Obama gets interesting endorsement

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has received the endorsement from 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate, Senator John Kerry. This comes as a surprise since Kerry's VP running mate, John Edwards, is running as well in this race. Kerry's endorsement could have helped Edwards a great deal. According to reports, the Clinton campaign was lobbying for Kerry's endorsement, going so far as to President Bill Clinton himself speaking to those close to Senator Kerry.

Kerry's endorsement of Obama does not surprise me one bit. Edwards was Kerry's running mate because Kerry wanted to get some "insurance" on winning a few southern states in the general elections. For all of Kerry's flip flopping and unorthodox reasoning for his positions, he was never as far left as Edwards is. In fact, Edwards was not a team player during their 2004 run together. The main reason Edwards has run is because he does not seem to want to "accept" a world in which he is not the nominee. His ideology is almost in line with far left ideology, the kind of stuff emanating from the likes of MoveOn.org and The Daily Kos.

Kerry not endorsing Hillary Clinton also is a sign that Kerry "does not forget" disloyalty. The Clintons did not do much to help getting Kerry elected in 2004. I believe this was because the Clintons wanted Kerry to loose so they could take "their shot" in 2008. If Kerry won in 2004, Hillary would have had to wait another 8 years (2012) to run in an open field. Also, Kerry and Clinton have not seen eye to eye on certain issues, such as Education, Iran, North Korea, or Health Insurance.

Also, the endorsement is political strategy at its best. Kerry knew that with the next three states being Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina, Kerry's endorsement becomes a strong tool for the Obama campaign. In 2004, Kerry won Michigan and Nevada. Kerry and his people know where the bodies are buried in those states. Wins in one of those two states could help propel Obama to South Carolina with another win under his belt and maintain Obama's "electability" credentials.

The specific way this endorsement hurts Senator Clinton is that it solidifies Obama as a "real" Democrat in the eyes of the party faithful. Obama has received a great deal of support from many Independents and Moderate Liberals along with a few Moderate Conservatives. Kerry, who is more left of center than Obama is, is essentially saying, "Don't worry, the 'D' next to his name is legitimate. He may not be another liberal like me, but that doesn't make him any less a democrat." Also, a Kerry endorsement may lead to other endorsements in the next few weeks from those who were still on the fence concerning their decision between Obama and Clinton.

New Hampshire Primary Analysis

Okay, first the results:

Democrats:(96% reporting)
Clinton 110,550 39%
Obama 102,883 37%
Edwards 47,803 17%
Richardson 12,987 5%
Kucinich 3,845 1%
Biden 616 0% 0
Gravel 397 0% 0
Dodd 195 0%

Republicans:(96% reporting)
McCain 86,802 37%
Romney 73,806 32%
Huckabee 26,035 11%
Giuliani 20,054 9%
Paul 17,831 8%
Thompson 2,808 1%
Hunter 1,195 0%


Upfront, the "winners" are Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The biggest "losers" are John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson. Here's the candidate breakdown:

John McCain: If there was any state for McCain to do well in among the early primaries, it is New Hampshire. He won this state in 2000. Independents can vote in this state. This is important because McCain's support among more Independents and Moderates, more so than Conservatives. McCain has peeved many Conservatives with his positions over the years on issues such as Illegal Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform, the "Bush Tax Cuts", and his confusion with taking a consistent stance on Pro-Life and "Gay Rights" issues. (For an extensive breakdown of McCain's lack of Conservative positions and ideological morphing, click here). From this point on, McCain is going to need to maintain a top 3 showing in Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida in order to maintain any chance he has to win or finish well in any of the states on Super Tuesday.

Mitt Romney: Another second place showing for Romney should not be seen as a real "negative". Romney did win Wyoming, and he is the only candidate on the Republican side who has finished either first or second in the three early states. He needs to win Michigan in order to show he is not just a "second place" finisher. In track and field, there are those athletes who rarely win, but they always seem to come in second or third. Romney does not want to become that guy. If he does lose Michigan, he must win in South Carolina or his nomination hopes will be "living on a prayer" as he enters the Florida and Super Tuesday Primaries. As a side note, I am tired of the media attacking Romney because he has a lot of on hand cash and can use a plethora of his own money for the Presidential run. People should be glad he can finance his own campaign and is not subservient to the money with string attached that brings some candidates down because of "you owe me" donations. Romney does not have that dilemma.

Mike Huckabee: This was logistically a sore hit for Huckabee finishing third in New Hampshire. While finishing third is a respectable placement, Huckabee had 47,000 plus votes behind Romney (who came in second). He only had around 6,000 more votes than Giuliani (who came in fourth). That major drop off between second and third place kills much of the momentum Huckabee had after winning in Iowa. One of the major reasons Huckabee won in Iowa is because he was able to get a massive majority Social Conservatives and Christians to support his candidacy. But that same trend did not continue in New Hampshire where he was fighting for those votes with Romney. Romney was seen my many Social Conservative voters as the "only option" to McCain in the New Hampshire Primary. This perception may hurt Huckabee in Michigan, where Mitt Romney's father, George, served as Governor. If Huckabee is to finish second or third in Michigan, South Carolina, or Florida, it must be a much lower difference in order for him to do well on Super Tuesday. He must avoid the label of "one hit wonder" in order to have a solid shot at winning the nomination.

Rudy Giuliani: In October 2007, many political pundits and TV commentators believed that the New Hampshire Primary would be a "dog fight" between Giuliani and Romney. Well, they got the one name right, but now it is January 2008 and he finished in fourth place, 53,000 votes behind Romney. And now there is a poll that came out showing Giuliani in 4th place in Florida. Just three months ago Giuliani was seen has the front runner for the nomination and as almost unbeatable. Now he is in a fight to maintain legitimacy to be the nominee. This idea that he can win big on Super Tuesday and not do well in the lead up to Super Tuesday is turning out to be fools gold for the Giuliani campaign. He must finish in the top 4 in Michigan and the top 3 in South Carolina if he hopes to have a chance to win in Florida. Momentum is very important in these Primaries.

Ron Paul: He got 10,000 plus votes in Iowa, and in New Hampshire received 17,000 plus votes. Although he will not receive the nomination, he has shown he should not be ignored. Just imagine in a national race how many votes he could pull from both sides with his positions being very non-mainstream. This is not another Dennis Kucinich candidacy. This man has "spoiler" written all over his candidacy.

Fred Thompson: Finishing ahead of McCain in Iowa was a good sign for Thompson, but now finishing in 6th in New Hampshire and only receiving just under 3,000 votes is a major blow to his campaign. There is a difference between knowing you have a better chance in one state than another and just not even trying in a specific state. Thompson has been in South Carolina since the end of the Iowa Caucus. He didn’t not even travel to campaign at all in New Hampshire. All this campaigning in South Carolina must result in a win or his candidacy is through. Thompson should just start positioning himself to possibly be a Vice President candidate for the eventual Republican nominee. He would do well for a Romney or Giuliani as their VP.

Duncan Hunter: I am unsure why Hunter is still in the race. He does not have a chance at the nomination with a field that is very top heavy. He could help a candidate’s candidacy by dropping out and endorsing one of them. The one candidate he could help the most and push them ahead the farthest is if he would endorse Mitt Romney. Romney already has the endorsement of Board Security/Illegal Immigration guru Tom Tancredo.


Hillary Clinton: This was a big win for her. Many expected her to loose and some predicted she would loose by more than 10 percentage points. Now she and Obama both have one win each. This race for the Democratic nomination is turning out to look like a boxing match with numerous rounds that are up for grabs. Obama won round 1, Clinton won round two. With Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina ahead, she needs to at least finish in second in Michigan and Nevada entering the South Carolina primary. A loss for her in South Carolina would be hard to swallow 10 days before Super Tuesday. The race for the nomination is distinctly between Clinton and Obama. She cannot let him gain too much momentum or she could fall apart of Super Tuesday and be stumbling through the rest of the February primaries and caucuses. After the Iowa third place finish, he "electability" came into question, but this is a long race and she is in it for the long run.

Barack Obama: Coming in second does not hurt him in the long run. He got the win already under his belt. He has shown he can win a state. Entering Michigan and Nevada, Obama needs to keep pace with Clinton and try to win one of those two states. Michigan is winnable for him if he garner enough votes from the urban areas and then split the north western section oft he state in order for him to have a shot at winning. Nevada comes down to who the state union's support. If he were to loose both those states, South Carolina becomes extra important for him to win. Winning South Carolina will carry him into Super Tuesday with momentum and electability. A strong showing in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday will make him the favorite to win the Democratic Nomination.

John Edwards: He is pretty much done. He is probably staying in hoping to gain another second place finish ahead of either Obama or Clinton in Michigan or Nevada and then place all his hopes on winning in South Carolina. He won in South Carolina in 2004, so if he does not win in South Carolina, look for him to either drop out or fade away as supports will go else where.

Bill Richardson: He is staying in the race to gain enough name recognition and exposure so he can potentially be the Vice Presidential Candidate for whoever becomes the nominee. The fact that he had almost 13,000 votes shows he has enough of a following that makes him being a VP candidate very appealing, especially since he would make New Mexico an essential "gimmee" in the National Election.

Dennis Kucinich: Congrats to Congressman Kucinich, who received more votes than Fred Thompson. His candidacy is going now where, he is a protest candidate at this point for voters.

Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have officially dropped out of the race, although both combined received almost 1,000 votes. Mike Gravel, like Kucinich, was a protest vote candidate.

Why Huckabee can't get his stories straight is beyond me...

Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee said in a debate in New Hampshire that he has supported the Iraq War, the Surge, and President Bush's Iraq strategy before Mitt Romney did and when Romney didn't support it. Here is the video:





Now, thanks to hotair.com, here is Huckabee saying somethig different on MSNBC January 2007:





Oh great, is he going to be now like John McCain and flip on different positions and issues? If he is going to change positions for political gain, he should be rejected straight up.

Iowa has spoken and what is the aftermath

First, the numbers speak for themselves:

Republicans:
%
34 - Huckabee - Winner
25 - Romney
13 - Thompson
13 - McCain
10 - Paul
3 - Giuliani
0 - Hunter

96% Reporting

Democrats:
%
38 - Obama - Winner
30 - Edwards
29 - Clinton
2 - Richardson
1 - Biden
0 - Kucinich
0 - Dodd
0 - Gravel

100% Reporting

Obviously, the biggest winners were Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, neither was expected to win even a couple months ago. But the "second tier" winners are John Edwards and Fred Thompson. The "big losers" are Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Let’s break this down by each candidate:

Mike Huckabee: The experience of being the Governor for 10 plus years of a Midwest state was a major weapon in Huckabee's arsenal in propelling his win in Iowa. The fact that he knew how to appeal to voters and he to work a ground operation that got his message and name out to more than 35,000 voters is very impressive. With all the negatives that have come out about him, he was able to overcome this in Iowa. This win is a great momentum builder for the Huckabee campaign. While it is very unlikely that Huckabee will win in New Hampshire's primary, but this win will cause some disruption in the efforts to gain the swing voters. With this win, the Republican Primary votes will be split 6-ways. As long as Huckabee is in the top 4 in New Hampshire, he can utilize this win to propel himself into contention to have a chance in Michigan, South Carolina, and Nevada.

Mitt Romney: While he came in a sound second place, he was still far ahead of the rest of the pack. Foxnews went out of its way to give a member of Romney's campaign (Bay Buchanan) a hard time. They even laughed at her in the background during the interview. This was disgusting. His second place finish makes him a stronger long term candidate than many of the other candidates. He can take value in the fact that he came in second in a state that was more so Huckabee's "backyard" than any other candidate on the Republican side. He still has a strong shot at winning in New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina. The conjecture of this "horrific" defeat for the Romney campaign is media spin. Romney had 10,000 more votes than Thompson or McCain and had more than 10,000 votes than Paul and Giuliani combined! If the Republican field shrinks sooner than later, this win could help propel Romney to still be able to be the Republican nominee. But as long as this field stays densely populated, the Romney campaign will struggle to gain significant traction.

Fred Thompson: This is a moral victory for the Thompson campaign. Thompson came in a tight third place, gaining a few hundred votes more than John McCain. Thompson's campaign now needs to go into New Hampshire and make sure he stays in the top 4 so he can head to Michigan and South Carolina with a legitimate chance to win either one of those states. He needs to at least come in second in one of those two states or he will have almost no chance at winning the nomination.

John McCain: The media hype about McCain's finish in Iowa is sickening. Sure, he is still in the thick of the race, but the fact that Thompson and Romney finished ahead of McCain is still a reality. McCain is battling for votes and still will need to take some votes from Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, and Romney in order to do so. He needs to get the Giuliani and Thompson supports who see Iowa as a major loss for those two candidates, the Romney supports who have not stuck with Romney through thick and thin, and the Huckabee bandwagon supporters who found out some "distasteful" information about Huckabee. McCain's finish in New Hampshire will determine how well he can do down the road. If McCain can finish either first or second, it will set him up to potentially win in Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina, which will propel McCain to win a good amount of states on Super Tuesday which will set him up to be the Republican nominee. But if McCain finished 3rd or 4th in New Hampshire, he will have an uphill battle to gain the Republican Nomination because McCain needs momentum more than any other Republican candidate, aside from Huckabee.

Ron Paul: This was a BIG night for his campaign because he gained more than 10,000 votes, which more than double what Giuliani did in Iowa. Only 3 percentage points separate him from McCain and Thompson. While Paul will not get the Republican nomination, he is building the base, the name recognition, and ability to gain votes to allow him to extend his run past the Republican Nominee selection. Do not be surprised if he continues his run for President all the way to November. His run is not as much for him to be elected President, but standing for a cause and being a guy people like him can vote for and not pick between two people who they really don’t like anyway. Also, states like New Hampshire and Nevada could produce positive finishes for him where he can steal votes away from Huckabee and McCain. He can steal Huckabee's non-religious moderate supporters and McCain's older supporters who feel McCain is not the rogue and maverick as McCain tries to spin into his public image. Be careful, Paul could be a difference maker in New Hampshire, Nevada, and possibly in November.

Rudy Giuliani: I know the Giuliani campaign is "focusing on Super Tuesday". But by the time Super Tuesday comes around, Giuliani could finish 3rd or lower in New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. The idea that he could still rebound from that to win big on Super Tuesday and propel him to the Republican Nomination is set in a fantasy world. Finishing in 6th with only 4,000 plus votes will hurt him in New Hampshire. He needs to finish in the top 2 in New Hampshire and Michigan to hope to stay in strong contention.

Barack Obama: Major victory for Obama's campaign. And even more so, his "victory" speech was full of such passion and optimism that the speech alone could propel Obama to a win in New Hampshire. This is also important because the voters in Iowa rejected the attacks and negativity of the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign needs to capitalize and draw out this point. That speech made him sound much more Presidential and optimistic than his opponents Clinton and Edwards. If he can go into New Hampshire and win, this will ensure him the leading candidate for the Democratic Nomination and set him up to take South Carolina and numerous states on Super Tuesday. He has a good chance at gaining the Democratic Nomination and then the Presidency.

John Edwards: This is step one for the Edwards campaign: come in second in Iowa. Now he must either win or come in second in New Hampshire or his candidacy will diminish and he will eventually drop out of the race. Of the three top tier Democratic candidates, he is the farthest to the left on the issues and he also is the only one who has already run for President once before. Time will tell if those two factors will help or hurt him. I project they both will hurt him. Voters seem to want new blood and someone who has beliefs that are inline with the average, independent voter. Edwards does not fit that category.

Hillary Clinton: Her third place finish is a wound to the Clinton Machine which has been oiled by the ideal of inevitability. The idea that it is "her turn" or that she is the anointed one should now be thrown away. Until she begins to discuss issues and start really explaining her positions and policies, she will be no more than an average negative politician running a negative, elitist campaign. Except for the infamous "Russert debate", every Democratic debate up to this point has been full of softball questions and lackluster follow-up questions. Whenever Clinton has been challenged, she looks bad (just like McCain, but they are soft with him too). When Obama speaks, he thinks about what he is going to say, Hillary has programmed responses, almost like how the video game Madden 2008 has Play-by-Play commentary that was previously programmed. She must win New Hampshire to ensure her likelihood of being the Democratic Nominee. I have said for the last 12 months that Hillary Clinton is not a shoe-in for the Democratic Nomination and she may loose the nomination. She needs to prove she is electable by winning early states before attempting to believe she has a shot at winning many states on Super Tuesday.

Bill Richardson: Although he finished with only 4 percent, him staying in the race is based on the hope that as more people drop out, the more votes he could gain. He has no chance at being the nominee. He is running to be the Democratic Nominee's Vice Presidential Candidate.

Joe Biden: He has ended his run for the nomination, but whoever he endorses could change the dynamics of the race. His endorsement will bring more credibility to a candidacy.

Chris Dodd: He is done and he got one vote in Iowa. Pathetic

Side Note: Whether it is Foxnews and CNN, both have been biased and blind to reality.

*Foxnews made fun of the Romney and Paul Campaigns while practically glorifying McCain and Huckabee's strategies and "victories" (Huckabee a literal victory and McCain a "moral" victory).

*On the Democratic side, both CNN and Foxnews belittled the Obama win where possible and kept bringing up how Clinton did not loose "real bad" and about the "Iowa Curse" (since there has not been an Iowa Caucus winner who went on to become President in decades).

*Edwards came in second, ahead of Senator Clinton. Period. Enough spin Foxnews.

Important Web Site to visit

If you care anything about this nation, take time to visit this website:


Never Forget The 11th Of September!


To some, 9/11/2001 may seem like a long time ago, but only 6 years ago, thousands of people died because of the hatred of people towards everything this nation has stood for through out it's history. Stand up for this nation, be proud, and never forget September 11th, 2007. Thank you.

Case Closed: The Mike Huckabee Verdict

When former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee chose to run for President earlier this year, I said to many, including on my radio show (which was mutually taken off the air in April of this year for personal reasons) that Huckabee was a Dark Horse candidate to be the Republican Nominee for President. Now months later, Huckabee leads the polls in Iowa and in some polls is second behind Rudy Giuliani. And a lot of good and bad has come out about him and now the more "face time" he gets, the more we learn about him.

I personally wanted to give the former governor a chance to prove himself to me, just like I have concerning other candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson (Republicans), along with Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden.

Well, here is what I have found out:

*Huckabee wanted to allow Illegal Immigrants to get be able to receive Scholarships and be allowed to pay in-state tuition in Arkansas when he was Governor.

*Huckabee's "new" immigration plan has an admitted "revolving door" clause where the illegals can come back and be citizens. Huckabee said in an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace that: "You know, right now there are a lot of people who really are here because they're trying to feed their families. I don't begrudge them that."

*Huckabee also said about the Illegal Immigration issue:

"Be mad at the government, be mad about immigration," he said. "I'm mad about it, too. But let's punish the right people for breaking the law. A 6-year-old crossing the border doesn't know he's breaking the law."
(http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/11/30/WashingtonDCBureau/344194.html)

*His clemency of Glen Green, who after being released from prison found a new victim who he raped and murdered is something that didn’t just happen once. Huckabee gave clemency and pardons to more than Bill Clinton did as Governor. Glen Green was referred to upon release as "a humble Christian man".

*Huckabee said he changed his position on Cuba because he is running for President. Huckabee asked President Bush to lift the embargo against Cuba because the embargo "has not helped the people of Cuba."

*According to The Drudge Report, Democratic insiders consider Huckabee an "easy kill in the general election" if he is nominated. Here is the breakdown of Democratic National Committee (DNC) Press Attacks against the Republican candidates:

[DNC Press Release Attack Summary:

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)]

*In Stephen Bainbridge’s blog, he breaks down why Huckabee is:
- "wowser" concerning Huckabee's position to institute a National Smoking Ban
- a "religious bigot"
- "sounds homophobic" when he is so "anti-gay" while Huckabee seems to have a
great deal of compassion for straight illegal immigrants
- takes issue with Huckabee's pardon for convicted Child Rapist Wayne Dumond
- Calls Huckabee a tax hiker
- Calls him "clueless" on foreign policy
- And says Huckabee is not a Fiscal Conservative, but a "Big Government Conservative"


Verdict: While a Huckabee Presidency is much more appealing and tolerable than a McCain, Hillary Clinton, Edwards, or Richardson Presidency, Huckabee is not the best choice to be the Republican nominee. What sticks out to me most are the pardons and clemcies Huckabee has issued and the fact that the Democrats seem to not attack him wanting him to win.

The Democrats know who is "dangerous". Just look at the DNC breakdown of attacks again:

[DNC Press Release Attack Summary:

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)]

When the DNC attacks, that means you are "most dangerous" to them while the RNC (Republican National Committee) just takes no prisoners. If the Democrats are that "scared" of Romney and Giuliani, compared to Huckabee, I want one of them because those are the people the DNC doesn’t want to face in a general election.

Concerning the pardons, I do not care if Green or Dumond were swell guys who tithed at church and knew the Bible from front to back, they committed horrific crimes before going to prison, and then after they got out. This is inexcusable, especially since Dumond was a convicted Child Rapist. Mr. Huckabee, where is your compassion and concern for the destruction of Child's innocent by a sick man? Do you care more that the man may have "changed" and deserves a second chance over the life, innocence, and pain of an abused child? Mr. Huckabee, Jesus said in Matthew 18:5-6:

5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

And Mark 10:13-14:

13And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

14But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Governor Huckabee, you were asked in the CNN/You Tube Debate "What Would Jesus Do?" and your response was that Jesus was too "smart" to ever run for public office. The correct answer is that Jesus wouldn't let a Child Rapist and a murderer go unpunished or change his positions because He is running for President. Mr. Huckabee, the charade is over, I see you for who you really are now.

Would you want your son to play football for him?

Petrino's been down this road before … and likely will again


The new University of Arkansas Head Football Coach is Bobby Petrino. So who cares, right? That is where you are wrong. You need to understand the background to understand why this story is significant at all.

On July 13, 2006, Petrino signed a 10-year contract worth up to $25 million dollars to continue as the University of Louisville's Head Football Coach. That season, his team went 12-1 (12 wins, 1 loss) and Petrino was being talked about as one of the top College Football coaches. He had gone to a school that many would never figure could have a successful Football program. High School football players were now looking at the University of Louisville seriously.

But only 6 months after signing that astronomical 10 year, 25 million dollar contract, Petrino found a new job. That's right, after signing a 10-year contract after building the school's football program in 4 years, Petrino was leaving. Petrino would sign a 5 year, 24 million dollar contract with the Atlanta Falcons of the National Football League (NFL). Petrino was getting his "big shot" at the "big show". Petrino would tell his University of Louisville players that the Falcons' head coaching position was "the best job in the National Football League."

Well, over the next 11 months, "the best job" in the NFL turned into a nightmare. The team's star player, Quarterback Michael Vick, would be charged and make plea deal for Dog Abuse charges stemming from a Dog Fighting operation that occurred on Vick's property. Petrino was now forced to coach a team without the player that the team was built to complement. But team owner Arthur Blank talked to the media about how the team would work to build a team to compliment their new coach, Bobby Petrino.

But Petrino had other ideas. The day after his Falcons team lost their 10th game of the season (1 more loss than Petrino had in four years at Louisville), Petrino resigned as the Falcons Head Football Coach. Petrino would the next day after the loss sign a deal with the University of Arkansas to be their Head Football Coach. The contract is reportedly for 5 years at $2.85 million per year.

Now, this is the third commitment Petrino has made to a football team (2 collegiate, 1 Professional) in a span of 17 months. His salaries for these jobs (respectively in chronological order) is approximately 2.5 million per year, 4.8 million per year, and now 2.85 million per year. Even the measly 2.5 million per year looks good to you doesn't it? What Petrino does not seem to care about is that a "contract" is a commitment saying, "I will be here working for you". He has already "broken" two contacts/commitments in less than a year. What kind of example is that for young people? These collegiate coaches are supposed to be leaders and role models for young athletes. But if a college athlete wants to transfer from one school to another, he must sit out one year before playing again. If a high school graduate made a previous "commitment" to go to College A and decides instead to go to College B, the media and others will put the young person down and complain how they "broke their word" and how this person is not loyal.

Why the double standard? The fact is that Bobby Petrino has betrayed the University of Louisville and the Atlanta Falcons. He signed top notch contracts with both for what many in sports call "long term deals", meaning the school and professional organization made "long term commitments" to Petrino to be their Head Coach. He has abandoned both, very unscrupulously. The University of Louisville made a 10-year commitment to Petrino. He left after the first year of that deal. The Atlanta Falcons made a 5-year commitment to Petrino. He left with 3 games left in the season.

Now he is at the University of Arkansas and I ask all parents out there this question: is this the man you want your sons playing football for while attending college? How do you feel about Petrino's moral ineptitude? If he does well coaching at Arkansas should not overshadow the fact that he is a man who breaks promises and is deceptive. Not the kind of person I want coaching my child, that is for sure. We as a society need to hold such people, like Petrino, accountable for his unscrupulous behavior. We also need to uplift coaches and players, in all sports, who are loyal, good guys who our kids can look up to.

"Bill (Clinton) is every bit as black as Barack (Obama)" WHAT?!?!?

Civil Rights Icon Calls Obama Too Young


Here we go again: "Bill Clinton was the first black President" stuff all over again. So what exactly makes the former President just as "black" (if not more black) than Barack Obama? I am still waiting for that exact answer. Andrew Young may be a Civil Rights icon and legend, but that doesn’t make him always in the right. And whether he is kidding or not, it is uncalled for to say things such as:

"He's probably gone with more black women than Barack"

Now, if you watch the video you will hear the crowd went berserk with laughter. Yes, Mr. Young did state after a few seconds "I was just clowning", but the damage had been done. This "Alpha/Chauvinistic" masculine pride in "Look at all the women I slept with" mixed with racial epithets disgusts me.

The fact is that Barack Obama has been happily married to his wife, Michelle, for 15 years this past October. But there is more pride taken in that Bill Clinton has slept with more "black women" than Barack has? In a nation where we have so many single parent homes and where so many "fathers" do not take their responsibilities seriously, in a nation were there are very few positive male role models for Black males, you are uplifting a man who has not been faithful to his wife? Why not "praise" the man who has stuck by his wife and is still happily married? But no, Mr. Young thinks it's funny and cute to poke about the former President's past extra martial escapades and belittle Senator Obama's faithfulness to his wife.

The political pandering and irrational dialogue by Mr. Young shows me how low this nation has gone in politics and racial affairs. Read below what else Mr. Young said and see if it looks familiar:

"I want Barack Obama to be president...in 2016. It's not a matter of being inexperienced. It's a matter of being young....There's a certain level of maturity ... you've got to learn to take a certain amount of s**t."

Wait, if it not a matter of "inexperience", then why say he is "young" and needs more maturity and that Obama hasn't taken enough you know what? Obama is older right now than John F. Kennedy was when he was elected President (Kennedy - 43; Obama - 46). Theodore Roosevelt was almost 43 when he became President and Bill Clinton was 46 and a half years old. If Barack Obama was elected President, he would be almost 47 and a half years old on Inauguration Day. Too young? I do not think so. I had discussed the "inexperience" issue in a previous post.

Lets get away from the stereotypical arguments that are frivolous and demeaning. Lets debate and discuss the issues. Enough about how Obama has "lied". Enough with the imbecilic slander. Lets discuss issues and debate policy, enough with the race baiting and name-calling.

Romney speaks about his religion

Republican Presidential Candidate and Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney made a speech today to address "concerns" about his faith, Mormonism. Romney, who has been slipping in the polls, decided it was time to address these "concerns" head on. Taking a book out of President John Kennedy's Presidential Campaign, Romney said,

"If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

Because Mormonism is considered by many to be a Cult, there has been skepticism according to numerous polls about having a "Mormon President". In attempting to quell this skepticism that some "rogue religious man" could become President, Romney stated,

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions....Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

But the most important statement of Romney speech was just a simple statement:

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

This is the real issue about Mitt Romney's religion. The First Amendment of the US Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

The Freedom of Religion clause in the US Bill of Rights is based upon the idea that any citizen is free to practice any religion without the government telling him how to practice his religion or the government having a religious preference. No matter what one's perspectives or feelings may be about Mormonism, the fact is that we are suppose to be a nation of Religious Tolerance. The only time a religion or religious sect might not be tolerated is if that group has creeds or dogma that is harmful to society (i.e. human sacrifices; suicide as a way to immortality).

People can debate faith, religion, creed, and dogma day and night, but still will not answer that if you were to take religion out the equation, answer the question honestly: Would you vote for Mitt Romney for President? Sadly, for some people, his religious preference is more important than his politics. All these people running around talking about Mormon conspiracies seem to forget that there just as much, if not more, conspiracy and secrecy (fiction and non-fiction) that overshadows the history of other religions such as Roman Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, Pentecostalism, along with others. No religious system or creed is without its closet of "dirt".

I say lets give Mitt a chance. Who knows, in the long run, he may be the better of the Republican candidates. But the fact that some will not vote for him or exclude him from discussion just because he is Mormon gives the impression of narrow mindedness.

Mike Huckabee: Genuine Conservative or Pro-Life Liberal?

As Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has risen in the polls and now in one poll has the lead in Iowa, the critiquing of his record has accelerated in the high gear.

I have been delaying the writing of this blog for weeks because it seems that whenever someone writes an article tearing Huckabee down, there is always another one "clarifying" Huckabee's positions. I want to break down really quick the "Negatives" brought against Huckabee than present the "clarifications" before giving my opinion.

Negatives:

* Without going into extensive details, Conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly, John Fund, Randy Minton and Ann Coulter point to Huckabee's past positions on Illegal Immigration and Taxes.

-According to Schlafly, Huckabee "destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles....Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee." (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/071103)

-Ann Coulter has said, "On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Huckabee has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, 'I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.' Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up 'those who are racist and bigots.' Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for President, he supports a federal law to ban smoking — unless you're an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant." (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/071103)

-John Fund has written, "But it's Mr. Huckabee who is creating the doubts. 'He's just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,' a former top Huckabee aide told me. 'As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I'll guarantee is that won't lead to competent conservative governance.'" (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010782)


Supporters:

*On the other side, those who support Huckabee point to his positions as a Pro-Life, Second Amendment supporter who is a "Christian Conservative" and either try to clarify or "dismiss" his record:

-Donald Wildmon, founder of American Family Association (AFA) has endorsed Mike Huckabee saying, "I feel that Gov. Huckabee understands the needs of our country and has the ability to lead us in meeting those needs...." (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=351)

-Janet Folger has written, "May I suggest a driver without a long record of traffic violations like driving the wrong way on one-way streets such as abortion, marriage and judicial appointments? .... To get to where we need to go, we need someone who won't negotiate on the non-negotiables of life and marriage. Someone who can reach the Reagan Democrats, union workers and African Americans. And someone who can take on Hillary." (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58159)

-Dick Morris, who has worked as a political consultant and strategist for Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee, has written, "He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.) He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security. And he can win in Iowa. When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one." (http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?p=203)


Conclusion: The real points of contention are about Huckabee's validation as a Conservative on the issues of Illegal Immigration, Taxes and Spending.

From everything I have read, defending Huckabee as a guy who will not be another "Amnesty Republican" is very thin and on this issue I would suggest wait and see if you like what he says about the issue. Track record is very important, but if one were to compare the track records and campaign promises of Presidents on "in the moment" issues such as George W. Bush with Education and Jimmy Carter with the Death Penalty, their Presidential policies were more inline with their campaign promises than their track records.

Concerning Huckabee's "Fiscal Conservative" credentials, just read Dick Morris' column entitled "MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE". In this column, Morris explains how many of the accusations put against Huckabee while he was Governor of Arkansas is exaggerated. Basically, Huckabee isn't as bad as everyone makes him out to be and he is more so a Neo-Fiscal Conservative than a Traditional Fiscal Conservative.

The fact is that in a Republican field of where the "leading" candidates have either questionable social track records (Giuliani and Romney), a past of flip flopping and appeasement (McCain), or just can't seem to gain traction (Thompson, Paul, Tancredo), Huckabee seems like "the best option" for many Republicans at this point. I, for one, am very skeptical of the opinions and perspectives of those such as Schlafly and Fund. Re-phrasing a term from the movie "Mean Girls", Schlafly and Fund are "almost too Conservative to function". What I mean by this statement is both are so staunchly positioned on the traditionally Conservative side of politics, they have positions that are a little "farther right" on issues than a large number of Republicans, Neo-Conservatives, and Moderates in this nation. As for Ms. Coulter, while she is for the most part a genuine, uncompromising Neo-Conservative, her brazen honesty leads her to take positions that are on the harsh side of reality.

The major problem with the criticisms of Huckabee lies with in the idea that Republicans and Conservatives keep looking for the "Next Reagan". But guess what people? There is and was only one Ronald Reagan! He is not coming back from the dead or will be reincarnated in another political individual. Reagan was the man the nation need at the time he was elected President. Today, we are at a cross roads in the political world where the "old guard" is making it's way out the door and "new blood" is rising up, the next President is one who will define how the next generation will stand and vote for the next 30 years, similar to how the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter Presidencies defined a generation of voters. In the same way, Bush Sr.-Clinton-Bush Jr. and who ever is elected in 2008 will define the next generation of voters. But in order to continue a "positive" direction for this nation's future, we need to get away from the sort of politics this nation has been molded to live with for the last 30 years.

People need to get out of this mold of wanting a Republican "Like Reagan" and a Democrat "Like Clinton". Huckabee doesn't fit the molds some Conservatives are looking for. In fact, none of the Republicans running for the nomination are not from the Reagan or Traditional Conservative molds. Many of the attacks on Huckabee are from those who nit pick. The end game choice comes down to this: If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, do you want her as your President for 4 years? Remember, it's your choice, your vote does count.

President Clinton was against "The Iraq War....from the beginning"?

President Bill Clinton is trying to claim he was again the Iraq Military Operation from "the beginning". Interesting, because his wife, Senator/Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton supported the Congressional Approval of US Military Action in Iraq. But you dont have to believe me just because I say all of this, watch this report on ABC's Good Morning America:





So all of this about the former President being against military action in Iraq from the get-go is mularky. The fact is that it was President Bill Clinton in 1998 who sign the Iraq Liberation Act which declared it was the duty of the United States to liberate Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Be informed, do yourself this favor. Take time out of your day and watch the following video from December 16th, 1998. It is President Bill Clinton addressing the nation about attacking Iraq. If you want to blame President Bush for anything, blame him for following Clinton's lead on Iraq while all the former President was doing was attempting to "finish" the job the first President Bush never finished:

Videos: Chuck Norris Endorsement; Infamous Tancredo Ad

I could not resist posting this. After watching the "Joe is Right" video, watch this.






Also, for those who haven't seen it, here is the "infamous" Tancredo Ad. It's true, but sadly everyone wants to call him a "hateful". I guess the truth isn't popular. Maybe the ending is a little mellow dramatic though.

So they want an "War" over Oil?

OPEC SUMMIT
Politics overshadow gathering

Unlike Russia and China, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran both are publicly Anti-America. Now, Chavez wants OPEC to "set itself up as an active political agent".

So, Chavez wants to take the US down by using Oil to hurt us? Not the most original idea, but a resourceful one. It's ashame one the the largest US oil suppliers disagrees:

While Chavez's 23-minute statement was brief by his own standards, it drew a gentle rebuke from King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch, who chided him for talking longer than the time allotted by royal protocol. He also turned down Chavez's plea, saying: "Those who want OPEC to take advantage of its position are forgetting that OPEC has always acted moderately and wisely."....

"OPEC has made a point, from its establishment, to work for the stability of the oil markets," said the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal, at a news conference after the close of the summit on Sunday. "Oil should be a tool of construction and development, not one of dispute."

Ok, so Saudi Arabia is not onboard with the idea. Chavez had his say and we hear him loud and clear: Unlike Iraq, he wants a REAL War over Oil. Maybe President Bush doesn't sound so crazy when he says we need to get away from being so dependent on Foreign Oil. Maybe the US needs to start making major investments in other forms of energy and/or start drilling for oil in areas where we know there is oil to be found (Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, California, Montana to name a few). Until we do so, threats from people such as the Presidents of Iran and Venezuela will continue to scare investors and Oil prices will continue to rise.

There was a time in US history when we were the greatest exporter of goods on the International market. Now we are the greatest importer. Do you really think sending jobs and factories to China is helping our economy? It certainly is hurting our kids.

All the Democratic Candidates agree with "Joe"?

Honestly, it appears that indirectly, all the candidates for the Democratic Presidential Nomination agree with and support US Senator Jope Biden! Then why don't people just vote for him if he is the "genius" behind all the other Democrats positions?

Hillary: "I have experience" Obama: "What experience do you have?"

Obama to Clinton: 'You weren't Treasury secretary'

Well, first Barack Obama has been called naive, now he doesnt have any economic experience? In a recent speech, Senator Hillary Clinton said the following:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was in Iowa today arguing she has the experience to lead the economy out of a downturn and that signs of economic trouble ahead make it risky to elect a different candidate....
''There is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for --our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history,'' Clinton said, according to excerpts released in advance by her campaign. ''Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families. And they cannot afford to keep waiting.''

So Senator Obama responded to Senator Clinton by saying:

"I am happy to compare my experiences with hers when it comes to the economy," Obama said. "My understanding was that she wasn't Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration."
"I think she's a capable person. She's been a senator, like I have," he added. "But rather than just assert experience, if she has specific differences with me with respect to economic policy, I'm happy to have those debates. But this general notion of experience based on longevity in Washington I don't think is sufficient."

I am 100 percent with Obama on this one. What makes Senator Clinton so "experienced"? This is the same argument I have against Senator John McCain, what makes McCain or Clinton so much more experienced? Just because Senator Clinton has been married to a Governor and a two term US President doesn't make her any more or less qualified. She was never the Governor or President. Under that explanation, why don't we elect Nancy Reagan as the next US President? Nancy's husband, the late Ronald Reagan, was Governor of California for two terms and US President for two terms. If we follow Hillary Clinton's logic, Nancy Reagan has "experience" too!

Obama is right. Why doesn't Hillary get down to the details and explain why her positions and policies are better? All she does is call Obama "naive" and talk about how she has "more experience". If "experience" is so "important" to the American people, why was the race between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 so tight? Lets think about it, Bush was a Governor of Texas. That's it! What was Al Gore? He was a US Congressman (1976-1984), a US Senator (1984-1993), a Presidential Candidate (1988, 2000), and US Vice President (1992-2000). If Al Gore can't be "elected" on experience ALONE, then what make Hillary Clinton so special?

Besides, one of Hillary's "great" ideas is to give a 5,000 dollar bond to every child born in the USA. Obama wants to make Community College education "free" for most college students. Hmmm, $5,000 US bond or $4,000 tax college credit? Tough choices...

The Republican Field is getting out of control

Ok, for those of you who have not heard all of the noise or who cannot keep up with the changes, here is a quick summary of what's new:

*Rudy Giuliani's connections to Bernard Kerik and Charles Hill. Bernard Kerik has been indicted on federal charges and Charles Hill has some "questionable" positions on foreign policy issues. The Giuliani campaign is trying to minimalize these connections. These "connections" may be overrated, but since everyone keeps bringing up Giuliani's positions on abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration, this is another thing to pile on.

*Fred Thompson got an interesting endorsement. He has been endorsed by the National Right to Life organization for Fred's "100% Pro-Life voting record". Interesting, this is after Giuliani being backed by a "Christian Big Name" (Pat Robertson), Romney and Huckabee being endorsed by other "Christian Big Names" (Paul Weyrich and Donald Wildman, respectively), and John McCain's odd endorsement by Senator Sam Brownback.

*Mike Huckabee cannot avoid the accusations that he's not a real conservative, but we also see Huckabee is having trouble keeping his facts straight about his past positions on taxes. It is hard to tell if Huckabee is truly gaining ground on the leaders and is now getting shot down, or he has become "one of the big boys" and is taking his hits like the rest. In the meantime, Rolling Stone likes Huckabee.

*Mitt Romney has been strong lately, but he also cannot get around the Mormon label and the fact people see Mormonism as a "cult". This I find odd, since we have elected presidents who come from different religious backgrounds that some have considered "cults" (for example: John F. Kennedy - Roman Catholicism; Richard Nixon - Quakers). Also, Romney has been attacked for some of his illegal immigration positions. Over the last several months, Romney has shown that his beliefs and positions are more a product of "reconsideration" and an "evolution" of thought than they were "Flip Floping". Unlike John Kerry and John McCain, Romney has not played both sides of an issue and ignored past statements, Romney has explained where he was and how he got to where he is now. This shows he is more thoughtful then many other politicians.

*John McCain cant avoid keeping his foot out of his mouth. Also, he parades his mom onto national cable TV and she shoots him in the foot. Good times, especially when you reply to a obscure question by calling someone a "jerk"

Conclusion: Rudy Giuliani gets big boost, takes three steps forward, two steps back. Mitt Romney gains strength, cannot avoid bigotry. John McCain continually takes two steps forward, four steps back at every turn. Fred Thompson is assumed for dead, then resurrects himself and then does not seem to do much with his "new chance" in the race. Mike Huckabee is gaining ground in the polls, but getting killed online. Tom Tancredo is getting trashed for being honest and truthful. Ron Paul appears to have a great deal of support from people who are not registered to vote or do not vote (see his Myspace page). Oh, and Duncan Hunter has been almost never heard from.

Welcome to Campaign 2008, where voters will need to seperate the facts from opinion to get the truth.

America's Dynasties?

One of the major worries of the 2008 Presidential Race revolves around Senator Hillary Clinton. People fear the idea of two "Political Dynasties" ruling this country. Since 1989, we have had George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush as our Presidents. Now, the possibility of Hillary Clinton being the next President has caused concern on both sides because many Conservatives and Liberals both agree Hillary would not have the same kind of Presidency that Bill Clinton did. When people see the name "Clinton", they think of Bill first, not Hillary. Sarah Baxter in an article on the "Times Online" said summarized it best this past Sunday:

President George H Bush was sworn into office in January 1989. If Hillary Clinton wins two elections, the Bushes and the Clintons will have been in the White House for more than a quarter of a century.
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2848250.ece)

So if Hillary Clinton serves two terms as President, it would be 24 years of either a Bush or Clinton as President! This is totally unprecedented for the United States of America. Let's quickly review other Presidents who were family members:

The Roosevelts:

*Theodore Roosevelt (September 14, 1901 to March 3, 1909)

*Franklin Delano Roosevelt (March 4, 1933 to April 12, 1945)

How Related: 5th Cousins

Years apart between Presidencies: 24 years


The Harrisons:

*Benjamin Harrison (March 4, 1889 to March 3, 1893)

*William Henry Harrison (March 4, 1841 to April 4, 1841)

How Related: Grandfather (William)/Grandson (Benjamin)

Years apart between Presidencies: 48 years


The Adams'

*John Adams (March 4, 1797 to March 3, 1801)

*John Quincy Adams (March 4, 1825 to March 3, 1829)

How Related: Father (John)/Son (John Quincy)

Years apart between Presidencies: 24 years


But Father and Son Bush Presidencies are separated by 8 years! And so would Bill and Hillary's Presidencies if she was elected President. Be honest, are these four people truly the best or most qualified people be President in the last 20 years? While that is subject to opinion, everyone can pick at least one of these four people they do not like or would not vote for. I personally am troubled by this Bush-Clinton-Bush pattern. As some historians and political analysts have pointed out, it has the aura of a Political Dynasty or Political families controlling the nation. This is what happens in Europe, not the US.

One of the major reasons that our nation's Founding Fathers setup the nation via the US Constitution the way they did was to avoid any sort of monarchies or dynasties. The whole point was to avoid any sort of "King" or chosen family succession as the leader of the nation. There was still 24 years that separated the Presidencies of John Adams and his son, John Quincy. 24 years is approximately a generation (http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=11152).

I feel the same way many in this nation do: We need "new blood" in the White House, no more "Blue Bloods" or "Heirs to the Throne". Or any more of the malarkey "It is their turn" like the Republicans did with Bob Dole in 1996 and Richard Nixon in 1960 or what the Democrats did with John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

When people complain there are too many "Career Politicians" and "Washington Burecratic Insiders" in the US Government, Hillary Clinton is the model of what these people DO NOT want as President. Hillary Clinton has lived off the taxpayer for 31 years. Her husband, Bill, was elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976, elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978, and elected US President in 1992. Then, as her husband's Presidency came to an end in 2000, she ran and was elected US Senator, a position which she still holds today. She has not worked or lived in a world without a Political paycheck to live off of in 31 years. Is she really who we want in the Presidency? Someone who cannot truly identify with the every day American? Do we want another Clinton like we have already spent the last 7 years with a second Bush?

Obama almost has the right idea...

Obama: I deserve a tax increase

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama almost gets that idea, but falls short again. On "Meet The Press" Obama said that his way of fixing the problems with Social Security would not be to cut benefits or to move up the "Retirement Age".

Good so far.

His plan is to raise the income tax to accomidate the lack of funds in the Social Secuirty "bank". Obama said "I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected."

Ok, maybe this guy is seeing the light.

Then Obama explained how "only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed. That cap is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

Obama's proposal could include a gap or "doughnut hole" to shield middle-income earners from higher payroll taxes, he said." (Source: Cnn.com)

Nevermind, I thought there was hope. Here we go again. Another Democrat who doesnt want to really change the Income/Payroll tax structure. He wants to raise the tax accross the board and "protect the middle class". And what about the "lower/Working" class Senator Obama? You see, this was one of the great farces of Clinton's infamous "tax cuts". President Clinton wanted to raise taxes on the "Rich" while cutting the taxes of the Middle Class. But what no one talks about is with these "doughnut hole" gaps or "cuts" for those in the Middle Class, the poorest still suffer.

Hither to, this is one of the greatest blinders and weaknesses of those who are Fiscal "Moderate Liberals" or "Liberals". They want to raise taxes on the Rich, protect the Middle Class, but forget about the Working Class Poor.

Sure, it is cute when Obama says stuff like this:

"Obama also invoked his friend, billionaire Warren Buffett, who Obama said has expressed concern that he is paying less in Social Security taxes than anyone else in his office.

'And he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they need,' Obama said." (Source: Cnn.com)

Yes, good points. But what about cutting the Payroll or other taxes on the Working Class Poor and Middle Class and only raise the taxes on the "Upper Class/Rich"? If we are so desperate to stick with the current tax system and want to still appeal to "Moderate" swing voters, just run on this instead of the ridiculousness that Obama has suggested and that President Clinton did? And don't tell me it cannot be done because you would be suprised what Politicians can get done when it means getting re-elected. This plan would boost any Democrat in polls and would lead to an almost guarantee in getting elected. And if they actually got it done, the momment they sign that new tax setup into law, they would guarantee their re-election just because they did what "no one thought would be done".

While I am not advocating the US Government playing the role of a Burecratic Robin Hood by taking from the Rich, giving to the Poor and Elderly, while easing the financial worries of the Middle Class, I know it is not a losing campaign idea. I know from experience that President Clinton's "tax cuts" did not help my Working Class family. I do not want to see the same sham occur again to the Working Class Poor of America.

Hypocritical Republicans!!

Ok, so after the Republican Presidential candidates all agreed in Florida last month that the Republicans would not punish Florida for moving up it's primary date like the Democrat Party has, the Republican National Committee makes liars out of their Presidential Candidates:


*GOP Punishes Five Early-Voting States by Stripping Half Their Delegates


Oh, but they are not as bad as the Democrats because the Republicans are still allowing half of the delegates. Look, why do we need to at all "punish" anyone? This circus of "who's first" concerning Presidential Primaries is ridiculous, even to a Political Guru such as myself. Hey, Republicans, there is a reason why the voters kicked you out of power in 2006 in the US Congress and why the current Democrat controlled Congress has the worst approval ratings EVER! Stop with this same old rhetoric and burecratic mularky! Stop being like your rival Democrats or you will meet the same fate you met in 2006 and 1976: out of power. Start learning from history instead of repeating it.

The "Religious Right" pick sides

Over the past week, some new Republican Presidential endorsements have been appearing from those who have been characterized by the media as "The Religious Right". After recently all the "leading Evangelical Christian" leaders got together to discuss what to do since they didn’t have a candidate to support. Now all of a sudden, 3 have decided that they have a candidate they want to support. Pat Robertson, who had founded or been behind the creation of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), the Christian Coalition, Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation, and Regent University, Robertson has decided to back former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. American Family Association (AFA) founder Donald E. Wildmon has personally endorsed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee today. There were rumors on the internet that Focus On the Family founder James Dobson would endorse Huckabee as well, but Dobson has denied any endorsement anytime soon of anyone. In the meantime, Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Moral Majority, has thrown his support behind former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney while Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (known for his "core Christian" beliefs).

For months, many "Christian leaders" had been hesitant to endorse any of the Republican candidates. And the typical stereotypical reasons fall inline here: Giuliani isn’t Pro-Life, Romney is a Mormon, McCain has flip flopped on various issues, Thompson is not an ideal or strong candidate, and Huckabee is too good to be true and not well known. But now, everyone is picking "their" candidate. I guess those rumors of supporting a "3rd Party Candidate" are out the window? Maybe, maybe not, especially since Dobson has not officially changed his positon yet. Each endorsement says something unique, because Wildmon now endorse Huckabee since he is gaining ground in polls and Huckabee is a ordained Baptist minister. Brownback choose McCain, both who have "strong" Pro-Life voting records, but also have flip flop on other issues over the years. Weyrich's support of Romney might speak to the fact that Romney has the financial firepower to sustain after getting the nomination, a reflection on Weyrich's background with the Moral Majority. Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani is purely a political pick, nothing that has to do with Christian or Moral beliefs (he talked about National Security and the threat of Islamic Terrorism at the official endorsement press conference).

Now we need to see how each endorsement affects how people will vote. I have the feeling that the endorsements help Huckabee and Giuliani, while they hurt McCain and Fred Thompson. Romney is still going to poll well in Iowa and New Hampshire no matter what. Watch for Huckabee to start doing even better in polls, he is my Dark Horse in the Republican race. McCain is trying so hard to gain traction, but it just is not happening, while Thompson has not really excited anyone. So this race is looking like it will develop into a three man contest between Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee.

As for Dobson, dont forget what happened back in earlier this year with Fred Thompson.