

McCain running strongly

As the Democrats continue to battle it out, according to the latest Rasmussen Poll, Senator John McCain is now competive or is leading in three key Democrat strongholds, namely Michigan, New Jersey, and Wahington state. As Obama and Clinton continue to inflict damage upon each other, John McCain has clearly benefitted from all the negatives, which is obviously bad news for Democrats since they cannot afford to give away any of these states to McCain in the general election. Furthermore, it's been reported that the Clinton campaign is yet again strapped for cash. As March draws to a close, some $300,000.00 in health care premiums have not been met for members of her staff. This development is quite ironic considering that Clinton wants to add yet another entitlement by providing every American with health insurance. If Clinton cannot pay for health insurance for a few staffers, why does she think we can pay for every American?

McCain't?

Senator John McCain has now on several occasions gone on record to say that he does not know much about how the economy works. As you might imagine during this period of economic downturn with falling stock markets, record foreclosures, a weak dollar, record-high energy prices, etc., the Democrats are trying to make political hay of this "ignorance" (which by the way is hard to believe considering that McCain was a "foot soldier" in the Reagan Revolution). It is quite clear that our economic prosperity has been eroded by overregulation, a burdensome tax code, a bloated entitlement system, and protectionist trade barriers. Now while McCain may not be a student of economics he can certainly articulate some tried and true conservative economic principles to counter what the Democrats have to offer us. For example, America can regain her economic footing by lightening the tax burden, or even eliminating the current tax code and replacing it with the fair tax, deregulating key economic sectors, i.e., getting rid of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, getting control of spending by eliminating many antiquated programs, i.e., farm subsidies, and abolishing many trade barriers, antidumping laws, and import quotas that make the U.S. uncompetitive in many markets. Employing such measures will restore America's prosperity as well as her economic freedom. Surely, even John McCain can understand such conservative economic priciples, can't he?

How much government is enough?

Voters should carefully consider just how much government will be introduced into their lives as a result of electing either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to the White House based on their respective policy proposals. No doubt limited government intervention is sometimes necessary, and even welcomed, when something cannot be dealt with at the individual, local, or state level as is the case with some federal policies that actually benefitted the American people: namely the Homestead Act of 1862, the GI Bill of 1944, and the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. These policies worked because they affirmed six basic questions when it comes to "how much government is enough"? Will the policy unify the American people? Will the policy make us safer? Will the policy make us more prosperous? Is the policy responsible? Will the policy promote self-reliance? And, is the policy the government's business? A negative response to any of these should make us skeptical concerning the policy proposal in question. Applying this criteria to what both Obama and Clinton would propose should obviously raise a healthy level of skepticism, and even rejection, from any voter in the general election since said proposals will increase government involvement in our private lives to unprecedented levels, which is something our founders never envisioned.

The answer(s)

If you asked any one 6 weeks ago about the odds of Mitt Romney campaigning for John McCain, he would have said slyly, "slim and none, and slim just left town". Fast forward six weeks later, Mitt Romney is welcoming Senator John McCain to Salt Lake City as they begin to fund raise for the McCain campaign. So much for "slim having left town". Realistically, this makes a lot of sense for several reasons: 1. working with Romney helps heal and unite the party behind McCain after a pretty bruising primary; 2. Romney may be auditioning for the VP spot, which he now says he would accept; 3. Romney may be looking at 2012 considering McCain's age should he win; and 4. it takes care of one of McCain's weaknesses which is the lack of funds. If Romney is the VP candidate, not only can he raise money in large sums, but he can also write checks for the McCain/Romney campaign. Perhaps Romney is the "answer" to McCain's prayers.

Also, there is an artcle on Time.com by Clintonista Joe Klein describing the scenario where Al Gore is the "answer" to the Democrats prayers being that both Obama and Clinton are really flawed candidates (though it appears that Obama is not being effected by fallout over the Jeremiah Wright controversy) and may cost the Democrats the general election in November because of their protracted primary fight. You can read more about Al Gore as party savior at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080327/us_time/isalgoretheanswer;_ylt=AvtjBdFvfqVV4cbxXzGMFdFh24cA

League of Democracies

Senator John McCain is on the stump today in Los Angeles displaying his foreign policy credentials and taking a swipe at the Bush administration's unilateralist, "cowboy" diplomacy. Citing examples of the Cold War, our alliance with NATO, and the war on terror, McCain bluntly admitted that the U.S. has an "image problem" under the current administration. While the U.S. remains the world's lone superpower, it cannot go it alone in a world filled with such venomous and murderous enemies. McCain hopes to reestablish ties with allies we have abandoned these past eight years in the hope of restoring more balance and sensibility to our foreign policy. In an AP story McCain was quoted as saying that "The United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone," noting that "the United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War or other conflicts in its history". The story went on to say that "instead...the country must lead by attracting others to its cause, demonstrating the virtues of freedom and democracy, defending the rules of an international civilized society and creating new international institutions". In other words, John McCain wants to create a League of Democracies that "must set an example for other democracies...to create a new global compact of more than 100 democratic countries to advance shared values and defend shared interests".

The story you did not know

There's an interesting story today by the Associate Press about the reasoning why the Democrats use superdelegates in the first place and why employing them makes sense. Interestingly, the author who is a Harvard University fellow and a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, goes to great pains outlining why both Obama and Clinton are right, and wrong, about why the superdelegates ought to vote for them. You can read more about this story at http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080326/cm_csm/ybaer;_ylt=AmzxhC0e.4luU9PkZd7uXGFh24cA

Democrats keep on giving

The Democrat hopefuls to take over the White House next January keep shooting themselves in the foot. Over the last couple of weeks, Barack Obama has had to answer for his relationship with his minister over the last 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. Obama will certainly suffer in the polls as a result of the fallout. This must have delighted Mrs. Clinton to no end thinking she could actually get back into the race. Now comes news that Clinton "overexaggerated" the circumstances of a trip she took to Bosnia with daughter Chelsea back in 1996. Apparently, Clinton claimed there was "sniper fire" as they were getting off of the plane and that they had to "duck and cover" as a result of the volleys. Let's go to the videotape. Apparently, Clinton was caught in a "lie". She and Chelsea walked off the plane without incident. Why did she have to lie about the situation? Obviously, after 35 years of public service, Clinton still feels insecure about her record. Her experience as first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the US, and Senator of New York, are continually belittled by the press and the Obama campaign. She seemingly needs to pad her resume in order to prove she is ready for the White House on "the first day". In an Associated Press story Ron Fournier writes, "What makes Clinton's situation unique — and the Bosnia embellishments so damaging — is the fact that the New York senator has built her candidacy on the illusion of experience. Any attack on her credentials is a potential Achilles heel." Much like Obama, this story calls into question Clinton's judgment and character to be the next president. More importantly, both Obama and Clinton continue to give the American people reasons for not supporting their candidacies. Somewhere, John McCain must be smiling.

Entitlements

The Trustees of both Medicare and Social Security gave their annual reoprts today and the news is grim. Medicare, at its current rate of spending, will be wiped out by 2019, while it reaches its threshold (when payouts exceed revenue collected, by the end of this year). Social security will go bankrupt by 2041 with its projected threshold to be reached by 2017, a mere nine years from now. These are grim forecasts indeed, especially if one considers more and more baby boomers will be retiring over the next decade and will be entitled to the benefits from these programs. Yet what's more frustrating is the fact that if either Clinton or Obama wins the White House both of them will add yet another entitlement in the form of universal health care. How do we plan to pay for such a program when we cannot pay for medicare or social security? Such entitlements will seriously jeopardize the prosperity and fiscal health of the country. Such irresponsible policies will bankrupt the country unless market solutions, or enormous tax hikes, are set in place.

Some not so good news

In a year where Democrats are suppose to take back the White House and enlarge their majorities in both the House and Senate, the Clinton/Obama tug-of-war has certainly bolstered Senator John McCain's hopes of capturing the White House. And, with a concerted effort, as the Democrats continue to crash and burn this primary season coupled with a "do-nothing" Congress led by Pelosi and Reed, the Republicans could actually win the White House and make considerable in-roads in re-capturing Congress if they revert back to the conservative priciples that have made it a great party in the past. However, there is some bad news at the state and local levels that do not bode well for the Republicans this election cycle despite some good fortune. You can read more about this "bad news" at http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080324/pl_politico/9175;_ylt=AsdTfbc18fV_Ld1wPyUU8O5h24cA

New revelations about McCain

Apparently, Senator John McCain was ready to quit the Republican party in 2001. In an MSNBC report today, McCain so was disgusted by the tactics used by the Bush campaign back in 2000, especially right before the South Carolina primary, that he seriously entertained the idea of leaving the party and becoming an independent, allowing the Democrats to take control of the Senate. Furthermore, McCain also seriously considered joining John Kerry back in 2004 as Kerry's running mate (kerry ended up selecting John Edwards). Now what Kerry and McCain have in common is a great question considering that McCain calls himself a "proven conservative" and a "soldier in the Reagan revolution". It would appear that when John McCain the politician does not get his way or loses a campaign or election he would rather "cut and run". You can read more about the "Two Divergent McCains" at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23773941/

Fiscal conservative

Common Sense rarely comments on state and local issues, but this one is worth it. Unfortunately, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed into law the mid-year budget which ends on 30 June. What is unfortunate is that Perdue did not wield his line-item veto as prudently as he should have; instead of battling fellow Republicans to cut spending by some $65 million because of a softening Georgia economy, Perdue only cut a little less than $300,000. There will be some obvious shortfalls in the budget this year and as a result, most of those shortfalls will be covered by the reserved fund and not cuts in spending. This is obviously a very disappointing development. You can read more about this story at http://www.macon.com/198/story/301433.html

The color of money

Latest reports have Senator John McCain raising $4 million last week which is a slight uptick from the previous weeks. In his latest campaign fund raising letter, McCain says he wants to raise $10 million by 31 March, which is a tall order indeed. Obviously, McCain is having problems raising cash for his campaign, though he's the nominee. Conservatives have not yet come home to roost, as it were! And, he's obviously not in the same league as either Clnton or Obama when it comes to raising cash. While it is still early, the McCain campaign should be concerned about the relative lack of cash on hand. However, McCain does have one thing going for him. As he limps along putting together enough money to compete in the general election, Clinton and Obama will continue to slug it out all the way to the convention spending enormous amounts of money in the process. With the Democrats in disarray, McCain must be praying every night that they do not pick a nominee until August! Of course, all of the fund raising problems disappear the minute Mitt Romney accepts the VP nomination.

Slap in the face

Despite Barack Obama's recent woes as a result of the negative onslaught by the Clinton campaign and the Jeremiah Wright controversy, he picked up a key endorsement yesterday. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, the only hispanic governor in the United States, endorsed Obama as a "once in a lifetime leader" who can bring real change to Washington and to the country. Now this endorsement is an obvious slap in the face to Mrs. Clinton since Richardson is a long-time friend of the Clintons and had served as UN Ambassador and Energy Secretary in the Clinton administration. His support is also an indirect swipe at Clinton as a "Washngton insider" who represents the past, not the future of the party or the country. Such an endorsement also helps Obama stop some of the fallout from the Wright debacle. And, Obama picks up yet another crucial superdelegate vote in his quest for the Democrat nomination.

Can Clinton still win the nomination

John Zogby recently did of poll of Democrat superdelegates gauging whether or not Hillary Clinton can come back and win their party's nomination. Surprisingly, most said she could under three conditions. First, she needs to carry Pennsylvania by a wind margin. Presently, she leads Obama by double digits but that could all change by 22 April when the primary is set to take place. The idea here is that Clinton can demonstrate to the superdelegates that she can carry the big states, which will be key in November against Senator McCain. However, under the rules of proportional representation, it's almost impossible to win any state by an overwhelmingly percentage of the vote. Second, Clinton must overtake Obama in the popular vote. Obviously, it would be very difficult for any superdelegate to vote for Clinton should she be trailing Obama in the popular vote. However, her work is cut out for her though since there are few states remaining before the end of the nomination process on 10 June. Finally, Clinton needs some kind of break or event to dissuade the super elegates not to vote for Obama. Now Clinton has recently stressed that Obama is unfit to be president because of his inexperience, and that idea has gained some traction, but what has really hurt Obama is his lack of judgment as evidenced by the Rezco and Wright fiasco, which have turned voters against him. What may be Obama's saving grace is the fact that it is just about four weeks until the next primary in Pennsylvania, so he will have time to do damage control and perhaps right the ship before he loses any more ground. The bottom line is that in order for Clinton to win the Democrat nomination a lot will have to happen between now and August when they hold their convention.

Superdelegate primary

The Democrats do not want a convention fight in August. They certainly do not want to steal the nomination away from Barack Obama with a deal brokered at the convention that has him going into the convention with a lead in delegates, but not exiting the convention as the nominee. The Democrats would also like to figure out how to count both Florida and Michigan, but that seems quite unlikely since both states now have tabled their plans for a revote. So, what are the Democrats to do? The latest idea being floated is to hold a superdelegate primary before the August convention in order not to wreck the Democrat 's chances of winning the White House in November because of a massive walkout by supporters of the losing campaign. This proposal is being touted by Democrat Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. The idea is to have the some 800 superdelegates, some 40% who are still uncommitted, vote ahead of the August convention, in mid-June, so as to avoid a convention fight. Such an idea is gaining momentum among some of the party's elite, but is a long way from being settled. The idea of having Clinton and Obama make one final "open" appeal to the superdelegates before a transparent vote has a lot of merit and would bring this at-times ugly nomination process to a conclusion most can live with. But being that such an option makes too much sense, I fear the Democrats will reject it.

All but gone

Barack Obama's nationwide lead over Senator Hillary Clinton has all but vanished as a result of the Clinton campaign's relentless attacks on Obama's leadership abilites and the fallout from the Jeremiah Wright fiasco. In the latest poll conducted by USA Today, Obama leads Clinton 47% to 44% which is a statistical dead heat once you figure in the margin of error. What was once a 14 point lead has all but evaporated for the junior senator from Illinois. While the news is not good presently for the Obama campaign, because of the Democrats proportional system, it is highly unikely that Clinton would makeup the shortfall (she's down some 200 delegates) to overtake Obama. While Clinton should do very well in Pennsylvania on April 22, the remainder of the primary calendar does not favor Clinton to come all the way back especially since Michigan and Florida are all but out at this point. It all comes down to the superdelegates and I'm sure each of the campaigns are promising them the world in return for their support at the convention. Meanwhile, Senator McCain leads both Obama and Clinton by an identical 46%-40%, which is outside the margin of era. Surprisingly, Ralph Nader is polling around 6%. McCain can only be bolstered by the latest events surrounding the Democrats coupled with his fact finding tour in the Middle East and Europe.

Not so fast

It appears that the Michigan re-vote is dead! After having reported late last week that Michigan will re-vote on 3 June, high ranking Senate Democrats, on the condition of anonymity, announced at the end of meeting today that the Michigan re-vote is all but dead. This is a serious blow to the Clinton campaign. Furthermore, if McCain selects Romney as his VP, Michigan and its 17 electoral votes will certainly come into play in November, a state that McCain might need especially if Ohio trends for the Democrats.

Back to square one

The Chairwoman of the Florida State Democrat party has thrown in the towel. Florida will not revote, at least for the forseeable future. Having rejected everything from a mail-in vote, to a state-wide causcus, and firehouse primaries, the fact remains that 1.7 million Democrats in Florida will not have their voices heard. This obviously bodes very badly for Mrs. Clinton since she now trails Senator Obama by some 200 plus delegates and desperately needs a large portion of the some 210 delegates up for grabs. One Clinton insider has suggested that the delegates be apportioned along the 55-45 split that Clinton won by in January. The only catch is that neither Obama or Clinton campaigned in the state leading up to its primary after word came down from DNC Chairman Howard Dean that Florida would not count. Obviously, the Obama camp would reject that recommendation out of hand and perhaps counter with a Florida split similar to the proportion of delegates at the national level, which of course, favors Obama since it changes nothing in the end. There are of course several options: 1. Florda does not count and everything remains status quo which would favor Obama; 2. have the DNC or some outside source pay for the revote, but even then would 1.7 million Floridians return to the polls?; or 3. fight it out at the convention and have Dean make a ruling in August. Such a scenario is dicey at best but of course it adds to the drama that is Democrat politics.

It's about judgment, stupid!

While Common Sense applauds Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for trying to stay on the issues with respect to the fallout of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, one has to wonder what kind of judgment Barack Obama has been exercising for the last twenty years as a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois. Wright has unleashed over the years some very incendiary and hurtful remarks. In one sermon, shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Wright said ``America's chickens are coming home to roost,'' referring to U.S. foreign policy. In another sermon, Wright said the government ``lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.'' Wright also preached the kind of racial politics that Obama has said he is working to end. Wright lumped Obama's rival, Hillary Clinton, with what he characterized as a white ruling elite. Obama ``ain't rich and he ain't privileged,'' Wright said. ``Hillary fits the mold.'' In a campaign where Obama stresses his "good judgment" and the fact that he is a uniter, not a divider, calls into direct question that judgment. Is this the kind of judgment Obama will exercise if elected President? What kind of people you surround yourself with Mr. Obama on the campaign trail or in the Oval office does matter, and in this case you have exercised some very poor judgment!

For my students

A little something for my students studying the problems of front-loading primaries/caucuses during the presidential selection process.

Although the Super Tuesday of 2008 was the nearest equivalent to a national primary, the original Super Tuesday of 20 years ago was created with a much more regional focus in mind. In 1988, the Democrat National Committee devised Super Tuesday on the second Tuesday in March as a way of giving Southern States more clout in that party’s nominating process, and thus to combat the disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshirein choosing nominees. Thus on March 8, 1988, voters in 12 southern states (joined also by voters in Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Missouri) all went to the voting booth on the same day. This “southern strategy” by DNC officials clearly backfired – instead of bringing clarity to the Democrat race, three candidates (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson) each won five state primaries, essentially splitting the Democrat vote and thus blunting the South’s impact in the process.Not to be outdone, the Republicans similarly began emphasizing Super Tuesday as a means of bringing earlier closure to their own nomination process. After deemphasizing the importance of Super Tuesday during the 1992 and 1996 election cycles, the DNC recommitted itself to the importance of Super Tuesday when it authorized11 states to hold primaries on March 7, 2000. (By then the Southern focus had been replaced by a primary day of a more national scope; Georgia was the only Southern state to still hold a contest that day). Unlike in 1988, the Super Tuesday contests held in 2000 had the effect of practically ending both party’s nomination contests, as Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore each scored knockout blows to grab a secure hold on their respective party’s nominations. (By sweeping California, New York and Ohio, Bush essentially ended the upstart McCain campaign in its tracks) Super Tuesday 2004 (then featuring contests in 9 states) had a similar impact on the Democrat nomination contest, catapulting Democrat John Kerry to a sizeable lead in the delegate count. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton were able to get a similar boost from the 2008 Super Tuesday contests.

Michigan will vote

The state of Michigan will get to "do it over" on June 3rd. Local state Democrats and party officials have tentatively worked out a deal whereby Michigan will hold it's primary revote in an effort to seat its delegates at the August convention. If you recall Michigan (and Florida) were punished by the DNC for moving its primary up before February 5th's "Super Tuesday". The plan now goes on to the state legislature for approval. How will this effect the race? Obama currently leads Clinton among overall delegates, 1603 to 1497, and his campaign has been openly skeptical of Clinton's eagerness to seat the delegations from the two disputed states. Spokesman Tommy Vietor Saturday said the campaign was open to a "fair and practical" resolution of the conflict. "Hillary Clinton said in October the Michigan primary would not 'count for anything.' Now she is trying to change the rules and claim the votes of the primary she said didn't count should be counted," Vietor said. "We will evaluate the details of any new proposed election carefully as well as any efforts to come to a fair seating of the delegates from Michigan." Meanwhile, Florida is no closer to a revote and has been relegated, for the moment, to the political sidelines.

McCain might win

Despite Common Sense's reluctance to endorse Senator John McCain's bid to be the next President of the United States because of fundamental disagreemnts about substantive policy issues, McCain may actually end up winning the White House. With his campaign in tatters toward the end of last year, John McCain is a modern-day Lazarus. His fortunes changed right around the end of the year when two things occurred: there was evidence that the surge in Iraq was actually working, and working well, and the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto. Suddenly, McCain was seen as the toughest and most reliable hawk on the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror. He rode those two events to the Republican nomination.

Now that he's the nominee, more good fortune has come John McCain's way, namely, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are tearing themselves to shreds to win the Democrat nomination. Clinton's win at all cost strategy appears to have taken hold as the drive-by media have now gotten much tougher on Obama, particularly on Obama's twenty year relationship with racist Minister Jeremiah Wright who just resigned from Obama's campaign. Moreover, Obama has had to hit back at Clinton (the red phone ad) calling into question her integrity as she flip-floped on her vote to authorize the war in Iraq in the first place. The last time the Democrats nominated a flip-flopper, John Kerry, he was so savaged by Karl Rove during the Democrat's primaries in 2004 that by the time the Swift-Boat vets got to him in the summer of that year, Kerry was already defined as another weak liberal who just did not understand the threats the United Sates faced in the world.

History has funny way of repeating itself but this time it's not the Republicans and Swift-Boat vets who are defining the Democrat candidates, it's the Democrats themselves! According to Clinton, Obama is not yet ready to hold the highest office in the land, but yet she would love for him to be her vice presidential nominee! And according to Obama, you just cannot trust Mrs. Clinton. Who benefits from all of this infighting? Of course, the answer is John McCain who has not yet had to campaign against either Obama or Clinton directly. McCain if off this week to Europe and the Middle East looking rather "presidential". So, while the Democrats continue to hammer it out all the way to Denver in August, John McCain seemingly gets closer and closer to the White House with each passing day.

Democrats wrong on Iraq?

The Democrats are in a bad place on Iraq especially if they cannot decide on a candidate before the August convention. Well, even if they decided on a candidate tomorrow, they're stil in a bad place! There's a new article out in The Politico written by David Kuhn that has some new poll numbers concerning our support for military operations in Iraq. You can read the article at http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A553EE3A-3048-5C12-00094F73CEC7BAD1. Looks like we may have an election after all!

Nuclear energy now

The U.S. currently gets 50 percent of its electricity from coal and 20 percent from nuclear reactors. Reversing these percentages should become a goal of both global warming advocates and anyone who wants to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil (the latter since a clean, expanded electrical grid could anchor a fleet of hydrogen or electric cars). Contrary to what some critics charge, this would not require massive subsidies or direct intervention by the government. Indeed, the nuclear industry has gone through an astounding revival over the past decade. The entire fleet of 103 reactors is up and running 90 percent of the time. Reactors are making money hand-over-fist—so much so that the attorney general of Connecticut recently proposed a windfall profits tax on them! The industry is poised for new construction, with proposals for four new reactors submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and almost 30 waiting in the wings.

The rest of the world is rapidly moving toward nuclear power. France, Russia and Japan are not only going ahead with their own nuclear programs, but selling their technology in the developing world. America, which once dominated this technology, is being left behind. The main culprit is public fear. Nuclear technology is regarded as an illegitimate child of the atomic bomb, a Faustian bargain, a blasphemous tinkering with nature. It is none of these. It is simply a natural outgrowth of our evolving understanding of the universe. The sun has been our prime source of energy throughout human history, but energy is also generated in the earth itself. It is time to avail ourselves of this clean, safe energy source.

Strange Bedfellows

Here's an interesting story from the McClatchey Report. Enjoy.

Sure, Hillary Clinton says Barack Obama is too green and too naive to become president. And Obama's offended that second-place Clinton is talking about whom she might pick as her running mate. But history shows that political adversaries sometimes suddenly embrace, become ticket-mates _and win. And a lot of experts and politicos — including some Clinton and Obama advisers, if one reads between the lines — don't rule that out this year.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, for instance, tempered his disdain for Obama with this caveat: "Senator Clinton will not choose any candidate who, at the time of the choosing, will not pass the commander-in-chief threshold, period. But we have a long time between now and Denver." Denver will host the party convention in late August.

Obama says he's not running for vice president and that Clinton's suggestions that they might end up on the same ticket are ill-advised, since he's still the front-runner. But it's happened before, and sometimes it worked. The most storied of these whirlwind courtships came in 1960, when primary foes John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson got together for what proved to be a winning ticket. Johnson was the legendary Senate majority leader; Kennedy was the 43-year-old upstart. Kennedy's brother Bobby, the campaign manager, loathed Johnson. Johnson was hardly fond of either Kennedy, particularly since the young senator crushed the wily Texan in that year's primaries. But, recalled Barbara B. Kennelly, the former Connecticut congresswoman whose father, John Bailey, was then Democratic Party chairman, the party needed to win Texas. And Johnson's wife, Lady Bird, was worried that her husband's Senate role would take a toll on his heart. So the political odd couple joined forces, and it worked; the ticket won Texas and its 24 electoral votes and prevailed in a cliffhanger election.

The most successful union of ideological rivals came 20 years later. Ronald Reagan ran as a die-hard conservative. George H.W. Bush was the darling of GOP moderates. They fought through the winter and spring, and in the end, even though Bush had dubbed Reagan's tax-cut plan "voodoo economics" and expressed sympathy for abortion rights, he accepted Reagan's invitation to form a joint ticket.

"It was a shotgun wedding," said David Carney, who served as White House political director for George H. W. Bush and political director for selecting a vice president for Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. "Politics trumped — they wanted to win. They understood they had to unite the party, and (incumbent Jimmy) Carter was vulnerable. Bush's knowledge of foreign affairs complemented Reagan's domestic agenda. And Bush came from four states."
Bush lived in Texas, was born in Massachusetts, grew up in Connecticut and had a family home in Maine.

History also suggests that sometimes no union can save a ticket burdened with bigger political problems. Democrat John Edwards seemed a logical choice in 2004 to become John Kerry's choice after he proved popular in the South and was Kerry's toughest challenger, but in the end, Edwards couldn't even carry his own state, North Carolina, for the ticket.

In 1976, Republican Gerald Ford thought he could unify warring moderates and conservatives by putting Dole on the ticket, but Dole's slashing style proved a liability, and they lost a close race.

In 1992, the rules of picking a vice president changed dramatically. Bill Clinton set the new standard when he picked Al Gore, a young senator from a neighboring state, defying conventional ticket-balancing formulas. The two were mirror images of each other — young, Southern, moderate white men. "The theory was that you pick the person you think is best suited to be president," regardless of geography, ethnicity or ideology, said John Geer, editor of the Journal of Politics. The tactic worked and gave Democrats their first two-term presidency since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

President Bush followed it in 2000 when he chose Dick Cheney. Another two-term winner ensued.

This year, a ticket uniting Clinton and Obama would have to overcome one last taboo: "It would not have one of the traditional characteristics of a presidential ticket," said Joan McLean, a politics and government professor at Ohio Wesleyan University. That is, neither is a white male. Like a lot of people, McLean wonders if Clinton or Obama is willing to take that risk. Some key Democrats dismiss the idea entirely. "I think that ticket either way is impossible," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told New England Cable News. "I think that the Clinton (campaign) has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama. I think that either way is impossible."

At this stage, no one knows what ticket the Democrats may end up with; there are too many variables, too many personality clashes. "There's no easy answer right now," McLean said.

GREAT MOMENTS IN FORCING AWKWARD PRESIDENTIAL-VICE PRESIDENTIAL TICKETS

1840. The Democratic convention was so split over a ticket-mate for President Martin Van Buren that a special committee was formed to address the issue. It wound up making no recommendation. State officials were left to run whomever they wanted in their states, so Van Buren essentially ran without a running mate.

1900. New York's Republican boss wanted Gov. Theodore Roosevelt, a reformer, out of his state, so he eagerly boosted TR's vice presidential bid. Roosevelt got it, even though President William McKinley's campaign manager disliked him.

1932. Franklin Roosevelt sewed up the Democratic presidential nomination after winning John Nance Garner's backers. Garner, then the speaker of the House, wound up with the vice presidential nomination. He later called the office "not worth a bucket of warm s---."
1948. The Republican dream ticket: To run against unpopular Harry Truman, the GOP nominated New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey for president and California Gov. Earl Warren for vice president. They lost.

1952. Dwight Eisenhower needed someone with strong ties to the Republican Party's fervent anti-communist wing, so he picked 39-year-old California Sen. Richard M. Nixon.

1960. Lyndon Johnson, according to one account, "answered with a single early expletive" when advisers brought up the idea of going on the ticket with nemesis John F. Kennedy. But in the end he accepted, to the dismay of JFK's brother and campaign manager Robert F. Kennedy, who loathed him. Johnson helped carry Texas' crucial 24 electoral votes.

1968. Nixon, figuring third-party Southerner George Wallace was as much a rival as Democrat Hubert Humphrey, pursued a "Southern strategy" in part by putting little-known Maryland Gov. Spiro T. Agnew on the ticket. Nixon would up winning six Southern and border states in a close election — though he lost Maryland.

1976. Gerald Ford, after barely winning the presidential nomination against conservative favorite Ronald Reagan, tries to placate the convention by adding Bob Dole to the ticket. "You just lost the election," strategist Drew Lewis reportedly told Ford. He was right.

1980. Reagan adds moderate George H.W. Bush, who had blasted Reagan's tax cuts as "voodoo economics," to the ticket. Bush becomes a loyal supporter, the GOP convention ends in harmony, and they cruise to a smashing victory.

1992. Bill Clinton's running third in early summer polls when he picks Al Gore as his vice president, confounding conventional wisdom because the two are so much alike — young, moderate, Southern white men. But the double-down dare worked, as the ticket gained instant popularity and went on to win a three-way race in the fall.

2004. John Kerry adds John Edwards, a senator from North Carolina and his strongest rival, to the ticket. But the two never click, and North Carolina votes Republican.

Can they really be serious?

As you listen to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton discuss the issues that face this country, one wonders why anyone would ever want to come to the United States, let alone live here. Both Democrat candidates make it sound as if the US is a backward, third world nation that only they will be able to "fix" provided one of them is elected. Common Sense, however, wonders are either of these candidates really serious about their proposals to address the issues? For example, are Obama and Clinton really serious about wanting to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire even though we are in the midst of slow economic growth, a declining stock market, and a slumping housing market? Are Obama and Clinton really serious when they say they want to provide universal health care for every American though doing so will give us yet another entitlement program we cannot afford? Speaking of entitlements, are Obama and Clinton really serious when they say thet will not permit the privatization of social security even though it will be bankrupt by 2035? Are Obama and Clinton really serious when they say they will withdraw from Iraq on day one of their presidency without ever consulting General Patraeus or any of the other commanders on the ground? Are Obama and Clinton really serious when they say they will not allow us to drill off the coast of California or Florida or the Gulf Coast or ANWR for oil or allow us to build nuclear reactors in order for us to become more energy independent? Are Obama and Clinton really serious when they say they want the government to regulate the environment and not rely on "green" markets to emerge? Are Obama and Clinton really serious when they say they want the Canadians and Mexicans to renegotiate NAFTA and return the US to an isolationist position on trade? Are Obama and Clinton really serious when they say they want to deal with the illegal immigrant problem in this country without first securing the borders? Are Obama and Clinton really serious when they say they are both ready to be president on day one? Can America really afford to elect either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as the next commander-in-chief? You be the judge!

Can any one solve this problem

While Republicans try to force a vote on a Democrat bill on immigration we must keep in mind that no serious nation in an age of terrorism can afford to have inadequately controlled borders with millions of people crossing illegally at will. Six years after 9/11, the government bureaucracy is so broken we don’t even know who is in our country. This is a major issue of national security. There is no point in having a $9 billion a year national missile defense program when the same terrorists can rent a truck in Mexico and drive the nuclear or biological weapon right across the border without being stopped. We have an absolute obligation to control our borders and coasts and that obligation is a question of national security. This is not a question of closing the borders, but controlling them. The safety of the American people depends on it.

We should not worry about people who want to come to the United States to work hard, pay taxes, obey the law, and become Americans. In fact, we should be delighted to have new Americans join our country because historically they have been the source of enormous talent, energy, and courage. While millions of immigrants have broken our laws to come here, thousands of highly skilled and educated workers who could add enormously to our economic prosperity are held back by an ineffective system bogged down by bureaucratic red tape.

Can't fix stupid?

As conservatives struggle with the fact that the Republican party has become less about ideas and more about feeling and intuition as a result of President Bush's "compassionate conservatism", Common Sense wonders where are the William Buckleys? Milton Friedmans? Thomas Sowells? who will lead conservatives out of the wilderness of the last eight years? Modern conservatism, born in the 1950s as an intellecual movement based on facts, argument, and research, has now been reduced to slogans, grand standing, and divorced from reality. As Barack Obama inspires a new generation of Americans to join the Democrats, Common Sense wonders how will conservatives inspire the next generation to join the ranks of the faithful? Conservatives, or so-called conservatives, have ignored the arena of ideas for far too long. A new generation hungers for solutions to the very complex problems our society faces in the 21st century and instead we give them polemics, wisecracks, satire, and talking points. As David Frum points out, "...tabloid media begets tabloid politics. When you argue stupid, you campaign stupid. When you campaign stupid, you win stupid. When you win stupid, you govern stupid" as Republicans have for the last year years, i.e., Harriet Miers, amnesty for illegals, Hurrican Katrina, McCain-Feingold, the arrogance of Iraq, etc. However, there is hope. As liberals continue to work out of the same old tired playbook of government run social programs, trade protectionism, central economic and environmental planning, and a foreign policy run out of the offices of the United Nations, conservativism can correct the path of "stupidity" we have been on for the last eight years only if we return to the ideas once grounded in the way the real world works.

Man in the arena

John McCain has a new ad out entitled "Man in the Arena". It's powerful on two fronts: first, McCain takes a direct swipe at Michelle Obama, and the Democrats for that matter, for their lack of pride in their country, and second, if anyone has ever seen LBJ's "Daisy Ad", McCain's ad spins it in a positive way at the end. Clearly, the best ad of the campaign thus far. You can view at http://youtube.com/watch?v=J_A53PAxeR8.