MORE TIDBITS: A surprisingly tranquil election night.

1. Barack Obama ran one of best presidential campaigns in American History. The strategy was brilliant, the tactics uniformly effective, and the implementation flawless. Conversely, John McCain ran one of the worst campaigns in modern times.

2. The late New York Senator Patrick Moynihan once advised President Richard Nixon: “If you are going to act like a Tory, speak like a Whig, and if you are going to act like a Whig, speak like a Tory.” Obama understands this concept. The Dems stole the rhetoric of the right. Middle class values. Tax cuts for most Americans. A call for individual contribution. Coming to the campaign as the most liberal senator in Washington, Obama gave speeches that could have comfortably flowed from the lips of Ronald Reagan.

3. Despite the historic breakthrough, the heated rhetoric of the campaign, and the paranoia about vote fraud, election night was remarkably devoid of controversies. It was a BIG election, with highly volatile issues, but even the television talking heads noted the absence of any vote stealing or major “machine malfunction” stories to report. By 9:00 p.m. eastern time, the nation had a President-elect. There was a gracious concession speech and an inspirational acceptance speech.

4. In a previous blog is predicted that the pollsters would be wrong as usual. Gallup gave Obama a ten point lead. The results were way outside their margin of error. And those who now claim to be correct chose a more conservative spread with Obama on top. Of course, given the margins of error, their accuracy was no better than an educated guess.

5. It is amazing how quickly the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich – the party of values, ideas and issues – has descended into a party of greed, incompetency and divisiveness.

6. In his concession speech, McCain said the GOP's poor showing was his fault. His hometown crowd considerately shouted their disagreement with that assessment. However ... he was right. It was his to lose, and he did. His sinking coatails dragged down the Repbublican brand all over America.

7. For a lot of reasons, right and wrong, Sarah Palin did not sell well to the voting public -- including a lot of conservative Republicans. The wise guys in the GOP as saying she is the future of the party, and the heir to the presidential nomination in 2012. Apparently the Repbulican wise guys have learned nothing. Why not Dick Cheney, while they're at it?

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.

OBSERVATION: Obama shifts from pre-emptive winner to panicked underdog

Here we are in the post convention season, and the tide has taken a dramatic turn. While most media observers lavished praise on the tightly controlled and well executed Democrat convention, and reported the Republican convention as a bit of a disaster – rescheduling around a hurricane (the ghost of Katrina haunting the GOP), lackluster speeches, the Palin blunder, etc.

The only problem in this media-driven imagery was public reaction. Seems like more folks actually watched the Republicans. Left-wing pundits spent a week noting with awe that 38 million people tuned into Obama’s fascist-background acceptance speech, but grew silent when the numbers came in on Sarah Palin. She topped 40 million views, -- WITHOUT the black stations that carried only Barack Obama.

Despite the panicked predictions from Democrat liberal feminists that “women will not be fooled by Palin,” her post convention numbers soared. It appears that as many as 12 percent of women voters switched allegiance to Sarah – and 23 percent of the Hillary voters are going for McCain despite what was described as the most enthusiastic support from both the Clintons.

All of this pushed McCain into a narrow, but sustainable, lead.

Now here is where I get a little self-serving. I have recently read a number of columns and blogs that talk about the unexpected turn around. They say Obama has blown an all but certain victory.

For those of you who read this blog, you know that the recent events are totally consistent with my past writings. Obama never had the numbers to win. Right after the South Caroline primary, I proffered his defeat. More recently, I even suggested that this campaign was essentially over.

Well folks … hang on to your remotes. This campaign is about to get really ugly and very racial. I have said in the past that David Axelrod (right), Obama’s senior guru, is one of the toughest and most ruthless political consultants on the scene. He makes a Pit Bull look like a Poodle. (I mean, take alook at his photo and tell me he doesn't look like a guy who would drown puppies).

As long as nice-nice was working, Axelrod will behave. Now that the bloody sweat of fear and desperation is permeating the Obama camp, you can expect Axelrod to unleash the rabid dogs of political warfare. He suddenly is representing the underdog. (What’s with all this “dog” stuff? If Palin had made it a Piranha instead of a Pit Bull, would I be locked on fish analogies?)

For the next few weeks, you will be able to judge the desperation of the Democrats by the viciousness of their campaign tactics. The above-it-all, agent of change, Obama, is about to start fighting like the Chicago machine politician he is.

NEWS: Good news from Hollywood

Crazed child abuser and political nut case, Alec Balwin, has repeated is previously broken promise to leave America forever is the public puts the Republican in the Oval Office.

You may recall that he made a similar promise on the eve of George Bush's election. He reneged. Hopefully, this time will do the trick.

You will recall Alec as the guy how brutally berated his 11-year-old daughter in a voice mail message. He also is leading the fight to get horse-drawn carriages of the streets of New York and Chicago. You can see he is a man who can grasp the most compelling issues of the day.

I was so impressed with his campaign against carriages that I decided to memorialize him by naming the sacks suspended between the horse's hind legs to catch the horse droppings as "baldwin bags." That term is now recognized in the Urban Dictionary, and officially adopted by the horse carriage associations.

OBSERVATION: More bad news for Obama

At the conclusion of the Democrat convention, Gallup took a pole. As expected, after the flawless staging with each key speaker hitting a home run (according to the progressive media crowd), Barack Obama gained in the national polls. Most refer to this as a post-convention "bounce." I think that is too strong of a word in Obama's case. Maybe a "bimp" (as the movies' fumbling Inspector Clouseau would say) is more appropriate.

Whatever you call it, it is more bad new for Obama. He only moved up a couple points -- reinforcing my contention that this election is already over. Even more surprising, Obama did not even move temporarily over the 50 percent mark.


I do have a disclaimer. The poll was after the convention, but before the grandiose acceptance speech, which got universal acclaim -- at least in terms of style and delivery. I suspect Obama may enjoy a few days in the majority end zone of popular opinion after that speech -- depending on how much wind John McCain zapped out of Obama's sails with the GOP vice presidential announcement. McCain cleverly cut in front of Obama in the media line for the widely read and viewed weekend news.

REACT: Romrney ... no choice.

I had been hopin’ and a prayin’ that Mitt Romney would carry the GOP standard into this year’s presidential election. I was counting on a Romney/Clinton race as the best option. Obviously, I didn’t get either of my first choices.

On the Democrat side, I am not likely to see Clinton even pull off the second spot. However, the speculation is growing that Romney will be John McCain’s veep. I don’t think that is McCain’s best choice, I think he is his only choice.

Of all the candidates, Romney has the looks. You may think this is petty, but the right look is a BIG part of getting elected. Romney is not only handsome, but also knows how to dress the part. (Big hint here for McCain. BUY A SUIT AND TIE !!!!!)

In addition, the former Massachusetts governor is a pretty good stump speaker. He is every bit a match for Barack Obama’s well developed and effective speaking style.

In terms of issues, Romney's views are probably the closest to those of the American public. He brings much needed credibility to the McCain ticket.

Romney also supplies a cadre of talented political professionals desperately needed on the Republican team. McCain has not been able to benefit from the highly experienced national GOP presidential campaign infrastructure. This may have a lot to do with the troublesome and sometimes controversial McCain personality.

Some conservatives are unconvinced that Romney would add right wing appeal. Hell …. compared to Obama’s policies, Ted Kennedy could add right wing appeal. More about that in the future.

Romney is well equipped to take of the Oval Office if that becomes necessary. While the public normally pays only a modicum of attention to the issue of succession, McCain’s age and health make this a more serious consideration. For some of us, succession would be a good thing. (Okay, slap my hand for saying that, but it is true.)

Some say the "Mormon thing" is a problem. I think it is no more of a problem than the “Muslim thing” is a problem for Obama. Granted, Obama is not a Muslim, but it is still an issue on the fringe. By the time the election is upon us, Mormonism and Muslimism will be a mostly forgotten issue.

There is still those pushing for Senator Joseph Lieberman. As an independent, they say he has appeal across the partisan divide. While I tend to like the philosophic foundation of his independence, I think is he more like the political pariah who has few friends in either camp.

Then there is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (right). He has a lock on the religious right that McCain needs to cobble together a winning coalition. Unfortunately, he would also have a lot of moderates and potential crossovers – who McCain also needs for his winning coalition – running in the opposite direction. Besides, one comb-over per ticket is enough.

Then there is Governor Charlie Crist (left), of Florida. He getting married -- some say in anticipation of the vice president race. If that is true, he must have a lock on it. I cannot imagine someone actually getting married on speculation that the will be running for Vice President. Okay, maybe its love. Happens on occasion – even in politics.

Crist has major problem, however. He’s too tan. Yeah, too tan. He is George Hamilton without the hair dye. He looks too much like just another sun belt retiree – only this time the gold chain, pinky ring type. Besides, the Florida home base is a constant reminder of the chads issue.

(Is it just a coincidence that McCain and Crist both look like retirees and they both come from states with high populations of … retirees? Hmmmmm?)

Then there is Secretary of State Condolezza Rice (right) Picking Rice would certainly be a bold move. If successful, it would mean the GOP gets credit for the first black and the first woman veep. Her problem is femininity. I do not mean being a woman, but the question of femininity. She’s sexy -- actually datable. (Yeah, i know it is a doctored photo, but try that with Madeleine Albright [left] and you get my point.)

Haven't you ever noticed that women heads of state have a certain “toughness.?” ( I would say a bit on the “butch” side, but the political correct left wingers would accuse me of using coded language.) Pretty and perky is okay for the distaff side, but not for the person in charge. Think. Margaret Thatcher. Golda Meir. Indira Gandhi. Not a looker in the bunch.

Even within the pantheon of U.S. contenders there are no frilly females. Hillary Clinton. Geraldine Ferraro. Former secretaries of state Jean Kirkpatrick and the aforementioned Madeleine Albright. You can’t be too handsome to be President of Vice President if you are a guy (just to tan), but you can be too pretty if you are a gal.

All things considered, Romney is it.

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: The Illinois old guard can't stop justice -- hooray!

I noticed that former Speaker Denny Hastert’s name popped up in the trial of influence peddler Anthony Rezko. It was alleged in sworn testimony that Rezko attempted to use his influence with former White House political guru Karl Rove (thumbing his nose at reform) and former House Speaker Denny Hastert (the chubby guy on the right)to get U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (pictured left) fired. Originally nominated by then Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), prosecutor Fitzgerald wasted no time to being to justice the flagrantly illegal customs of the Illinois political establishment. Rezko could feel the laser sight on his forehead.

Whether the scheme to remove Fitzgerald was ever launched is debatable, but there is some evidence that the plot was real. Despite an amazingly impressive record as a federal prosecutor, Fitzgerald was inexplicably placed on the under achiever list by the Justice Department as part of a mass firing pogrom.

Fitzgerald apparently dodged the bullet because he was investigating the White House at the time, and his firing would have created a seismic public reaction against the President. It would be at least as damaging as Richard Nixon’s firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in the midst of the Watergate investigation. And, you know how much good that did Nixon.

There is no doubt that the Rove/Hastert combo would have sent Fitzgerald packing if they could. They had repeatedly used their influence to protect the corrupt Republican establishment in Illinois. Ironically, this backroom dealing was beneficial to the Democrats, but a disservice to the President – putting Illinois’ electoral vote beyond his reach politically.

Rove has long been the protector of Robert Kjellander, the insider bipartisan wheeler-dealer, who has made millions from his political friendships and GOP party positions – including a stint as Finance Chairman for the National Republican Committee, courtesy of Rove.

Hastert tried everything he could to derail the Fitzgerald appointment in the first place. There is every reason to believe that he would be more than happy to remove him now. Hastert failed only because he could not overcome the highly protected Senate tradition of having the senator of the president’s party pick the U.S. Attorney. The senate lock stepped behind their colleague and their valued tradition.

Reform will never come to the corruption-ravaged and hapless Illinois GOP until guys like Kjellander and Hastert retire from the scene for good -- or are taken out by Fitzgerald, the GOP’s number one reformer.

The good news is that Fitzgerald is virually untouchable now. In the last election, even the democrat cadidates for senate had to promise to keep Fitzgerald, including Barack Obama. Of course, if Obama does make it to the White House, you can bet that protecting his friends in the Chicago Democrat machine will trump any campaign promise. Let's just hope that Fitzhgerald gets in enough indictments before he is ousted for doing too good of a job.

REACT: Obama gets stoned in key state

Barack Obama took a drubbing in the Keystone State of Pennsylvania. Of course, they peddle the “we closed the gap” spin. What else can they say? The Obamacans cleverly set a very low pre-election standard of victory. “If we can keep Clinton to a single digit victory, we win,” they proffer. Well, they didn't. Even with a phenomenal 92 percent of the black vote, obama got creamed in almost landslide proportions.

Obama spin may make make good fodder for the fawning press and general public, but it will not wash with the party pros – right now known as super delegates.

It should be kept in mind that Clinton’s victory comes to a candidate thought to be on the ropes. Despite recent calls for her to step aside, she continues to prove that he opponent is not a comfortable choice among even Democrat voters.

Obama actually did better with white voters in the early primaries. Once he found it necessary to increase his percentages in the African American community by advancing the “us” concept, he naturally created a “them.” It appears that a lot of “them” have abandoned Obama.

As we have stated before, Obama wins, or comes close, mostly because of the extraordinary support of the black community AND the high percentage of black voters in those Democrat primaries. Is you apply the same racial statistical break down to the likely voters in the General Election, Obama gets swamped. He only carries Washington, D.C. for sure. That is the reality faced by the super delegates as this contest heads into the convention.

Obama may have looked like the African-American version of the White Knight early on, but more recent revelations have obviously turned away voters. As the theory goes, if the early voters had known about some of his positions, his more recent Afro-centric outreach, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, the Tony Rezko trial and Bill Ayers, Obama may not have done so well. Maybe he would have floundered early on. This is what the super delegates have to consider or they are meaningless.

The junior senator from Illinois is looking more and more like a General Election loser. This will motivate the super delegates to do what they were empowered to do – to serve as a safety mechanism to head off the nomination of an unelectable candidate. There role has never been to rubber stamp the candidates with the most votes.

Keep in mind that the super delegates are only important when the race is extremely close. While one candidate may have a majority of votes or delegates, the margin is so small as to make it politically meaningless. At this rate, neither candidate will go to the convention with a clear mandate. It will be up to the power brokers to figure out who the best nominee will be. Electablity is the only issue. Maybe that is not the most democratic resolution, but it is the best option they have.

FOOTNOTE: Some have suggested that I am one of those conservatives pumping for Hillary as the most beatable candidate. Not so. In fact, I have stated in previous blogs my opinion that Obama is by far the more beatable candidate.

REACT: GOP offers up another "gimme" to the Democrats

Well, seems like all the Republican crazies are assembling in Illinois' 11th Congressional District to give the seat to the Democrats. You have to give the GOP in the Land of Lincoln a lot of credit for ingenuity and perseverance. It is not easy to keep handing over election victories to opposition candidates who are way too liberal for the voters and represent arguably the most scandal ridden political machine in America. This is especially true in such "safe" districts as the 11th.

We have seen the GOP's genius in turning over the 14th congressional seat to the donkey party -- the seat once held by former House Speaker Denny Hastert. And we all remember how a virtually unelectable Barak Obama's Senate career was launched first by the sexless scandal that knocked out candidate Jack Ryan followed by the incomprehensible stupidity of giving the nomination to kooky Alan Keyes.

Now the handlers of the Republican Party have seized the opportunity to surrender the 11th district seat, once held by Congressman Jerry Weller.

First, the powers that be picked another sprinter for the marathon. New Lenox Mayor Tim Balderman, and choice of the boys and girls in the back room, was handed the nomination only to quite the race before the first mile marker. This gave the local county chairmen (especially Will County Chairman Dick Kavanagh, who has 48 percent of the weighted vote) the chance to hand pick the candidate on behalf of the voters.

Apparently they could not risk retaining the seat with any one of half dozen winnable candidates. Rather, they concocted a silly notion that they would auction the seat off to the highest bidder. Okay. They did not call it an auction, but they said they would only pick a "self-funding" candidate – the guy putting up the most money. That sounds like an auction to me.

So, Kavanagh puts his muscle behind a rich road contractor named Martin Ozinga. Money was so important that the boys and girls in the back room did not care that Ozinga does not live in the district. It’s not a legal requirement, you know, but usually a good idea if you want to win.

They knew the Ozinga family has lots of money to throw around because they saw past donations from him, his father and the company they run. Let's see ... there is some $25,000 to Chicago Mayor Daley, $20,000 to Governor Blagojevich and another $25,000 to the Hispanic Democrat organization, the street army and patronage broker for Hizzoner, the Mayor. They are in the epicenter of the corruption investigation by the U.S. Attorney, as is the Governor. There are also contributions to such Dem candidates as Gery Chico, Paul Vallis and Senator Dick Durbin, just about the most liberal and strident partisan guy in the U.S. Senate. In other words, the GOP backroomers are going to hand the nomination to a guy who's family is funding everything the majority of 11th district voters loath.

Why so much money to "the other side," you ask? No mystery there. Road building and public works construction are among the seediest enterprises in the state. It is pay-to-play.

So, take your pick. The Ozinga family gives these guys tons of money because he believes in their philosophy and governing style (Ugh!), or he gives it to get to the front of the line for those lucrative, rip-off-the-taxpayers contacts (Arrrrrgh!). Either way, not something the voters can feel good about.

Of course, this kind of skullduggery cannot be performed in public. As soon as the opportunity to blow this election presented itself, a lid of secrecy was clamped down on the process. Potential candidates were sworn to silence, and even they were not provided a lot of information about "the process." It was sort of a "silent auction," if you will.

Despite all this, there was a chance, ever so slight, that Ozinga could win. Politics is full of surprises. The GOP could not afford that risk. So ... some of the ideologues on the right have a great idea. They want to mount a write in candidacy. Since they would present a much more acceptable candidate to the voters, it is very likely that they can get a bunch of votes away from Ozinga -- the coup de gras.

The conservative thinking has three motivators. First, to punish (well deserved) the leaders for picking Ozinga. Second, to actually win the seat with a candidate more like the district voters (hope springs eternal). Third, to assure Ozinga’s lose because they see no difference, and then can come back in two years to reclaim the seat with a true believer. The fact that reclaiming public offices has not been a GOP strong suit appears to be lost on them

So, there it is. The perfect political "storm" to achieve the virtually impossible -- losing a safe conservative Republican congressional seat to a tax-and-spend, super liberal candidate who is a leader in the corrupt Illinois Democrat party. The 11th district could soon be represented by the type of politician most of the voters would not want living next door – and one of them doesn’t.

FOOTNOTE: The nomination will be made official on April 30. So there is a chance -- ever so slight --- that the GOP will come to its senses and nominate a more likely winner. Ozinga accepted the recommendation of the bosses with this statement: “After much prayer and careful consideration – and at the urging of Republican leaders, 11th District voters and my family – I have decided to run for Congress to be a positive part of the process of returning to the foundational truths established by our forefathers.” Where was the "fundamental truths" of our forefathers in those donations?

REACT: A message for Obama

Now that all the result are in and certified, the Obamacans are saying their guy won Texas. Here is their reasoning.

In the inexplicably screwy Texas system, Hillary won the popular vote. In accordance with the Democrat rule for the proportionate distribution of delegates, she gets 65 delegates to runner-up Barack Obama’s 61. However, Texas also has a tandem caucus system, which allots another 67 delegates – God knows why. Obama took those by a 38 to 29 margin, giving him the total lead in Texas delegates of 99 to 94.

This election line dance prompts me to send Obama a quickie note.

Dear Barack,

Hope you do not mind me calling your by your first name, but since we both come from Illinois, I feel I know you.

I see where you took the lead in delegates thanks to the strange primary/caucus in the Lone Star state. I know your party worries a lot about making sure every vote counts. You guys sure heaped it on Florida and the Supreme Court when President Bush got a TKO over Al “The Weathman” Gore. And you have your surrogate, Jesse Jackson, running around demanding that the super delegates vote for the person with the most elected delegates or the most popular votes, which he assumes will be you, of course.

Keeping in that tradition, I think you should give your caucus delegates to Hillary. After all, caucuses are totally undemocratic. I am not even sure why we allow such a system in the primary process. We surely would never allow caucuses in a general election – unless you think of the Electoral College as a super caucus. But, I know how you hate the Electoral College.

So, why not be a gentleman, and give the lady your 38 Texas caucus delegates. THAT, would be a real change. You would prove that you are no duplicitous, business-as-usual candidate – bending rules this way and that way to serve your selfish ambition.

And while you are overcome with affection for democracy and the will of the voters, announce your support for the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations. Surely those voters should not be disenfranchised. Show the world you are a stand-up guy when it comes to true democracy.

I fear if you do not do these things, people will think you are just another crass political animal, shifting from one position to another solely on the basis of your personal desire to be President. Rising from the bowels of the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine is already making people wonder about you. That organization does not produce too many “Mr. Cleans.”

If you don’t do something dramatic, you are going to start to look like more of the same thing. Not a good thing for a candidate who offers change we can believe in.

Hope this is helpful.

Larry

P.S. Your friend and padrone, Tony Rezko, would like to be more helpful, but he’s a bit tided up at the moment – actually more like handcuffed. I am glad they are allowing him to wear his Armani suits to his trial. Prison orange does nothing for him.

REACT: Missing the point in Mississippi

As expected, Barack Obama cruised to an easy victory in the Mississippi Democrat primary, picking up about 20 of the states 33 delegates, with the remainder going to Hillary.

His victory, however, is more evidence that he will be an extreme underdog in the General Election. Mississippi has the highest percentage of African-Americans of any state in the nation. They represented and overwhelming 70 percent of the voters in the Democrat primary. They gave Obama more than 90 percent of their votes as an expression of racial solidarity. (Dare we call it racism?) Conversely, Hillary took the vast majority of white votes. (Dare we call it ethnic pride?)

And yes. There is irony in the fact that the Mississippi flag (pictured) incorproates the old confederate "stars and bars." Even more so when you consider that a new flag proposal was soundly defeated by two-thrids of the voters in 2001. That referendum could foretell Obama's future in a general election. His impressive victory in the Democrat primary may be counterintuitive in terms of November.

Whatever you call it, racial voting has floated Obama’s campaign to the top – and it will sink it in a general election if he is the Democrat standard bearer.

As I have previously written, as soon as Obama picked up the racial cudgel in South Carolina, he began to position his campaign on the great American racial fault line. Race -- not the audacity of hope or the promise of change in the White House, other than skin color -- is the underlying defining issue.

It is not unheard of for a candidate to do what is necessary to win a nomination, only to find the winning formula in the primary is a receipe for defeat in the general. Obama finds himself in that position. After running as the son of his father in the primaries, can he run as the son of his mother in the General Election? That takes a lot of hope --- and more change than one can believe in.

Footnote: I have been hearing a lot of my conservative compatriots a’hopin’ and a’prayin’ for a Clinton nomination in the belief that she is the more beatable of the two candidates. I disagree. Without a monumental disaster in the McCain camp – never to be discounted --
I think Obama is predestined to be an also-ran. I think it is dangerous to underestimate the Clintons, just as the Democrats always underestimated Ronald Reagan when they were a’hopin’ and a’prayin’ that he would be the opposing candidate.

OP ED: The Dems heading to a super converntion

Oh my! Oh my! Oh my! The Democrats seem to have created quite a problem with their politically correct rules governing the nomination of their candidate for President. It was supposed to all be “super” – Super Tuesday and super delegates.

The powers that be, mostly the Clinton folks, gerryrigged the primaries to create a Super Tuesday. It was supposed to be the day of Hillary’s coronation. In hindsight, the folly of their thinking is obvious.

The leaders of the party also punished Michigan and Florida for having the temerity to move their truly significant primaries ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire – states were being first is their only relevancy. Banning Michigan and Florida was no big deal. By the time the convention rolled around, Hillary would be the pre-determined candidate. The errant states could then be seated as a courtesy, without any impact on the outcome.

This did not work out as planned, either.

Suddenly Michigan and Florida can play an enormously important role. Since Hillary carried both states without a contest, the Clintonites are all for seating the delegations. Having originally agreed to respect the ban, they belatedly discovered the spirit of democracy and think those voters should not be disenfranchised. The Obamacans are in a bit of a quandary. Of course, they are not about to hand over all those delegates to the candidate breathing down their neck. But, they also do not want to seem to be … well … undemocratic. Getting the voters in such key states in a hissy fit may have repercussions in the General Election.

There is lots of talk about a re-do. Neither the candidates, nor the Democrat party is willing to cough up the do-re-mi to pay for another election. The leaders of Michigan and Florida have made it pretty clear that they are not about to stick their constituent taxpayers with a bill for a second election because the Democrat wise guys in Washington screwed up. This could mean a very ugly credentials fight on the eve of the National Convention. With the presidential nomination at stake, this will not be a pretty fight.

But even after they settle that feud, neither Obama or Clinton may have enough elected delegates for a first ballot victory. Now comes the question of the super delegates.

Jesse Jackson is beating the drum with the idea that the super delegates simply cast their votes for the candidate with the most elected delegates rather than steal (his word) the election for the other candidate. Of course, he is betting that the “other” candidate will be Clinton. Despite that, there is a hint of democracy that wafts through Jackson’s obvious self-serving intent. What his suggestion lacks, however, is practicality.

Keep in mind that the super delegates are all the party bigwigs who did not want to risk being aced out of the convention by the voters. These are wheeler-dealers – and to wheel and deal for a presidential nomination is political nirvana.

It is also true that these leadership types were given these positions to exercise good political judgment, just in case the voters did not. There is always the chance that the votes may wind up giving the lead to the less electable candidate. These pros can easily distinguish the “less electable candidate.” That’s the one who offers the poorest deals.

The Jackson et al plan would basically neuter the super delegates. We would probably have to refer to them as the “meaningless delegates.”

If Clinton snatches the prize from Obama on the basis of seating the Michigan and Florida delegates and taking a majority of the super delegates, there will be a whole lot of healing needed. But such an outcome will at least silence the incessantly gripping echoes of 2000, when Bush won a technical, albeit fair and square, victory according to the rules if not by popular vote.

How sweet it is.

REACT: Hastert loses his seat.

Anyone who has every watched classic Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy flicks is familiar with Stan’s oft stated lament, “It’s a find mess you got us into this time, Ollie.”

Well, I say to Denny Hastert, “It’s a fine mess you got us into this time, Denny.”

You will recall from my earlier blog, I am not a great booster of the accomplishments of the former Speaker Hastert. Or shall we say, the lack there of. His allegiance to the corrupt and ineffective Illinois brand of good-ole-boy, backroom politics cost the GOP the Phil Crane seat way back when, and his own speakership along with the whole dang Congress more recently.

As if that was not enough for one career, now cometh the special election in Illinois’ 14th Congressional District –a race to replace himself. In an all too clever ploy, Hastert resigned to force a special election and presumably give a “leg up” to his anointed success. In a much more clever ploy, Governor Blagojevich called for the election to be held on a Saturday when everyone knows Republicans are at the country club playing racquet ball and debating martini mixology.

In promoting … nay … ramrodding Jim "The Milkman" Oberweis as his personal choice, Hastert must have assumed the 14th District was a “Mickey Mouse” seat for the GOP – a reference that suggests any Republican, even Mickey Mouse, would be elected. And why not, the pachyderm party has held that seat since Moses descended from Mount Ararat … uh … Mount Sinai. Ararat is where Noah beached the ark, right?. No matter. You get my point.

Actually, Oberweis is a great guy personally, but an abysmal candidate. For a variety of reasons, he has less personal shelf appeal than his ice cream. Candidates are supposed to be charmers in public and jerks in private. Oberweis has it backwards.

What makes former wrestling coach Hastert’s Olympic arm twisting on behalf of Oberweis so egregious is the fact that everyone else seemed to know that the guy is not candidate material. The previous three successive election day drubbings should have been a clue.

Looking at the numbers, it appears that defections from the GOP were as responsible for the loss as much as the advance of the Dems. He lost in the GOP precincts, including his own. Ouch! (<-- I stand corrected. Bill Pascoe, of the Oberwies campaign informed me that his candidate carried his own precinct quite handsomely. My error. Ouch!)

Some say a fair share of blame has to go to the campaign team and the National Republican Congressional Committee for a poorly strategize and executed campaign. Many viewed the last minute desperation television ads as counterproductive. They seemed to seal Oberweis’ public image as a strident and pugnacious bully. There is not much worse in a campaign than spending tons of money to lose votes.

I cannot judge the culpability of the on-the-ground team and professional advisors, but those ads ended with the statement, “I am Bill Oberweis, and I approved this message.” So, I guess that is where the buck … millions of them … stops.

Because of the way this special election was (mis)handled, there is an automatic rematch in the November General Election. You know the old adage, if you do the same thing, you get the same result. There seems to be only two ways not to do the same thing. You either have Oberweiss step aside for a new candidate, or you credibly change the Oberweis persona. Note the word “credibly.” This is no simple task in the short time between now and November.

If there is to be a new candidate, it has to be a N-E-W candidate. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Hastert and Associates will use their influence to put a new brand name on the same can of peas.

When Denny left Congress, he said he would still stay active in Republican causes. I take that more as a threat than a promise. If he really wants to help the GOP, he might consider a more complete retirement.

As for Oberweis, he is a good and decent person, a great business man (love the ice cream) and a savvy investor. As far as politics is concerned, he can have a great future and do a lot of good for America… as a funder of good candidates and good causes. He can be the producer, not the leading man.

Footnote: Check out the photo of Oberweis and Hastert again. Don't ya just love the angelic face and the halo effect? How can a face like that lose an election?

OBSERVATION: Polling and voting ... nothing in common.

Funny how many pundits were writing Hillary Clinton’s political obituary just a few short weeks ago. It was over, and time for her to throw in the towel.

These are the same pundits who counted McCain out of the running a month or two before he took an all but unstoppable lead.

Well, if you think the pundits are the big losers in all this, just consider the pollsters. After all, they use scientific means to predict outcomes – not just educated guesses. I remember they awarded New Hampshire to Barack Obama on the eve of the election. Clinton pulled off what they called an “upset victory.” I think the pollsters were the only ones upset.

Just before Ohio and Texas, we were told that Clinton’s lead had slipped away. Obama would take Texas for sure, and maybe even Ohio. Of course Clinton won Texas and crushed Obama in Ohio.

After 40 years of watching and running campaigns, I have become a polling skeptic. Skeptic? No! I really think it is all voodoo and bull stuff. They are almost never more correct than an educated guess. I know a lot of political groupies who can predict an election outcome with a 3 to 5 point margin of error every time. (If you cannot read the cartoon, click on it for larger version)

I always wonder how the polls can wind up being wrong beyond the margin of error, as they often are. That makes the “margin of error” nothing more than empty words.

Every time the pollsters are egregiously wrong, they hid behind an unprovable claim. A “last minute shift by the voters,” they say. To which I say, “Bah humbug!” Unless there is some unprecedented occurrence in the last week, voters do not change their minds. Most are decided loooooong before Election Day, and the rest are usually locked in on a candidate at least two weeks ahead of time. The only reason polls are wrong is because they are wrong.

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.

OBSERVATION: Tony Periaca not quite cutting it.

By every measure, Cook County Commissioner Tony Periaca is exerting leadership within the frail and floundering Republican Party. He is using his office to expose the nepotism, cronyism and corruption that abounds in Todd Stroger’s government fiefdom. He is runner for higher office, Cook County State’s Attorney. He is challenging the Democrat power structure at every front. His public relations machine is going at full tilt. He is raising money. He shows up at every event with an audience larger than my family reunion. In every way, he is making an effort to fill the huge leadership void that besets the GOP in Illinois.

So, why is he failing?

Some may argue with my view, but there can be no doubt that he is not living up to expectations … especially his own. Either he is a flawed candidate, or he is very poor at managing his public image.

Let me stress that I hope he can bring some leadership to the GOP, and begin to rebuild the party. I do not think he is wrong, but not cutting it with the public.

First and foremost -- and for all his best efforts -- he seems to lack charisma. I don’t mean that pretty boy, Hollywood casting look and Oxford eloquence. I mean that basic connect with the voters. He does not charge a room upon entering. There is no tittle of anticipation that usually surrounds the man on the rise.

This failure to connect cost him what should have been a clear victory over his weak and unqualified opponent in the race for president of the Cook County Board. Never has a Democrat candidate for county office looked so hopelessly and obviously unfit. Not since Republican Dick Ogilvie won the office in a 1966 upset has there been a better opportunity.

Periaca could not carry the county like many of those GOP stars of yore – Chuck Percy, Dick Ogilvie, Jim Thompson, Joe Woods, Bernie Carey, Jack O’Malley, Jim O’Grady, etc. And they had far tougher challenges. (I suppose there has to be some slack given for the number of stolen ballots. Even without concerted effort, the long entrenched Democrat political machine steals thousands of votes automatically. The system is so perfected, it cannot NOT steal votes.)

So, what is it about this guy that lacks curb appeal? Probably a combination of things. Since I don’t really know him personally, maybe my perspective is more valuable. I only see the public personae – the extension of him that will determine his political popularity.

There is a difference between being impassioned and arrogant. Periaca seems to fall on the wrong side of that divide. He does not seem to be the rallying point, the consensus builder or the team player (and even captains have to be team players).

Expanding on this later point, he does not seem to build camaraderie among any of the GOP crowd. He often seems as much at odds with the GOP leadership as he is with the Democrats. Granted, the GOP leadership has lacked a lot – most notably success. However, they do seem to be demonstrate modest improvements here and there. Regardless, the warring within the ranks that has destroyed the effectiveness of the right wing does not reflect any better on Periaca. His feud with Cook County GOP Chairman Liz Gorman detracts from his stature as a candidate.

There is also a thuggishness about him. The election night attack on the Board of Elections was only one example of his seeming pugnacious attitude. He seems to banter about with a political chip on his shoulder.

In observing him in social settings and in the audience, he appears to be a man with all the answers – most eager to express them from the platform or in conversation. He seems to have no need to listen – at least no desire. He has the answers to all the unasked questions. His self appointed mission is to postulate.

In addition, he lacks professed vision. Great leaders produce great visions, if not always the greatest results. We all know that Periaca, like Howard Beale in the movie Network, is “mad as hell” and so not going to take it any more. However, the unrelenting criticism, carping and complaining makes him too much the scold. It is ok to “tell it like it is” as long as you can also “tell it like it will be.”

Then there is the ambition that seems to be worn on his sleeve. Is he a “wannabe” or a “wannado?” Often candidates with a lack of vision are more interested in being this or that, rather than a vehicle for doing. He seems more driven by ego than issues. Of course, he talks about issues, but more like a means rather than an end.

As political leader, the public Periaca appears more like one of those ubiquitous designer knock-offs flowing from Asia. He looks good on first blush, but not quite the quality of the genuine product upon closer examination.

THAT is my perception of the public Periaca -- the only Periaca most of the voters will ever see. Is that really him? I really don’t know.

OBSERVATION: Feeling blue about seeing red

I find myself channeling Dr. Seuss:

Red state? Blue state? What are we to do, mate?
Blue state? Red state? Make me go to bed late.
More red, you dread. More blue, I rue.
Maybe in the morning we'll find a better hue.

Blue state? Red state? More confusing than you think.
Red state? Blue state? All I want is pink
Donkeys are blue. Elephants are red.
Don't know why, but that is what they said.

Red state? Blue state? Always in the news.
Blue state? Red state? How are we to choose?
Red means danger. Blue means sad.
Making these decisions is gonna drive me mad.

Blue state? Red State? Popping on my screen.
Red State? Blue State? Nobody voting green?
Half the country blue. Half the country red.
Turning off the TV and heading for my bed.

The question of the state colors on our national election night news maps got me thinking. When did those broadcast rascals make the switch-a-roo on the colors? In my early days in politics, the election night political maps always showed the Republican states in blue and the Democrat states in red. Sometime between then and now, the big three networks appear to have made a behind the scenes decision to switch the traditional colors. But why?

Is it possible that they just wanted to give their favored Democrat party the more positive color? I am not paranoid, and I even hate to think that those guys in New York would stoop to such a thing. It is just too petty. I mean, they entirely too busy distorting the daily newscasts to bother with such seemingly trivial graphic matters.

Or are they? My problem is that I cannot think of any other reason why they would change the colors.

It probably would not affect a specific election night outcome. But … is there a long term psychological impact? Do voters think more kindly of blue Democrats than they would or red ones?

There is no doubt that blue reflects positive American imagery. It is a cool color, and seems to be more patriotic than red. Yeah, I know red is in our flag, too. Outside of Santa Clause, however, red is a disturbing color in our culture. Everything associated with the devil and hell is red. In 1776, we fought the redcoats. Our contemporary world adversaries have been the “Reds” – the “red menace,” no less. Danger signs are red. Red Alert means an imminent terrorist attack. A Red light means an annoying stop. The Red Cross brings to mind disasters. When we are angry, we “see red.”

Blue is a peaceful color. It reminds us of patriotism. It is the color of a clear sky. The soothing blue water. The only negative connotation is feeling blue -- sad.

Hmmm. Maybe that is it. You know, when I see my native state, Illinois, go blue on election night, I do get sad. As more states go blue across the nation, I can go into a total funk. So, maybe I should not be so harsh on the network bosses. Maybe they understand me. They switched the colors out of respect for my depressed state of mind -- to represent sadness.

Nay!

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.