America, The Beautiful Continued

Last time I wrote I would finish tomorrow and that was a week ago.

Sorry for the delay.

When I last wrote, we were in the hauntingly beautiful state of Wyoming on our way to Deadwood, South Dakota, one of the main destinations of our trip.

In 1989, a faltering Deadwood voted and got "gaming" in the town. Then it was probably called what it is, gambling. The gambling saved the town and the HBO series, Deadwood, more than likely revived it.

Driving into the town at night is like driving through a western Las Vegas, without the crowds and the "beautiful" people. It is a different kind of place.

Oddly enough, here was a tough place to find a dog-friendly hotel. But, we did and made the ultimate sacrifice in getting a smoking room. YUK!

After a night of rest, we explored the town taking in the museums and the Mt. Moriah cemetary where Wild Bill Hikock, Calamity Jane and Sheriff Seth Bullock are buried. (See photo above)

Also, it was here we saw nature in all of its glory as we saw a flock of deer just hanging out in the cemetary.

When that was done, we went back to our hotel to prepare for the highlight of the road trip, Mt. Rushmore.

All that can be said is WOW! It is so amazing how this masterpiece of American ingenuity came to be and how hard the work and how long it took to complete what we see today. Amazing!

From there it was a lllloooonnnngggg drive to Denver through Western Nebraska. It was only a seven hour drive. But by the time we got there it was 11pm and we just crashed.

The next day we took a tour of the Coors brewery and that was really great. We learned a lot and there is nothing like the end and the samples. And, Coors is generous. If you are ever in the Denver area, go to Golden and take the tour. It's free!

Another lllooonnnggg drive from Denver to Santa Fe, New Mexico and another late night. But, we got there and the next day, we were able to see all Santa Fe has to offer including the oldest church and first house in the United States. And then we took in the Loretto staircase. Only photos do it justice.

A much shorter drive and we were in Albuquerque. Another cool town and here we were able to take our dog Scout around and she was really happy. So were we.

From Albuequerque, it was more or less getting home, with an overnight in Flagstaff, Arizona.

One more thing, Cracker Barrel restaurant is a find and anyone in California needs to write to get them here ASAP. Their webdress is http://www.crackerbarrel.com.

This road trip is proof positive that America is truly the greatest nation on God's earth. We saw so much in such a short time, but were proud to say we were Americans, even Scout the dog!

America, The Beautiful

America is an amazing, large, complex, and most of all, beautiful nation as Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and our dog found out this past week on our long awaited road trip through the Rocky Mountains and the great American Southwest.
We started our trip last Saturday and ended up staying in St. George, Utah in the southern and possibly least Mormon part of Utah. Ahh, but there is not a least Mormon part of the state, period. Even there in St. George is a Mormon temple and an seemingly endless, cross less steeples all looking the same. But, we still felt right at home there.
As we drove up deep into Utah, the larger the cities, the more Mormon church buildings there were. And, later on Sunday we ended up in Salt Lake City and at the Mormon Temple, the Vatican of Mormonism. While we were taking our dog, Scout, on one of so many walks, we were encountered by two very lovely and foreign young ladies just outside the Temple Visitor Center. And we took them up on their offer to give us a tour of the Visitor Center and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For full disclosure, Mrs. RVFTLC is not exactly a fan of the Mormon faith. But, she did not say anything more than we were both Christians and not particularly interested in changing our denomination. So, with that upfront, the two young ladies, one from Germany and one from Scotland proceeded to give us the tour and answered our many, genuine questions about the faith and the meanings of certain things. We left each other at the Tabernacle building, were the Mormon Tabernacle Choir perform and it was on very nice terms with a card just in case we were interested in learning more about the LDS. I still have it, but not necessarily to learn more. A memento of our journey into Mormonism in Utah.
We continued into Wyoming and stayed the night in Evanston, Wyoming. Not much to it, but it is the largest town of about 11,000 in Southwest Wyoming. And the next day we continued on to Cheyenne, the capital of Wyoming. Here is several things to note. There are very few real cities or towns in Southern Wyoming. Because of that, there are large swaths of the state in which there is no cell phone coverage. And, Wyoming is mostly flat and, shockingly, plain. It is a haunting beauty in many locales of the state. We finally made Cheyenne on that Monday evening and had a delicious steak dinner. Unfortunately, Scout is allergic to beef and we could not bring her a steak bone. So sad. The next day we tootled around Cheyenne and toured the state capital. An amazing place, as are all state capitals. For each has a history all of its own. And we had a wonderful tour guide. She was very informative and answered all questions that we had. Eventually, we had to say goodbye to Cheyenne and continue on to the main destination of the road trip, Deadwood, South Dakota.
An aside. We are HUGE fans of the HBO series Deadwood. Yes, watching it did makes us feel very dirty after each episode while their was more swearing in that hour on a Sunday than a whole mission on a naval vessel. But, it was an addicting series and it made us want to go to Deadwood and learn more.
Some things we learned on the way. While still in Wyoming, there are really towns that have as population, zero, one and zero. Unbelievable. And, there are a lot of abandoned farms all on the back roads where you can find the aforementioned towns.
Because of time restraints, the rest will be continued tomorrow. Hopefully then, I will have some photos to share with you.

How To Properly Beat Your Wife, Saudi Style

It is absolutely incredible to even write this in this so-called enlightened time, but a leading Saudi cleric on Saudi television explained the, I kid you not, proper way to beat your wife http://FoxNews.com.
While apparently talking to some people, apparently men only, Muhammad Al-'Arifi had this beautiful dialogue:
"Admonish them-once, twice, three times, four times, ten times" he advised "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."
Comment from blogger:
And, this advice guru really thinks that all of this will make one of the wives want to have anything to do with him?
And if that doesn't work?
"Beat them" one of his young advisees responded.
"That's right." Al-'Arifi said.
If you think that is bad, this "cleric" also advises that the men are not to beat their wives on the face. How nice of him. And Al-'Arifi compares this to beating animals and children. You know, don't beat the child and or animal in the face either. The proper way is to slap 'em, right to left.
UNFREEKING BELIEVABLE!
As the television infomercial admonishes, but wait there's more!
This advise guru says the following:
"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall, the beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet.
Blogger comment:
The topper of this "education" and or "advice" is this:
"Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."
I can not begin to comment without a slew of profanities that would put a drunken sailor to shame, but I will try.
So, if I understand Al-'Alifi, one should not beat their wife when they are mad? I mean, should the husband wake up in the morning and start the ol' slap to the right and then the left and say "Good Morning! How was that for a wake up call?!"
But remember young charges, it is a human being you are beating. And, is that what we should be doing to fellow humans, especially women? Hell NO!
If this was some creep on American television, he would be arrested at the station and carted off to jail and that would be way too nice.
Remember, this is what the American left wants to accommodate. That it will be A-OK for Islamic men to abuse Islamic women under the guise of multiculturalism.
Every American should watch this with horror and realize that we can not let this become a normal thing in this nation. Or any other nation.

Romney Gaining In South Carolina

For those who still continue to think the presidential candidacy of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is not going anywhere, here is some news to chew on.
A new Winthrop poll shows that Mr. Romney is tied for for second with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, each at 17% with former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson ahead at 18% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/SC/south_carolina.
And in the period of September 26 to October 29, Mr. Romney averages a 0.3% lead over Mr. Giuliani. And, Mr. Giuliani has fallen as Mr. Thompson is rising.
South Carolina is turning into a two-man race, Mr. Romney and Mr. Thompson. And in three other early primaries and or caucuses, Mr. Romney is ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan.
Thus, Mr. Romney is gaining ground and by the time these primaries are over, more than likely Mitt Romney will have won them all, clearing the way for a potential huge series of wins on Super Duper Tuesday, February 5, 2008.
The other top candidates, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Thompson and Sen John "F--- You" McCain may get a win or two, but Mr. Romney will win the lions share and two of the three may drop out leaving it a clear two-man race.
For whatever reason, many have underestimated and written off Mr. Romney, but few have followed his private and public sector careers. Sure, many like to talk about a campaign in 1994 in which Mr. Romney clearly ran to the left in Massachusetts, but when he ran and governed in 2002, it was clearly conservative.
And if it is Sen. Hilary Clinton, God forbid, as the Democrat nominee, she and her cronies will also underestimate Mr. Romney. They will be forced to make innuendos and outright lies about Mr. Romney's religion, Mormonism. And, that will backfire big time, as Sen. Clinton can not still figure out her position on granting illegal aliens driver's licences.
I think that South Carolina is a good sign for the Romney campaign and should not and must not be taken lightly.

If Mukasey Fails, How About Robert Bork As AG?

The nomination of former federal judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general is in danger because Democrat senators are not happy with some of Mr. Mukasey's answers on torture and waterboarding.
Really, I feel like getting waterboarded listening to these nauseating windbags.
But, if you really want to get the windbags going, there is a way and it is legitimate.
Since there are only 14 months left of President Bush's term in office (yes, he will leave office just like former President Clinton did, peacefully!), President Bush can let the events play out in the senate. The senate judiciary committee can vote not to send the nomination of Mr. Mukasey to the full senate. The senate Republicans make no real effort to force the issue.
Now, President Bush has said that there will not be an attorney general if Mr. Mukasey does not get an up or down vote.
Since that is looking more and more unlikely, President Bush can do something that would make Democrats get violently ill on the senate floor.
Make a recess appointment of former judge Robert Bork as the attorney general.
Why not?
A recess appointment does not need consent of the senate, hence why it is called a recess appointment. And it would serve the Democrats right for not sending Mr. Mukasey's nomination to the full senate. After all, the Democrats have set up these potential prospects by their obstructions.
Can you image what the Democrats would scream on the senate floor? That would be worth the price of admission. I think swear words would fly out of many a senator's mouths.
But, in all seriousness, appointing Mr. Bork would be good because he would be a forceful advocate for the president's judicial and law enforcement philosophy. Mr. Bork has been writing and lecturing and is very much on top of legal things since being railroaded in 1986 as a Reagan appointee to the supreme court.
It would be a real opportunity for the American people to see what they have lost that Mr. Bork was not successfully confirmed to the supreme court in the first place. And it is a perfect opportunity to show conservative Republicans that President Bush has not lost all of his conservative moxie. And moxie it would be.
I think it would be a real shot in the arm to the waning days of the Bush presidency to have a forceful advocate of a stronger, aggressive policy dealing with enemy combatants, the issue of "torture" and a restrained judiciary in general.
President Bush would make history by appointing Robert Bork to be the next attorney general and give the Democrats fits and create a new issue for the 2008 presidential campaign. And that will be welcomed.

The Most Influential Conservative American Is. . .You've Got To Be Kidding?!

Well, the London Daily Telegraph finally reached the top 20 most influential conservatives in the United States and the number one is absolutely disturbing.
According to the Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk, the numero uno, the big cheese is. . .former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
UNBELIEVABLE!
As noted in earlier postings on this week-long series in the Daily Telegraph, the newspaper if it is reflective of what the British think are conservatives, they are really on something and it is not good.
Mr. Giuliani has at various times admitted that he is a Republican in name only and not very conservative. Mr. Giuliani's whole reason for running for the Republican nomination for president is 9/11, period. If Mr. Giuliani were running just on his record as mayor of New York City, minus the terrorist attack of 9/11, his poll numbers would be slightly higher than Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, and that is in the single digits.
Mr. Giuliani has taken pains to say that he would appoint "strict constructionists" to the federal courts, especially the supreme court. That is to placate social conservative Republicans that want to ban abortions or at the very least overturn Roe vs. Wade. Mr. Giuliani still says that he is "pro choice" on abortion. Mr. Giuliani has not changed his views on same-sex marriage, he is for them. And Mr. Giuliani has not exactly been clear on his economic policies. On the most pressing issue after the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, where he is excellent, illegal immigration, Mr. Giuliani is all over the place. No real position.
So, how does the Daily Telegraph figure that Mr. Giuliani is the most influential "conservative" in the United States? Because he is the Republican presidential front runner and supposedly can beat Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) is a head to head match up.
But, enough of an outrage over the alleged number one influential conservative in the United States.
Much of the rest of the top 20 is more about placement rather than outrage.
General David Petreaus, the head of the coalition forces in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror comes in at a surprising second place. The Daily Telegraph sees Gen. Petreaus as a possible presidential candidate. Now, that is interesting.
Matt Drudge http://drudgereport.com is in as the third most influential conservative in the United States. It is really too bad that Mr. Drudge retired from his radio program earlier this year. While Mr. Drudge has real serious critics on the left, the Drudge Report is, more than anything, a clearinghouse of news, sports, features from Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media publications as well as websites on both the left and the right.
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, comes in at number four. I think a bit high but a real top-20 conservative.
The Maharushie, Rush Limbaugh http://rushlimbaugh.com, comes in the fifth spot. Clearly, even after 20 years as a national radio talk show host, Mr. Limbaugh is the most influential conservative in the United States, hands down. No host can claim credit, when there was no serious conservative talk radio or the Internet or other alternative conservative media, for bringing the Republicans control of congress in 1994. It is because of Mr. Limbaugh that there is conservative talk radio, the Fox News Channel, conservative bloggers, and other conservative, alternative media. How he did not get to be number one is amazing.
And I am thrilled radio talker Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com is the fifteenth most influential conservative in the United States. I just finished her latest tome, "Power To The People" and it is one that really hit home. Not just the personal battles she has faced, but her common sense approach to solving problems and a positive outlook. It is something that should, but has been used by most Republicans in recent years. Please, if you have not gotten "Power To The People", get it now.
Vice-President Richard Cheney is in at sixth most influential conservative. The shocker is that Vice-President Cheney is ahead of President Bush, who came in at 21. BTW, the Daily Telegraph explains why that turned out the way it did.
This whole series is very interesting and rather strange as the British have a very interesting perspective on what is a conservative in the United States. A lot of the top 100 should not have been there in the first place. Being totally wrong on the most influential and because of some of the people that did make the cut, really influential conservatives were left off the list.
This is prompting me to think long and hard who are the 100 most influential conservatives in the United States. I think you know who I think is number one, but maybe you think it should be someone different. Any suggestions?

The 100 Most Influential American Conservative Countdown Continues

The London Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk continues it titillating countdown of the 100 most influential American conservatives and we are getting down to the nittty gritty, the top 50.
Actually, it is from 41-60, but at least we are getting away from the cellar-dwellers!
One very perplexing choice is Connecticut Independent Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman, who comes in at 47, behind political columnist Robert Novak. Sen. Lieberman also made the liberal version of this list. I hardly think that Sen. Lieberman can really count as a conservative, but because the Democrat party is so far to the left, in that context Sen. Lieberman really is a conservative. But, still not one I would count on my top 100.
A real silly choice, no offense, is First Lady Laura Bush who is in at 59. The reality is that Mrs. Bush is not exactly a conservative nor a serious policy maker. It is well known that she is not on the pro-life side of the abortion debate and she has wade into policy in regards to "women's" issues and maybe a little human rights thrown in since she commented strongly on the disastrous Saffron Rebellion in Burma, or Myanmar. Mrs. Bush does not really get to be this far up if at all on this list.
It seems like the commentator class is bunched up here with Sean Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" on the Fox News Channel and his own radio talk show at 44, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol at 48, and William F. Buckley founder of National Review at 49. Rich Lowry, the National Review editor comes in at 53.
That is about right.
By the end of the week, we should see if this list gets any better. I, for one, would put Mr. Hannity in the top 20 along with fellow radio talker Laura Ingraham who has a number one New York Times bestseller, "Power To The People" still selling well.
That is half the fun of this list. Getting to write about who should really be on or off.
More tomorrow.

The Supreme Court-Another Reason To Vote Republican In '08

In today's Wall Street Journal http://opinionjournal.com, Orin Kerr has a frightening article concerning supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her blatant abuse of power and infringement on a co-equal branch of government.
I confess, I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I do know that the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government are separate, yet co-equal branches of government. The legislative can not tell the executive how to do its job and vice-verse. Neither the legislative or executive branch can tell the supreme court how to do its job, which should be simply whether or not laws meet constitutional muster, not one's personal or political belief.
Until now.
Justice Ginsburg dissented from a 5-4 ruling last year in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber. The ruling was in reference to a statute as to when discrimination claims must be filed. No big deal, right? It would not have been except that Justice Ginsburg explained that the purpose of her dissent was "to attract immediate public attention and to propel legislative change." Really? I just did not know that the unelected Justice Ginsburg thinks that is her role as an associate justice on the federal supreme court.
Of course a Democrat House of Representatives passed a "corrective" measure on July 31, 2007 and the senate's favorite drunkard, Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass) introduced a parallel bill with 21 co-sponsors. President Bush has announced that when the bill eventually gets to his desk, he will rightfully veto it.
What Justice Ginsburg did is a clear breach of the separation of powers. It is not the supreme court's job to influence legislators to pass laws to its liking. Justice Ginsburg could have simply voted on the merits of the statute itself, and explained why she thought the way she did. In legal terms, not pushing a legislature to make law.
That is what the Massachusetts judicial supreme court did in its infamous ruling on "legalizing" same-sex marriage. It ordered the Massachusetts legislature to make a law regarding legitimizing same-sex marriage. Essentially, the supreme judicial court became the originating legislative body, not the lower or upper house of the General Court.
This kind of overreach should be reason enough to vote for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. This is a perfect advertisement for the smart candidate. Tie the fringes that people like Justice Ginsburg represents as a threat, and she is, to legislative and executive independence.
In reality impeachment proceedings should begin, but will not, against Justice Ginsburg for admitting that she wanted to use her dissent on this case to influence legislation.
In lieu of impeachment, it is all the more reason that voters need to really look at all the candidates and figure out which ones would be more likely to appoint those with judicial restraint vs. those who would appoint those with no restraint whatsoever. The choice is clear. Any of the Republicans will nominate those who show restraint. The Democrats? Former President Clinton appointed Justice Ginsburg. Enough said.

Words Of Wisdom From Tony Blankley

On the Real Clear Politics website today http://realclearpolitics.com, former Washington Times editorial page editor, Tony Blankley, has some words of warning for small tent Republicans.
Mr. Blankley is saying that just because a candidate is not "pure" on one issue does not mean that one is not a conservative.
Mr. Blankley takes to task critics of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, including one writer who compared Mr. Huckabee to Huey Long, George Wallace and other assorted bad southern politicians. Of course, the same said writer failed to mention the worst southern pol of our time, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. There are legitimate reasons to question Mr. Huckabee. Today on the Hugh Hewitt radio show http://hughhewitt.com, Mr. Huckabee said that he would be in favor of a nationwide smoking ban in the workplace. Not exactly a states-rights position. Also, it is a fact that Mr. Huckabee raised taxed in Arkansas. And, Mr. Huckabee did not exactly clean house of many of Gov. Clinton's appointees to state posts. Maybe Mr. Huckabee did not want to spend his whole governorship that dirty. But, these issues do not make Mr. Huckabee any less of an overall conservative.
Even the same can be said, less, of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Yes, he dead wrong on the social issues and fuzzy on immigration, but he has some conservative credentials that can not be ignored.
To elaborate on Mr. Blankley's basic point, the modern Republican party, and the conservative dominance did not and can not happen without all the three legs on the stool together. That three-legged stool are fiscal/economic/small government conservatives, social conservative and foreign policy/defense hawks. Ronald Reagan took all three groups to victory twice. George H. W. Bush brought them along in 1988, could not keep them in 1992. Former Kansas senator Bob Dole had the same problem as former President Bush, not being able to get all three groups together. President Bush has come close, but with his approval ratings in the 30 percent range, some are peeling off and going to the multitude of Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential race.
Maybe that is part of the problem. The coalition is fractured because so many are running and there is no clear front runner for the Republican nod.
We have to hope so. If it is Mr. Giuliani, he will need a miracle to put the three parts of the pie together again. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will not have the same problem as many social conservatives are beginning to warm to his candidacy. Mr. Romney has a good amount of fiscal/small government conservatives and he is a foreign/defense policy hawk. Same for former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. Many have looked to Mr. Thompson as the next Ronald Reagan, but remember folks, there will never be another Ronald Reagan. The next president if he is a Republican has a chance of making a new chart for himself, like President Truman did from FDR and President Kennedy from President Truman. Oh, even Sen. John "F--- You" McCain at least is two out of three. One has to question the sanity of anyone who advocates open borders and still believes we are fighting a global war of Islamofacsist terror.
But, here is the crux of Mr. Blankley's argument. Stop looking for purity. Be ready to support the Republican candidate for even if it is Mr. Giuliani, that will be at least OK compared to a President Clinton, or Obama, or. . .STOP! You get the picture!

Evangelicals Turning Left? I Don't Think So!

In this past Sunday's New York Times magazine, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html, writer David D. Kirkpatrick writes an exhaustive story that essentially says the evangelical Christian votes are up for grabs in the 2008 election and many may vote for a Democrat and leave the Republican party.
Not so fast Mr. Kirkpatrick!
Some of what is written is true. There is angst among evangelical and traditional Christian voters. Many are not happy with the Republican candidates running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Many feel that the Bush administration threw them under the bus and no longer addresses its concerns forcefully as it once did. Many are like the rest of America, frustrated with the war in the Iraq theatre of the War Against Islamofacsist Terror.
What Mr. Kirkpatrick failed to really get into in this article was a fact that evangelical and traditional Christians are not all of one mind on all issues. They never have been and never will be.
The majority of those who identify themselves as evangelical and or traditional voters are still Republican and will vote that way in 2008. But, if the Republicans nominate a Rudy Giuliani, there may be less of them voting. That is just the facts.
What is happening is that many younger evangelical preachers are not focusing on the hot-button type of issues and they are also trying to paint a better face on a movement that has been vilified in a media culture that thinks that evangelicals are nothing but know-nothing hayseeds.
Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback church here in Orange County, California, is one of the most successful pastors in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. And that is because he is talking about purpose. His first mega-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Church" and the latter best selling "The Purpose Driven Life" are about the fact that God does not put people here on earth to sit back and let things happen. Pastor Warren is trying to preach that every life that is given by God has meaning and these are ways to find that niche. Some would say one's God given gifts. And, even Mr. Kirkpatrick has to concede that on the hot-button issues, Pastor Warren is an unabashed traditionalist. It is just that Pastor Warren may not have the gift of rough and tumble politics.
Yes, it is true that there always has been an evangelical left and it is still a minority within evangelical circles.
Many on the evangelical left have championed the "green" movement. Some others are more committed to helping the economic poor and disenfranchised in American society. Not one thing wrong with any of that. Many on all sides have been doing these things all along. It is just now many are becoming vocal on that front and giving the impression because many of the younger people are led to these concerns that they are not traditional in the political issues of abortion, same-sex mariage, prayer in schools. That is wrong.
Many evangelicals and traditionalists are not happy having to be involved in the political world. And that is the real issue.
For many decades before, evangelicals were really not encouraged to be part of the society at large even to the point of not voting. That gave the so-called Mainline Protestants, the Episcopal Church, the Presbytarians, the Methodists and the like an unfair advantage.
Then all the social issues of the 1960s and 1970s came to roost and that led to a rethinking of the sit back and let things be. People like the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. D. James Kennedy and Dr. James Dobson began to get involved in Republican politics. And that changed a lot about the Republican party and they found a lot of new voters.
Some of the issues that got these and many others concerned are still with us. And some have accelerated at break-neck speed. Evangelicals gained many new allies among traditional Mainliners and Roman Catholics and even traditional Jews. The fact is that politics is not pretty and some things get in the way, such as a war against radical Islam that may take some focus off the concerns of the majority of evangelicals.
The fact is that the Democrat party will not address much of what drives them. Infact when many know how much the Democrats depend on secular and even people outright hostile to evangelicals or any religion, they realize that while the Republican party has not been that great to many of their concerns, they will do one of two things. Not vote or be more engaged and expand the debate beyond the hot button issues. It will take more than the Democrats throwing more money down the government rathole to lift people out of poverty and the government can not get them out of spiritual poverty, which grips all social economic groups.
A lot of the angst is what is also affecting most Americans. The war. Period.
Many are weary of the Iraq theatre. Many feel that President Bush blew it. Many feel it is time to declare victory and come home. And that is the overriding issue. Will it be in November 2008? Depends on where we are. If it appears that things are still good, the Republicans will be rewarded. If not, many will just not vote. Few will vote for any Democrat because they will realize that, as many feel that the Republicans use them, the Democrats will just get their votes and ignore or go against all that they believe. And that would be tragic.
Evangelicals are at a crossroads, but I do not think that they are becoming any more to the left as any other group. They are just tired of being used at election time. And that is not good because they need to be engaged and stay in the debate.
I think that Mr. Kirkpatrick will be proven wrong and evangelicals will stay in the Republican corner for they did not get anything better with another of their own in the White House, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. They only got worse. And I do not think they will let that happen again.

More Observations On Conservatives From Britain

Today is the second installment of a series in the London Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk on the 100 most influential conservatives in the United States.
So far it has been interesting and some of it is what passes for a conservative in the United Kingdom.
In the installment today, it is from 61-80.
Coming in at 61 is the governor-elect of Louisiana, congressman Bobby Jindal. Mr. Jindal has been a fast-rising star within conservatism and the Republican party and the crushing victory last week for the governorship of Louisiana should have easily propelled him into the top 50.
Radio talker Michael Savage is on this list at number 63. I think it is a bit too high for Mr. Savage. Mr. Savage is a brilliant man, but sometimes that brilliance comes off as a bit arrogant and I do not think, overall, he should be in this high a category of influence. Mr. Savage should be in the 81-100 category.
In the what passes for a conservative in the United Kingdom category is former secretary of state James Baker. Maybe the fact that Mr. Baker is a somewhat anti-Semite gets him even considered conservative. As if there is no anti-Semitism on the left! But having Mr. Baker as the 66th most influential conservative in the United States is way too high. Mr. Baker is a middle of the roader tried and true. Mr. Baker should not be on this list.
Surprisingly, actor Chuck Norris comes in at number 71. The fact that Mr. Norris is backing former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination for president must have gotten him this high of a ranking. But, I think it is because Mr. Norris is a rarity in the Hollywood crowd. An unabashed conservative Republican. I may rethink my thought on this ranking and maybe Mr. Norris should be higher.
Two powerhouse political commentators are numbers 76 and 77. Tony Blankley and Charles Krauthammer. I think they are too low on this. Both have much more influence on conservatism and commentary. The other commentator in this grouping, Pat Buchanan in at number 80 is way too high. Ol' Pat is good at turning a phrase but since his quixotic quests for the presidency and leaving and coming back to television makes him little if any influence at all. A sympathy choice.
Again, I would have to comment that what passes for conservative in the United Kingdom is quite different than what conservatism is here. And, putting relics like Pat Buchanan higher than he belongs does not help.
But, all in all this is a very interesting and instructive for the next Republican presidential candidate no matter out of who is still in the hunt. For it is what the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, Europe, will be able to use as what it will be like to deal with a new administration that will be different from the Bush administration. If the Republican candidate wins the 2008 election and I think that will happen.
Stay tuned for more analysis tomorrow.

Interesting Observations From Accross The Pond

The London Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk is running a series on the top 100 conservatives and liberals in the United States.
The series starts from 81-100, working its way down to the number one conservative in the United States.
So far, some surprises.
For instance, Henry Kissinger comes in at number 95. The fact that Mr. Kissinger made a 100 top conservative list is amazing in and of itself. But, then again in Britain, Mr. Kissinger may pass as a conservative.
Also on the list is talker Bill O'Reilly at number 82. Mr. O'Reilly never calls himself a conservative. But that does not mean that he is not a conservative. Most of his views are clearly right of center, even if he does not say so.
Political guru Michael Barrone comes in at 87. Again, I would not say that Mr. Barrone is necessarily a conservative, but certainly leans right.
Author Ann Coulter is in at number 84 and that is way too low for her influence among conservatives. Miss Coulter should be in the top 50 at least.
Go to The Telegraph for yourself for the next several days as I will and see if you think as The Telegraph does. So far, that is mixed bag. We shall see.

And The Red Sox Win The World Series. . . UGH!

OK, I know. I did not call the 2007 baseball playoffs too well. And tonight, the Boston Red Sox put a last nail in the coffin of predictions that I made throughout this run.
At the beginning of this baseball season, I somewhat predicted that the Los Angeles Dodgers would make the World Series, possibly playing the New York Yankees or the Anaheim Angels*. Boy, was I wrong on that count!
When the playoffs did finally arrive and the Angels were in, I was on that bandwagon. Too bad that bandwagon drove off the cliff without a single playoff win, being swept by, TA DA, the Boston Red Sox. Then the Cleveland Indians won their series and I jumped on that bandwagon. At least they made it a series but in typical Indians fashion, they blew a three games to one lead against, you guessed it, the dreaded Boston Red Sox.
I just could not believe how the National League playoffs went. Who would have thought at the beginning of this season that the Arizona Diamondbacks would be playing the Colorado Rockies for the right to be the National League team in the World Series? Well, you could have said I had the joys of adult beverage if I told you that in April. And the Rockies, who are the Rockies? How did they get into the World Series? Smoke and mirrors?!
Well, there you are. The Colorado Rockies and the Boston Red Sox in the 2007 World Series.
I suppose in retrospect, it was too much to ask for the Rocks to slay the dragon that is the Boston Red Sox, but hope springs eternal, right? For the Rocks, it sprung a deluge they could never recover from and were swept four games to zero and the Red Sox can raise the banner again at Fenway Park at the beginning of the 2008 baseball season.
And at the beginning of the 2008 season, 30 teams will think they will be in the World Series and then reality will set in. Just ask the Colorado Rockies.

Is The Republican Presidential Field A Good One?

It is a serious question. Whether or not the Republican presidential field is good, but more importantly a relatively conservative one?
Well, Charles Krauthammer in Friday's Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com tries to assure the faithful that it is a good and a conservative field.
Mr. Krauthammer points out some of the not so wonderful things that Ronald Reagan did as president. Such as granting amnesty to then only three million illegal aliens. Appointing Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the federal supreme court. And before Mr. Reagan became president, when he was governor of California, Mr. Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law at the time in 1969. Mr. Reagan conceded later that it was the single worst piece of legislation he signed as California governor and became an ardent defender of life. Also, to be fair about the Anthony Kennedy appointment to the supreme court, that was because Robert Bork was defeated by the senate and the next appointee, federal appeals court judge Douglas Ginsburg, had to withdraw due to it coming out that he used marijuana in college and, unlike William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Judge Ginsburg did inhale. Justice Kennedy was a bad third choice who could make it through a Democrat senate and a wounded Reagan presidency due to the so-called Iran-Contra affair.
But, Ronald Reagan ran as an unabashed conservative Republican and transformed the Republican party from the WASP, elite, country-club party that did not mind going along to get along with Democrats to the party that gave Gen. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, the first blacks to be secretary of state.
Maybe that is why there is so much anxiety about the current crop of candidates. No one seems to, on the surface, be running like Ronald Reagan did. Mr. Reagan ran on a platform of smaller government, even eliminating the department of education and energy which were and are boondoggles. And, Mr. Reagan was a tried and true anti-communist.
The issues have changed and yet they have not. Today, the federal government is so multi-tentacled that it is involved in so much of the states affairs that the founding fathers must be rolling in their graves. There is a serious enemy we are at both a hot and cold war with, radical Islam.
So, where is the candidate that is saying not only that taxes are too high and there is a serious need of a tax overhaul? Well, there is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who backs the so-called "Fair tax" that would be a consumption tax or a federal sales tax.
And as far as the size of government, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney can say he has a record of not only not raising taxes as the governor but cutting the state payroll.
The War Against Islamofacsist Terror is a unifying banner that most Republicans, save for Texas congressman Ron Paul, are running on at some degree. All the top candidates, Mr. Romney, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson and Arizona senator John "F--- You" McCain are talking about it and none is shying away from the reality that this is going to be a long, titanic struggle against a form of Islam that would take the world back almost a milenia.
The question is, why is there so much anxiety about this campaign?
Some of it is Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media driven. Since the DDBMSM is in bed and charting the victory of Sen. Hilary Clinton, they are making a lot of the fact that some Republicans are voicing their displeasure with all of the candidates. I do not know who most of these people the DDBMSM find to talk to are. Simple truth. As in 2006, the DDBMSM is going to make things really bad for the Republicans in hopes of driving down the base. It did not work then since the Republicans did not suffer the kinds of losses that they should have in a second-term mid-term election.
And there is a sad fact that there is a Bush Fatigue Syndrome, BFS, among many Republicans and many of the strongest supporters of the war. When a president has approval ratings in the 30s, there is a lot of room for pessimism. But, if as we are seeing improvement in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, eventually President Bush's approval numbers will go up. Even getting into the low 40s would improve the mood of pessimistic Republicans.
Then there is the Rudy Giuliani candidacy. It is the liberal Republicanism of the 60s and 70s rearing its ugly head. It is not a winning Republicanism. To Mr. Giuliani's credit, he was a relatively conservative mayor of New York City. But, that is really pretty liberal to the rest of the Republican party and United States. A lot of reliably conservative Republicans are lining up to support Mr. Giuliani's candidacy. Why, I can not say. Mr. Giuiliani is the poster boy for the Democrat lite theory. If a Republican runs as a moderate and there is a Democrat and not much really separates the two, voters almost always elect the Democrat. And, that is the potential of Mr. Giuliani, to lead the Republicans to defeat by not offering the voters a clear alternative to whoever the Democrats nominate.
But, as far as a field of candidates, I will take ANY Republican over any Democrat any day. And the Republican candidates, even Mr. Giuliani, are running as conservatives. And that is a good thing. It shows that the policies that Mr. Reagan espoused and tried his best to govern by has taken hold enough in the Republican party that no candidate if he or she wants to win the nomination for president can run as a liberal Republican.
So, even if it is hard to believe, these are good candidates and one of them, I hope Mitt Romney, will make an excellent conservative Republican candidate and one who can win in November, 2008.

Say It Is Not So?!

It appears that the University of North Dakota is succumbing to the most insidious political correct move and dropping the sports teams Fighting Sioux nickname http://www.in-forum.com.
For a long time, UND was telling anyone who would listen that they would not bend under any circumstances.
But the evil NCAA has put the pressure on the UND administration and unless the university can get the support of the area's Sioux tribes within three years, say goodbye to the Fighting Sioux's.
In the silliness of this push by the politically correct NCAA, the UND will be able to use the Fighting Sioux name if any of the teams make the NCAA playoffs. And, to make matters most confusing, it will be a no-no to have the logo at the local sports arena, the Ralph Engelstad Arena. But, if the logo is "permanent", such as those in granite, that will be allowed to stay.
Because of a few rabble-rousing American Indian groups, the NCAA has been on a purge of any university or college sports nickname that has any Indian theme, even if it is not "offensive".
The Florida State Seminoles faced the same ultimatum and was able to garner enough support from the local Seminole tribes that they get to keep the Seminole name. No word as to whether the thousands of fans that engage in the "Tomahawk Chop" especially during football games will be hauled off and prosecuted.
Several large newspapers in the United States no longer use any sports team nicknames in the line scores because they do not want to offend the American Indians. Two of the most notorious newspapers are the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the Portland Oregonian. Never mind that these names have been around for a looonnnggg time. These arbiters of "good taste" say rather than possibly offending a certain group, they will just put the city name in the line score. I wonder if Vikings or Twins or Timberwolves or Wild are offended in Minnesota. Or how about Trail Blazers or Beavers in Portland?
While the NCAA is making sure that the American Indians are not offended, how about making sure that "amateur" athletes are properly compensated instead of colleges and universities having to skirt regulations and making innocent athletes out to be common criminals?
Hopefully, the Fighting Sioux will be able to talk reasonably and sensibly with the local Sioux tribes and be able to keep and honorable nickname that is well known in college sports, particularly ice hockey.
But, no thanks to a gutless NCAA, the Fighting Sioux may have to become the Igloos.
Oops! The Eskimos may get upset and what will the NCAA do then?

Disasters Bring Out The Worst In Democrats

Today, I am embarassed more than usual to be from the left coast. Particulary California.
Our Lt. Governor, Democrat John Garamendi went on an unbelievable rant on lefty blowhard Chris Matthew's "Hardball" show on MSNBC.
Mr. Garamendi was supposedly talking about the recent horrible wildfire situation here in the Golden State. But, somehow, Mr. Garamendi found a way to work in the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. The full rant is on the MSNBC website via Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com.
Mr. Matthews starts out by asking Mr. Garamendi if the federal government is doing all that it can to help California, as if it is the federal government's total responsibility. Mr. Garamendi starts out by saying it is doing all that it can and then launches a broadside against President Bush who will be coming to California Thursday to survey the damage himself.
If memory serves me right, the same people like Mr. Garamendi were the first blowhards to rail how slow President Bush was to respond and visit New Orleans. As if somehow, President Bush could have prevented the disaster of Hurricane Katrina with Superman-like powers.
But, that was not it for Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi went on to agree with a very loaded question from Mr. Matthews that President Bush's visit was nothing more than a PR stunt. Probably not unlike Governor Arnold or maybe even a visit Mr. Garamendi may have made. Oh no, when a compassionate, liberal Democrat visits a disaster zone, it is to asses the damage and promise to hand out the goodies.
In the middle of that, Mr. Garamendi, in the most sarcastic tone, says that they will be "polite" when President Bush comes to visit. So big of him!
But, here is the topper and how Mr. Garamendi gets the war in the Iraq theatre in on a firestorm.
Mr. Garamendi said that if President Bush would bring home California National Guard troops, maybe they can help with the fire situation.
What Mr. Garamendi implies that the whole of the California National Guard is in Iraq. WRONG! At most there are only 2,500 out of a total of 20,000. The fact is that there are many National Guard soldiers helping in a multitude of roles.
What, is the National Guard nothing more than a super fire and police force in the eyes of Mr. Garamendi? I think so.
Another thing about this disaster. California is more than prepared and all the levers of government are working together. There are thousands of people at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium. But there are no riots, no rapes, no shooting, no mass murders as was reported during the bleak first 48 hours of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. People of all groups and income levels are toughing it out.
But, this is not enough for the John Garamendi's of California. There is always a need for these political hacks to slam the president for the war in the Iraq theatre. They are perpetuating a myth about state's National Guard's are all in Iraq.
Thankfully, the voters of California did not reward this cretin with the governor's office. We have been making some bad mistakes the last several elections with the Gray Era and Governor Arnold running as a moderate conservative and governing like his drunkard inlaw, Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass.). But we did not hand the governor's office over to this schmuck.
For when Democrats are in charge during a disaster, they show why they should not be in charge of anything.

Glenn Beck, A Conservative Moron

Radio talker Glenn Beck is in hot water and rightfully so for comments he made on his radio show yesterday about the awful fires gripping Southern California.
Mr. Beck said that it was A-OK that some homes were burning, assumed, because they were anti-American types living in Malibu, California. No doubt, it is an area where the rich and Hollywood types live. There is also Pepperdine University and Serra Retreat Center. Yes, some actors homes were threatened. Some that the DDBMSM said were threatened were the homes of Mel Gibson and Kelsey Grammer. They are both considered conservatives. And, for Mr. Beck, is the fire looking for the liberal, anti-Americans home to burn? I do not think so.
Regrettably, this fact came from the left-wing media group Media Matters http://mediamatters.org, but when they are right, I will give them credit for exposing ill-timed and offensive rantings by one of our own.
The exact quote is this:
I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their home in a forest fire today. There are a few people who hate America. But I don't think the Democrats are those. I think there are those posing as Democrats that are like that.
There is not a lot to disagree with on the surface. But, Mr. Beck blows his whole comment by saying some of these anti-Americans are losing their homes in a forest fire.
Fires, and these are just garden variety fires for some have merged creating a perfect storm of raging fire, do not discriminate. A lot of very pro-American people have lost everything material near and dear to them such as photos, family heirlooms and the like. What is fortunate is that so far there has only been one death.
We on the conservative side have called out left-wing hate peddlers such as any given host on the Air America network and they have deserved it. Last week, when one of their hosts fell down on a walk in an apparent drunken stupor, that would be Randi Rhodes, another host tried to make it that she was attacked by the "right wing hate machine." The real story is much more sad than that.
So, I am calling out Glenn Beck and calling for him to apologize for out of line comments.
We can not have any credibility if we are not willing to police our own.

Shouldn't Being A Man Of Faith Be Enough?

This past weekend, the Republican presidential candidates spoke to a gathering of Christian conservatives in Washington, D. C. under the banner of Values Voter Summit. All did themselves well and even the Mormon candidate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney impressed this tough crowd.
But the question still lingers around Mr. Romney and that Mormon thing.
Why?
Can it not be enough that Mr. Romney is a man of faith? Does it have to be the "right" one?
Clearly, out of the top tier Republican candidates, Mr. Romney is the most likely church-goer followed by Sen. John "F--- You" McCain. It is known that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson rarely, if ever, attends church. Ditto for the alleged Republican front-runner, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
So what if there are profound differences between Mormon doctrine and traditional Christian doctrine? The fact is, Mr. Romney is a man of his faith, his understanding of Jesus in the Mormon tradition.
And, that is enough for me.
I am more confident in a man, or woman, who has a strong faith and can be counted on to be in the front line of defending the first amendment given right to have their freedom of religion, not from religion.
Hence, I have a lot of confidence that Mr. Romney and his faith will be a strong guide of his potential presidency. It may be a very profound deepening of that faith that made Mr. Romney more open about how that faith will sometimes translate into his social vision in regards to such hot-button issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, prayer in the public schools.
While the Values Voters tended to be traditional, evangelical Christians, no one can doubt that many Mormons are at the very least sympathetic with their agenda. Same for those who are traditional Jews and even Islamics. And it is that alliance that can and should lead to Mr. Romney eventually gaining the Republican presidential nomination.
There are a large minority of Republicans that would like nothing more than to dispatch these Value Voters. They are seen, short-sighted, as a liability. The question for these Republicans is simple. Would have Ronald Reagan won two terms as president without these voters? No way!
Values Voters are a part of the great conservative coalition that includes economic, defense and social conservatives. If one is pushed out, the rest splinter and the coalition falls apart. That is a real fact and those Republicans have nothing to back up their mythical theory that there would be any other voters to replace those social conservatives.
Back to Mr. Romney.
It is more important to have a serious man or woman of faith to be on our side. So what if they happen to be a Mormon? I, for one, do not fear that on Inauguration Day, suddenly 20,000 young, well dressed men will ride out of the White House to turn all of the United States into a Mormon fortress. I do not worry that a President Romney will consult Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints president, Gordon Hinckley, on any decision. Period.
So, I think that it is important that we who want to see the kind of judges that can rollback some of the excesses of the current socialists and their judicial allies support a candidate that has made a serious commitment to that end. And that candidate is Mitt Romney, a man of faith.

Ahead Of The Curve Once Again

I will now, in your mind, pat myself on the back for once again being ahead of the curve on another issue.
The issue was a recent episode of the CBS "crime drama" "Cold Case" in which a group of Christian youth gang up on a high school girl that turns out to be the school slut. And they punish her by, I kid you not, stoning her to death. And to boot, the youths are quoting from the Holy Bible as they slam a rock on the poor girl's head.
I refer you to the post "Television Channelling Democrat Talking Points" from October 3, 2007 for more.
But, in an article in the New York Post http://nypost.com/seven/10222007/tv/right_slams_cold_case.htm yesterday, a group called the Culture And Media Institute http://cultureandmediainstitute.org joined the chorus in slamming this particular episode of the "crime drama" for a very disparaging view of practicing Christians and their views on premarital sex.
Of course, the episode showed that all the youths were not what they claimed to be. All were portrayed as having sex and for good measure, one is even gay.
The point is this. When shows use a genre such as a crime drama to push a political and social agenda, they are no longer entertaining but spewing propaganda.
I am of the nature that when I want to go to a movie and or watch a television show, I want to be entertained, not lectured to . I do not care from what side of the political spectrum it comes from.
And a show such as "Cold Case" stops the entertaining and begins to apply early 21st century pop psychology to old cases, it becomes a caricature of itself.
I admit that I probably watch way too much television but sometimes, as in the case of "Cold Case" it helps to know what the socialists are thinking and projecting. And to be ahead of the curve once again.

Fortney Apoligizes-Then Cries

California congressman Fortney Stark, Democrat, caved into pressure put to him by Republican lawmakers and apologized for nasty, beyond the pale, comments about the upholding President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, Iraq, and the troops. Then, according to Fox News http://FoxNews.com, Fortney went to the Democrat side of the House and sobbed for roughly five minutes.
All I can say is what a wuss!
Just last week in defiant tones, Fortney said the following:
I do not respect the commander-in-chief who keeps the troops in harm's way nor the chicken hawks in Congress.
Beautiful!
This was after Fortney said that President Bush likes seeing American soldiers get their heads blown off for his pleasure. And that led to the firestorm of controversy.
There is no question that we live in uncivil times and that it is so bad it goes onto the floor of the House of Representatives. But, that is no excuse to make such ridiculous statements that are not so much harmful to the president for he is a big boy and can take anything thrown his way. But, it is offensive to the very troops that Fortney claims he supports.
I am glad that Fortney realized that he went over the line and did apologize. But to cry about it? Was Fortney upset that he was criticized by conservatives who called him out on such a stupid, hurtful comment? No one knows.
But, Fortney learned a lesson.
Fortney learned that one can not say what ever they want and be immunized and that what is said does not matter.
As noted, if it was reversed and a Democrat president was as harshly criticized by a Republican, you could not get me to a keyboard fast enough to slam the Republican. No one should say what was said.
In this MoveOn.org mentality, our elected representatives need to cool their jets and think about what they say. Both sides. There is a difference what I write on this blog and what an elected official says and or writes. An elected official represents more than his or her political party.
I am not saying that there should not be a discourse, just that it can and should be thoughtful, not a 20 or 30 second sound bite.
That is what this all comes down to. Stop with the 30 second sound bites and think about what is said.
Let us keep the pressure on politicians to stop with this gutter politics and start working on the issues.
If congress wants to get out of the 11% approval funk, they can start by shutting up and working together to get some good legislation through.
Or they can sob, like Fortney.

GO ROCKS!

Regrettably, I have been totally wrong about who would be in the 2007 World Series.
But, I have one more chance to make it right now that the teams have finally been decided.
Last night, the dreaded Boston Red Sox defeated the Cleveland Indians to become the American League champs and will take on the Colorado Rockies.
Who? The Rockies? Where the heck did they come from?
Out of nowhere and that is what makes it really possible that the National League, the real major league, will finally win a World Series.
The Rockies have no names to speak of, but a lot of grit, determination and most importantly, they got hot when it counted and hence, they are in the World Series.
So, I will boldly predict that the Colorado Rockies will defeat the Boston Red Sox, four games to two.
And, the drought will be over as the Senior circuit will finally redeem itself.
___________________________________________________
On another sports subject, I can not explain the UCLA Bruins.
One week, they look like garbage against the worst Notre Dame team in most of our lifetimes. You would have thought that Knute Rockne was dug up and played that game.
The Bruins also looked like crap against Utah earlier this season.
So, who would show up against the number 10 or 12 California Golden Bears?
Why, of course the team they really are capable of being and they smacked the Bears all the way back to Berkley.
Now, if they can actually win between now and when they play USC at the end of the season, now that is gonna be one barn burner!

A Good Saturday For Republicans

Today, Saturday, October 20, 2007, has been a good day for the Republican party.
In Louisiana, the voters sent a very loud and clear message in electing Republican congressman Bobby Jindal as the next governor.
And there will be no runoff.
In the quirkiness that is Louisiana, this is technically the primary. However, if candidate A gets 50% plus one, the election is over. And, Mr. Jindal has 54% of the vote.
It is a repudiation of the inept "leadership" of governor Kathleen Blanco, Democrat. During the height of the crippling Hurricane Katrina, between her and the equally inept New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, an amazing American city was sent into utter and unnecessary chaos because they were too busy snipping each other. Hundreds of school buses sat idly in New Orleans while the poorest of the poor that did not leave for higher ground were held hostage to ineptness.
Somehow, Mr. Nagin was reelected mayor. But, Mrs. Blanco saw that she would not fare as well statewide and decided to retire. She did not want to get an asswhooping that Mr. Jindal was going to deliver.
And, in this quirky election, Mr. Jindal did deliver. And, Mr. Jindal has pledged to clean up the corruption that makes the corruption in Washington look like child's play. Good luck. Mr. Jindal will need it!
And in the Values Voters conference in Washington D. C., former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney scored a very narrow victory in the group's straw poll. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist preacher, came in a close second.
And in this unique poll, there was an internet version in which Mr. Romney won and the poll done on site in which Mr. Huckabee won. But overall, Mr. Romney won the straw poll by a narrow 30 votes. But, a win is a win and Mr. Romney was much better received by this crowd than former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, the supposed Republican front runner.
Despite the DDBMSM attempt to say that Republicans and in particular social conservatives, are in a funk, there are a lot of people ready to support the candidacy of Mitt Romney.
My theory about the funk is this.
Unlike the Democrats that have been out of the White House for seven plus years, the Republicans are still there. The Democrats are fired up. They really believe that they can put up a fire hydrant or Sen. Hilary Clinton and they will return to the promised land of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C. But, Republicans are just waiting to see how this all hashes out. When voting actually starts, the Republicans will be just as excited as Democrats, especially if Sen. Clinton does look like she will be the Democrat nominee for the White House.
I would ask all to look at 1988. Michael Barone http://usnews.com has and thinks this could be that kind of election.
But, I think that two very important things happened today that should get the Republican faithful excited.
Booby Jindal, from a family of Indian immigrants, is the next governor of Louisiana. And Mitt Romney is finally breaking through with influential evangelical leaders.
And that is a good thing for the Republican party and the United States.

Fortney Stark Is An Idiot And A Godless Heathen

Hey, I can not let the left wingers have all the fun in denigrating! Sorry if the headline is a bit offensive.
Who is Fortney Stark and why is he an idiot?
Fortney Stark is a Democrat congressman from the Bay Area of California, of course, and quite possibly one of the most vowedly left-wing member of congress.
The reason Fortney is an idiot is the comment he made today, on the floor of the House of Representatives no less, regarding the fact that he and the Democrats fell short in overriding President Bush's veto of the SCHIP scam to make middle-class children "poor" and in desperate need of government provided health care.
Here is the gospel according to Fortney: http://FoxNews.com
Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you are going to fund the war? You don't have the money to fund the war or the children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can't get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.
The whole comment is obscene because, when the left wing is going down, they use "the children" as Saddam Husein used the human shields before the United States liberated Iraq. And the thought that any president, Democrat or Republican, somehow is enjoying seeing brave, young Americans give their lives for something greater than themselves. Unlike Fortney's comments, these young Americans who are volunteering to join the armed services with absolute knowledge that they may go to Iraq and or Afghanistan or another theatre in the War Against Islamofascist Terror and not come back alive are brave, not cowering behind "the children."
Also, I would like to ask Fortney what he means by innocent people. Does he mean the al-Queda fighters targeting Americans? How about Iranian agents who may also be trying to harm Americans?
This stream of consciousness, and I believe the real way many Democrats feel about President Bush, is telling for the stark-no pun intended!-no holds barred honesty.
But worse it is led by the first vowedly atheist member of congress. And, I think that has a lot to do with the vitriol.
Fortney, or as he has been called in the DDBMSM "Pete", had listed his "religion" as Unitarian Universalist. It is not really a religion as it basically promotes an anything goes religion. Believe in anything or nothing. And Fortney, openly admits that he does not believe in God. It is prerogative and his right. But, just as someone like Fortney would accuse some conservative and or fundamentalist Christian of making awful comments and calling for their repudiation, I call on Fortney to at the very least take back his comment about President Bush wanting to see young American's heads blown off for some kind of amusement. And, I would feel absolutely the same way is a Republican congressman had said the same about a Democrat president in a time of war.
It is not as President Bush wants no increase in the SCHIP scam, just not as expanded and not as much.
And I for one wish that the Democrats would make a valid argument as to the merits of their expansion of the SCHIP program without trotting out unsuspecting children. And if they are, they should at the very least find truly needy children, not middle class children that may not ever be in need of government health care.
Here is a clue. When the Democrats trot out the children, hide your wallets and make sure to lock up your children so they are not part of the Democrat victim parade.
There is a time and place for political hyperbole. And even some rough language. But, there is no place to accuse any president that has our young men and women in the armed services in harm's way of having some perverse enjoyment seeing their heads blown off.
Fortney Stark not only owes the president an apology, but our truly brave young Americans who are in the armed services in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, and "the children" for using them as props to make political points.
America is better than this.

And Americans Wonder Why Values Are In The Toilet

Chalk up another victory by the relativists in Portland, Maine.
It appears that high school students are not young enough to give condoms and other forms of birth control.
In the wisdom of the Portland School Committee, the King Middle School will become the first middle school in Maine to offer the full range of birth control. Oh, many middle schoolers are as young as 11 years old and no older than 13!
According to the Associated Press story http://yahoo.com, because five out of 134 students who visited the King's school health center admitted to having sex, this seemed to get the school committee involved.
Here is a choice quote from one Ricahrd Veilleux:
This isn't encouraging kids to have sex. This is about the kids who are engaging in sexual activity.
Get it? Because five students admit to having sex, the school is now obliged to offer all the range of birth control. Not just condoms, but patches, birth control pills, anything in the birth control field.
Amazing!
But what the article did not really talk about is that these sexually active students do NOT have to ask for parents permission.
It is sad enough that kids as young as 11 years old maybe engaging in sex, but the fact that they can go to their school and ask for birth control without parental notification is another sign of the state interfering in the role of parents and usurping their proper authority.
I know, there are some, and a minority to be sure, of parents that would freak out over the fact their child is engaging in sex at such an age and become potentially abusive, but the majority should want to know and steer their children in the right direction.
This stupidity means that the State knows best. That they can be "neutral" and offer birth control to 11 year olds.
There is no neutrality in this. The King school will be in an area that they have no business to be in.
Children at this age should be thoroughly discouraged from sexual activity, period. And that is the role of the parent.
When there is no parental guidance, then the school has a moral responsibility to notify a parent when their child, remember as young as 11 years old, come for birth control. How about the school nurse saying no, that you should not be engaging in sex at that age, period?
Americans are tired of the state interfering in clearly parental issues. Parents involved in their children's life should not be "neutral" on there sexual activity. It does not help when a school usurps that role.
And those of us who see this as a tragedy wonder how much further in depravity will we go before we rise up and say "No more! It is enough!" and take back our children.

Thompson Slams Rudy-And So Does Rudy To Himself

FINALLY!
I feel like the broken clock that is right at least twice a day on the issue of whether former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is a real Republican.
But fellow Republican candidate, former senator Fred Thompson, said what I have been saying all along. I almost feel like I should get credit for Mr. Thompson using very similar language I have said about the fact that Mr. Giuliani had the nerve to support then Democrat gasbag governor Mario Cuomo in the Republican tidal wave of 1994. Well, Mr. Thompson jumped on that recently in speeches this week. Mr. Thompson also pointed out that when Republican George Pataki did win the New York state governorship, Mr. Giuliani opposed Mr. Pataki's tax cuts.
Ah, but Rudy himself seems to be very confused.
Today, thanks to Laura Ingraham http://lauraingraham.com we got to hear from then Mayor Rudy himself.
I ran for mayor as a Republican, although I am not a very partisan one. I also ran on Liberal Party ticket, which might be confusing.
DUH!
That was Mr. Giuliani in an interview with Charlie Rose.
So, this seeming savior for the Republican party thinks that the way to Mecca is through the New York Liberal Party?
And thus, one of the many problems of Rudy Giuliani as he tries to win the Republican nomination for president.
At least when Ronald Reagan left the Democrat party, he left their craziness behind in total. But, because Mr. Reagan was once a Democrat, he was able to communicate the ideas that many who still thought they were Democrats and win converts. It was not because Mr. Reagan wanted to be all things to all people.
And, for Mr. Thompson, it is something to point out and continue to attack Mr. Giuliani.
The problem for Mr. Giuliani is that he has not said that he is a conservative and thus supportive of basic conservative ideas of smaller government, morality and a strong military and national defense.
That is why Mr. Giuliani can not break out of the 20s for support among likely Republican primary/caucus voters.
But, no one else can seal the deal at this point.
With Iowa moving the caucus to January 3, 2008 (why not Christmas Eve!), someone has to break out and fast. Whoever wins Iowa will have a huge momentum going into the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries. And that will more than likely be the Republican nominee.
February 5.
That will not be the way this is done.
Having noted the obvious, it is time for the leaders not just to slam their perceived opponents but to articulate what they would do.
And that is, while I appreciate Mr. Thompson noting serious defects in Mr. Giuliani's Republican credentials, Mr. Thompson and the rest of the field need to tell Republicans what they are for. Just pointing out the obvious, while tantalizing in the hand to hand combat of the primary campaign, is not going to win primaries and defiantly not the general election.
Having someone who has the partisan baggage of questionable party loyalty is not going to gin up the base and that is the danger of a Giuliani candidacy.
It is good when someone finally points out the obvious and will not back down. Thank you Fred Thompson.

Mitt Gets Welcome Evangelical Support

The Mitt Romney campaign for president has obtained a very important supporter in Bob Jones III, the chancellor of Bob Jones University in South Carolina.
You remember ol' Bob Jones? In the 2000 campaign, it was revealed that this bastion of evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity was "anti-Catholic" because of real theological differences.
Oh, the "Straight Talk Express" of Sen. John "F--- You" McCain made so much out of the past statements of the university's founder, Bob Jones regarding the Roman Catholic church and the theological differences. Some people don't get that is why there are Protestants. We who are Protestants do not have theological agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.
But, how times have changed.
Dr. Jones III took a look at the Republican field, found that the candidate that will best promote a social conservative agenda is former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. Dr. Jones III puts it bluntly. Its all about beating Hilary. As in New York senator Hilary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee.
If there are serious theological differences between Bob Jones University, a Baptist university, and the Roman Catholic Church, then supporting a practicing Mormon must be like supporting a Martian.
But, times and issues have changed.
It is Mr. Romney, who has become a convert to the social conservative agenda, who can carry the day over lapsed Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani, sometime Christian former Sen. Fred Thompson and Baptist, nee Episcopalian Sen. "F--- You" McCain. That is the conclusion of a serious religious conservative. And it shows that the opposition to Mr. Romney is beginning to crumble. That is a good thing.
A reminder to my friends who are on the fundamentalist side of Christianity. We are not electing a Pope or Presiding Bishop or president of a denomination. We are going to be electing the President of the United States. And, we should be looking at one that will address the issues that are of concern to those of us who see the decline of American society.
No, a president can't change in one fell swoop. But, he or she can set the tone.
And, if a Bob Jones III can see that a Mormon can make a difference, then those who still oppose Mr. Romney are doing so out of outright religious bigotry. And that would be ironic.
Time for those who are religiously bigoted to try to look past the Mormonism of Mitt Romney and what he would do as president to pursue the agenda that we all support.

Some Baseball Thoughts

Ok, ok, I know. There will not be a Freeway Series this year. And the Chicago Cubs, yet again, leave their fans in the dumps after being swept right out of the first round of the playoffs. Ditto the Anaheim Angels*. Three and out at the hands of the dreaded Boston Red Sox. Out of nowhere has come the Colorado Rockies and poof! they are in the World Series. And, one bit of good news is that one more win and the Cleveland Indians will dispatch the upstart Rockies after beating the aforementioned Red Sox.
Can you imagine what the television gurus are thinking? Colorado and Cleveland? Zzzzzzz. But, I think it will be a great World Series. Sure, it ain't the Freeway Series that at the beginning of every baseball season I dream of, but the veteran Indians will show the upstart Rockies how it is done. The television people are counting the dollars lost and alleged lack of interest of fans who, allegedly, will not turn to watch because it is not between two titan, east coast teams. Yea, and the Subway Series between the New York Mets and Yankees several seasons ago were real great for the Fox Television Network. NOT!
Anyway, I think that it will be the Indians in six games. And another team that has not won in my 43 years on God's earth will put that to rest. And then the Cubs have to win one and the Freeway Series has to happen and then the good Lord can take me if he wants!
The good thing is that it is about time that it is not the so called big teams of the east in the World Series. It shows that two teams that are not exactly rolling in the free agent market can win and get to the big dance at any given season. And that is what it is all about.
Final thought.
GO TRIBE!