And The New Hampshire Winners Are. . .

OK, this is it.
In less than an hour the residents of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire have the fate of the free world in their hands as they are the first residents in the United States to vote in a presidential primary.
Now that some of the histrionics are done, what is really important are the predictions for the fateful primary tomorrow in New Hampshire.
So, without further ado, here they are:

REPUBLICANS:

Mitt Romney 35%
John McCain 31%
Rudy Giuliani 10%
Mike Huckabee 9%
Ron Paul 8%
Fred Thompson 6%
Duncan Hunter 1%

DEMOCRATS:

Barack Obama 40%
Hilary Clinton 30%
John Edwards 20%
Bill Richardson 4%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
OTHER 1%

The DDBMSM is so pushing the McCain line, but the "independents" are going to vote in the Democrat primary and for Sen. Obama. The real story will be how Sen. Obama will get the most votes of any candidate. Period.
Another factor why Mr. Romney will win in the GOP primary is that New Hampshire is slowly becoming like Massachusetts without the high taxes. The Democrats control the state legislature and the governor's mansion. While it went marginally for President Bush in 2000, it went for Sen. Kerry in 2004. And it was in 2006 that the Democrats took the state legislature. Just recently, New Hampshire passed and Democrat governor Lynch signed a same-sex "civil union" bill. Who would have thought about that just a few short years ago?
And keep this in mind.
Two nights in a row. Two debates. In the first, all the Republican candidates ganged-up on one-Mitt Romney. He came out of that standing. John "F--- You" McCain showed why is the the Vietnam era version of former Sen. Bob Dole. Mean, petulant, jealous. Next night, it was Mr. Romney who came out swinging. Had the Rev. Mike stuttering. Had Sen. "F--- You" McCain bumbling. Gave no quarter to Mayor Rudy or Fred Thompson. Mr. Romney won that debate. Even a Frank Luntz focus group agreed. And, it changed some minds.
For the Democrats, Sen. Obama is really hitting Sen Clinton hard. Almost making her cry today http://drudgereport.com. Losing two in a row is bad for Sen. Clinton. But, DO NOT RULE HER OUT! She is a fighter behind those tears and she will hang on until February 5, Super Duper Tuesday.
And, a final thought.
How do these pundits even get what is going on in either party? A month ago, it was Mitt and Hilary, no doubt about it. Then the Rev. Mike caught fire. Now, he is the "voice" of the GOP. And Sen. Obama. He did not get here by a few appearances with Oprah Winfrey.
It is a fluid race in both parties, more in the Republican field. So, the Rev. Mike will win one, then Romney, maybe McCain, no one knows really week to week. Hell, day by day. After Iowa, we were told Sen. "F--- You" McCain would blow Mr. Romney right back to Massachusetts. And, after Sunday night, it may very well be the other way around.
I am not a pundit. I just look at what is going on. Talk to real people, not fellow pundits, party hacks or campaign hacks for any candidate. Read around the blogs. Get a real feeling. All I do is write what I think. But, that does not make me Nostradamus. Nor any pollster for that matter.
We have an obligation to vote, and we all should. Lets participate in the election instead of letting pundits and pollsters do it for us.

Romney, Thompson Looked Good Tonight

Just done watching the Republican presidential forum on Fox News Channel http://FoxNews.com and here are some observations.
Firstly, it is great that Fox finally said enough is enough and said no to the Art Bell candidate, congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Because of that, we heard a lot from the serious candidates for president in the Republican party.
The format was even closer as each candidate sat next to each other as if they were at a sporting event, a movie, or a concert. It worked well and I do not know how the seating arrangements came about, but who ever put Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney next to each other must have a sick sense of humor.
Another thing was that there was no audience to get in the way. Just Fox News anchor Chris Wallace asking the questions and the five candidates, Sen. "F--- You" McCain, Mr. Romney, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, The Rev. Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
The forum itself was great.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain was on his best behavior, but still unable to weasel out of his support and pushing the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. Also, could not justify why one of the most inside Washingtonians as he is would be the best agent of change within the Republican presidential field. Saying that he changed the course in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofascist Terror is not enough.
Fred Thompson may not be electrifying, but he is the one candidate who says what he means, explains his positions in simple English and basically lets it all out there. But, it may not be enough in this tough field. I wish he had gotten in earlier.
Rudy Giuliani has some good points to make, but kind of sort of falls short when the subject of middle-class angst came up.
And, one of the correct points the Rev. Mike does bring up is that there is anxiety among many in the middle class. The problem with the Rev. Mike, is solutions would add not just more to their anxiety, but possibly to their being put on an unemployment line. Again, in the overall, the Rev. Mike is just out of his league. He even looked hostile when Mitt Romney was giving an answer. It is never good to fold your arms and look like you are ready for a rumble, and the Rev. Mike did just that at one point.
And Mr. Romney?
He hit it out of the park and looked, sounded and acted presidential. Mr. Romney had command of facts and even turned the discussion on "attack" ads to his advantage. A winner tonight.
And, if you think that I am just shilling for Mr. Romney, a Frank Luntz focus group of 30 undecided Republican voters more or less agreed and it appeared that Mr. Romney changed some people's mind towards his direction.
So, I think Mr. Romney gave a great performance and may have staved off defeat from Sen. "F--- You" McCain. Mr. Thompson was a good second, but the Luntz focus group did not agree. When you sound like you would rather be somewhere else, I think it shows and no matter how much sense you make, people just do not gravitate towards you. I think that was Mr. Thompson's problem tonight. Mayor Rudy was alright and actually had a good point about the whole discussion of change. He said it depends on what kind of change. That is an excellent point. As noted, Sen. "F--- You" McCain was on his best behavior, but he just does not understand that he is talking to the Republican electorate. And the Rev. Mike? Well, he had a couple of lousy nights and I think that once the results come in on Tuesday evening, we will see that halo drop from the Rev. Mike's head.
And, here is another fearless prediction. It will be Mr. Romney winning the Republican primary and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) winning the Democrat primary on Tuesday.

If Mitt Is NOT The GOP Front Runner, Why The Gang-Up?

Tonight and tomorrow night the Republicans debate each other once again before the citizens of New Hampshire vote on Tuesday.
I have but one question.
If Mitt Romney is NOT the Republican front runner, why are all of the other Republican candidates ganging up on him?
The obvious answer is that Mr. Romney is the front runner and while it is possible he will lose in the primary on Tuesday, all the others know he has the money to go on. John "F--- You" McCain does not. And, Sen. "F--- You" McCain may have to take federal campaign matching funds if by some outside chance he is the Republican nominee. And the Rev. Mike? The shoestring should end in New Hampshire on Tuesday. Fred Thompson? Well, he may finish in second place. It could be a huge boost to South Carolina, but he won't get the cash he would need to keep up with Sens. Obama and or Clinton. And Mayor Rudy? Maybe the only other candidate who could raise the kind of money to keep up with the Democrats.
Also, it does not help to sound the populist drum in a Republican debate.
Conservatives and Republican people in the know realize that the party can not nominate some one like Sen. "F--- You" McCain. He will be another Bob Dole in 1996. And, we see how well that worked out. The Rev. Mike? Iowa was the big dance and he should fall on the floor on Tuesday and be a non-factor. Fred Thompson? He would be the Republican dream but he has been a nightmare and the slow style of campaigning is going to be a drag. Mayor Rudy? Now, he has been on a tightrope from the get-go because he has made no peace with the social conservative wing of the Republican party. One has to figure that once the Rev. Mike is gone and they look to someone else to champion their cause, it will either go to Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Even if it is a split, it helps Mr. Romney.
Also, keep this in mind.
George W. Bush won Iowa in 2000 and suffered quite a few defeats at the hand of Sen. "F--- You" McCain. Then came South Carolina and it was off to the races for then Gov. Bush.
This campaign will not have a firewall until Super Duper Tuesday, February 5.
But, the fact that all the candidates still standing are gunning for Mitt Romney shows that he is the front runner and someone, or all, have to stop him. But, as more candidates go down, no one maybe able to stop Mr. Romney.

Romney Wins Wyoming

As expected, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the Wyoming Republican party caucus today, getting the lions share of delegates and the first win of the campaign.
According to those on the ground http://trib.com, it was because Mr. Romney visited the state and out of those that did, including Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, they also won one delegate each.
It is important in this sense.
Mr. Romney is the only candidate that can visit every nook and cranny that will be needed to defeat the Democrat presidential nominee. None of the other so-called front runners have the finances to keep up with what will be a Democrat Tsunami of cash on hand.
Another aside. Today on "Weekend Live" on Fox News Channel, Washington Examiner writer Bill Sammon said that even if Romney should lose the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday and is in second place, he will show consistency and may end up being the anti-Huckabee and or the anti-McCain.
These are all things to keep in mind. A win in a state like Wyoming may not seem like much. But it shows some ability to do what the DDBMSM claims the Rev. Mike Huckabee does-connect with people.
Those that are running on identity politics such as the Rev. Mike and Arizona senator John "F--- You" McCain can only go so far. They are not running as Republicans. They are not trying to show any appeal beyond their special groups. The Republicans will need a serious candidate with the temperament and ability to reach all groups within the conservative-Republican coalition.
Mitt Romney is showing that. One win down, on to a win in New Hampshire on Tuesday!

Wyoming Could Be First Win For Romney

Did you know that tomorrow will be a another Republican caucus? Of course not because it is in Wyoming.
And, Wyoming did what so many others did in moving their caucus up in hopes of having some influence on the nominating process.
In a strange way, it may happen.
Of the major Republican candidates running, only former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has put any face time here. Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is making a phone calling effort. And congressman Ron Paul of Texas is going to try to pull off an upset.
But, according to Jim Geraghty http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com, Mr. Romney should get the most delegates when the caucusing is all said and done. According to Mr. Geraghty, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter could get one or two delegates each.
But, Mr. Romney will have the lions share and a victory going into Tuesday's New Hampshire primary.
Look for Mr. Romney to play that up. He can also point out that the Rev. Mike Huckabee has not even stepped foot in Wyoming. Neither has Sen. John "F--- You" McCain nor former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. So much for a 50-state campaign from any of the so-called front runners.
And that is a strength of Mr. Romney.
Unlike any of the so-called front runners, he is the only Republican candidate that will be able to have a 50-state strategy. Unlike the Rev. Mike, Sen. "F--- You" McCain or Mayor Rudy, he will have the funds and ability to compete in marginal Democrat states and keep the 35 red states. What Democrat state does the Rev. Mike think he will take? What Democrat states does Sen. "F--- You" McCain expect to win and keep the red states in his corner? Same for Mayor Rudy.
The only other candidate that had that possibility was former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. But, he got in way too late and it shows.
Something that Mr. Romney knows that the other candidates do not is that unlike 2000 and 2004 this is a 50-state contest. No where is safe for either side. No George W. Bush on the ballot or lingering. No Al Gore, or John Kerry. It is a fresh, new ballgame. Everything must be taken seriously, even a small state like Wyoming. After all, look at all the attention paid to another small state, Iowa.
Mitt Romney should get victory number one tomorrow in Wyoming. Hopefully, it will lead to number two in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

Obama Hurts McCain

While surfing the net and looking at the mind-numbing analysis of the Iowa caucus results, my theory is that the smashing win in the Democrat caucus by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) hurts Sen. John "F--- You" McCain in New Hampshire.
The reason is that New Hampshire is an open primary state. That means independents can vote in any party primary they want.
In 2000, it is how Sen. "F--- You" McCain won a crushing victory over then Gov. George W. Bush in the Republican primary. Gov. Bush won Republican voters in that primary. The same in Michigan. And in Virginia. And, Sen. "F--- You" McCain is trying the same pony once again, appealing to independents because he has little if any support in the Republican base.
But, that Obama win last night has put the chances of a repeat in 2008 in danger.
For the Democrats, it was a 2-1 participation in the caucus. Roughly about 239,000 for the Dems and about 103,000 for the Republicans. Both are very large increases in participation.
But, at least in Iowa, the momentum was with the Democrat candidates. Even Sen. Hilary Clinton, who came in an underwhelming third.
Thus, the independent voter in New Hampshire may feel much more inclined to influence the outcome of the Democrat primary rather than go for yesterday's news, Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
More than likely, if the New Hampshire independents go into the Democrat booth, the beneficiary of that will be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who did suffer a serious setback last night in Iowa. There are no guarantees, but this one. It will not be the Rev. Mike Huckabee.
It is very possible that with less independent voters participating, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson could break through with a second place finish, ahead of his old senate colleague, "F--- You" McCain. The Rev. Mike might not even finish in the top four, possibly fifth place.
The hard part for insurgents like the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain is that as the season moves on, the independents will have less say in primaries and caucuses. That means the more that actual Republicans get to vote, the two look less likely to win the nomination.
The other fascinating aspect of the Iowa outcome is that it is even clearer that there is something going on with the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain. As I noted in an earlier post, they are clearly tag teaming to try to derail Mr. Romney, Mr. Thompson and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. It looks more and more that way.
But, it may not work. And in a strange way, Republicans opposed to both may have Sen. Obama to thank for that.

After All Of This, Is Iowa Really All That Big Of A Deal?

An interesting piece on the New York Observer website http://www.observer.com/2008/brief-history-iowa-new-hampshire-bounce shows that what happens in Iowa does not always translate into much when it comes to New Hampshire.
Some examples on the Republican side show that if the results of the 1988 caucus were taken at face value, we would have had a possible one-term Pat Robertson presidency. For Rev. Robertson finished a strong second behind former Kansas senator Bob Dole. Then Vice-President George H. W. Bush had a dismal 18% of the caucus vote. No Dole or Robertson in the end and Mr. Bush went on to get the nod and the presidency himself.
In more recent history, the 2000 caucus saw a big George W. Bush win over Steve Forbes, 42-30% with Alan Keyes coming in third with 14%. But, on the way to New Hampshire, then Gov. Bush got a sneak attack when Sen. John McCain finished first, 19% ahead of Gov. Bush. Some big mo!
Want to go back to a little ancient history and 1980 and we see that then former U. N. ambassador George H. W. Bush won the Iowa caucus. It is where we got the term "big mo" from. Mr. H. W. Bush thought he had it. A fellow named Ronald Reagan did not back down and when a strange event occurred in New Hampshire during a Republican debate in which a microphone was turned off and Mr. Reagan told the debate moderator "I paid for this microphone" and it was turned back on. And all the Republicans running for president at the time were allowed to join in the debate. Mr. H. W. Bush looked weak and thus the "wimp" factor came into play. Mr. Reagan cruised to victory in New Hampshire and the rest is history.
On the Democrat side, similar results have occurred.
In 1992, we should have had President Tom Harkin, the Iowa senator who had 80% of the caucus vote that year. Of course no one tried to compete in any seriousness in the state.
1988 was a year a lot like this. Three candidates bunched at the top, former Missouri congressman Richard Gephardt, the late former Illinois senator Paul Simon and the former governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis. Well, we all know what happened there.
And in 1984, while former Vice-President Walter Mondale won the caucus, former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart became the anti-Mondale and could have very well won the Democrat nomination that year. But, alas, Mr. Hart did not and the humiliation of a 49-state loss to President Reagan fell to Mr. Mondale.
So, in the end, Iowa matters in the sense that this is but a first indicator on how some Americans vote when they have a chance to actually do so in a booth and not when called by a million pollsters trying to divine the outcome of an election before it occurs.
But, where Iowa falls short is that so few participate in the caucus. For the Republicans, at least there is more of a secret ballot. You have to actually write the candidate's name. For the Democrats, they set it up so that only a candidate that meets the 15% viability minimal is taken
seriously.
And, Iowa is quaint, but not a real reflection of the United States as a whole. And neither is New Hampshire.
So, the first real test maybe in Michigan on January 15. It is a primary for both Democrats and Republicans. For both parties, independents can vote and there is where one can see a real cross section of Americans voting. And there is where we can get a better idea of how this all plays out. This time.

And The REAL Winners Are. . .

OK, OK, I will congratulate the Rev. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas for a victory in tonight's Iowa caucus. The Rev. Mike had the momentum and a reservoir of support from evangelical Christians that no one could seriously break and that sums up his win.
Some things to note.
Evangelical Christians make up a disproportionate number, roughly 40% of registered Republican voters. While they were not monolithic in their voting, the majority went with the Rev. Mike.
Look at the county-by-county results http://data,desmoinesregister.com/election08/caucus/rawgopcounties.ph, and you will see that Polk County is where the Rev. Mike got a huge amount of his 34% statewide vote. It is the county where the capital and largest city, Des Moines, is located. The Rev. Mike got a lot of favorable coverage there and it translated. It is the perfect area for a word-of-mouth campaign to get a good buzz.
Having said all of that, a win is a win and the Rev. Mike deserves his moment in the sun. And, it will be a very brief one as there is another caucus Saturday in Wyoming and then New Hampshire. Both are going to be more secular and tougher for the Rev. Mike to crack.
My man Mitt did finish a respectable second and has nothing to be ashamed about. Yes, he probably spent a lot of time in Iowa, but he was following a conventional wisdom. And, it appears that this maybe an election in which neither party will be able to follow conventional wisdom and that leads to the Democrats.
At least here, I got it right.
Sen. Barack Obama ended up easily winning the Iowa Democrat Caucus. The real battle is for second place and at the time of this posting, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards has a one point lead on Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), 30-29%. While Sen. Obama won cruisingly with 38 percent of the "vote".
Since Democrats do not cast ballots as the Republicans, it is by a percentage of people who stood in the candidate's area.
At least here it is clear. Sen. Clinton ain't gonna get that coronation. And, she maybe badly damaged as she staggers into New Hampshire. And, even though he will have finished second, give credit to Mr. Edwards. This at least gets him into New Hampshire. He may not win there, but Mr. Edwards could have another second place finish, and it could be a rerun of tonight's result. It can be much more of a death blow to Sen. Clinton than any of the Republican candidates.
After all, Sen. Clinton has had a commanding lead in the Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com polling average, hovering in the 40s. If Sen. Clinton has another disappointing third place finish, then it appears that the Democrats are really serious about presenting their best candidate and win the White House. One thing about Sen. Obama, like him or not, his negatives are no where near Sen. Clinton's. It is possible that is what is weighing on Democrat voters minds.
So, what to make of this, the first time in this long death march to November?
The Republican race is truly a wide open race. While the Rev. Mike will get a buzz out of the win tonight, it will not be nearly enough for long term viability. He has to win a primary in which real people vote, not caucus. That is a tougher road. Mitt Romney is very much still in this race and may not win New Hampshire, but he will be in for the long haul. Fred Thompson is very much alive and will not bow out anytime soon. Even Sen. John "F--- You" McCain is looking up. Then there is, lurking in the shadows Rudy Giuliani. Do not count him out at all.
For the Democrats, this may be the beginning of the end of the Clinton comeback. When you have as high of negatives as she does, other candidates start to look better. And leading that group is Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama is positive, has a compelling story and just seems to connect with Democrat voters in a real way that everyone knows Sen. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Edwards does not.
This is going to be an interesting race to the finish for both parties and this election takes on more of an importance than ever.

And The Winners Are. . .

As I am in the mood the be the seer of 2008, I am extending my all-seeingness? to tomorrow night's Iowa caucus and I will be a seer for both the Democrat and Republican candidates.

REPUBLICANS

Mitt Romney 31%
Fred Thompson 22%
Mike Huckabee 19%
John McCain 10%
Ron Paul 6%
Rudy Giuliani 3%
Tom Tancredo (Withdrew) 1%
Sam Brownback (Withdrew) 1%
Tommy Thompson (Withdrew) 1%
Duncan Hunter 1%

DEMOCRATS

1st Round

Barack Obama 25%
John Edwards 24%
Hilary Clinton 22%
Joe Biden 11%
Chris Dodd 9%
Bill Richardson 4%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
Mike Gravel 1%

2nd Round

Sen. Obama 35%
Sen. Clinton 34%
Mr. Edwards 29%

Because the Democrat caucus is complicated, the "2nd Round" means that once the candidates that do not meet the 15% viability requirement, those that favor the candidates that do can go on and support their second candidate. That will still help Sen. Obama most of all.
Thus, the victors of this beginning of the end of the caucus/primary death march are for the Democrats, Barack Obama and for the Republicans, Mitt Romney.
The reason will be the big mo' and the two winners will have it.
And what about those that do not win?
Well, for the Democrats in could be the end of the road for John Edwards. Look for Mr. Edwards to continue at least to New Hampshire and see where he finishes in an actual primary vote. For Sen Clinton, she has to win in New Hampshire next week or her general election viability will come into serious question. She already has some of the highest negative ratings in national polling data. And for Sen. Obama, who will win Iowa, he will have a better shot at winning in New Hampshire and a full head of steam heading to South Carolina, where he is leading in polls.
For the Republicans, Mr. Romney winning in Iowa may be just enough to fend off a strong challenge from Sen. "F--- You" McCain in New Hampshire. It appears that it will be close in New Hampshire for both men. And if Mr. Thompson finishes second in Iowa, he may have a lot of momentum to do the same in New Hampshire and vanquish the McCain candidacy. As for the Rev. Mike, he will go back into the second tier, to also-ran status and probably out of the race. Mr. Giuliani gave up on Iowa and they will have given up on him. A decent showing for Mr. Paul gives him life going into New Hampshire. Mr. Paul will be the one candidate, win or lose, who will be in to the bitter end.
And, if I am right, I should head off to Las Vegas and the sports books!

The Rev. Mike, Hypocrite

It is actually painful to write this about the dear ol' Rev. Mike Huckabee, but the former governor of Arkansas is a hypocrite and it is going to cost hi, a probable victory in the Iowa caucuses tomorrow night.
The reason is simple.
You do not hold a press conference, tell the assembled media that you have decided to pull a response to broadcast ads from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and then show the ad to "prove that it was really done". But, the Rev. Mike did just that.
This past Monday, the Rev. Mike told a press conference that he decided at the last minute to pull a very personal attack ad against Mr. Romney. The Rev. Mike feels that Mr. Romney has distorted his record as governor of Arkansas. So, the Rev Mike took a holier-than-thou attitude and said that he could not in good conscience run such an ad. But, to make sure that the assembled media knew that he did indeed produce such an ad, he proceeded to show it.
According to the Politico website http://politico.com, the assembled reporters were howling with laughter.
But, taking $30,000 to produce an ad that you claim not to run and "show" it to reporters is the height of hypocrisy.
Where the Rev. Mike gets personal is when he accuses Mr. Romney of being a liar and that if a candidate would lie like Mr. Romney, he would lie as president. Cheap shot, Rev. Mike.
Going by the Rev. Mike scale, most if not all of the 42 men who have been president would not qualify because they may have lied.
But, is it a lie to point out deficiencies in an opponents record, as Mr. Romney did on his broadcast ads regarding the Rev. Mike? NO! It is what the commercials are all about. It is the voters responsibility to determine if they are accurate or not.
In seeing the commercial on Fox News Channel's Special Report http://FoxNews.com yesterday, the Rev. Mike showed his legendary thin-skin and it is very unbecoming of a candidate who loves to say, "I am a conservative, but I'm not angry. Too bad that he slipped into Pat Buchanan role to slam Mr. Romney as a liar.
Here is the problem.
The Rev. Mike can not have it both ways. He can not say that he is pulling an ad because he does not want to go negative and then show the ad, knowing that it will get free airtime and try to do a "Yuck, yuck, yuck !!!" as if he did not have a clue as to what would happen.
I trust the Republican voters in Iowa. If there is one thing other than an aversion to "negative" advertising, it is an aversion to a Huckster.

Thanks For A Great 2007

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in this blog.
I want to really thank those that take the time to comment. I read them all and occasionally it provides new blogging material. I do like the ones that are from the other side. That is the point of this blog. For me to comment and some to take issue and both of us are happy for getting our point of view to a wide audience.
And a big thanks to Pat Jenkins, Closet Republican and those who regularly read and comment. We are in for a big 2008.
It is with great humility that I thank you all for your interest and please, keep reading and commenting.

HAPPY 2008 And Some Predictions To Go With That Toast

Since everyone else thinks that they are seers into the future and it is the last day of 2007, I will take a stab at some predictions for 2008.

Of course this is all done with a wee bit of just guessing and a little silliness. You will have to figure out what is serious and is my just being silly.

So, here are some fearless predictions for 2008 in categories no less!



POLITICS



1) Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president.

2) Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee for president.

3) Mike Bloomberg, so-called independent mayor of New York City will run for president as an independent. He will ask soon to be former Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be his veep and Sen. Hagel will say aye.

4) Mitt Romney will as former senator and current Republican opponent Fred Thompson to be his vice-president and Mr. Thompson will accept.

5) Barack Obama will graciously ask Sen. Hilary Clinton to be his vice-president and she will say no. In a daring move to try to win some southern states, Sen. Obama will ask Arkansas Democrat Sen. Blanche Lincoln to be his veep. It will be seen as a not-so-subtle slap at Sen. Clinton. Sen. Lincoln will accept.

6) Because Mr. Bloomberg is a liberal, he will take away crucial votes from Sen. Obama.

7) California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will endorse Mayor Bloomberg for president.

8) Mitt Romney will be elected the 44th president of the United States. Mr. Romney will keep the core of red states and possibly take three marginally blue states due to the Bloomberg candidacy.

9) Mr. Bloomberg will not win one state. He will be the liberal Ross Perot.

10) President-elect Romney will make a very serious attempt to include Democrats in his transition team and the cabinet.



THE WAR AGAINST ISLAMOFACSIST TERROR



1) The situation in Pakistan will get worse and the January parliamentary elections will be postponed until February at the earliest.

2) The situation in Iraq will continue to improve but with some hiccups. There will be more political accommodation between the factions and the will be a 25,000 troop reduction by the end of 2008.

3) There will be a serious terrorist attack on the United States just before the presidential election. It will be spectacular and some of it will be stopped, but enough will happen that will be very serious.

4) Osama bin-Laden and none of his cronies will be captured in 2008.



SPORTS



1) The Green Bay Packers will meet the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 42 and the Packers will win.

2) The Boston Celtics will play the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA Finals and win the NBA championship, 4 games to 2.

3) The Detroit Red Wings will play the Ottawa Senators in the NHL Stanley Cup Finals and Ottawa will win the cup, 4 games to 3. Sorry Anaheim Ducks fans!

4) The Los Angeles Dodgers will be in the World Series in 2008. Not sure who they will play. And even less certain is that they will win the World Series. But, it will have been 20 years since the Dodgers last won the World Series defeating the Oakland A's. Hope springs eternal.

5) There will be a winner of horse racing's triple crown (The Kentucky Derby, The Preakness Stakes and The Belmont Stakes).



ENTERTAINMENT



1) Britney Spears will end up in jail due to a DUI charge and for good measure child endangerment. Lil sis, Jamie Lynn Spears will have a miscarriage.

2) Three strikes and yer out and that will be the fate of Lindsey Lowlife, er Lohan. She will end up with her friend, Britney, in the slammer.

3) An anti-war movie will be nominated and win the Academy Award. Do not know which one. American Gangster and or 3:10 To Yuma should be nominated, but neither one will be.

4) There will be many more celebrities that come out of the closet and announce their homosexuality. They will do so to oppose Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney because of his support for a federal law banning same-sex marriage.

5) Congress will get involved and try to pass legislation against the paparazzi. It will not get far and cement this congress as a "do-nothing" congress.

6) More big names will get caught on video and or audio tape saying awful things and "rehabs" will be working overtime.



WEATHER



1) Despite predictions of an abnormally high hurricane season, there will be less hurricanes than in 2007.

2) The drought gripping Atlanta and much of Georgia will end in 2008.

3) It will be colder than normal in the west, warmer than normal in the east. The Midwest and the plains will be colder.

4) More and more scientists will come out to debunk "global warming".

5) California will have a normal rainfall this season.



Well, those are my predictions. You will have to guess as to which ones are serious predictions and which ones are in jest. Please offer some of your own. And, most of all, have a safe and sane and a

The Rev. Mike And Sen. McCain And Tag Teamming

Is just me or does the Rev. Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor of Arkansas and Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, current Republican senator from Arizona sound an awful lot alike? Do you not notice that in their harsh criticisms of former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, they go a lot out of their way to say how bad Mr. Romney has been to each of them?
Well, in a cursory look at today's New York Times http://nytimes.com, one those candidate comparisons show that the Rev. Mike and Sen."F--- You" McCain take rather eerily similar stands on major issues.
Both are in agreement, as are the other major Republican candidates featured, in not having a withdrawal timetable for troops in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. All except Ron Paul that is.
Both men are for a free market solution to health care access. There are a little bit o' differences, but both are right on this issue.
As an aside. There is not a health care "crisis" in the United States. It is access to affordable health care. When the DDBMSM spouts out numbers like there are 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance, there is no breakdown as to reasons why. And that is very important to have a clear understanding as to what the issue of health care is all about.
On taxes is where the two differ.
We know that the Rev. Mike favors the so-called "fair tax" which is a regressive 23 to 30% sales tax on all Americans. And in a strange twist the Rev. Mike would give cash payments to every family to cover sales taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. That clashes with the fact that he voted against all the Bush tax cuts. And there is the usual trying to eliminate deficit spending. Also, he wants to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and exempt estate taxes on estates under $10 million dollars in value.
Neither the Rev. Mike or Sen. "F--- You" McCain talks about the flat tax, which is the fairest, correct way to raise revenue.
On the issue of whether or not the Guantanamo Bay prison camp should be closed, both favor that. Both men favor sending the terrorist detainees to Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. And, once on American soil they would eventually be given lawyers and muck up the civilian legal system for years. Also, the suspects are better protected on the military base in Cuba than if they were in the United States. And, if God forbid there was any kind of assault by terrorists trying to free those held, one should rather that happen in Cuba than on American soil.
And on interrogation, no difference as both men oppose "enhanced interrogation techniques" which may or may not include waterboarding. For the record, interrogators should be allowed to carry out what they can to prevent any potential future terror attacks on the United States. A little waterboarding to Khalid Sheik Mohammad led to the capture of many terrorists. Both men are absolutely wrong in this issue.
On illegal immigration, both men are changing their tune on it.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain was a co-sponsor of the near-disaster Kennedy-McCain "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. And he has long been in favor of the so-called path to citizenship. And yet, he does not have the guts to call it amnesty, which is what then President Reagan said it was in 1986.
It was during the tumultuous debate that Sen. McCain showed disdain for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) questioning anything about the bill that he tore into Sen. Cornyn beginning with "F--- You! I know more about this bill than you do." Hence, Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
The Rev. Mike also supported this bill-scam.
But now, Sen. McCain is a light hawk as he favors the border fence and says that "Securing the border is the first and foremost priority." And the Rev. Mike wants you to believe that he would be even tougher as he would give illegal aliens 120 days to leave the United States and register so that they could return. And the Rev. Mike would deploy more border patrol agents, 23,000 in fact. And, to his credit, he would finish the border fence by 2010.
However, both came to this epiphany when every bit of reputable polling data showed that Republican voters and activists were against the "comprehensive" bill-scam and want the fence built now, in its 851 mile entirety. And, most want no "path to citizenship." To quote radio talk show host Laura Ingraham "ETL"-Enforce The Law.
And, for those who believe in the globalony warming scam, both men favor a mandatory can-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which have not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause so-called global warming.
The fact is that there is little difference between the two men, which leads to speculation that if either were to become the Republican nominee for president, God forbid, the vice-presidency is good for the taking. Why else would both talk each other up while tearing down the most serious threat to either's candidacy, Mr. Romney?
And, all of that is why neither will gain the Republican nomination for president and will not be considered for the second spot. Both the Rev. Mike and Sen. "F--- You" McCain are running on the backs of potential independent voters, not Republicans. It may be a great general election strategy, but not a primary strategy. Which is what party people vote on. And, Republican voters will vote for the Republican they believe will win the general election. Independents could care less.

Please, Pollsters, Let US Vote!

Can you believe it? It is almost here! The Iowa caucuses and the first opportunity for Americans to vote for their preferences in the 2008 presidential contest between the Democrats and Republicans.
But, those pesky pollsters are ruining the great American franchise by imperfect data and swaying people based on said imperfect data.
In the last presidential election, erroneous exit-polling data gave a false impression that the Democrat nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass) was going to win the election. Because of that and the semi-close vote in Ohio, many conspiracy theorists say that the election was, once again, "stolen". And, some of the claims are based on. . .bad exit polling data.
Therein lies a huge problem in the American body politic.
There are so many polling organizations out there and each has a "scientific" way of divining the will of the people.
Each major broadcast network does polling, usually with a newspaper. You know, ABC-Washington Post. CBS-New York Times. NBC-Wall Street Journal. Then the news networks also have one. Opinion Dynamics for the Fox News Channel and the granddaddy of pollsters, Gallup for CNN/USA Today. And, lesser newspapers also have polling firms that work with them. And lest we forget the "independent" pollsters like Scott Rasmussen, John Zogby and the like. One election cycle and John Zogby was the go-to guy because of his "accuracy" then the next cycle it is Scott Rasmussen. And on, and on , and on it goes.
The public is all but convinced that the polling data is so accurate that when it goes the other way, then there must be something wrong.
No, that is not the case for there is one thing that all pollsters seem to forget. The most important poll of all is when said voter actually casts their vote in a booth or the privacy of their own home via absentee ballot.
If pollsters were right, the 1980 presidential contest may have turned out more like 2000 as all the major pollsters of the time said that the election was too close to call. Republican Ronald Reagan vanquished President Jimmy Carter taking 44 states and 51% of the vote in a three-man race.
If pollsters were right, there should have been a President Michael Dukakis in 1988. After all, once the respective party nominating conventions were over, then Gov. Dukakis, the Democrat, had a 17 point lead over then Republican Vice-President George H. W. Bush.
But my all-time favorite is the 1982 election for governor of California. It pitted the then mayor of Los Angeles, Democrat Tom Bradley against the Republican state Attorney General, George Deukmejian. Mr. Bradley was black and Mr. Deukmejian was Armenian. All the polling data showed that Mr. Bradley was going to beat Mr. Deukmejian and rather handily. Come election night and all said pollsters still said, based on "exit" polls of voters leaving the voting booth that the election was in the bag for Mr. Bradley. All but one stuck to it. ABC News took a hard look at their data and concluded that Mr. Deukmejian had indeed won the election. The others had to say that it was too close to call. ABC was correct. Why?
Because they were the only ones who accounted that there was something new called absentee balloting. The Republicans took advantage in the liberalizing of how one could obtain an absentee ballot and many of those that requested and received them were Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Deukmejian. And, he needed every vote as he went on to win the governorship by a scant 50,000 plus votes. That election ushered in a 16-year era of Republican governors in Sacramento.
The reality is that polling, for the most part, is a totally inexact science. And, it never really accounts for people telling a pollster what they think they want to hear. And that voters really do change their minds. Voters lie.
Oh, sure, the polling companies make sure to cover themselves with a "margin of error" of anywhere from three to five percent, depending on the sample polled.
It really does not matter.
Next Thursday, thousands of Iowans will go to certain areas of the state and caucus for the candidate they like and that is the first semi-vote. The real vote comes a week later in the snow-driven mountain state of New Hampshire.
No matter what happens I hope that those in each state confound the pollsters and vote the way they want to vote.
That would be one way to get back at the pollsters!

Hope All Had A Great Christmas

Now that the day is done, I hope that everyone had a great Christmas.
Christmas, for me, is a time to really ponder why we are here and that God gave us his only son to eventually die for us to redeem us. It is an amazing act that He did in giving us the gift of Jesus Christ.
But, like everyone else this time of year, it is often hard to keep that focus. You know, chasing around town for that last minute "perfect" gift. For once, this year I was all done with time to spare. Thus, I was able to enjoy watching the last minute crazy people from a distance. Usually, I am one of them.
Then there are the parties. You know, work, friends, church. They are usually well meaning events, but they tend to often add stress to an already stressful time of year.
The key to it all being a success is to think and be like a kid. Really. It is all about the excitement and anticipation. As we get older, it is having the joy of my wife or son get really excited over that special gift. Or, your humble blogger putting on a silly, singing elf hat that has a ball that gyrates with Burl Ives singing "Have a holly, jolly Christmas". I mean, it is the only time of year we all get to be a kid again.
It is a very special time of year.
But, before we can blink an eye, it is going to be the new year.
For me, the political junkie, it will be time to pick the presidential candidates of the major political parties, and hopefully elect a Republican successor to President Bush. Regular readers know I am for that being Mitt Romney.
But, most important, is to keep that Christmas spirit near and dear to our hearts as long as we can. It is after all the memories that make each Christmas special in its own way.

Tracking Santa

It is almost the magic day, Christmas Eve.
And, if you have children who are anxiously awaiting the visit from jolly ol' St. Nick, aka Santa Claus, here is a site for you.
www.noradsanta.org.
This is where everyone with a computer and Internet access can go to track the man in the red suit as his reindeer take him around the world to deliver presents to all the good boys and girls.
It is just one of the wonderful joys of the Christmas season. There are so many joys and it is a kind of second Thanksgiving for many, including myself.
If I do not have the chance to do so, here is wishing you a
MERRY CHRISTMAS !

Last Minute Books

Please look at the right side of the blog as I have listed but a few, last minute Christmas or if you are really lazy, New Year's gifts.
The latest that I am reading is "What Is So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza. It is a direct answer to all of the secular, atheist tomes that are talked about now. It is a good reminder about what the Christian faith is all about at its core and it is riveting in direct rebuttal to many of the claims of the secularists and atheists. A wonderful gift.
And, I have linked to the Amazon web site if you want to order online. If not, I would recommend getting these books through a book club or if you must go to a book store, try Borders and or a local bookseller. A great one in Pasadena, California is Vroman's.
Happy shopping and Merry Christmas!

The Rev. Mike And The Not-So-Fair Tax

Even though this is the Christmas season, I can not let this day go by without another reminder a Rev. Mike Huckabee Republican presidential candidacy is a disaster for the GOP.
The Rev. Mike has jumped aboard the "Fair Tax" express and has become the only presidential advocate in either party and of all the candidates.
To the Rev. Mike's credit, at least he is talking some kind of tax reform. I wish that all of the Republican candidates would take some kind of stand on tax reform, not just cuts. However, the plan the Rev. Mike advocates is the worst of the reform plans and one aspect is a bald-face lie.
Lets examine what the "Fair tax" is.
The "Fair tax" is nothing more than a national sales tax. Most advocates say it would be roughly about 23%. And, there are some economists who say the real figure is about 30%. Either way, in a consumer-based economy, this is a disaster. Also, there is no real aspect as to whether it will be on every purchase made or selectively on some items. Details, details!
As a resident of California, the land where anything and everything is taxed whether it moves or not, I will look at this from my perspective.
The California sales tax starts at 7.25%. Counties can vote to make the sales tax higher. Here in Los Angeles county, the sales tax is 8.25%. Now, if I where to purchase, oh say a new car, let us assume the "Fair tax" is in effect. The car that I really like is say $25,000, a pretty average price. There are many other extras, but let us talk about the California sales tax, in Los Angeles county and if there was a 23% and 30% "Fair tax". Here is the break down.
My $25,000 car becomes $32,812.50c at an 8.25% California sales tax and a 23% "Fair tax". And keep in mind, these are the sales taxes only, not anything else. If there is the 30% "Fair tax, then the $25,000 car becomes a $34,562.50c car, before I decide on any thing else. And, that is "fair"?
And, what if the "Fair tax" is extended to food and grocery purchases? It would have to be. In other words, every purchase that you make will be subject to being taxed. Period.
It is the most regressive tax because it will make the consumer even more penny-pinching than many have to be now. And, there would be no avoiding it unless you purchase in what will be a growing underground economy.
A big claim of the Rev. Mike is that it would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service. Oh, really? It would do not such thing. Who does the Rev. Mike think will be in charge of compliance? The Holy Ghost? No, it may change the name, but it would be a different kind of IRS and it would be potentially more vindictive and vicious in going after legitimate businesses to insure compliance.
And, something that is not talked about, pro or con, is the fact that it would be the way that illegal aliens could say that they do pay taxes. And, with paying taxes, they would expect to be taxed with representation, right? Thus, the opening to give illegal aliens full amnesty. Think about that, "Fair taxers"!
No, there not a perfect way for the citizenry to pay taxes, but the "Fair tax" is the worst idea because it would do more economic harm than good. It would be a tax that is totally dependent on the whims of a free market economy, which sometimes include such things as inflation. I, for one, advocate the flat income tax, but that is for another posting.
Those that support the Rev. Mike need to take a closer look at the "Fair tax" and the good Reverend's tax record as governor of Arkansas. Remember, there is more to being a good Republican than one's record on social issues.

Tony Blair Converts To Catholicism

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has a Christmas gift for the world as he has become a convert to the Church of Rome, the Roman Catholic church.
As a protestant, I see this as a good thing if it is for the right reasons, to strengthen his relationship with God through being saved by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Ghost.
Here comes the but.
But, there is rampant speculation as to why now has Mr. Blair gone from being a member of the Church of England to the Church of Rome.
Some believe there is a political calculation and there may be some truth to that.
It would come as a blow to the Anglican church to have a sitting prime minister go from the reformation church to the Roman church. Say one thing and the United Kingdom. They may not like religion in politics, but they do like their leaders, elected and titular, to be protestant Christians, even if in name only.
Then there is the fact that some of Mr. Blair's public positions and votes as a member of the House of Commons smack right up against the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, especially in regards to the life issue and one concerning Sunday trading. Sunday trading may be a real issue in the UK as it is not that much of an issue here in the states.
These are issues that Mr. Blair, now out of elected politics, will have to deal with. And, if his denominational conversion is genuine, he will be guided by the Holy Ghost, and that will be a welcome position.
HT: London Daily Telegraph: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/22/nbl

Is The Rev. Mike A Democrat Plant?

In another amazing turn of the surging Rev. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential race, the former Arkansas governor is now taking shots at a real conservative, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
This leads to a serious question.
Is the Rev. Mike a plant by the Democrats?
I ask somewhat tongue in cheek, but really, how can the Rev. Mike take shots at the man that has been credited with bringing congress to Republican hands in 1994?
We all know that the more that the DDBMSM takes a real look at the record of the Rev. Mike as governor of Arkansas, the more it looks like that other charlatan from the town of Hope, former president William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. The Rev. Mike raised taxes and did nothing to end the most regressive of taxes, on food. The Rev. Mike did not meet a clemency or a commutation that he did not like. Hell, Gov. Clinton let more people get executed in Arkansas than the good Rev. Mike! His foreign policy is not much different from that of President Clinton. Why, the good Rev. Mike says one of those he seeks advice from of foreign policy is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Mr. Friedman is as liberal elitist as one can get.
So, the Rev. Mike, led by the new national campaign chairman, Ed Rollins, is attacking someone on the consistently conservative side, Mr. Limbaugh, because like many of us he has done some actual looking into his record as governor of Arkansas.
Mr. Rollins accuses Mr. Limbaugh of not seeing the candidacy of the Rev. Mike very seriously. And, Mr. Rollins accuses Mr. Limbaugh of being part of a Washington-New York liberal axis.
If that is not enough, Mr. Rollins on Chris Matthews' Hardball on MSNBC accused one of Mitt Romney's advisers, Ron Kaufman, of being an atheist.
What has happened in reality is that the Rev. Mike has not taken this campaign seriously and it shows.
He hires a one-hit wonder in Mr. Rollins to shepherd this shoe-string candidacy to the promised land. Mr. Rollins last success was getting former President Ronald Reagan a near 50-state sweep in the 1984 presidential election year. A blind, three-legged dog could have done that with an enormously popular Mr. Reagan.
So, full of himself, Mr. Rollins tried to get H. Ross Perot into the White House in 1992. Thanks to that wondrous effort, we got stuck with President Clinton for two terms.
And, wanting to show his establishment chops, he worked for former New Jersey governor Christie Todd Whitman, one of the most obnoxious blue-bloods the Republicans have ever produced. Mr. Rollins bragged about paying black, Christian ministers to suppress the black vote and deliver the governor's mansion to Mrs. Todd-Whitman. Not that it was proven, but the fact that Mr. Rollins would even joke about that should be enough to realize, this is not the guy you want to take your campaign to the next level.
But, the ever forgiving Rev. Mike got Mr. Rollins aboard.
And the thanks that conservatives get is a slap in the face because some, like Mr. Limbaugh and many others, have looked at the Rev. Mike's record and seen that in reality, the good Reverend is possibly a closet liberal. He sure governed like one. Just because there is an R after the name, it does not mean that one is a true Republican.
If the Rev. Mike thinks that only social conservatives vote in Republican primaries, he may be in for a rude shock come January 3, 2008. There are also fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks.
The fiscal conservatives are embarrassed that they have defended the spending policies of the previous, Republican congress. The foreign policy hawks actually want victory in the War Against Islamofascist Terror.
And, these people are just part of a mix when it comes to the general election. And, without total support from each other, a Republican candidate is certain to lose. And, that loss would be a stinging rebuke of the Republican party if the Rev. Mike is the nominee for president.
It is just a fact and the Reverend's people, led by Mike himself, just can not bring themselves to that reality.
So, Rush Limbaugh has to remind them, and the thanks he gets is cheap shots.
Again, is the Rev. Mike just a Democrat plant? Let the record speak for itself.

How Can ANYONE Compare The Rev. Mike To Ronald Reagan?

In this amazing political season death march, the latest explanation on the rise of the Rev. Mike Huckabee is that he is somehow channelling former President Ronald Reagan.
You think that I am wrong?
How many pundits and bloggers have written or said something along those lines?
The question is, where in the name of Almighty God is there any comparison?
When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1976 and in 1980, he did not run as a big government conservative. Mr. Reagan ran on the platform of a smaller government, less taxation and regulation. And, in 1980, Mr. Reagan ran on the Republican platform that called for eliminating the Departments of Education and Energy, two Democrat boondoggles if there ever were any.
What does the Rev. Mike call for? Well, he wants a nationwide smoking ban for starters.
Now, I like a cigar every once in a while, and I do not like smoking, but I also believe that until smoking is made totally illegal, one should have the right to light up in public, not inside a public building or workplace, but outside. And, that should be left up to cities, counties and maybe states.
The Rev. Mike also wants to continue No Child Left Behind. Well, I think it is a good idea since the schools get so much money from the federal government. But, if the Rev. Mike really wants to sound like Mr. Reagan, how about cutting the funding for the Department of Education, eliminate the department and return education to the state level?
In defense of the Rev. Mike, I have not heard any of the serious Republican candidates call for eliminating the Department of Education. Unfortunately, I am more with, gulp, congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) on this one.
And, in calling for the "fair" tax, a national sales tax, the Rev. Mike is pursuing the most regressive tax of all, on consumption. And, it will never eliminate the IRS, just change the way the IRS does business.
When Ronald Reagan fought for tax reform in the late 1980s, it created the closest to a flat tax the United States has had since the income tax was imposed in the early 20th century.
And on foreign policy, the Rev. Mike sounds more like Dennis Kucinich than Ronald Reagan.
The Rev. Mike calls for talking to Iran, comparing our "relationship" to warring siblings. Huh? And the Rev. Mike calls for closing down Gitmo and backs strict interrogations guidelines and does not seem to grasp the serious war the United States is in with radical Islam.
Now, Mr. Reagan did not talk to the slew of leaders of the Soviet Union until Mikhail Gorbachev came along. Mr. Gorbachev was relatively young and seemed very willing to be accommodating. Have we heard any of that from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Is he just a sibling that needs a talking to?
And, when all of left-wing Europe and the Democrats in the United States did not want Pershing II nuclear weapons in Europe to act as a deterrent against the Soviet Union, Mr. Reagan did not just shrivel up and say OK. The missiles went in and in can be said that was one of the reasons that Mr. Gorbachev had to broker a serious deal on reducing nuclear weapons, something never done before.
And, the Rev. Mike seems very interested in class warfare. The Rev. Mike is talking about the power brokers and referring to the Club For Growth as the Club For Greed. These are not things that Mr. Reagan would have ever done.
No, there is not a lot to compare the Rev. Mike to Mr. Reagan. Not in style or substance.
There is just no way an objective person can say, with a straight face, that the Rev. Mike is in any way like Ronald Reagan. That is an insult to Mr. Reagan.

Thoughts On The 2008 Presidential Race, Democrat Version

In reaction to a comment left on my analysis of the Republican presidential race over the weekend, in fairness I will now comment on the race among the Democrats for the 2008 presidential nod.
Did anyone see the photo of a haggard Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-New York) in today's Drudge Report http://drudgereport.com? One has to hope that if she were to win the whole thing it can clear up some of those worry lines, but read on.
I feel like the only conservative to cite that Sen. Clinton may not be the Democrat nominee for president. I have been saying that there is something about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) that will draw more from Democratic voters. And, it appears to be happening.
The Democrats are not like the Republicans have been. There is not any kind of anointing among Democrat voters. Thus, that is why after all these months of Sen. Clinton having over the top poll numbers and people thinking that all she needs is the tiara.
So, it appears that Sen. Obama should win the Iowa caucus. And worse for Sen. Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards may very well pull in second, leaving her at third place.
And, just a little advice from a Republican for Sen. Clinton. I think she should lock former President Clinton up somewhere at least until the Iowa caucuses are finished. It does not help when Mr. Clinton comments that he is surprised at how well she is doing in Iowa and that she may lose that state.
Anyway, it appears that Sen. Obama is the anti-establishment candidate and this time may very well be in the catbird seat rolling into New Hampshire. There, independents can vote in the Democrat primary and I think there is going to be a lot more interest from independent voters in the Democrat primary versus the Republican primary. And, that should help Sen. Obama. Here I think is the beginning of the end of the John Edwards candidacy. Democrat voters in New Hampshire are not going to get into the "Two Americas" that Mr. Edwards is basing his whole campaign on. And, after New Hampshire is South Carolina in which Sen. Obama will walk away with that state.
Where does that leave the vastly second tier of Democrat candidates?
Oddly enough, I think that Sen. Joe Biden may emerge as the top of the second bananas. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, who should be the front runner, is fading quickly and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) is not much of a factor. And, no doubt that congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) will get his fair share of the fringe vote, but as he was in 2004, Mr. Kucinich be no factor, just a gnat.
Sen Biden may be able to keep going just a little more, but even he will fade away.
So, in the end, it will be a three person race. Sens. Cilinton and Obama and Mr. Edwards.
In the end, I really believe that Sen. Obama is much more inspiring to Democrats and he will be the Democrat nominee for president.
Imagine that. A Mormon on the Republican side against the first black on the Democrat side. Now that is the kind of election that is going to be very interesting.

Letter To The Editor

I, your humble blogger, wrote a letter to the editor that was actually published in today's Pasadena Star-News http://www.pasadenastarnews.con/letters/ci_7739001.
The letter was in reaction to a ridiculous piece I commented on "Strolling Through The Daily Fish Wrap", Sunday, November 25.
Normally, I would not recommend to read such trash, but I do in this case to understand fully the threat that we face in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror-from within http://pasadenastarnews/com/opinion/ci_7550457.
Once you read the piece and my reaction, you be the judge.

Notes On The Presidential Campaign, Republican Version

In the last 24 hours, I have some to several conclusions about how the Republican campaign for president is going to pan out or at least how it will end up before the much anticipated Super Duper Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Boldly, I will write that former Arkansas governor, the Rev. Mike Huckabee will NOT be the Republican nominee for president in 2008. And, he will never be considered for vice-president by any of the serious contenders. Most of why has been done by the Rev. Mike himself. Now, tomorrow I will read the Rev. Mike's interview in the New York Times magazine. Yes, I get the Sunday New York Times but it is all I can stomach! Anyway, the problem is that because the fact that Rev. Mike played dumb and asked the question and Mormon belief that Jesus Christ and Satan were brothers, people will read the interview hoping for other gems from the Rev. Mike. Maybe the rest of the interview will be dull and that was all that was there. We will know for sure tomorrow.
The downhill spiral began when the Rev. Mike aired television and online advertisements touting himself as a "Christian" leader. Now, anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a devout Christian and want to see people of good faith and morals serving the public. Yes, it would be wonderful if they were all Christians and Jesus Christ was president. But, the wisdom of Almighty God is that in this land, people of many faiths live side by side. Thus, we should elect people true to their faith and beliefs and yes, that will be part of that person's being. Hence, Sen Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn) would fit that model as an observant, Orthodox Jew. But, there is no quicker turnoff to the majority of people, Christian or not, than saying "I am a Christian leader."
And of course, the DDBMSM reminded us that the Rev. Mike was one of only three Republican candidates that said they do not believe in the theory of evolution. More DDBMSM cannon fodder.
And , the same DDBMSM is all over the Rev. Mike like bees to honey. So, we have to depend on Matt Drudge http://drudgereport.com to get some Democrats to admit they are building up the Rev. Mike because he was seen as easy road kill. Funny how the elites like to use such down home terms when referring to some one like the Rev. Mike.
Another bad sign is that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani seems to be "Where's Waldo?" as he seems to have been put down by the Rev. Mike's guerrilla forces. Suddenly, the snowbirds in Florida are for the Rev. Mike and Brother Mitt as the latest Rassmussen Reports poll shows. Mr. Giuliani is faltering in Michigan and has no hope in Iowa and New Hampshire. Throw in South Carolina and it will not matter for Mr. Giuliani what happens on Super Duper Tuesday. He will have already been thrown under the bus by the voters. Take that, Mr. Frontrunner!
The problem with Mr. Giuliani is that he has followed the front runner strategy. Playing it safe and hoping that other candidates implode or fall under their own weight or other candidates just fade away. But wait! The Rev. Mike on the Christian flank and Brother Mitt on the Mormon side. Throw in war hero John "F--- You" McCain and Hollywood hero Fred Thompson and suddenly, voila! It turns out that Mr. Giuliani is the one falling under his own weight and maybe even imploding. Mr. Giuliani needs to get some New York fight in him or this whole approach ends his serious candidacy before Super Duper Tuesday.
Speaking of a couple of also-rans, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain seems to be picking up some stream at least in the friendly confines of New Hampshire. It is where he scored the impressive 2000 victory over then Gov. George W. Bush. Too bad that was at the hands of crossover Democrat and independent voters and few Republicans. And, as noted by Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com, that maybe the case here. But, at least Sen. "F-- You" McCain is fighting the good fight and standing by President Bush concerning the surge in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror. And, while he continues to argue foolishly against waterborading and other enhanced interrogation techniques, he believes in the War Against Islamofacsist Terror, something the Rev. Mike does not have a clue about. Either Sen. "F--- You" McCain or congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Cal) will make a great Defense Secretary in the next Republican administration.
Former Sen. Fred Thompson finally came out of the cave of hibernation to roar in that debate debacle last Wednesday that he was not going to play the hand game regarding global warming debate. Mr. Thompson wanted to actually talk about it. Good for him! Mr. Thompson at least talks about conservative issues and does have some ideas, but there is no more proof that he got into this race too late that his refusal to raise his hand got him the headline in the last debate. But, because he is trying to put forth conservative ideas, he may just earn the vice-presidential spot on the ticket.
And, you thought I was going to forget about Brother Mitt Romney, the real frontrunner and the one who has the ideas, means and ability to see this all the way through. Tomorrow, barring a moronic line of questioning by Tim Russert, Mr. Romney will appear on Meet The Press on NBC. He will show why at the end, most Republicans will pull the lever, punch the hole or press the electronic keypad for him. And, why that is will all lead back to his religious liberty speech at the George H. W. Bush Presidential library in Texas. Mr. Romney was the antidote to the fire and brimstone of the Rev. Mike and laid out the kind of president we will have with Mitt Romney.
Some other points to make about Mr. Romney.
If Sen. Hilary Clinton is the nominee of the Democrat party, Mr. Romney has already ran and beat out a woman when he became governor of Massachusetts in 2002.
The ideas are that he already left as governor of Massachusetts with a health care plan in place. That is a very large domestic issue to many Americans. Mr. Romney can say that he looked at the issue and sought a solution with a beyond overwhelming democrat legislature. Take that, Mrs. Clinton!
Mr. Romney knows that the real battle of the 21st century is with radical Islam, not fellow believers in the United States. He calls them what they are, radical jihadists and has not backed down. Mr. Romney has the temperament and knowledge of the threat to take it head on.
The means is that Mr. Romney has the money all by himself to take on whoever the Democrats throw at us. People may criticize that fact, but if we are believe that people are not giving money to Republicans as they are to Democrats, then this does become an easily solved problem.
Boy, is it not going to be fun from here to the convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota?!

Re: Iowa-January 3, 2008 Can Not Come Soon Enough!

Today, another droning Republican debate was held in Des Moines, Iowa and sponsored by the Des Moines Register.
In and of itself, this should have been a smack-down, but it was not and there are reasons for that.
Firstly, why in the name of God Almighty would the Des Moines Register invite the latest incarnation of Harold Stassen, Alan Keyes, to this debate? Is it not enough that there is the Holy War between Southern Baptist Mike Huckabee and Mormon Mitt Romney? What, we needed the fringe Roman Catholic to mix it up a bit?
And the "moderator", Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn, who is this lady? And why, once again, do these "moderators" think that asking moronic questions? Like her asking all the candidates if they thought global warming was a man-made problem, to please raise their hands. Well, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson finally had enough and said that he was not doing any hand shows today. Can I hear an amen, brother?! And, Mr. Thompson asked for time to actually answer the question and the "moderator" said no. Come on, we do not want to actually hear what the candidates have to say about the issue of global warming, just if they buy that man is primarily responsible for it.
But, of course there is always the Rev. Mike Huckabee to create another slam at the Mormons. It was revealed that in the New York Times Sunday Magazine to be published this weekend, Rev. Mike asks the reporter this gem, "Is it true that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?" OH BOY! This from the man who prides himself on being the only candidate with a theological degree. Where did the Rev. Mike get that degree, from a correspondence course?
Funny, there were no questions on illegal immigration, the issue that REPUBLICAN voters actually care about. Why would "moderator" Washburn ask questions on that subject?
From my observations, Mitt Romney came away a winner. He looked and acted presidential and was able to engage the candidates, especially Mr. Thompson with good-natured humor. Fred Thompson finally showed up and also looked very good and gave good answers. Mr. Thompson has got to be on Mr. Romney's short list for vice-president. The Rev. Mike somehow thinks that it is the federal governments role to fund music appreciation programs in the schools. Small ideas equal small candidate. The others, including Rudy Giuliani and John "F--- You" McCain were left in the dust. And, of course there is Harold, er Alan Keyes. Nothing like putting the wind in a bag and watching Mr. Keyes exhale.
Thankfully, we only have 22 more days of this insanity, and with the Christmas and New Years holidays coming up, even less time before the voters of Iowa put us out of our misery. Until New Hampshire!

How To Keep The Riff Raff Out Of Your City Park

Where I live in Pasadena, California is a stone's throw away from the wealthy enclave of San Marino. Many a prominent people have lived there and were founders of this city. Railroad baron Henry Huntington, Gen. George Patton, Don Wilson. Now, two of these names mean nothing to those that live outside of this area, but trust me, they are historical names here.
San Marino has very little in terms of industry or even a tax base like another wealthy city in this area, Beverly Hills. But it has something that has stuck in my craw for a long time now. A fee to use the only park in the city, Lacy Park. And, better yet, it is for those that do not live in San Marino.
In a rare moment of agreement with the Los Angeles Times http://latimes.com, columnist Steve Lopez got a taste of what the city has been doing for many years now.
When Mr. Lopez took his wife and 4 year-old daughter, the non-residents over 5 years old had to pony up $4 dollars each. Oh, and this is on weekends only.
For the Forth of July fireworks show, non residents have to fork out $10 dollars each for the privilege of stepping onto the hallowed grounds of Lacy Park.
Did I mention that this park also has a gate all around it?
Now, some will ask, what is wrong with a city making some money to maintain a public park.
Well, for one the residents of San Marino do not pay any admission fee. They want non-residents to pay up. Also, there is a little something called the state government, which has doled out quite a large sum of money for park upkeep. Usually, governments like public parks not to charge fees and if they do, it should be also charged to the residents.
Unfortunately, it is clear what the city of San Marino is doing. It is keeping those who they deem "undesirable" from just walking into their precious park and, oh my goodness, having a good time with their children and or enjoying the peace and serenity.
Here are some quotes from city leaders that Mr. Lopez wrote in his column.
Councilwoman Betty Brown explained why the fence was built in the 1970s,
"In the 1970s there were a lot of people coming and smoking pot in the park. It was an unpleasant place because so many people were bringing their kids there."
Now, I do not advocate smoking pot in the park, but is that not what a park patrol and police departments exist for? If there is a strong law enforcement presence and a zero tolerance, that is one way to discourage that problem. And, I believe some of those potheads were probably children of those who lived in San Marino. Just a thought.
Matt Ballantyne is the city manager. He said that because of the passage of the infamous Proposition 13 which kept property taxes from going through the roof and bankrupting home owners, cities lost a lot of money that ended up in the state capital, Sacramento, and was doled out to individual counties and cities. And, Mr. Ballantyne cited the lack of a tax base that could pay to keep the park open every day. Huh? A public park usually is open every day of the year and usually closed from 10pm to dawn. And, going back to that park patrol or police presence, there should not be a problem keeping the park "open"
The topper comes from city councilman Bob Twist, who had this logic,
"Its a private park and belongs to the city, so the city has control over it."
Really? Since when do "private" parks get state funds? And where does it say on the sign that Lacy Park is a "private" park? And, if it is a "private" park, does the city really have control over it?
I really understand that a high end city like San Marino wants to preserve its way of life, not to be bothered with the same dilemmas that all the surrounding cities have, like the riff raff that use public parks. But, charging those who do not live in the city, to go on land that everywhere else is free, smacks of beyond elitism. It is discrimination.
A solution of this problem is that the city take total control of the park. Not accept any government funding of any kind in any way. Sell the park to private ownership but with the stipulation that it must be maintained as a park. Then charge everyone an entry fee with a discount for San Marino residents and a higher fee for non-residents. Thus, everyone gets to put their money where there mouth is.
But a city showing blatant discrimination as San Marino is doing is over the top. It has been going on for years and, thanks to an intrepid columnist at the Los Angeles Times, maybe something can be done about this.

GOP Keeps Two Congressional Seats

Believe it or not, yesterday were two special elections for congressional seats in Ohio and Virginia. Since they were both Republican seats and the Republicans kept the seats, the DDBMSM decided to bury the story.
The two elections were to replace congressmen who died in office. The Ohio election was to replace Paul Gilmour and the race in Virginia was to replace Jo Ann Davis.
In Ohio, Bob Latta defeated the Democrat challenger, Robin Weirrauch, 57% to 43% http://limatimes.com. It is a reliable Republican district that has not sent a Democrat to congress since the 1930s. Mr. Latta's father, Delbert Latta, held the same seat for over 30 years. The Democrats made the Republicans spend a little money but it was money well spent.
In Virginia, it was not even close as Republican Rob Whitman defeated Democrat Iraq war veteran Phil Forgit, 61% to 37% http://pilotonline.,com.
The key to these victories were two fundamentals. Taxes and illegal immigration.
The DDBMSM does not want to report the fact that two Republican candidates ran for congress and said they would not back tax hikes and were for enforcement of United States borders. But, that is what Messrs Latta and Whitman did and they won.
These will be the top domestic issues of the election in 2008.
The DDBMSM is now pushing the economy and health care, which by sheer coincidence I am sure, are the leading Democrat domestic talking points. And yes, some Republicans don't want to talk about taxes and illegal immigration.
But, the American people do and are going to tire really fast about the Republican holy war between The Rev. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. For the record, it is the Rev. Mike that keeps this going, not Mr. Romney.
And, since the Democrats could not take either of these seats, this does not bode well for them.
The latest Gallup poll shows that while President Bush's ratings are up to 37%, congressional ratings are at 22%. And, who is in control of both houses of congress? Why, it is the Democrats.
The DDBMSM has been trying to lay the seeds for a Democrat juggernaut in 2008, with Sen. Hilary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama winning the White House and the Democrat control of congress expanding.
But, if yesterday's results are any indication, the Democrats better be prepared to possibly lose control of one or both houses of congress and not retake the White House.
A lot can happen in 11 months.