OP ED: It's not racism, stupid

Barack Obama’s standing in the poles is testimony to the fact that non-black America is not nearly as racist as the Jesse Jackson’s of the world would contend to maintain their relevancy. Having now shown the significant racial tolerance of the non-black communities, it is time to focus on Barack Obama, the man. Should HE be the next president? (<-- The "he" is capitalized for emphasis, not for the purpose of deification, as many might assume.) Had it not been for the economy tanking, and panic running amok, that answer would have been a decided “no.” The non-racial reasons for rejecting the Obama candidacy are still valid, however. He possesses five qualities that are totally wrong for America.

1. Despite the sweet talk and pleasant demeanor, Obama is among the most radical left-wingers to be seriously considered for the presidency. His proposals for massive government programs, here and abroad, and redistribution of the wealth from the productive sector to the non-productive community is a socialist agenda by any measure. It sets America on the terminal path most recently traveled and abandoned in failure by the old Soviet Union and cold war China. His redistribution of wealth comments are distrubingly akin to the language of Karl Marx -- and why not? The policies are disturbingly similar pure communist ideology.

2. He is a radical internationalist, who would realign our foreign policy toward greater accommodation with the America-hating Islamic fundamentalist at the expense of Israel, yield elements of our sovereignty to international agencies and withdraw from the Reagan-launched era of dedication to world democratization. There is a reason why those who wish to ring down the curtain on "the American era" have expressed universal hope and encouragement for an Obama presidency.

3. Obama’s personal history of associations with radical anti-American extremists, from childhood to just before his pole numbers started rising, is significant to understanding what drives his thinking. From the early education at the knee of his proclaimed American-loathing Communist family and childhood mentors, to the racist political foundation of liberation/revolution theology preached by his father figure pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and to the propaganda-as-education philosophy of unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, Obama has been consistently cradled and influenced by the haters of the successful American capitalist system – those who would rather wage class warfare on the rich than bring a just war to the doorsteps of murderous tyrants.

4. He brings to office, albeit in a polished form, the lust for raw power exemplified in the Chicago political machine -- the wellspring of his political life. He is a graduate of arguably the most corrupt political environment in America. The support he has received from, and the support he has given to, friends and allies wallowing in local political chicanery strips away the flimsy mask of reform he dons on the national stage and belies the scripted lines in his stage role as a small "d" democrat. The Chicago way of political control is to constantly change the rules to increase partisan power and advantage, and if that is insufficient, to simply break the rules to maintain power. Obama’s arrogant radical liberalism -- characterized by a twisted sense superiority and noblise oblige -- coupled with a Chicago-style contempt for citizen participation, gives him an already discernibly unhealthy lust for personal power -- and the instinct to pursue it.

5. Obama would come to the presidency as the most woefully inexperienced and untested candidate in American history. His simplistic idealism is at once charming and dangerous. In addition to his misguided instincts, Obama brings a naïveté to the presidency that makes America more vulnerable -- politically, diplomatically and physically -- to the advances, actions and assaults of our avowed adversaries. Voting for the recordless Obama is an act of faith. He is the proverbial “pig in a poke” – lipstick notwithstanding.

6. Finally, there is a matter of integrity. With enormous financial advantage, Obama has been able to undermine the credibility of the Republican team. Yet, much of his image is founded in lies. He would have us believe that after 20 years of intimate association with Trinity Church, and the fiery Jeremiah Wright, he had never “heard a disparaging word.” His latter day answers, on such matters of abortion and taxation, stand in stark contrast, yet he is not challenged on these discrepancies. He denies his days as a slum lord in partnership with the now indicted Tony Rezko. Obama is not what he appears.

Hillary Clinton got it right when she said that Obama’s national launch was on the basis of one skillfully crafted and presented speech. He has remained aloft on the same vacuous propellant. He is a spellbinding orator, as any snake oil salesman must be. A President Obama will undoubtedly be a great disappointment – either to those who did not fully appreciate his commitment to a radical world socialist agenda or to those who will watch the malleable Chicago machine President again re-invent himself to accommodate the moderating influence and pragmatism of the American system. Is he a Roosevelt or a Clinton? Stay tuned.

OBSERVATION: President Obama? Arrrrrrgh!

For those following my writings, you know I have consistently indicated that Barack Obama was not electable. In most cases, I added an escape clause – a great big “UNLESS.” The “unless” came in two versions. First, unless John McCain commits an enormous blunder, which is always possible. Second, unless there are dramatic events that alter the anticipated normal voting patterns.

Well … now I am nervous. Yeah, I would consider the economy dramatically tanking on the eve of the election an event that can shatter the “anticipated normal voting patterns.”

Events of recent days are shaking up the foundation of my theory that Obama is unelectable. First, we are in the grips of a true financial crisis. The long anticipated housing bubble burst has arrived and the over extended credit markets are grid locking.

Now add to this mix that the dive in the economy is due to greed and financial shenanigans by a lot of office holders, and you can see why the electorate is running scared – and angry. Sure, a lot of blame rests with past Democrat policies and the current Democrat Congress, but the knee-jerk blame is easily affixed to the encumbent in the White House -- and his political party.

This is never a good situation for the “ins.” While the crises is significantly short of the Great Depression, the willingness of the “outs” to draw the comparison for political advantages is both despicable and understandable. It is the equivalent of falsely yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater.

Like most economic crisis, fear is as damaging as reality – and can become a self-proving prophesy. The crisis creates a Hobson’s Choice for the electorate. Truth be known, they would probably prefer to scratch off both Obama and McCain as their choice to lead us out of the economic chaos of the moment. But … the voters must pick between the candidates at hand.

Which is perceived as the less bad choice? Common sense would say Obama. Troubled times are the fertile ground for the glib salesman who just arrived in town with a wagon load of snake oil as the cure for the maladies the town doctor was unable to cure. He is flash and dash -- style over substance.

The economic crisis has warped the campaign universe. At the very time the traditional GOP surge was rising, and the “Palin effect” was kicking in, the economic sputtering reversed the polarities, and suddenly Obama has moved ahead. This is significant at this stage of the game. State-by-state, Obama garners enough electoral votes to be the next President.

This does not mean the game is over for McCain. The economic crisis will not be over by Election Day. In fact, it may be worse. There is no “good news” scenario that will restore McCain’s momentum.

However, Obama is a guy the majority of the electorate would like to vote against. McCain must show the nation that despite his membership in the blamed party, he has both the will and the ability to address and resolve the economic mess. He has only days to show the American public that has the experience, the resolve and the right solutions to revitalize the economy. So far, he is not making made a convincing argument.

There is lies the other issue. McCain is screwing up. If you have read past blogs, you know I never thought he was the best candidate for the GOP by a long shot. For me, he has only become the best option between two very bad choices. He has proven to be as bad a candidate as I feared.

Seventy-six years ago, this nation descended into economic hell. In their fear, the people turned to a great orator, Franklin Roosevelt, an urban political machine politician who believed in the pre-eminence of government as the source of personal freedom. This man brought America as close to dictatorship as any time prior or since. He infused the neo socialism that continues to this day as a virus in the body politic. Upon is death, the Congress, recognizing the danger, swiftly passed a Constitutional amendment limiting the terms of presidents to eight years. It took thirty-five years for this nation to largely recover from what was known as the “New Deal.”

Now we again stand on the precipice of seeping socialism – driven by the same kind of fear that brought us to the paternalistic socialism of Roosevelt. George Bush, the democrat Congress and our two presidential candidates have found common cause in applying the feel good socialist band aid rather than the more painful but effective free market cure. We have choosed to treat the symptoms of economic and political cancer while ignoring the spreading disease.

All this has changed the game. For the first time in more than a year, I have to admit that Obama is now electable. It is not a foregone conclusion, but it is now very possible. I do not think it will be as overwhelming as the current polls show, but it is possible.

TIDBITS: Guns, war heros and glass ceilings

#1. A jury in Texas acquitted 62-year-old granddaddy Joe Horn (pictured) after he shotgunned to eternity two illegal aliens, with criminal and drug records, who were robbing his vacationing neighbor’s home. He saw them exiting the window with sacks of goods. He called the police emergency number, grabbed his gun and confronted the crooks. According to his statements, they acted in a threatening manner, he blasted away and called 911 a second time to say he had handled the matter. There is controversy about the verdict because the 911 operator advised Horn against confronting them. The crooks (not victims) were shot in the back. Was it justifiable? The jury said, “yes.” I am in no position to second-guess the judgment. I am too much of a softy to ever want to see anyone killed. I also am not one of those xenophobic individuals on the immigration issue. I tend to lean to amnesty for the good ones. However, I am totally a believer that the risk of crime is possible death. This idea that a private citizen has to defer their own life or property to some concocted rights for a person in commission of a serious felony crime is non-sense. The only bleeding hearts ought to be the criminals – and I am not speaking figuratively. Thanks to gun ownership, a law abiding senior citizen was able to protect his neighbor’s property, his own self and, in the process, end the criminal career to two bad guys – protecting the property and lives of likely future victims. I am honestly sorry they are dead, there is tragedy in that. Bad as they were, they had loved ones. But … they brought it on themselves.

#2. They are military veterans, who claim to have served with the presidential candidate. They say his record is bogus. They claim the candidate was involved in actions contrary to good conduct and the best interests of the nation. The “Swift Boat” veterans? Nay! For all the complaining about the attacks on Senator John Kerry, and for all the promises to be different – you know, the “change” thing – these latest attacks are being directed at John McCain by a group of Vietnam vets who are part of the Barack Obama underbelly support team. Known as Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, they have a website that dumps on the GOP soon-to-be standard bearer. Change? Riiiiiiiiiight! (We might also note that McCain returned as an America-loving patriot, while Kerry ruthlessly turn on his country AND spread malicious lies about the men he served alongside.)

#3. When General (nuisance) Wesley Clark was maneuvering to be the Democrat presidential candidate, it seems to me his military record was one of his major talking points. Granted, he rose higher than McCain, but where was his battle experience? Where is his Purple Heart? Is a guy who was a product of the military/industrial complex -- a military bureaucrat -- better suited than a guy who faced war on the battlefield? McCain fought in wars, and knows the “hell’ of them. Clark organized and executed wars as a career. He is the guy who sent the McCains of the world to do the dirty work.

#4. Walking the walk can be a problem. For all his left wing rhetoric, especially on feminist issues, Obama is a good old boy politician at home. Seems his staffing places men in the highest ranking jobs with the best pay. He has his own glass ceiling, and equal work does not warrant equal pay. So says a recent analysis of public records. Interestingly, McCain actually has more women in top positions and top pay than men. Go figure.

#5. Recently, on (hot) Air America, the hosts opined that it was there job to get Obama elected. They dismissed the idea that they should even attempt balance and fairness. “We have to do everything possible to make sure Obama gets elected,” they incanted. They amazingly suggested that they should not even be limited to telling the truth because, according to them, the other side lies all the time. Fight fire with fire, they say. I have no problem with talk show biases, having a political point of view, but when does the public license for free speech over the air become illegal campaigning? As taxpayers, we subsidize the privilege of broadcasting personal opinions. However, we do not allow churches and other institutions to use our tax dollars to support partisan campaigns. There is a difference between “I disagree with candidate A’s position, and we must do everything possible with our broadcast privilege to get candidate A elected. I am not sure where the line is drawn, but I think it is clear that (hot) Air America crosses it.

REACT: The Supremes ... with Guns and Robes.

The left wing progressives continue to talk like the represent America, or at least that America is coming round to their way of thinking. It has been their trait and fault for a long time. If you had judged the mood of the nation by the statements of liberal politicians, pundits, press and radio personalities, their could not have been a Ronald Reagan, a Newt Gingrich or a Chief Justice Roberts. The so-called progressive Air America would be more than a narrow cast radio network compared to the highly popular conservative talk shows.

This has not been a good week for true believers on the left. Realty has upset their fantasies -- again. First and foremost, the Supreme Court threw out a 32-year ban on guns in the District of Columbia – and threw every other local gun ban into the shadow of judicial doubt. They have finally settled the question: Do private citizens have a constitutional right to own guns – albeit with reasonable restriction? For the first time, the high court has affirmed the definition of “well regulated militia” to include the right to personally possess weaponry.

Liberals say “militia” means a government run military, such as the National Guard. The Supreme Court, however, believes that a “militia” can be a locally organized, grassroots outfit which has to rely on their own arms because there is no central procurement authority. In other words, liberals believe that even a “militia” must be a service of government. (No surprise there.) Conservatives, the nation’s founders and the current Supreme Court believe that a “militia’ can be formed even in opposition to the government. (Even by nuns with guns.) The inalienable right to rise up against a tyrannical government requires access to the means. Thus, the right to bear arms. In other words, you do not need the approval of government to form a “militia,” as defined in the Constitution -- even a well regulated one.

The liberal gabbers are whining that the new ruling breaks the precedence establish by the 1932 ruling establishing the right to regulate guns, with banning one of the assumptive options. They indignantly argue that precedents are not to be overturned. If that is the case, however, slavery would be legal, 18-year-olds would not be voting, the nation would still be dry and the Dred Scott decision would stand.

In another decision, the liberal members or the Supreme court carried the day by striking down the death penalty for child rapists. Currently, the death penalty is reserved for cases of murder. No death, no death penalty. The justices, at least five of them, were not of a mind expand the traditional death penalty coverage to non-lethal crimes.

The very liberal Barack Obama, however, disagrees with the Court, and favors the expansion of capital punishment to cover child rapists. Obama and John McCain agree on this one. That is because the Court looks at the law and other academic stuff, and the politicians look at public opinion. There is no doubt that the public would support even the most “cruel and unusual” punishments for pedophile rapists. Laws and the Supreme Court are the guardians against unbridled majority rule – the tyranny of the majority, as they say.

On the death penalty issue, Air America is hitting turbulence. They are resorting to parsing and double talk to bridge the conflict between their pleasure with the decision and their unwritten rule to never criticize Obama. I kind of enjoy the verbal squirming.

What is striking terror in the bleeding heart club is the fact that the next president could fill at least three vacancies in his first term – and all three are senior liberals. Should it play out that way, a President Obama could only preserve the ideological balance with three liberal choices. A President McCain, however, could tilt the court further to the conservative strict constructionist viewpoint even with moderate appointments – and he has pledged to follow the Roberts/Alito model. Uh, we’ll see.

The conservatives currently not only have the advantage of majority, but even Air America’s court expert noted that the conservative justices were young and energetic, while some of the older liberal jurists are hardly able to stay conscious through public proceedings.

Three more appointments on the right would create a generational conservative court. It could easily be 25 years before such a “Roberts Court” would give way to a successor.

REACT: Father Pfleger finally flubs (see videos here)

They applauded and cheered as Father Michael Pfleger, pastor the St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church, whooped it up as the visiting sermonizer at Trinity United Church of Christ – the one-time home of the racist Pastor Jeremiah Wright and long-time congregant Barak Obama. You would have thought they had learned a lesson about spewing hatred from the pulpit by now. But noooooooo!

Thanks to modern techonology and You Tube, the words of Father Pfleger are no longer just repeated but are available for all to hear. His message of anger and hate is no longer limited to the confines of the black church. You can see both his improper and illegal attack on Hillary Clinton -- and his admission that he is causing trouble. The "man of God" knows he is sinning.

Because Father Plfeger is a raging left winger – more interested in a political platform than the pulpit -- he has been allowed to be outrageous for years without much criticism from the fawning press. In fact, even the unavoidable criticism of his latest over-the-top stunt is tempered by the media with countervailing reporting on all the alleged good he has done through his ministry.

Methinks that he would not even now be criticized if his racist character and inappropriate comments had not turned out to be detrimental to the most important liberal sacred cow of the day, Barak Obama. This is the same song sheet the media choir have used in the past for Pastor Wright, Jesse “Hymie Town” Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the racist reverends who play partisan politics from the pulpit – flagrantly violating the laws that affords them taxpayer subsidies. You and I pay for the venomous attacks on the non-black communities.

It is reported that Francis Cardinal George (left) has had enough of the bad boy Father Pfleger. I certainly hope so. He should be summarily booted ... defrocked ... excommunicated. He is the secular wolf lurking beneath the lamb (of God) skin.

Oh sure, Pfleger has apologized – said he is sorry if his brutal, sleazy racist mocking of Hillary Clinton and all non-black people offended her … and all non-black people. If course it offended her, and most likely a lot of us non-black people. It was ugly and vicious. It was about as unChristian as you can get short of bodily harm. It offended anyone with fair judgment and honest heart. I am convinced that Pfleger apologized only when it became obvious that his partisan verbal slashing was going to backlash on his beloved Obama. When has he ever apologized in the past for his bombastic attacks on white people?

The performance on the stage at Trinity was not an exception, but the norm for Father Pfleger. For those who are familiar with Pfleger, his history of radical extremism and abuse of his pulpit privileges are historic and pervasive. Though white, he is a promoter of black liberation theology, often a theological euphemism for racial hatred in the name of God. He uses the same sort of religious contortions that had those long-ago southern white pastors (and a few still hanging around) denouncing the God-given humanity of blacks – using the burning symbol of a loving Christ to convey fear and hatred.

To add a weirdness to his viewpoints, Pfleger takes pride in mimicking the extreme edge of the flamboyant style of black ministers. His imitation is so complete, it borders on psychotic. He channels the most radical black preachers. Pfleger’s black “act” is so out of context with his white boyish looks and carefully coifed blond hair that unless you listen to the scurrilous content of his homilies you might think it a Saturday Night Live skit.

In his ethnic self hatred, Pfleger allies in common cause and friendship with the likes of Louis Farrakhan (left). Like Jeremiah Wright, Pfleger embraces and promotes the misguided Muslim minister. Instead of repudiating Farrakhan, Pfleger praises him and invites him to desecrate the sanctuary of St. Sabina's with his racist rhetoric. Pfleger finds it impossible to call out anyone who speaks ill of the white community.

I am also more than a little bothered by the reaction of the congregation at Trinity. The congregation’s chortles, guffaws and amens to Pfleger's message of racial animosity were almost as offensive as the Muslims dancing in the streets as the New York Trade Towers crumbled. After years of Pastor Wright, it would appear that those in the pews have been so drawn to, or indoctrinated by, the extreme preaching of racial victimization at the hands of the evil white majority that they cannot see the wrongness of Wright and Pfleger. It is chilling to think that until recent days the potential President of the United States was among them in holy communion.

What seems to bridge racial lines, however, are the many infamous ministers in America -- black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew – who seem to be the most out of touch with a loving God. Preachers of this ilk seem to find large congregations who prefer to have their prejudices comforted rather than challenged.

I am not sure how much harm Pfleger does to Obama. The candidate does not have the two-decade intimate relationship with Pfleger the he once claimed to have "treasured" with Pastor Wright. He did not spend Sunday after Sunday at the foot of Pfleger’s pulpit. On the other hand, they have been close friends and comrades-in-arms since Obama first appeared on the civic/political scene. Pfleger has been a donor to Obama campaigns. Until recently (post Wright flare up), he served as an official advisor to the campaign. He can be listed, along with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, as another close and influential friend who has become radio active -- who raises legitimate concern about Obama's friendships of choice.

There are a goodly number of godly black ministers, and Martin Luther King can be looked at as the role model. King preached consistently and forcefully against racial prejudice and hatred. He never found it necessary to seek justice through retribution. He never proposed inverting the scales of justice to compensate for past inequities. He never demanded special treatment as compensation for past injustice. He sought mutual respect and equality. He envisioned a true post racial world in which the color of a person's skin was irrelevant.

Credit where credit is due. Thanks to Obama, the issue of black racism and the historic politicization of the black churches has been drawn into the sunlight of public scrutiny. If there is to be a national discord on racism, this is not a bad place to start. Black racism is no longer the protectorate of political correctness. Amen, brother!

OP ED: Why is she still running?

Why is Hillary continuing to fight for a nomination most observers believe to be lost?

One of the most popular assumptions should be the first to be eliminated. It is the theory that suggests that she is driven by madness – an irrational and obsessive lust for power allowed to run wild by demented denial. Perhaps it is her formative years devotion to the Chicago Cubs that has made her believe that “all but certain” victory is never certain.

I think these are not the reasons.

Clinton & Co. is far too shrewd to become the victim of such gross self deception or unreasonable expectations -- and even if SHE has succumbed, it fails to explain the support she receives from savvy party leaders, seasoned political aides, much of the voting public and a crafty “been there/done that” husband. If it is just the matter of a crazy lady, why are there still so many super delegates withholding their daggers? There is more to Lady Hillary’s tenacious quest than personal blind ambition or unbridled optimism.

First and foremost, despite every attempt to cajole her out of the race – to seal the victory – Barack Obama does not have it yet. Close, maybe. All but certain, arguable. But still no cigar. The declarations of demise have been premature. There is still a pulse – weak and fading – but still there. There is always that long-shot possibility and SOMETHING will happen between now and the convention.

If Obama is nominated, as seems most likely, it will be by the slimmest of margins – more of a technical or circumstantial victory than a mandate of any sort. Her popular vote and delegate count are within a hair’s breath of Obama. Despite the popular consensus of inevitability, it is obvious to every politico and pundit in the world that Obama’s calculated lead languishes within the traditional margins of error. The Democrat party is a house divided. Obama is the candidate of only half the party faithful. A sea change based on some shocking disclosure is always possible – and with numbers so close, it may not take a very big shocker to crate that sea change. It would appear that out of 300 million Americans, it will only take about 150 super delegates to decide on the Democrat candidate.

Though her maladroit allusion to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy was never intended to mean that she included Obama getting knocked off as a victory strategy. It is true, however, that with months to go before the convention’s coronation, many things other than assassination can happen. Obama’s Chicago political machine background is far from fully vetted. There are other issues and other “friends” that can bring revised judgment on the junior senator from Illinois. Maybe there is a blockbuster scandal hidden beneath a rock that Clinton has uncovered.

But even that seems too little of a hope to warrant the expending of both cash and political capital at rates necessary to maintain forward motion. What makes the most sense is 2012.

In all likelihood, Clinton and her people know that she is not going to get the nomination this year. They also know that there is not likely going to be some dramatic event to pull the rug out from under Obama. Never know, but odds against.

It is safe to assume that Clinton still wants to be president, and if 2008 is not going to put her into the race, then the next best thing is to go for it in 2012. Suddenly her seemingly Quixotic campaign makes sense. She builds political infrastructure – lists, donors, endorsements, friends, knowledge, new registered voters.

She also shows political muscle. How many candidates can win primary after primary against the “inevitable” candidate. Several pundits suggest, to their bewilderment, that she is losing bargaining strength with the Obama folks. The prospects of a vice presidential nomination have diminished as she pressed on. She may have put her self out of consideration for Secretary of State of Attorney General. She may have lost Obama’s clout to make her head of the Senate – replacing Harry Reid. What these pundits fail to appreciate is that Clinton has absolutely no interest in bowing to bargain with Obama. She is going after independent political strength.

A lot of Democrats express concern that the never ending Clinton campaign is hurting Obama’s chances in the General Election. Exactly! An Obama defeat would mean an open nomination in 2012. And who would be in the strongest position to take that nomination? You got it. Lady Hillary.

I think Clinton shares my view that Obama is not electable in November – so what harm in making that a bit more certain. In fact, the more decisive the defeat, the less likely she will have to battle him again for the nomination four years hence.

Clinton knows that a signification portion of her voters are never going to vote for Obama. He is too liberal and too black. Many of those new voters she is recruiting in the latter primaries will be McCain voters with Obama heading the ticket.

If it is McCain in 2008, the next presidential election is a good opportunity. Not only will the Democrat nomination be up for grabs, but the normal second term prospects for an incumbent president are altered by McCain’s age. He could easily be a one termer.

So, methinks rather than being mad as a hatter, Clinton may be sly as a fox. While Obama campaigns for 2008, Clinton has already begun the 2012 campaign.

REACT: The passing of Titans

Within a few short weeks, two of the most senior political icons have fallen, one to the inevitability of dead and the other to the precursor of terminal illness.

Throughout his career, William F. Buckley has been the conscience and oracle of conservative ideology. He rose to prominence during the darkest days of conservative ostracization – the post Eisenhower ear of “good times” having given way to the “days of rage.” In 1964, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was the standard bearer for a presidential annihilation.

The power of Buckley’s intellect sparked the birth of the modern conservative movement that culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan and the eventual Republican Congress. These were more than elections. They represented the fundament shift in American political culture to the right for the first times since Franklin Roosevelt lead the nation to the shoreline of socialism. Even as Roosevelt proffered that the only thing our nation had to fear “was fear itself,” he pandered to the fears inherent in both depression and war to drive the people to the alter of government for sanctuary.

Often seemingly the lonely voice in the wilderness, Buckley penned the epistles of individual freedom and the righteous of the free market. He did so with conviction, compelling logic and common sense. He believed in principle over politics.

His success was not only in substance, but in style. He was ever the gentleman – the powerful but polite adversary on the debaters’ platform. Though less valued today than in times past, he was a man of virtue and honor. He is almost exclusively known for his beliefs, with little notoriety drawn to his personal life.

Edward Kennedy is, and has been, the personification of the anti-Buckley. He is the iconic personality of the radical left – or progressives, as they again prefer to be called. He too, could be dubbed the lone voice in the wilderness as conservative ideology gained favor and dominance under the rubric of the “Reagan Revolution.”.

He never lost his devotion to the tax and spend policies that would make the central government the point of resolution for virtually all human plights. Though cloaked in the skin of the lamb, the bloody fangs of socialism were always evident.

Kennedy’s ideology is less about freedom and more about amassing political power and privilege -- personally and collectively. His brand of liberalism shifted the center of political gravity away from individuals to the paternalistic propensity of government. Inherent in this philosophy is a compulsion to govern -- where pragmatism takes precedence over principle. He is more Machiavelli, for whom principle bowed to power, than Mother Theresa, who believed that keeping the faith reigned over temporal success.

This tendency to place pragmatism in the fore creates a selfish notion that the ends justify the means. Principle and policy become meaningless without the acquisition of power.

In his personal life, Kennedy has historically demonstrated that same pragmatic and selfish relativism. His excessive indulgences and tragically scandalous behavior has made him more notable in supermarket tabloids than intellectual journals.

While Buckley articulated the academic underpinnings of free-market conservatism, Kennedy is a constant campaign orator – articulating the language of political advantage at any given moment. While Buckley educated on the ways and means of individual freedom, Kennedy is the salesman of the “big brother” government that he and his fellow believers would provide if given the reigns of power. While Buckley wanted a nation that would think, Kennedy looks to a nation that will only respond.

Still … no matter one’s opinion; we can all rue the end of this clash between ideological Titans. They have personified the Yin and Yang between the philosophic poles of conservatism and liberalism. It is not easy to find their eloquent replacements in the vapid political firmament of these times. Taking sides does not prevent us from mourning the loss of Buckley, or praying for the well-being of Kennedy. Apart from all else, it can be said that both were faithful to their respective causes and visions. Each leaves a great legacy over which we lesser luminaries can carry on the debate.

REACT: Campaign has reached its nadir... oh... Nader.

"Stop the presses!!!" Hmmm. I need to be more modern. "Download the story!!!" Ralph Nader has announced his intention to run for President of the United States ... again.

Now we truly have history in the making. We can choose from the oldest white guy ever elected President, or the first guy who looks more African American then he is, or the first female who looks more butch than she is, or now the first left winger who looks more sane than he is.

If New York Mayor David Bloomberg gets into the melee, we would have the first Jewish guy AND someone how could promise to pay off a significant portion of the national debt from his personal checking account. And with Nader mucking up things (as a good muckraker should), maybe Bloomberg will take a look. I mean, it is better to have been at least a presidential candidate than end your political career as mayor of the Big Apple. Even Rudy Giuliani knew that much. Look where he is in the fame game compared to John Lindsay, Ed Koch and David Dinkins. Who are these guys? Exactly! (I pictured David Dinkins because I doubt anyone remembers the poor chap).

But ... this is Nader's day. Already the Democrat political handlers and candidates are reaching for the aspirin or the gin bottle. They're still pretty perturbed over what they consider Nader's gift of the presidency to George Bush in 2000 -- a least when then are not heaping venom on the Supreme Court. Without Nadar, they say Florida and the White House would truly have gone to Al "The Weatherman" Gore.

Nader does not care. He is a bipartisan hater. There is no redeeming value to either the GOP or the Democrat party. Only HE can save this nation from the clutches of corporate America. He is the candidate of the labor-acracy. His only problem is that while he champions the causes of the barons of organized labor, they, too, think he is more than an annoying nut case. If he loathes both political donkeys and elephants equally, one can wonder why he always goes out to kill the donkey. He must be more like the donkey since all my Democrat friends refer to him as a jackass.

If Nader's constituency were as big as his ego and arrogance, he would be ending his eight-year residency in the White House. Maybe not. I suspect by now he would have scratched out the Twenty-Second Amendment that limits presidential terms.

The only thing that makes Nader at all interesting is the fact that in all probability this will be another close election. We are a nation divided. While most voters will shun Nader, as they did in 2004, a razor thin outcome could ... just could ... make Nader a two-time spoiler.

I say "spoiler" because it is the term of art, but frankly the Nader campaign of 2000 did not spoil MY election day. Yes, he is a nut. And yes, I think his whole platform sucks. And yes, I do not think there is a snowball's chance in Hades that he can even come close to winning. If he can get past two percent, however, he could be up for the 2008 Ross Perot Award. So, I say to Ralph Nader. "God speed and good luck."

OBSERVATION: President Obama? I think not.

Okay, I will risk being made the fool. I don’t think Barack Obama can win a general election, short of some catastrophic political event or campaign stupidity that would wipe out McCain. (Hmmm! Perhaps I should not be so bold in my prediction)

Obama has a powerful message, which resonates with the Democrat voters. However, his rise to front-runner status is also due to the unique demographics and sequencing of the Democrat primaries. He gains momentum, in some measure, because the early primaries were his turf to begin with, and his brand of politicking is especially effective in caucus situations. He also gained by having the “white guys” (including Hillary) divide up the white vote.

With fully one-fifth of the democrat primary voters being African-American, Obama had a solid core of dependable votes. Oh sure, there was a lot of speculation about Clinton’s potential strength in the black community – after all, she was married to the first black president according to some agonizingly twisted logic. Bottom line, black candidates generally get 70-plus percent of the black vote. Spare me the “ethnic pride” baloney that somehow does not apply to whites. At the theory goes, blacks vote FOR a black candidate out of racial pride (a good thing). Whites vote AGAINST a black candidate out of racial prejudice (a bad thing). Forget the bogus theory. It is racism, pure and simple. I won’t even buy “reverse racism,” as if it is only reactive to a more malignant white racism. A rose … is a rose … is a rose.

Some commentators note that Obama even did well in the “southern state” of South Carolina – failing to mention that the Democrat vote in the Palmetto State is 50 percent black. The also noted that he “crushed” Clinton in the District of Colombia, Maryland and Virginia. Again the black percentage is high (overwhelming in D.C.) and the high percentage of federal bureaucrats again gave Obama, as the big government programs candidate, the edge. The more liberal states, such as Minnesota and Wisconsin, are good ground for Obama. He gets Illinois by virtue of being a “favorite son.”

So, Obama is now the front runner. He is the glamour boy of the press. He is sold to the public in almost messianic fervor. Television opinionator Chis Mathews talks about the feeling that rises in his legs when he hears Obama speak. (Oh, the things we could say about that. Nope! Not going there. Too freaky.) Former hippie Senator and presidential candidate bad boy Gary Hart sees Obama as a transcendent personality. Maybe he meant “transcendental.” A lot of pundits, especially the far left variety, talk about Obama as an inevitability.

So, what shunt will side track Obama in his quest for the Oval Office? Just about everything.

While the sun shines brightly on Obama at the moment, Clinton can still wrestle him to a draw for elected delegates, and secure the nomination thanks to her fragile advantage with the so-called super delegates. Or, maybe she loses to the Illlinois senator because of the super delgates. Either way, it could be a Pyrrhic victory. Such a scenario would mean that Obama and Clinton will spend several months blooding up each other in a serious of primaries, while McCain stands outside the center ring goading them with verbal prods.

Then there is the messy convention fight should neither one of them seal the deal before the convention. Instead of the convention being a grand public relations launch for the Democrat nominee, viewers will watch a bitter credentials fight to restore the Michigan and Florida voting delegates stripped away by the national party for moving up their primaries. Debates will rage of the role of the super delegates. Should the simply endorse the candidate with the most popular votes or delegates (presumably Obama), or should the vote their prior commitments (presumably Clinton).

Obama will show his crass political undergarment by arguing for the endorsement of the super delegates based on democratic principles, while arguing to disenfranchise the Democrat voters in Michigan and Florida. It doesn’t wash.

To see the party which so sanctimoniously condemned the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the entire state of Florida and half the people in America for allowing George Bush to “steal” the 2000 election shred their party over similar issues is the most entertaining of political theater. God invented irony for just such moments.

Obama could be what I like to call the “cotton candy” candidate. As delicious as it seems on first lick, by the time you get down to the paper cone, you discover that there really was not much there – and your sort of sick to your stomach from the sugar-only diet. Because of the uniqueness of his candidacy, a carefully crafted charisma, and a rather pleasant personality, Obama gets away with platitudes. Sure, he alludes to fixing everything from world poverty to my computer, but there is no substance, no detailed program and no legislative initiatives. Just nice words, well delivered. His campaign offers the “audacity of hope,” and audacious it is. The empty rhetoric will not hold up in the more intense evaluation of a general election campaign.

Primary election combatants tend to play by their version of the overly polite Marquise of Queensberry rules. This is partly due to the fact that it is a family feud. Underlying is always the understanding that unity is going to be needed after the victor is crowned. Also, candidates in a primary often represent similar views – offering up differences without distinctions. Once the General Election begins, the gloves come off and the contest is more like kick boxing. Obama is not tested for such a battle.

Because of the nature of the Democrat constituency, where all the candidates are slightly different hues of liberal, Obama’s extreme leftist record and rhetoric has not been challenged. “Too liberal” is not an effective Democrat campaign mantra. McCain will, no doubt, define Obama as far left as credibility will allow. Despite self claims to the contrary, issue by issue Obama is beached on the port side bank of the political mainstream.

Many of the tarnishes on Obama’s media buffed shining armour that have been minimized in the primary could become significant issues in the general election. Does the name Tony Rezko (right) come to mind? In all likelihood, his political padrone will be on trail during the campaign, and the Obama name will come up in testimony. There is a lot more to be said about Obama’s early rise in the thoroughly corrupt Chicago political machine. And said, it will be.

Another major obstacle on the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is race. With addressing the morality of racial voting (read that “prejudice”), it is a reality. Within the Democrat party there is a pretty significant strain of racism – on both sides. Obama will receive at least 80 percent of the black vote, and that is not an outcome that can be explained by anything other than racial prejudice.

However, in the general election, a lot of those white Democrats who prefer a white candidate will be crossing over to the GOP. Since the black community is almost totally in the donkey party all the time, there is hardly a black Republican who will cross over the other way. Furthermore, blacks in the Republican party are so conservative that they will vote their philosophy a lot faster than their race. That is obvious by their very presence in the pachyderm party.

Even with the angst over McCain, those who think conservatives will let Obama be president by default (not voting) are about as silly as those Republicans who think they can appeal to the black vote based on issues. Helloooooooo! Race is the ONLY issue.

Because of party rules and skewered demographics, the Democrats are engaged in a fight between the least likely candidates to win a general election. Because the conservative vote was divided, giving the relatively unpopular McCain a plurality victory, the Republicans have all but nominated the candidate with the lesser general election appeal. This means that November will be a contest to determine who is truly the least popular of them all, with the second least popular person becoming what I predict to be a rather contoversial president.

At this moment, it appears to be McCain’s to lose. But then again, he is a Republican, a party with a long tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

REACT: Can Obama knock off Clinton before the convention?

With Barack Obama's victory in the Wisconsin primary, it appears my slumber induced visions of a Clinton nomination maybe be no more than the stuff of which dreams (or nightmares) are made. I looks like Obama can not only snatch the nomination from Lady Hillary, but maybe, just maybe, lock things up before the convention. Should he win a critical number of delegates, and convince enough super delegates to endorse, he could preclude a bloody convention fight. He has the lead -- and the "big mo" is definitely on his side.

An Obama candidacy makes sense. More often than not the Democrats tend to nominate their least electable candidates. I call it the "McGovern effect." That gives the edge to Obama. More about that later.

CHRISTMAS SPIRIT: St. Peter, the right winger

A right wing friend of mine passed this along. I thought I would share it with all my readers. I hope you both like it.

We all know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because "a decree went forth from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed."

Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus, went there to register for the tax.

We also know that many of the early disciples were fishermen. They paid a fish tax to the Roman Empire.

St. Peter met Jesus in a town called Capernaum.

Peter was not originally from Capernaum, but we now know that the fish tax in Capernaum was only half the fish tax in his original home town of Bethsaida.

We also know that Peter operated a large fishing fleet, perhaps the largest in the area, with hired men, that he ran on behalf of his mother-in-law, who is mentioned in the Bible.

The mother-in-law owned a large house in Capernaum, where Jesus often stayed, which is only a few steps from the synagogue in Capernaum, and which is also mentioned in the Bible.

The Bible also tells us that Peter carried a sword and used it in the Garden of Gethsamane.

So there you have it:

St. Peter, the chief disciple and leader of the early Christians, and first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, was an entrepreneur, a tax refugee, a small business owner, an employer, the inheritor of a family-owned business, and a man who kept and bore arms.

Merry Christmas!

OBSERVATION: Bob Cesca writes more %#@*&

Bob Cesca, who writes regularly for Arianna Huffington’s “Huff n’ Puff” Post (as I like to think of it), is the nephew of a friend of mine. Since I am convinced that any direct communication to Bobbie will do no good whatsoever, I thought a letter to his Uncle Ray might be helpful.

Dear Uncle Ray,

I fear your nephew, Bobbie, is at it again. Unfortunately, it appears that he is the son of your brother and therefore presents a significant danger to the reputation of your good family name. Let me explain.

I am not at all sure you read his recent commentary. If public policy was not my addiction, I certainly would hit the spam button. Rather, I do skim the offerings of quite a few Internet writers. His writing is like a gory accident. I really hate to look, but I do anyway. Like an unhappy toddler, he grabs attention by throwing a tantrum -- verbal.

Apparently, he has not inherited your family’s cordiality, talent for articulation and thoughtfulness. In fact, having read a number of his articles, I was surprised to learn that he was actually out of high school. His logic and language are a bit … shall we say … on the sophomoric side.

And the language? Oh my! He seems to think that a point of view is enhanced by name-calling and the use of street language. He could have used some of the training I got from the old nuns and a couple good college professors. I recall on professor saying that profanity is for morons.

There is an expression that one can disagree without being disagreeable. Apparently, your loving nephew, Boobie … ooops … Bobbie … is not familiar with the concept. Rather than counter an argument, he prefers to scorch those who do not align to his thinking with baseless labels such as liars, bigots, fear mongers, etc.

In one of his most recent tirades, he referred to his adversaries (and he seems to have lots of them) as “frightened, dickless hooples,” and then made a second reference to their “dickless status.” (What is a “hooples” any way? My friends Merriam and Webster were not familiar with that word either.)

In his article, Bobbie created a delusionary ad produced by imaginary adversaries. (I know. I Know. Cheesy, but that’s our Bobbie.) The pretend advertisers were labeled in the faux ad as “frightened dickless bigots…” He seems to view “freightened” and “dickless” almost as a hyphenated word. (Uncle Ray, I think you can now see my concern about Bobbie’s phobia-castration hang-up.)

I am not sure if it is an obsession, but he is in the habit of calling his political enemies “ratfuckers.” Judging from his favorite aforementioned description of their physiology, I wonder if he knows that you need a “dick” to fuck a rat – at least I assume so. Since I am not familiar with the status of the aforementioned “dicks,” or who (or what) they are being used on, I must yield to your nephew’s apparent superior knowledge.

You know, Uncle Ray, the lad seems to be a bit paranoid, too. I mean soooooo many people and institutions that are conniving to do him harm – and only Bobbie (and a few friends) seem to think they are smart enough to know the truth. Like others on the political fringe, he seems to think he has exceptional insight and knowledge to save us all from our own mass stupidity. I guess they just don’t trust most people. We are all either evil or duped – saved only by the mercy and wisdom of Bobbie and his few friends. When he was a child, did he play well with others? I suspect not.

I would tell you more about the article itself, but between all the name calling, straw men, specious arguments and hyperbole, I can’t quite recall what it was all about. Something about Obama being a terrorist … and Giuliani being evil incarnate … and some newspaper in Pennsylvania that he either liked, or didn’t like. I can’t recall now. His screeds tend meander like a shallow river. Has he ever been tested for Attention Deficit Syndrome?

He is more like the fireplace than the candle -- preferring to produce heat rather than enlightenment. I guess that is good news. Given his distorted sense of reality, maybe it is good that his opinions get lost in all the potty-mouth prose. It is easier to not take him serious.

I notice that Bobbie seems to take some strange pride in his immature, profanity-laden writing. He boastfully invites people to read what he, himself, calls his “usual outraged, profanity-laced rants.” Reminds me of my uncle, the drunk. He was a proud drunk. Always bragged about how much he drank, and the stupid things he did when we was drunk. So, I guess if someone cannot be good, they can still be proud.

Hey! Maybe for this Christmas, you can sign him for journalsim or writing course – even better if taught by old nuns. Maybe some anger management thearpy. Maybe a haircut. That “Meathead” look (left) was a cliché when they did it on Archie Bunker – before Bobbie was even born, I assume.

Oh… and make sure he knows that dispite our differing opinions, I have a very happy outlook, am fully equipped, and harbor no speical allure for rats. Just so he can find some vulgarity other than “frightened dickless ratfucker” to describe me.

Merry Christmas, Uncle Ray. And extend my best wishes to Bobbie for a very happy whatever it is he celebrates around this time of year.

REACT: Thank God and John Walton for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart just introduced the $199 computer. More about that below, but first a little preface …

The broad phalanx attack on Wal-Mart by the various battalions of liberal activists is typical of their hatred of the free market system, free trade and free just-about-anything-else -- except lunch.

The unions grouse about Wal-Mart resisting representation – representation which would do nothing more than increase the costs of goods for the American consumer and make the fat cat leaders of labor a little fatter. They tell how Wal-Mart is paying wages in Asia that are a fraction of the American worker. They forget to mention that you can buy a bushel of corn in China for 12 cents. My tailor makes my pin-stripped power suits for under $100. I can leave KFC stuffed for about a buck and a half. I had $3000 worth of dental work (American dentist estimate) completed beautifully in China for $400. Also had a physical and the complete blood test cost me a Jefferson. (No, not a nickel. Geeez. A two dollar bill.)

In China, Wal-Mart is lifting tens of thousands of people out of poverty at every step of the supply chain. If Wal-Mart was such a damned awful employer, why is it when they open a store in China the job application line runs from Beijing to Shanghai? Unions also grouse about how poorly Wal-Mart treats its American workers. Same question. Why do they receive thousands of applications at every store?

Some of the alderman in my Chicago home town city council are fighting hard to keep Wal-Mart out of the Windy City – thus denying their constituents much-needed jobs and lower prices, and the city coffers some tax revenue. What is their motivation? Blind hatred with a dash of stupidity. Of course, that is only an opinion.

Then there is the crowd that complains that Wal-Mart’s lower prices are ruining the market. Pause and ponder here folks. These libs are so whacko that they think higher prices are good thing – competition is a bad thing. They say higher prices means more pay for the workers. Well, a lot of those wage gains will be eaten up by the higher prices…..duh. And the over-paid union leaders seem completely oblivious to the fact that a company also must serve its stockholders and the consuming public – and there are a lot more of them than workers. Wal-Mart has been a key player in bringing down the prices of tens of thousands of consumer products, even in the face of modest inflation. These are real dollar reductions, not the theoretical stuff we get from economists and accountants. Tee shirts that were once $14 are now $5.

One of my more liberal friends (and yes I DO have liberal friends – quite a few, in fact) criticized Wal-Mart for practically putting FAO Schwartz out of business. If you are not familiar with them, they are a trendy upscale toy store that catered to the rich and famous. It seems that nasty old Wal-Mart began selling a lot of the same toys for a fraction of the prices charged by FAO to the price-is-no-object crowd. (Since my friend’s heart is bleeding for FAO, the term “limousine liberal” suddenly jumped into my mind.)

This is how the free market and competition works. This is a good thing. I mean, yeah, I am sorry to see FAO become more like a Macy toy department. They were a fun store. However, price rules for most people – as it should.

Now … about those $199 computers. I can’t wait for the libs to figure out how to criticize this one.

The left pays a lot of attention to public education (which, in and of itself, serves as an example of the failure of their philosophy). They like to think that they are the vanguard of progressive and innovative education. Everyone agrees that getting computers in the hands of students at an early age is a good thing. The education industry has expressed that need for decades (ever since Al Gore invented the Internet).

The fear and reality is that the computer age created yet another gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.” Those financially-challenged kids trapped in the liberal-run city school systems are at the greatest disadvantage. The affluent parents are buying their kids thousands of dollars of cutting edge electronics to support education, while the kids in the inner city schools are getting the benefit of electronic metal detectors to eliminate cutting edges of a different sort.

There have been scores of programs to try to provide computers. The Holy Grail was always held out to be the $199 computer. Most programs fell far short of success because of the cost of the equipment. Now cometh that nasty old Wal-Mart again, this with the $199 computer. Suddenly, the dream of every kid having a laptop is inching toward reality.

Just think of the impact on our children when we can finally bring modern technology to the disadvantaged. (We do not call them disadvantaged for nothing, folks). There have been tons written on the enormous benefits of computers for kids, so you can only imagine the impact Wal-Mart pricing will have on education.

Next time you hear one of these liberal groups kicking about Wal-Mart, just remember those kids who are getting a better education – something the lip-service libs and the kids-last unions have failed to do for a generation or two.

The free market works. Alleluia!

OBSERVATION: Be a zealot for Halloween?

As I look forward to the coming of Halloween, and selecting my hidden personality dress-up option, I suddenly realized that zealotry seems to be reflected through permanent fashion. I mean you can actually dress up for Halloween like some real people do every day.

Examples.

Today’s left wing radicals are often seen wearing their best 1960s radical hippie attire. While once a modern subculture style, the Jesus look-alike hair styles and rumpled poverty-esque Raggedy Ann and Andy attire can now only be viewed as some sort of neolib costume. Less radical liberals have sustained the pre-WWII tweedy cum academic look of the early Communist sympathizers.

Then my mind drifted to more extreme examples of zeal-driven dress codes. Until recently, Catholic nuns and priests were going around in clothing designed during the Renaissance – the remnants (no pun intended) of which can still be seen among the more zealous religious orders. What did God have in mind to decide that devotion depended on the resistance of modern style from that point in time? Why the Renaissance?

Then I wondered. What did the God of the Amish liked so damn much about that late 1800s? And not only haute couture but every other modern development from the electric light to the automobile.

Of course, up popped the Muslims. Apparently Allah decided that the fashion of devotion stopped about the time of the Christ, in whom they do not even believe. Did you ever notice that a lot of the Middle East war photographs depict scenes that look like sets for a Cecil B. DeMille biblical movie? What is with these theological fashion time warps?

Then I realized that as a conservative, I have no symbolic attire – no historic look that instantly tells the world what I am. (Okay. Okay. I heard that. Neanderthal? Very funny, but not truly relevant.) I cannot think of any right wing sect that has maintained a fashion for more than a season as an expression of philosophy. There was a moment that the Gatsby look of the Roaring 20s might have had a chance, but no.

I am eternally appreciative that the 1970s were not the time of conservative zealotry. I shudder at the thought of being permanently attired in hip hugger bell-bottoms (Yeah, men had hip huggers, too.), Nehru jackets (which were a throwback themselves) and ruffled tuxedo shirts

Looking back was no help in selecting this year’s costume. In the past, I have been a pope, a rock singer, a Chinese emperor, Dracula (not my most creative year) and a bumble bee (that may have been). Some say that customs reveal a portion of the inner psyche. If that is true, I don’t even have a theory as to the meaning of the bumble bee.

Still undecided is this year’s costume. Hmmmm. I could go in drag, but then everyone would mistake me for Rudy Giuliani. I could dress up like a liberal. Now, that’s a scary idea. If I can come up with enough global warming one-liners, I could go as Al Gore. Like: “A newly discovered major cause of global warming is hot air emanating for Al Gore’s mouth.” Hey! Cut me some slack. This is still a developing thought.

Maybe I will just stay home, put on a grotesque mask and scare the crap out of little kids who come to my door. Teach them a valuable conservative lesson. There is no such thing as free candy.

REACT: Bob Cesca wrong about right ... again!

Bob Cesca, the spewer of left wing pablum (and who I recently discovered is a nephew of a friend of mine AND whose photo [right] reminds me of Meathead in the old Archie Bunker show), is one of Arianna Huffington’s opinion-by-proxy scribes. In his most recent post on her blog he proffers that Amrerica is not a right-of-center nation, as we conservatives claim, but rather a left-of-center society, as he wishfully thinks. He presents his case with all the arrogant certainty of an extreme ideologue, utilizing dubious facts, out of context quotes and twisted logic.

Of course, his brief is not compelling or convincing … because he’s wrong. America IS politically right-of-center when relevant indicators are measured objectively.

Yes, our philosophic continuum spans from left to right, but more as an internal comparative convenience than a full and absolute standard. Compared to our erstwhile friends in the European Common Market, we are a household of right wingers. Only the smallest portion of our left wing (where Cesca and Huffington exist) can compare to the more abundant liberals in many other nations. If we overlay the American philosophic continuum on the international measure, the vast majority of you good citizens are right of the global center. Hence, we are a conservative leaning nation.

Cesca bases much of his claim on the individualistic religious beliefs of the founders, and the fact that most were not very fond of the great denominations. If he wants to make a case against America as a Christian founded nation, he makes some interesting, albeit debatable, points. They are not, however, relevant to his argument in support of a liberal nation.

Even many of our self proclaimed liberals are more conservative than liberal. Blacks, for example, are among the strongest supporters of litmus test conservative causes, such as the right to life, Second Amendment gun rights, heterosexual marriage exclusivity, school voucher, tough crime measure, and so forth. Many with bedrock conservative leanings eschew the media maligned right wing label. They prefer to be known as liberal among certain peers, even as they support one conservative issue after another. A rose by any other name, is still a rose.

If we are not a right-of-center nation, then why are our policies so conservative? Why is conservative talk radio so overwhelmingly popular, while liberals cannot get their media blabbermouths into even survivable ratings range? Legislation we call liberal wouldn’t even cross the center line in the parliaments of Europe. Why do the liberals dominating Congress shrink from the left wing campaign rhetoric? I dare say it is because they know the public is not with them. They would rather risk the betrayal of their less plentiful liberal supporters than the anger of the more conservative majority. George Bush is not in trouble because of liberal oppositon to the war in Iraq, but because he lost his conservative base with his drunken sailor spending policies. (If the GOP leaders figured this out, they might have curtailed spending when they had the chance, and been poised of leadership again.)

Cesca may enjoy the self certainty of his opinion, but the facts do not support him beyond the comforting fantasies of his own mind. Like Huffington, when you are so far to the political edge, you begin to think that the small crowd around you is a mob

I wonder if his liberal bluster is just to cover up his own latent conservative thoughts? Hmmmm?

OBSERVATION: What’s wrong with the Right

I recently wrote a friend about what appears to be the shattering of the old conservative coalition that dominated American politics for a generation – and the unique ineptitude of the Illinois conservative movement within the Republican Party. Like all coalitions, The “Reagan majority” relied on the obfuscation of fault lines between the component factions. Like a marriage, coalitions generally start out overlooking “minor differences.” Eventually, those differences become points of contention.

The Illinois conservative movement is unique in that the old Reagan coalition is not shattering, it was never formed. Reagan proffered the 11th Commandment, which forbade speaking ill of fellow Republicans. In Illinois, the GOP establishment and the largely GOP conservative wing maintains a state of constant warfare – and to make matters worse, the personality driven right-wing leaders have a penchant for tossing hand grenades into each other’s foxholes. The Reagan revolution that routed the old left never got a foothold in Illinois --- his ancestral homeland.

To fully comprehend the sad state of the GOP in Illinois, just seek an answer to this question. How is it that the GOP continues to lose in the face of the unprecedented number and severity of corruption scandals besetting the Democrat machine?

The result of all the internecine warfare is that many solid conservatives -- and I include myself in that description -- are feed up with the strident right pontificating over all-or-nothing-at-all litmus test issues and self proclaimed moral righteousness.

I am pro-life. I believe that the protection of individual human life is a VERY conservative position. However, I think the flag burning amendment is the work of statists in defiance of conservative philosophy. I see no problem with civil unions for gay couples, since ALL marriages are civil union under the law. Let the churches be free to bless the unions or not with the ritual of “marriage”. I think we should bestow swift citizenship on the vast majority of the technically illegal immigrants by developing a system to quickly matriculate the good guys -- and toss the crooks and gang bangers back across the border from a speeding car.

While it is obvious that the Illinois GOP continues in its long history of ineffectiveness, we cannot look to the conservative movement for help in Illinois. It is largely in the hands of egomaniacal miscreants. Nowhere in the nations, is the conservative movement so damaged by its own malignant leadership. They are political terrorists primarily engaged in tribal turf battles against the imagined ideological apostate within their own ranks.

The gross failure of the GOP and the in-house conservative movement to achieve relevancy for at least three decades has had enormous ramifications on the national scene. If either the GOP or the conservative establishment had been even modestly effective, we might have a Republican governor, Republican county board president, control of the legislature, and a couple U.S. Senators … and no Richard Durbin or Barak Obama. Obama has reached presidential ranking more to the folly of the GOP (remember Alan Keyes) than to the impressiveness of his resume or the power of his backers.

I would see myself as some sort of ideological malcontent if it were not for the fact that I have had the true pleasure in working with conservatives in other states. By comparison, one can only conclude that the Illinois conservative movement is some horrific political mutant. My criticism does not apply to all Illinois conservative leaders, by any means, but is focused on those who have earned it by their incompetence and malevolence. Add this to the Keystone Kop-like floundering of the GOP establishment and the pandemic corruption of the Democrat machine, and you can see why many see Illinois as one of the more putrid cesspools of American politics.