The following is an excerpt from a Sarah Palin interview with John Gizzi (Human Events Political Editor) on December 12, 2008.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

Palin says no to Oprah

UPI) - Oprah Winfrey says she would have liked to have interviewed Sarah Palin after the election, but the former U.S. vice presidential candidate wasn't interested.

"I said I would be happy to talk to Sarah Palin when the election was over … I went and tried to talk to Sarah Palin and instead she talked to Greta (Van Susteren). She talked to Matt (Lauer). She talked to Larry (King). But she didn't talk to me," Winfrey told TV's "Extra" entertainment news program.

CNN said Winfrey made the remarks in response to reports she declined to invite Palin, Alaska's governor who is a Republican, on her talk show.

Winfrey, who is a vocal supporter of Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, announced this week she plans to take "The Oprah Winfrey Show" to Washington for the week of Obama's inauguration.

Sarah Palin wins HUMAN EVENTS’ prestigious “Conservative of the Year” Award for 2008 for her genius at annoying all the right people. The last woman to get liberals this hot under the collar would have been … let's see now … oh, yeah: Me!

The entire presidential election year was kind of a downer for conservatives. Once the “maverick” John McCain won the nomination, the rest of the year was like watching a slow motion car crash. Except at least a slow-motion car crash is occasionally entertaining. So it was going to be a long year.

Until Palin.

When McCain chose our beauteous Sarah as his running mate, the maverick was finally acting like a real maverick -- as opposed to the media’s definition of a “maverick” which is: “agreeing with the editorial positions of the New York Times.”

Pre-Palin it had been one race -- boring old “You kids get off my lawn!” John McCain versus the exciting, new politician Barack Obama, who threw caution to the wind and bravely ran as the Pro-Hope candidate. And then our heroic Sarah bounded out of the Alaska tundra and it became a completely different race. This left the press completely discombobulated and upset. They didn't know whether to attack Sarah for not having an abortion or go after her husband for not being a sissy.

I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one -- no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair.

But if anyone on the McCain campaign chose Palin because she would drive liberals crazy, my hat is off to him!

True, Palin made some embarrassing gaffes.

She complained that we didn’t have enough “Arabic translators” in Afghanistan -- not realizing the natives don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan, but rather a variety of regional dialects, the most common of which is Pashtun.

Speaking to military veterans one time, Palin said, “Our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

She bragged about passing a law regulating the nuclear industry that it turned out never became a law at all.

Some days Palin said Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez should suffer "regional isolation" -- but then on others she’d say she supported the president’s meeting with Chavez.

She told one audience about recent tornados in Kansas that had killed 10,000 people. In fact, a dozen people were killed in the tornados.

She referred to the “57 states” that make up the U.S.

Speaking of her eldest daughter’s pregnancy, she said Bristol was being “punished” with a baby.

As you probably know -- or guessed by now -- none of these gaffes were uttered by Palin. They are all Obama gaffes. Luckily, he made them to a star-struck press that managed not to ask him a difficult question for two years.

It seemed like the media would introduce an all-new double standard each day throughout the two glorious months of Palin’s candidacy.

I don’t remember, for example, zealous inquiries into the supposedly peculiar religious practices of any candidates in past elections. No one in the press touched on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s religious beliefs when he was Gore’s running mate. (Nor, while we’re on the subject, was the media particularly interested in the beliefs of the religion that inspired the 9/11 attacks on America.)

But the press snapped right back into their anti-religious hysteria for a candidate who was a Pentecostal! The same media that couldn’t be bothered to investigate Obama’s ties to former Weathermen or Syrian Nationalist Tony Rezko was soon hot on the trail of a rumor that Palin’s church had a speaker 30 years ago who spoke in tongues!

Let me think now: Were there ever any unusual or otherwise noteworthy speeches or sermons given in churches where Obama worshipped? Hmmm … it's on the tip of my tongue.

Liberals also suddenly decided that a woman with children could not handle the stress of higher office. Until Palin reared her beautiful head, this is precisely the sort of thinking liberals would have denounced as the Neanderthal, backwards, good old boy network attitude that had created a “glass ceiling.”

Let’s consider the facts: Palin’s oldest son was about to be under the tender care of Gen. David Petraeus after being shipped off to Iraq. Her next oldest child was about to be married and probably would prefer that her parents butt out. That left three children under the age of 15, which was almost the same as Obama had.

So Palin had one more child -- and a lot more executive experience -- than the guy at the top of the Democrats’ ticket. (I suspect what liberals were really mad about was that if Palin became Vice President, she probably would have hired a nanny who was a U.S. citizen.)

Having indignantly rejected experience as a presidential qualification in the case of Obama, liberals had to raise questions about Palin’s experience gingerly. But, in short order, they threw caution to the wind and began energetically criticizing Palin for her lack of experience. I call that two … two … two standards in one!

Like most Democrats, both Obama and Biden boasted of their humble beginnings, while having fully adopted the attitudes, pomposity and style of the elites.

Meanwhile, Palin is the sort of genuine American that brings out the worst, most egregious pomposity of liberals. For weeks, Carl Bernstein was showing up on TV to announce: “We still don’t have the date of first issuance of her passport.” Members of the establishment would be astonished to learn that more Americans have guns than passports.

Liberals were angry at Palin because they thought she should look and act like Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Upper crust, prissy and stiff.

Palin had a husband in the Steelworkers Union, a sister and brother-in-law who owned a gas station, and five attractive children -- one headed for Iraq, one a Down’s syndrome baby and one the cutest little girl anyone had ever seen.

In a nutshell, Palin was everything Democrats are always pretending to be, but never are.

She didn’t have to conjure up implausible images of herself duck hunting as Hillary Clinton did. Nor was Palin the typical Democratic elected female official who went straight from college into politics, like Nita Lowey.

Despite their phony championing of “women’s issues” (i.e. abortion) there was not one Democrat woman who could win a head-to-head contest with Palin. Especially not if we got to see their faces. Democrats may have a fleet of women politicians, but they don’t have a deep bench of attractive ones. You don’t even think of most Democratic woman as women: Rosa Delauro, Nita Lowey, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano -- and the list goes on. Oh, sure, there are the odd female Democrat sex kittens -- your Janet Renos, your Donna Shalalas -- but they're the exception to the rule.

After Palin gave her barnburner of a speech at the Republican National Convention, a friend of mine in a liberal industry told me his friends were aggressively confronting him demanding to know if Palin was raised by a secret cult of Christians that taught children nothing but Creationism and public speaking.

Oh, how I wish he had said “yes.” Imagine the aneurisms! I think what liberals were trying to say was: Gosh, she’s an exceptionally attractive mother of five!

The Obama campaign was so alarmed by Palin’s speech, it loudly dismissed the speech saying she didn’t write it. At least that’s what a press release written by an Obama campaign staffer said.

Indeed, the first words out of every Palin critic's mouth were: "Good speech, but she didn't write it." So I guess all liberals were reading the same talking points written for them by the Obama campaign. At least Palin pays her speechwriters. Neil Kinnock is still waiting for his check.

Speaking of Joe Biden, he said that Palin’s speech had a lot of style but little substance. Inasmuch as Biden was Obama's running mate, I think that meant he liked it!

A newspaper in Boston responded to Palin’s speech by interviewing hairdressers who criticized Sarah's hairstyle. (Where were these people after Joe Biden's speech?)

Trendy dinner party opinion soon demanded that all liberals take up the cry that Palin must let the press have a whack at her. Almost immediately after she was introduced to the nation, the cry went up: “When are we going to be allowed to ask Palin questions?”

Palin’s refusal to meet with the press for one week after being chosen as McCain’s running mate was evidently more maddening than Obama's refusal to appear on Fox News for almost the entirety of his campaign.

Everyone acted as if Obama’s feat of running for President for two years constituted a complete and thorough vetting.

It might have been, except that the entire media had apparently agreed: “OK, none of us will ask Obama about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.”

Hillary was hissed by the audience for mentioning Rezko at a Democratic debate and George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one William Ayers question at another.

Osama bin Laden was more upset about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than liberals were -- especially after "Jeremiah Wright videos" passed "al Qaeda videos" for most total viewings on Youtube. (He was kicking himself for not coming up with that “God Damn America” line first!)

Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can’t think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain.

Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country.

But unless Palin is going to be the perpetual running mate of “moderate” Republicans who need conservative bona fides, she will need to become wiser and better read. Even Reagan didn’t run for President in his 40s. (True Obama is in his 40s, but we are not Democrats.)

Perhaps Palin’s year is 2012, but I would recommend that she take a little more time to become older and wiser. She ought to spend the next decade being a good governor, tending to her children so none of them turn out like Ron Reagan Jr., and reading everything Phyllis Schlafly, Thomas Sowell, Ronald Reagan and “Publius” have ever written. (She also might keep in mind that HUMAN EVENTS was Ronald Reagan’s favorite newspaper!)

In time, HUMAN EVENTS’ 2008 Conservative of the Year will be ready to be our President and someday can sweep into office and dismantle all the heinous government programs Obama and the Democrats are about to foist on the nation. Who knows? She might even be able to run as the candidate of "hope" and "change."

Postponing reality

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Some of us were raised to believe that reality is inescapable. But that just shows how far behind the times we are. Today, reality is optional. At the very least, it can be postponed.

Kids in school are not learning? Not a problem. Just promote them on to the next grade anyway. Call it "compassion," so as not to hurt their "self-esteem."

Can't meet college admissions standards after they graduate from high school? Denounce those standards as just arbitrary barriers to favor the privileged, and demand that exceptions be made.

Can't do math or science after they are in college? Denounce those courses for their rigidity and insensitivity, and create softer courses that the students can pass to get their degrees.

Once they are out in the real world, people with diplomas and degrees— but with no real education— can hit a wall. But by then the day of reckoning has been postponed for 15 or more years. Of course, the reckoning itself can last the rest of their lives.

The current bailout extravaganza is applying the postponement of reality democratically— to the rich as well as the poor, to the irresponsible as well as to the responsible, to the inefficient as well as to the efficient. It is a triumph of the non-judgmental philosophy that we have heard so much about in high-toned circles.

We are told that the collapse of the Big Three automakers in Detroit would have repercussions across the country, causing mass layoffs among firms that supply the automobile makers with parts, and shutting down automobile dealerships from coast to coast.

A renowned economist of the past, J.A. Schumpeter, used to refer to progress under capitalism as "creative destruction"— the replacement of businesses that have outlived their usefulness with businesses that carry technological and organizational creativity forward, raising standards of living in the process.

Indeed, this is very much like what happened a hundred years ago, when that new technological wonder, the automobile, wreaked havoc on all the forms of transportation built up around horses.

For thousands of years, horses had been the way to go, whether in buggies or royal coaches, whether pulling trolleys in the cities or plows on the farms. People had bet their futures on something with a track record of reliable success going back many centuries.

Were all these people to be left high and dry? What about all the other people who supplied the things used with horses— oats, saddles, horse shoes and buggies? Wouldn't they all go falling like dominoes when horses were replaced by cars?

Unfortunately for all the good people who had in good faith gone into all the various lines of work revolving around horses, there was no compassionate government to step in with a bailout or a stimulus package.

They had to face reality, right then and right there, without even a postponement.

Who would have thought that those who displaced them would find themselves in a similar situation a hundred years later?

Actually the automobile industry is not nearly in as bad a situation now as the horse-based industries were then. There is no replacement for the automobile anywhere on the horizon. Nor has the public decided to do without cars indefinitely.

While Detroit's Big Three are laying off thousands of workers, Toyota is hiring thousands of workers right here in America, where a substantial share of all our Toyotas are manufactured.

Will this save Detroit or Michigan? No.

Detroit and Michigan have followed classic liberal policies of treating businesses as prey, rather than as assets. They have helped kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. So have the unions. So have managements that have gone along to get along.

Toyota, Honda and other foreign automakers are not heading for Detroit, even though there are lots of experienced automobile workers there. They are avoiding the rust belts and the policies that have made those places rust belts.

A bailout of Detroit's Big Three would be only the latest in the postponements of reality. As for automobile dealers, they can probably sell Toyotas just as easily as they sold Chevvies. And Toyotas will require just as many tires per car, as well as other parts from automobile parts suppliers.

The most unnerving aspects about the Democrats' sweeping Nov. 4 victory are their intolerance for dissent and their willingness to censor and otherwise suppress their opponents. Consider:

We keep hearing that Sarah Palin's criticism of Obama for "palling around with terrorists" increased death threats against him, which is bogus in the extreme, but consistent with the inveterate liberal tactic of chilling conservative speech by saying it incites violence.

Ohio state employee Vanessa Niekamp said she was ordered to run a child-support check on Joe the plumber, the man who asked Barack Obama an innocuous question about redistributing taxpayer income. Niekamp doesn't remember ever having checked into anyone else without having a legitimate reason to do so, such as discovering that someone recently came into money.

Democratic prosecutors in St. Louis threatened criminal prosecution against candidate Obama's critics. In Pennsylvania, lawyers for Obama wrote intimidating letters to TV and radio stations that aired unflattering ads documenting Obama's anti-gun record.

The Obama campaign complained to the Department of Justice about the American Issues Project's ad tying Obama to William Ayers. Obama supporters flooded Chicago radio station WGN with harassing calls during its interviews of conservative writers investigating Obama.

On election night, Philadelphia police arrested a man who dared to wear a McCain-Palin '08 T-shirt at an Obama celebration rally. What's scarier is that the Obama crowd reportedly chanted with joy as cops arrested the man for exercising his freedom of political expression. According to the liberal worldview, arresting someone for disagreeing with you is not censorship, but implying someone is not patriotic is.

Obama has made no secret of his plan to pass "card-check" legislation, which some have described as the most radical revision of labor law since 1935. It would permit unions to eliminate secret ballots — against the wishes of 78 percent of union members — which would represent a radical blow to democratic principles.

Democrats fully intend to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, a euphemistically named regulation aimed at shutting down conservative talk radio, which Sen. Chuck Schumer has compared to pornography.

Remember that conservatives have never advocated government action to suppress or censor the liberal media monopoly, which has existed for decades and still dominates mainstream media today. Their answer was the alternative media. But what is even more frightening than the sinister schemes of liberal politicians to silence and criminalize political opposition is the apparent eagerness of rank-and-file liberals to go along with them, as witnessed by the many examples I've cited and numerous gleeful e-mails I get taunting me about the imminent re-invocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

I believe this arrogant attitude can largely be traced to the top-down indoctrination in our schools, cultural institutions, and media that liberalism is morally superior because it is tolerant, diverse, intellectual, and enlightened.

This view holds that conservative expression doesn't deserve constitutional protection because it is inherently evil. As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, "We cannot tolerate the intolerable."

This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas.

It's how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while unilaterally declaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It's how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots.

It's how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise "fair elections" and pooh-pooh ACORN's serial voter fraud in their own country.

It's how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don't endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church's direct electioneering for specific candidates.

It's how they can ludicrously depict President Bush as a dictator while romanticizing brute thug tyrants Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

It's how they can falsely accuse President Bush of targeting innocent civilians in Iraq when he does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties but demand our withdrawal from South Vietnam, which resulted in the massacre of millions of innocents.

It's how they can advocate the banning of DDT in the name of environmental progress but be unconcerned about the untold malaria deaths that resulted.

It's how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn.

It's how they can prevent the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools in the name of science but defend the many documented myths of biological evolution in public-school textbooks, also in the name of science.

If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you're in for a rude awakening.

Sarah Palin: Dumb like a fox

Posted: November 13, 2008

She didn't have time to do "Meet the Press" or "This Week" or any of the other big name political shows that are considered a "must" by political insiders. So, where was Sarah Palin?

Now we know the answer to that nagging question. She wasn't breast-feeding Trig, helping the older kids with their homework, learning the latest stump speech or brushing up on issues great and small for the vice-presidential debate. She was shopping till she dropped at Sacks and Neiman Marcus with the GOP's charge cards.

She was visiting spas, getting spray tans, having her nails done and her hair coiffed.

When she wasn't having temper tantrums, she was playing the vixen, parading around in a towel to embarrass McCain staffers.

That's what unnamed sources told reporters from Newsweek, the New York Times and Fox News. They all drank this Kool-Aid and then regurgitated it for the rest of us to swallow.

Pardon me while I recover from a belly laugh!

How can anyone believe that trash?

Palin, the mother of five and the governor of our largest state, gets an unexpected phone call asking her to put her life and the life of her family on hold to become a candidate for vice president of the United States . For the last two months, she was hounded by the media. The long knives were out for her at every campaign stop. Most of her time was spent preparing her stump speeches and for the debate of her life; and some disgruntled, unnamed staffers want us to believe that Sarah Palin spent her time worrying about such drivel.

Her face was plastered on billboards. The press had her staked out. She couldn't go anywhere without the Secret Service and an entourage, so when did she conduct these clandestine shopping sprees?

If you believe that, then you are dumb enough to believe that the woman who took on corruption in her state and ousted a sitting governor from her own party didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country, or the parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

No less than Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy aide, and Steve Biegun, a former member of Bush's National Security Council, have come forward to say it isn't so. These men spent hours briefing her, but Newsweek and the New York Times have been too busy fawning over Obama to question them?

Alaska shares a border with Canada. NAFTA is important to Alaska, and Palin was actively involved with Canada on trade issues. As for the charge about Africa, her campaign spokeswoman, Meg Stapleton, told CNN's Campbell Brown that, once during a briefing session, she was responding to an issue and she misspoke and "in the middle (of her statement) she said 'country of Africa' and somebody instantly wrote it down."

Scheunemann told the Anchorage Daily News that Palin's debate performance speaks for itself.

"The idea that she could stand up on the stage with somebody who's been in the Senate for 35 years and discuss domestic and foreign policy as effectively as she did, and yet somehow she doesn't know who is in NAFTA and doesn't know that Africa is a continent and not a country is laughable."

Anonymous attacks by disgruntled political staffers who feel slighted, or are trying to curry favor with the media, or trying to build up their current (or future) bosses are nothing new.

When staffers of George H.W. Bush began trashing Ronald Reagan soon after the Gipper left the White House, they were quickly taken to task by Chief of Staff John Sununu, and the new president immediately called Reagan to apologize.

Reagan was constantly maligned by the media. They called him a "cowboy" and a "B- movie actor," not ready for prime time. To be sure, getting up to speed on foreign policy is a daunting task for any governor, but let us not forget that Reagan proved to be a master in this arena and, in his plainspoken way, stood up to countries great and small.

While the pundits most adored by the Washington media have written Palin's political obituary, she is adored by the rank and file. Ninety-one percent of Republicans have a favorable view of her, and 64 percent say she is their choice for the party's nominee in 2012. That's four years away, but already "Palin 2012" bumper stickers are showing up on cars, and there is an army of conservatives who are anxious to enlist in her campaign.

I'm quite confused over the actions of people dancing in the streets and boasting, among other things, about having an "African American" in the white house.     

First, last I checked, it wasn't just African American's who voted for Obama.   Second, I'm pretty sure Obama's heritage is Caucasian and Kenyan.  He's just as much black as he is white.      

I find it odd that neither the local news nor the newspapers have reported on the racial tension in our schools and communities.  We need leaders to come forward and remind everyone that we are all American!  It is the diversified race that makes America what it is.      

He will be "our" President for the next four years and not the president to a specific race of Americans.  Nor, will he be the President just to the middle class, the wealthy or the poor.      

I simply cannot understand why people are more excited about electing an "African American" than they are about electing a president who will best serve the United States of America.  It will be interesting how American's view Obama's policies as he discusses them.  It is my hopes that American's will be just as excited.     

In fact, I confess, I do not know or understand all of his policies myself.  I encourage people to enlighten me. 

Do not be persuaded by those that only concern themselves with hatred because

we have had difficult days before and we can do it again “YES WE CAN.”

New York Post

Cartoon by Rich McKee

Augusta Chronicle

As we come down to the final days of the 2008 election cycle, perhaps we should make a close examation of why we choose to vote the way we do.    Our country has managed to divide itself fairly equally between two different and vastly opposing ideologies.   And as tends to be the case with extreme idealogues...the more committed they are, the more vocal and uncompromising they are.    And this is NOT a good thing.    No ideology whether liberal or conservative fits all situations all of the time.   The result is a blind committment to what may be a good idea in theory but simply doesn't work in a pragmatic way.

The idealogue will follow the party line all the way....regardless of where it leads.   The gay rights idealogue will insist that gay marriage is a right...and nothing less than legal marriage is acceptable.   He will continue to insist on his right, even turning down the compromise of "domestic partnership".    That means that when his partner lies near death in a hospital, that partner can be kept from the hospital bed by the partner's parents.   The pragmatist says, "what's in a name"?   Domestic partnership would give you the rights you deserve without incurring the anger and conflict that the term marriage will bring to the discussion.

The idealogue will insist that "gun ownership" should have NO limitations and that any law curtailing your right to a weapon is unconstitutional and must be fought!   The pragmatist asks, "what happens when a 14 year old boy walks into your daughter's middle school with an automatic weapon and an attitude?"    

The idealogue believes in "my way or the highway" while the pragmatist looks for the compromise solution.

One of the greatest complaints I hear about our government is the assertion that they don't get anything done.   But that's to be expected.    We vote our ideology.   And as a nation we are pretty evenly split down the middle between conservative and liberal.   We have reached a national road block with neither conservatives or liberals being enough of a majority to make any progress on real solutions to real problems.   And that is why I am supporting Sen. Obama for President.

Two years ago I read both of the Senator's books and was especially impressed with THE AUDACITY OF HOPE.   In it he discusses his political philosophy which is very dependent upon the belief that policy only works with a majority concensus.    He wrote of two incidents that stuck in my mind that illustrate how a President Obama would approach policy.     Both anecdotes involved "hot button" issues designed to upset both the right & the left.   But the Senator's take on the Death Penalty and Separation of Church & State was what first led me to think that a President Obama might be a good idea.

While an Illinois State Senator, Obama worked on a bill concerning the death penalty.   On a personal level, Senator Obama is against the death penalty in most cases.    A liberal group had brought up the issue of Chicago cops who would allegedly beat a confession from a suspect and then have him charged with a death penalty crime based on that coerced confession.     The liberal idealogue would insist on trying to ban the death penalty.    Obama instead stated the obvious, most Americans support to one degree or another the death penalty.  He sat down with representatives of the police and with those advocating the end of the death penalty.  He then passed legislation that limited death penalty convictions to cases where the confession is video taped.   If a confession was given without the videotape, then the man would only be sentenced to life imprisonment.   He found a solution based on the limited common ground of the two sides.   Neither was completely happy with it but both sides agreed that it worked better than the status quo.

He also addressed the issue of separation of church & state.     As he put it, you can't let the government endorse a particular religion or religious belief.   But the flip side  is that those who watch that "line in the sand" need to be aware that the world does not stop is someone mentions "God" in public.    There needs to be a balance that reflects the differing opinions of the public.   

One of Obama's favorite sayings is, "I know you want to go to the moon, but we only have enough gas to get this far".    He is pragmatic about what can and  cannot be done.   I would be willing to bet that all of the screams of outrage against his candidacy from the right will be nothing compared to the screams from the left when they realize that he listens to both sides before acting.   

I would prefer to vote for the candidate who is going to realize that America is made up of many differing opinions.   I will vote for the candidate who considers the middle ground when enacting policy.    To be honest, I think McCain has many pragmatic traits about him.  It was one of the things that attracted me to his candidacy in 2000, but he is definitely an idealogue on foreign policy.   More importantly, he is an old man and his number two is an unprepared idealogue.    And that a recipe for disaster!

I have many reasons for supporting Sen. Obama's campaign.   Some of those reasons are because I support specific policies that he has proposed.   Some of the reasons are less distinct.   An example of such is my belief that Sen. Obama would show the best stewardship of the country.   Stewardship is defined as the act of caring for another's property or interests.   It is an often neglected aspect of the job description of President.  But ultimately the concept that the President is responsible for the wise use of the resources of government is one of the most important ideas to the running of good government.

Many people believe that the government should have NO influence over their lives.   They have a "survival of the fittest" mentality which denies any need of government influence in thier lives.   Other people strongly feel that the government should solve every problem for them.   The truth lies somewhere in the middle.    We may not want to be taxed:  but without those taxes there is no revenue to run the country.    Without those revenues bad things happen...bridges fall down, military endeavors fail and economic failings can leave society at a standstill.

So we need government and we need the administration of that government to be wise and responsible.    The degree to which we need that government is and always will be an issue of contention among Americans.   There are many who believe that Sen. Obama will tax and spend us all into poverty.    And that is an issue that has been discussed on many blogs, talk shows and at every bar in the country.  The degree to which government needs to be involved is a matter for argument, the need for responsible use of those resources is not. 

Simply put, I believe that Sen. Obama will be the better steward of America's resources. You may disagree with how much to give him, but he is the one who will best administer what he is given to work with.

 I believe strongly that people fall into two categories as they grow older.   Some see the future as a fragile gift to our children and grandchildren.    Others believe (regardless of what theology they profess) that when they die....the world for all practical purposes STOPS!    I do not profess to know for sure how Sen. McCain sees the future, but I am certain that the father in Sen. Obama looks to the future legacy he leaves his children.   

It's much like the Biblical proverb:  One servant buried his master's money to make sure that it stayed safe and wasn't lost.  He was rebuked for the waste of potential.   The wise servant cared for the money as if it were his own.  He used it responsibly and produced a profit for his master.   He wanted something better for the future...not just to maintain the status quo.

Many have called Obama a socialist or suggested that in "re-distributing the wealth" he would take from the rich to give to the poor.   In many cases, this is a thinly veiled assertion that Sen. Obama will "look after his own" and give your hard earned money to those "other black people."   The labels & name calling are merely a way to form divisions among us.   A way to keep us from examining the real issue:  How do we use our resources to our best advantage?  

The truth is that Sen. Obama feels ALL Americans are hurting now.   And some are doing more than hurting.   They make just enough to pay the rent and keep the lights turned on but there is no "extra" to be cut.   Under an Obama plan, the ones who make a quarter of a million dollars or more per year will pay more money towards our national upkeep.   Why?   Because that extra payment will not result in their utilities being turned off.   I once listened to a woman ahead of me at the bank who was complaining that the economy was so bad that she couldn't afford to go to Europe for vacation and would have to settle on Mexico this year.    I hope you don't mind if I don't get all misty eyed over her loss.

We are a nation at war...on two fronts.   We are a nation that has ignored it's infra-structure to the point that it is falling down around us.   We are a nation facing a severe recession.   We must increase our revenues and we must use those revenues wisely.   Never has our nation staged a war paid for by credit and now we must pay the bill.   The manner in which that bill is payed is of extreme importance to our future.

All sides, whether they support Obama's bid for presidency or not, have commented on the way his campaign has been run.   There have been conservative Republicans who have publicly held the Obama Campaign as a shining example of executive management.    The same cannot be said of the McCain campaign.   When Obama was asked by the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, "why when you have no executive management experience, should we believe you can run America?"  And Obama replied, "Watch how I run my campaign."

So on Nov. 4th, I will look to the future and cast my vote for Sen. Barack Obama.   The Senator summed it up best today in a speech:

"We can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo...In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history. That's what's at stake."

"The change we need isn't just about new programs and policies...It's about a new attitude, it's about new politics _ a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts."

Sen. John McCain's presidential bid received a new endorsement today.   Several bloggers on  a web site called al-Hesba have endorsed Sen. McCain as the best choice for an American President to promote their agenda.   Normally, the McCain campaign would be thrilled at a new endorsement....but this web site is a password protected site  sponsored by Al-Qaeda!

They feel that a President McCain  will continue to occupy American military resources in Iraq and that his "impetuous" character will lead him to make decisions that will increase the Anti-American sentiment that feeds Al Qaeda funding and recruitment.

It's very easy to make light of this "endorsement".   Many on the left are having a field day with it.  Look to see it as the "joke of the week" on any number of late night shows.  But it alludes to an extremely serious issue that many would like to ignore.  We still live in dangerous times!   One of the many pro-McCain quotes also suggests that an attack before the election could swing the vote enough to allow McCain to win.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

As a liberal, I am often accused of being blind to the dangers of the world we live in.   That is simply not correct.   Al-Qaida IS still a danger.    But it is important to consider how the next President will react in a moment of crisis.     Conventional wisdom suggests that the ex-military pilot would have a better grasp of what is necessary to combat the enemy.  Unfortunately, all we have seen from Sen. McCain are knee-jerk reactions to events as opposed to a clear, concise response to a situation.   (Look at the economic crisis.)  When you examine the irratic manner in which he has managed his own campaign, it calls into question his judgment in managing a military operation.   We should also keep in mind that our actions in Iraq have been one of the best recruitment tools Al-Qaeda has ever had. 

You see, it is not enough for a President to only understand the military aspects of a conflict.  He must be equally versed in the political ramifications of his actions.   If you blow up a building to kill a terrorist, you will probably also kill civilians.   That action may strengthen  the resolve of the people to support the terrorists you are trying to defeat.  The importance of the target may outweigh the political risk of killing civilians.  That is a matter to be judged each time by the President.   I have no doubt that McCain can blow up the building.   I am no longer sure that he has the wisdom to see the end result of his actions or the political impact they will have on the situation.   (Remember, McCain is one of those who insisted that we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people.)

While it has been suggested that an Obama Presidency would be "tested" to see how he would react early in his term, it could also be suggested that the predictability of McCain's temperment is equally dangerous.    The first rule of war is to understand your adversary's strengths & weaknesses in order to exploit them.    McCain's predictability is very easily exploited.

There is danger in the world today.    An "impetuous" president will NOT help us navigate the dangerous waters of the world we find ourselves living in!   A new direction is needed!

When I was in grade school it was required that every student memorize the Preamble to the Constitution.    In middle school we were required to read the entire document...test on Monday.  We were taught the three branches of government and how they were to be a system of "checks & balances" on each other.   And in high school, we discussed the implications of that document in a class called Comparative Political Systems taught by a man who took great pride in his nickname..."BETTER DEAD THAN RED" CHARLIE.  This was during the Reagan years and the end of the Cold War, it was a class that left an impression.

"Charlie" is dead now.   And as conservative as he was, I can't help but think that he would be horrified to see what has happened to his favorite document during the past 8 years.    Because the greatest casualty to 9/11 has been the Constitution!   Under the guise of "homeland security", President Bush has used the attack on the Twin Towers to justify the gutting of the most impressive document of government written since the Magna Carta.

It can now be stated of America that under the leadership of President Bush, we have legalized the following acts that are considered by many to be unconstitutional:

• The government can imprison ANY AMERICAN whom the government has determined to be an "enemy of America".   There is no need for a warrant.
• Suspension of Habeas Corpus.   The right of an individual to petition the court for release from incarceration.   This is the right to a trial.   You can't simply be held indefinitely without a court appearance. 
• While Congress has passed laws during the Bush Administration prohibiting torture, the President has issued a "signing statement" allowing it under his own interpretation of the law but in violation of the Constitution.
• Up until the passing of the most recent FISA Bill, President Bush authorized warrantless domestic wiretapping of American citizens.

The argument offered by the administration to justify these acts consists of the establishment of the never ending War on Terror.   Then the President claims the additional powers offered to him by the Constitution in times of war and national emergency.     The problem with this is that it has become a very open ended commitment on the part of the President.   If the war never ends....you don't have to give up the extra power you wield.  

President Bush & Vice President Cheney have long felt that the Executive Branch was stripped of it's power following Watergate.    They have used the excuse of 9/11 to take power that Nixon never dreamed of.

Please don't misunderstand, I am aware that we face many dangers in today's world.   But I fear anything that  disrupts the delicate balance established by our founding fathers between the duty of the Executive Branch to execute the laws and the oversite obligation of the other branches.   

These changes can be as dangerous in the long run as the threat of terrorism is in the short term.    It sounds good to say that the President won't be bothered with liberal courts and evidence when terrorists stalk our streets to kill us.   But in a few years, we could find that the "terrorists" are no longer Muslim but something much closer to home.    You see the Patriot Act doesn't discriminate between citizen and non-citizen.  So the next time it's used to arrest an "enemy of America" it might be you!  And then you have no right to a trial or even to see the evidence presented against you.  

This may sound silly, but if you have been called traitor and un-American as often as I have by bloggers, you get a little nervous when a  candidate for vice-president starts talking about the "REAL AMERICA".  I often argued in 2005 that you should never give President Bush power that you would not want a President Hillary Clinton to have.

I don't mind wiretapping of citizens.   I do mind when it is done without a court order.   I know I should trust the government to act responsibly, but as we learned last week...it often doesn't.    We now know that countless American service men were listened in on while they called home.   And instead of catching terrorists, we established a military intelligence 900 number.   Military Intelligence was listening to phone sex between soldiers and the partners left at home.   Worse, they were passing the BEST calls on to others to enjoy!   Please explain to me how this is either making me safer or is protecting my constitutional  rights.

Earlier this year, Sen. Obama showed that he understood the tightrope that must be walked between keeping the country safe and protecting the rights of its citizens.   When the FISA bill was first presented, he worked to ensure that it required a court order be obtained for any wire tap.    FISA was a very hot button issue for the liberal side of the Democratic party.   He upset many of them when he voted for the FISA bill because he felt the need for safety outweighed the minor problems of the bill once oversight was established.  In this, he showed a clearer understanding of the true intent of the Constitution than our current president has.

As a Constitutional Law professor for one of the best law schools in the US, Senator Obama offers our best hope for restoring the mindset of government to one that believes in the importance of the Constitution.  He understands that it is our Constitution that makes America different from the rest of the world.    We have seen this recently when the Supreme Court overruled a ban on handguns within a municipality.    Sen. Obama disagreed with their ruling, but pointed out that while he didn't like it, once the Supreme Court makes a ruling....that's the law.   How nice that he accepted it when he didn't get his way.    Refreshing after the last eight years.

The Constitution is the single most important legal document in the history of our country.     Sen. Obama is the candidate most inclined to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (and not just the parts that he likes!)

It's October of an election year.   And as predictable as the turning of the autumn leaves, comes the Republican cries about the evils of ACORN and voter fraud.  Now don't get me wrong, I am not trying to make light of what could be a serious problem.   But listening to the Right will cause you to confuse the crime of Voter Fraud (a major offense) with the lesser crime of voter registration fraud.   They are screaming about the potential problems of the oak when all they really have in hand are a few nuts.

ACORN is an organization dedicated to being a political voice for the poor.   They are involved in a number of projects that include working on housing issues, rebuilding New Orleans, school lunch menus, etc.   The most visible arm of their work is their voter registration drives.   Both in 2004 & 2006 there were allegations that ACORN was submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registrations.   These allegations have resurfaced this election cycle as well.   The Right would have you believe that these registrations are being done in order to alter the results of the election.  They will remind you that Sen. Obama once represented ACORN as an attorney and has worked for them repeatedly over the years.   They then allege that the Obama campaign is behind this "conspiracy".   They point out that the Obama campaign gave 830,000 dollars to ACORN and on an FEC report listed it for "event management" instead of voter registration.  (We know this because the Obama campaign amended the report without prompting.  If they hadn't we would never know this.)

I have a lot of trouble with "conspiracy theories".    For a conspiracy to be big enough to make a difference in the real world, it requires a lot of people's active participation.  It also requires them to keep quite about it.   (And nobody has ever accused Democrats of being "quiet" or of being able to keep a secret.)    What I think has happened instead is an organization with lofty goals being bogged down in the nuts & bolts operation of their agenda.    The incompetence of the organization is then used as "evidence" of massive wrongdoing with large leaps of assumption thrown in to smear both the organization and the Democratic candidate.   A review of their operations is not out of line, but to condemn them for "fixing" an election is a stretch of the imagination.

It is a fact that ACORN has submitted many fraudulent voter registrations.   We know this in part because ACORN flags many of these when they turn them in.    But the law requires them to turn in all registrations they take, regardless of ACORN's belief in their authenticity.   (If this was not the case, you would be hearing cries that ACORN throws away any registrations they think would vote Republican.)   The legal requirement to turn them in is a safe guard to protect both sides.   

The next major question is why take fake registrations in the first place if not to alter an election?    Well, the fraud is not being perpetrated by the organization on America, but by the workers of ACORN on ACORN itself.   ACORN hires out of work people to do the registration.    They are trying to give a "hand up" to the poor by giving them a paycheck.  In many cases this is a great thing, but some of the people they hire are more interested in getting a paycheck than in helping out.    If you are told you must get 25 registrations per day to keep your job, then a few will always decide to take the cards home, look through the phone book and make up the names.    This way they can keep their paycheck (without going through the hassle of the work).   Eventually they are caught & fired...but the law requires that they submit their registrations regardless.

Now Sen. Obama did as represent ACORN as their attorney in Illinois for one specific case.   What the right doesn't want you to know is that his co-council for this was the UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.   And his involvement with ACORN since has been as a guest speaker twice to the Chicago branch as a motivational speaker to a group of about 50.    Now if the fact that he still spoke to them twice bothers you, keep in mind that in February 2006, John McCain was the keynote speaker at a major immigration rally in Florida sponsored by (drum roll please) ACORN.  It is even more interesting to note that much of the speech was to praise the work of ACORN.   Talk about flip-flops!

It is also interesting to note that while voter fraud registration is evident.....THERE HAVE BEEN NO CASES OF TRUE VOTE FRAUD!   No trials, no convictions, no duplicate mail in ballots, not much of anything except cries of cheating ALWAYS timed just before the next election.  At most you are shown one or two isolated examples that are then morphed into an indictment of all.   And that brings me to my final observation.     Does anyone really believe that if this was a true danger to Democracy, that Republicans would just drop it every year after the election is done?   Wouldn't they spend the next two years making sure that they weren't “cheated” again?

ACORN is nothing more than a distraction.  Republicans have controlled the House & Senate for so long that they don't want you to look at issues.   They don't want you to think about the economy or Iraq or any of the real problems facing America.   They want you to believe that Democrats are stealing the election by registering fictional cartoon characters in a Disneyland vote drive.   But until Mickey Mouse shows up at the polls to vote:   ACORN's stealing the election is just an urban myth.   Much ado about NOTHING!

October 16, 2008 - 'Joe the Plumber' [Joe Wurzelbacher of Holland] expresses high regard for Dr. Alan Keyes.  'Joe' says Keyes, " ... could fix the country in two (2) years ... "

View Video: 

http://aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7
12&posts=15#M2172 

Keyes for President, 2008 -- http://www.AIPNews.com

'Plumbing' the Depths of Joe's Mind | AP Video | October 16, 2008
http://video.ap.org/v/default.aspx?mk=en-ap&g=bafd50

7d-1a2c-4d28-9a9b-8fc70ff6fc0c&f=1010wins&fg=email

They say that "a picture's worth a thousand words".    A thousand words.   I written that many and more over the past year trying to explain to people my support for Sen. Obama.  And while there are a lot of reasons I support the Senator, one of the most difficult to explain is his unflappability and why it's important.    Whether you like the man or not, many would agree that the man is a very cool and detached individual.   That is one of the things that many people dislike about Sen. Obama.

But I prefer a President that is a bit detached.   I don't need a "beer buddy", I'm hiring a President.  I want someone as President who can sit at a negotiation table (across from both our friends and foes) and who doesn't wear his emotions on his sleeve.   I want him to be cool and collected.   Giving nothing away.   

I don't want a man who appears out of control or angry.  Or wandering around lost.    I don't think it will do America any good to have another President who sneers or rolls his eyes.  Giving everything away with his "tells".   In poker, a player like this is called a "fish".   And a fish (and his money) are always welcome at any table.   I don't want a "fish" for President. 

A "detached" poker player doesn't let his emotions rule his play.  He maximizes his wins when the cards are good and minimizes his losses when lady luck goes to lunch.   When helpful, he bluffs.   But the bottom line is that he wants to walk away with all the chips on the table!   I want a President that gets "all the chips" for America!  To do that, you need to be calm, collected and careful!

I've spent a lot of time and a lot of words trying to explain this to people over the past year.   And then today, I saw this photo from last night's debate.   It said it all.....without the thousand words!

WHICH MAN DO YOU WANT TO BE SITTING AT THE TABLE?

 Each day more and more CONSERVATIVES are speaking out about their doubts concerning the McCain campaign.    The liberal media has termed them "rats deserting the ship" and these are their comments!

"[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that."

Matthew Dowd, Chief Strategist for George W. Bush's Re-Election Campaign

"I voted for Bush, father and son, but this time I'll vote for Obama...."I pray God, Barack Obama is elected,"

Dennis Hopper, Movie Star & Long Time Republican currently starring in AN AMERICAN CAROL.    (I don't know which is scarier...Dennis Hopper voting Democratic or Dennis Hopper praying?)

"Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear had to feel sorry for the old lion on his last outing and wish that he could be taken somewhere soothing and restful before the night was out. The train-wreck sentences, the whistlings in the pipes, the alarming and bewildered handhold phrases—"My friends"—to get him through the next 10 seconds. I haven't felt such pity for anyone since the late Adm. James Stockdale humiliated himself as Ross Perot's running mate. And I am sorry to have to say it, but Stockdale had also distinguished himself in America's most disastrous and shameful war, and it didn't qualify him then and it doesn't qualify McCain now.

Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke."

Christopher Hitchens, Conservative writer & Iraq War Supporter

It's time for John McCain to fire his campaign.   He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama’s. The Obama team is well organized, flush with resources, and the candidate and the campaign are in sync. The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic.

William Kristol, Fox News Commentator

"Obama-Terry Voter, anyone?" I’ll admit it: I’m voting for Obama and Lee Terry. Why? Because I want our officials to work hard, to be honest, exhibit strong ethics and be accessible. That’s Lee Terry. Ever talked with Lee? I have. You ask him questions, you get straight answers. I like that. Please join me in voting for Lee Terry. Paid for by Lee Terry for Congress"

Campaign Ad paid for by Lee Terry, incumbent REPUBLICAN running for re-election to Congress in Nebraska's second congressional district.

"Do I believe in John McCain? Not as much as I used to. Do I believe in Sarah Palin? Despite my early enthusiasm for her, now not at all. Do I believe in the national Republican Party? Not in the slightest -- even though I see no meaningful alternative to it. So, my choice for President in 2008, scrawled in my ballot as an act of futile protest, is Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. If nothing else, I am confident this is the first of several votes I will cast for him in years to come."

Joshua Trevino, RedState co-founder

"Sorry Dad, I'm voting for Obama"

Christopher Buckley, Son of William Buckley

Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions require her promotion.

Palin didn't make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

Kathleen Parker, Conservative columnist for the Washington Post

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

George Will, Fox Commentator & Washington Post columnist

Perhaps it is important as we laugh at them for being "rats" that we keep in mind why rats desert a sinking ship.   Because it is SINKING!    It's called survival.   And many of the best minds of the Conservative movement are beginning to suspect that the election of their own candidate, Sen. John McCain could seriously endanger our chances as a nation for survival!

It only makes sense.   When your boat is sinking....SWITCH BOATS!