Who Is "Public Policy Polling?"

Not every pollster can be believed.

In nearly every poll of the West Virginia race for United States Senator in the past few weeks, John Raese enjoys anywhere from a five to nine point lead.

The only holdout is Public Policy Polling who has Manchin ahead by six points in its most recent evaluation.

Say what? Who is Public Policy Polling?

PPP is an outfit out of North Carolina that Real Clear Politics always denotes with a (D) when publishing its numbers. And D don't mean "Dallas."

PPP has a track record in this election of bucking the numbers of polls that show light to moderate leads for Republicans by indicating ties or Democratic leads. Their effect is to bring down the average reported Republican poll leads every week. If you want any further proof of their bias, they show that John McCain has a moderate 13 point lead over his opponent, while the non partisan Rocky Mountain Poll has McCain up by 34 points.

More proof needed of their bias? Oftentimes their polls are funded by the radical left wing Daily Kos website. No motivation for bias there, right?

Unfortunately for those behind these bizarre results, these polls will have the opposite effect. An energized Republican base will grow even more motivated to bring out the voters if the polls look close. If you only care about the John Raese race, you will be more likely to come out and vote if the numbers look closer. Of course Raese voters will tend to vote Republican on the rest of the ticket, so trying to make the Raese/Manchin contest look closer than it actually is should only help the West Virginia Republican Get Out the Vote efforts.

The Unpresident and the Scandal of Champagne, Cigars, and Canadian Women

Republicans are their own worst critics. Some may spin losses into victories and bad showings into acceptable, but by and large when the GOP performs badly, its rank and file have much less problems than Democrats in letting their party know.

That is why the chorus of support for the Republicans in the health care summit yesterday was so gratifying. You could follow comments on Facebook, normally the home of the more anti-party conservatives and there was general agreement on two things. First, the Republicans conducted themselves much better than could be expected, since their role was ritual slaughter. They remained feisty, got ideas on the table, and neither lost their cool, nor capitulated.

Second, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in making Obama look like an ass. Check that. They allowed the president to do that all on his own.

He was blatantly rude to John McCain. McCain tried to perform his usual role of trying to explain to Obama where the Republicans were coming from in the spirit of genuine bipartisanship that rankles more conservative and libertarian folks. Obama cut him off to remind him that the presidential campaign was over. A shocked McCain responded that he was reminded of that fact daily.

Then the rudeness took a bizarre turn when Obama cut off his own vice president, then seemed to snub Biden's approach at the end of one of the meetings. In the very next session, Biden gave a monologue that struck many as incomprehensible. Remember what Obama once said "Nobody messes with Joe."

This was supposed to be, as Biden predicted, "pure theatre" but Obama was supposed to be the director, producer, and star of the stage. Republicans were supposed to perform their roles as teh black hat villains of the piece, perhaps even shouting "you lie!" again. But it was Obama who blatantly accused the Senate Minority Leader of lying, not disagreement over interpretation, but of lying.

Obama seemed to be looking for that gotcha moment, such as when Lloyd Bentsen attacked Dan Quayle over a mention of John F. Kennedy, or Reagan announced that he was paying for the microphone and he would set the rules. Obama even announced at one point that he could be late because he's the president and does not need to count time. In a campaign, taking risks to sound feisty scores points. At this point, Obama looks more like that arrogant ass of a professor that most undregrads try to avoid because he revels in making anyone around him look stupid while showing off his intellect.

Right now, almost all of Obama's political polls have fallen below 50%. The only one that remained high was likeability. Being likeable helped get George W. Bush re-elected despite a lot of misgivings over his policies and especially the war. Did you ever see Bush publicly insult an elected official in either party, or speak about anyone disrespectfully? Certainly in private he could show his temper and did, but he never spoke down to people.

Obama constantly speaks down to people, both Republicans and Democrats. He showed unnecessary disrespect to Bill Clinton in front of a congressman from Arkansas who was what they used to call an FOB (friend of Bill.) The only people he deems worthy of respect are the guys on his staff who are even more disrespectful and rude. Even during his campaign, reporters complained of the rudeness of Obama and his staff, compared to the unfailing politeness and access of McCain and his people. At this stage, a conflict between Obama and McCain in the media might not go Obama's way.

The problem Obama faces on the heels of this so-called summit was his utter lack of presidential decorum. If the goal was to play hardball, put a hardball player in charge of the meeting. Try to rise above the fray. At least act like a president instead of a cranky professor or an irritated sewer committee chairman.

********************************

One more thing. The IOC needs to back off of the Canadian women's hockey team. They won a gold medal in the Olympics. Before this year that was considered a cause for celebration. Last week an American athlete was dispatched home after a picture turned up of a girl kissing the gold medal hung around his waist. This week the hockey team celebrated with champagne and cigars in the locker room (provided by whom? Probably some Olympic committee somewhere!) They were asked to return to the ice for pictures and they complied, some bringing their champagne and cigars with them.

The swig of champagne to celebrate a victory is traditional, at least in North American team sports. These women may never get the chance again to be world champions. What harm does it do to relax for five seconds and let these girls enjoy the moment? What harm would it do for the IOC, for once, to just keep its mouth shut when someone wins and enjoys it?

Now the IOC is investigating the drinking and smoking in public, especially since one of the women was 18 and under the British Columbia drinking age of 19. Yes, this is the big scandal. Not the death of an athlete on a dangerous track. Not the questionable judging of a number of events. Not the weird snub of an American skater for whatever reason. This is the big scandal.

The IOC is considering banning the Canadian team, today the pride of the host nation, from the closing events. If they do this, every Canadian holding a ticket should refuse to show as well, but not give the ticket away or sell it. Let the mass of empty seats be a protest.

Without So Much As a Bayh Your Leave . . .

Recently Evan Bayh, the U. S. Senator who has worked most closely with Republicans over the years, announced in anger that he did not intend to seek another term. He described the growing acrimony within Congress as one reason, but also made veiled references to the overbearing nature of Obama. He was one of several Democrats who declined to run in 2010. One included a Democratic Senator from Arkansas still fuming over derogatory remarks made by Obama about President Clinton.

The "huff" from Senator Bayh was well documented and leading press outlets gave it a great deal of coverage. Much more coverage than any other Democratic congressman who announced his intention to not run. In politics things like this often happen for a reason.

Could that reason be that Senator Evan Bayh intends to run for President of the United States?

In 2012, the only way for the Democrats to hang onto the White House is to dump Obama. His arrogance, unpopularity, and failures do not recommend him for another try at the office. Democrats are abandoning him in droves. Now Bayh's nomination is not a sure thing. Many liberal Democrats see him in the same way that conservative Republicans see John McCain. There is respect, but also a sense that he is not committed to their principles.

He, however, represents one of their best chances of keeping the presidency. The midterm elections should be a guide. If, as is expected, Republicans make huge gains and even capture one house (in the process deposing Harry Reid) then all bets are off on an Obama renomination. He will probably have a primary fight once again. I would not doubt to see Hillary Clinton resign shortly after the midterm elections and woo Terry McCauliffe back into activity.

In any event, Obama is toast if these midterms go as most expect.

"Where's the Birth Certificate?" Emerges From Obscurity

Major Stefan Frederick Cook, US Army Reserve, challenged his deployment to Afghanistan recently. His problem lay not with the idea of going to a combat zone. Such men do not rise to the rank of major. Major Cook's issue lay with the credentials of his commander in chief. He stated that he did not see how he could abide by Geneva Convention rules when his orders might not come from the constitutional leader of the United States.

This conspiracy theory predates the election. In Hawaii there are two forms of birth certificate. A short form is easy to acquire and requires little proof of actual birth. The long form is accepted as the more definitive example of proof of live birth in a certain place. John McCain actually had similar problems. His birth took place in the Panama Canal Zone. Had he won election, Secretary of State John Hay's almost century old assertion that the Canal Zone was not United States territory would have exploded into an open issue.

Obama thus far has refused to produce a long form certificate. I personally believe the man was born where he said he was born, but have no idea why he cannot or will not quietly produce the proof. The question is, say Obama is proved to have not been born in the United States. That means that his presidency took place under fraud and, like a marriage, would have to be annulled. Would that wipe from the books every act he has committed or signed into law? I should think so.

People continue to file lawsuits as quickly as judges toss them from court, so stay tuned.

Is there a correlation between Unemployment and Election Results?

So West Virginia University Faculty Like Capitalism After All

West Virginia University's administration blasted the PEIA premium structure in a November 28th front page article in the Charleston Daily Mail. They complained that the fee structure madde it difficult to attract and retain quality faculty. PEIA officials blasted back that the fee structure is in place because higher salary earners subsidize the health care of lower earners. Perry Bryant, head of West Virginians for Affordable Health Care claims "it's not clear what (WVU's) position is. Would they support their faculty paying less while their classified staff pay more and more?"

In other words, Bryant is calling WVU faculty a pack of greedy running dog capitalists only looking out for their own interests. They do sound an awful lot like capitalists when they complain that they do not get to keep enough of the income that they earned because the state takes an unfair share (liberals would call it a "progressive" share.)

Okay, here's what ought to be done. Take the seven or eight people in the WVU system that voted for John McCain, assess them what their real payment should be, and let them go on their merry way. The Obama and Nader voters, well, sorry about your luck. You all are keeping too much as it is. We are going to assess you more because this is the change that you believed in.

That's right. The PEIA fee structure is a small taste of what socialized health care would bring to the entire country. The harder you work, the less you deserve to keep. That's the Obamunism that you all voted in for the entire country and now you have the gall to complain about those same standards being applied to your personal situation. Well if you have changed your mind about Obamacare, you'd better get to Georgia and campaign for Saxby Chambliss so the GOP can save your hard earned dollars.

The article is somewhat misleading. It says that high salary earners have seen their raises over the past two years negated by PEIA increases. That is not by accident, but by result of careful calibration. The misleading comes in when the writer says "high salary earners." Those that make $30-35,000 per year have seen the same problem. Only in the poorest counties in West Virginia could they be considered "high wage earners."

Capitalism happens. WVU faculty take off for states with more faculty friendly policies just like jobs will go to China and India if the liberals get their way and strangle out of existence the rest of American industrialism. Those that deny its effects and pretend like they do not exist will lose out every time.

The Republican Party: Where We're At

Sometimes it takes a failure of massive proportions to force renewed vigor and imagination. This is the state we are in right now nationally.

Mineral County Republicans can pat themselves on the back. Charles Minimah, Beth Walker, Dan Greear, Mike Teets, Gary Howell, John McCain, and others carried the county soundly while Republicans kept many of the county offices. Bob Schadler and Jay Courrier ran unopposed. Republicans in this region remained vigorous and confident. They marched in parades, maintained blogs that kept people talking, organized fundraisers and events for local and statewide candidates, and made phone calls. They also never forgot that, as Doug McKinney has put it, we are Republicans for a reason.

If it was just about hard working people, Republicans would have won in a landslide. Look at Doug and Sue McKinney putting about half a million miles on their car going from town to town. Look at Gary Howell who fought every single day against overwhelming odds and came within a hair of upsetting a candidate beloved by the special interests. His friends and neighbors supported him overwhelmingly and he even almost won heavily Democratic Tucker County. Look at our statewide candidates who were everywhere pounding the pavement. Hopefully our campaigns at the very least kept the conversation going about corruption and cronyism. Look at Christy Barnett, a one woman campaign machine trying to rally the Potomac Highlands. This is not failure; it's a foundation. But we must build upon it.

Here are some suggestions.

We must stop clinging to the shadow of Ronald Reagan. He was one of our greatest Americans, but many new voters have no memory of him except in history books. Reagan's revolution has lessons that will always be relevant, but they need updating. By clinging too much to Reagan and not moving decisively towards a future blueprint, we risk looking like the stodgy old FDR Democrats of our parents' and grandparents' generation. Time for us to find the next great thing. Luckily we have a pitbull in waiting.

Start emphasizing science, technology, and research. The Republican Party may have fewer friends in the research fields, but it has many in engineering. We must emphasize that American technology constantly needs investment. Blue collar jobs will continue to grow less prevalent while science, technology, and small business entrepreneurship will keep growing. Leading the world was a constant goal in the twentieth century. Why not recapture that spirit for the twenty-first century?

On the state level, we have a dedicated state party chair who volunteers countless hours to be wherever he is needed to promote the cause. We had outstanding candidates with the vision and spirit to lead West Virginia forward. The problem was that our state party does not have the resources to function as it should. Dan Greear, Mike Teets, Gary Howell, and others ran very tight races despite being outspent sometimes 5 to 1. Additional organizational and financial support could have put these people over the top to help bring about a better West Virginia. The state party needs more resources and more support if we are to ever make this state great again.

In 1888 Democrats had dominated West Virginia for sixteen years, but the elections kept getting closer. By 1896, a strong Republican organization with a real vision captured the state and did not let it go for decades. Remember that example.

Over the next two years we need to emphasize our vision, rally behind our successful candidates, and build an organization with the resources to help our candidates get over the top. We should be very proud of the personal efforts of our candidates and volunteers. They are something to build upon for the next go round.

Nationally we have faced challenges on this scale before. In 1976 and 1992 we bounced back aggressively. We found bold leaders, updated our message, and changed America for the better. We cannot continue to cling to the shadow of Reagan, but we must adapt his ideas to create a blueprint for the future. It is not a question of if we do it. We must.

And we will.

Tito the Building tells why he likes McCain

How Dare You Question a Democratic Candidate!

Both the Democratic candidate for president and the incumbent governor of West Virginia appear to be easily rattled by scrutiny.

Joe Manchin tried, and failed, to trivialize the degree scandal at West Virginia University, then got his hackles up in response to Russ Weeks' criticism of West Virginia's economy. Barrack Obama lashed out venomously at Fox News for doing what every other news organization on earth has done to John McCain and Sarah Palin. Fox has looked at Obama's background, questioned his decisions, unearthed inconsistencies. It does the same to McCain and Palin, but rarely gets recognized for its diligence. Fox News gave the same kind of scrutiny to President Bush. When in 2004 the Democrats tried to unleash a November surprise against Bush, Fox reported it first. Hillary Clinton earlier this year admitted that Fox News was the most fair of the outlets.

Obama may hate Fox News, but his childish outburst reflects an arrogant man who believes the most fawning words the press prints about him. If elected he faces a factionalized party that voted not for him, but against George W. Bush. Is anyone counting how many times the man mentions Bush as opposed to McCain or Palin? On top of that most of the information that critics ridicule, such as the super complex latte drink he prefers, came from outlets such as the New York Times society writers who probably never dreamed that middle America would find that funny.

Joe Manchin has also not seen many hard questions tossed his way. It is revealing how much Russ Weeks, who supposedly has little chance, has gotten under the governor's skin. Maybe the governor knows something that the media and the voters do not.

****************************************************************

Joe Manchin may have made the most prescient comment about an Obama presidency in the entire campaign. He stated that Democrats can vote for Obama because it is unlikely Obama will be able to accomplish anything he actually wants to do. Obama wants to jack up taxes on professionals and small businessmen in addition to others whose earnings provide jobs. Other than that, he only promises vague change. To get what he wants, Obama would have to face a Democratic Congress whose newest members are much less liberal than their leadership. The vague promise of change will be interpreted differently by different individuals, most of which will be disappointed. Our foreign policy will be painful to watch as he first tries appeasement, then tries to look tough when that policy fails. The Supreme Court nominations would be disastrous, except for the fact that the Democrats for eight years instructed GOP senators on how to gum up the works.

So what do you get for voting Obama? Worst case scenario is that your taxes go up, employment goes down, and the United States is humiliated on the world stage by Jimmy Carter the sequel. Best case scenario? Nothing happens at all. An arrogant and frustrated Obama flails about as his own Congress refuses to implement the Communist Manifesto.

Voting John McCain gives us a president with a steady foreign policy hand who will keep us safe, a man with many more years of experience working with congressmen. McCain saw his tenure in the Senate as a priority, not a stepping stone for his ambition. As much fun as it would be to watch Obama flounder and take his party down with him a'la Carter, the country needs John McCain.

Debatable

Time magazine, rarely a publication with conservative sympathies, declared John McCain the winner of the final presidential debate. The immediate impact of the debate itself did not register the same with other pundits. McCain has a tremendous amount of work to do in the last few weeks to win the election.

I have a problem with the focus so intensely placed upon presidential debates. News outlets and major networks play them up to gain ratings. The billing for them resembles that of a boxing match, especially in CNN's marketing. How much do they really matter?

To me they border on almost the meaningless. A president's strongest attribute ought to be what he decides on important questions and issues after thought and consideration. The debate format reduces significant positions of policy into easily digestible chunks with an emphasis on how such information is delivered. A witty remark trumps five minutes of thoughtful response. Brutus can never compete with Mark Antony.

Picking who you want to be president based upon debate performance is like selecting an NBA first round draft pick based upon how well the player competes in H-O-R-S-E. It reflects one small part of what ought be be consideration of the entire candidate. What has he done? What does he believe? What will he do as president?

History remembers very few debates. Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest communicators to ever sit in the Oval Office, got trounced in a debate with the forgettable Walter Mondale. John F. Kennedy's debate performance (rather than his flagrant and outright lies about the "missile gap" in an election that hinged on the national security debate) is credited in his victory that he won by the skin of his teeth over Nixon.

Some great men would never have consented to debate. Washington (like Adams and most 19th century candidates) considered personal campaigning beneath him, much less a debate. Lincoln famously debated in a Senate campaign with Stephen Douglas, but never met his opponents in 1860 or 64. Lincoln was a master at this art, mixing a great legal mind with the fine art of storytelling.

The election of 2008 has thus far favored the great speaker with nothing to say over the solid man of experience. Speaking and debating reveals nothing of the true substance of a candidate. In stormy times, one should cling to a rock instead of a forsythia bush.

What if there is a tie?

There are few battle ground states that are going to decide the Presidential Election, but there is the possibility of an Electoral College tie. If that happens, then the presidental election falls to the US House of Representatives and the vice presidental election to the Senate.

The only time in US History that a tie occurred was the election of 1824. John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson tied in the Electoral College. Both candidates were members of the Democratic-Republican Party. February 9th, 1825 the House elected John Quincy Adams to the Presidency. The fight in the House led a split in the Democratic-Republican Party. The result was the formation of the current Democratic Party led by Andrew Jackson and the National Republican Party led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.

But what if there was a tie today? If Obama wins Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa but loses Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio to McCain, both candidates would have 269 electoral votes.

The House is currently controlled by the Democrat Party and that leads most to believe that the house would vote for Obama, but the constitution forces each state vote as a delegation. Each state only gets one vote. 27 state of delegations that are Democrat majority, 21 are Republican and 2 state are equal.

But there is a catch. Some states will have voters support one parties candidate, while the congressional delegation is a majority of the other candidates party. West Virginia while most likely be one of those states. The polls show McCain the likely winner in WV, but Rahall and Mollohan will be able to out vote Capito to give the state to Obama. It will be a political blood bath. Mollohan and Rahall will be under termendous pressure from the Democratic Party to case their votes for Obama, while the people of West Virginia will be pushing them to vote for McCain. There choices could very well decide the outcome of the 2010 WV Congressional Elections for both.

It gets better. The Senate picks the Vice President. The Senate is near evenly split and Joe Liberman caucases with the Democrats, but is supporting McCain-Palin. The Senate could very easily pick Palin as the Vice President and if they do and the House has not decided, then she would be come president until the House decides. President Bush could be succeded by President Palin, only to be succeded by President Obama shortly after. It is possible that we end up with Obama as President and Palin as Vice President. If the House and Senate don't decide by Jan. 20th, 2008, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi becomes President until a decision is made.

Hold on it could be a wild ride.

What It Takes to Lead

Imagine a candidate with small town roots, a hard worker that loves honesty and hates corruption. This candidate specialized in defeating incumbents that drank heavily from the wells of of big money and corruption. Now consider a candidate who is humble in demeanor but rich in life experience, a veteran of war. This candidate's experiences give him a dignity and perspective that make him a true leader.

You may think I am writing about the McCain/Palin ticket. Not this time. All of these attributes come in a candidate ready to lead our state, Russ Weeks.

If you have not read up on Russ Weeks, you owe yourself a few minutes to learn about him. Sarah Palin made headlines for putting the former governor's jet on Ebay. Weeks aims relentless criticism at the governor for gallivanting around on the state's dime in a helicopter. Palin defeated an entrenched incumbent thought to be unbeatable because the big business that preferred the status quo supported him. Like Palin, Russ Weeks believes that people, not dollars, vote in this state. He meets the people and listens to what they have to say.

Like John McCain, Weeks has a demeanor that shows the voters he will put the job ahead of himself. Weeks wants something better for West Virginia. He is passionate about changing not just the name on the Welcome to West Virginia signs, but also in changing our political culture. For Weeks it is about the state, not about himself.

Almost everyone agrees that the State of West Virginia needs a direction that takes us away from the failures of the past twenty years. How many people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and vote for a man that promises something different?

If you like West Virginia as it is run now, vote for the same people who have been ruining our state forever. If you think we can do better, put Russ Weeks in the governor's mansion. Alaska did it and 80% of them are thrilled with the results. We can too.

Giuliani's Minor Flub

Last night, Rudy Giuliani gave a tremendous and effective speech that underscored the necessity of electing John McCain while aiming some well-placed barbs at his opponent. One of the barbs that liberals will surely respond to was the claim that Obama is the least prepared candidate in a hundred years.

We know what the former mayor meant, but liberals will seize upon the fact that one hundred years ago the GOP nominated and elected William Howard Taft. Taft actually was one of the most experienced men ever nominated to the presidency. He served as the personal troubleshooter of President Theodore Roosevelt, succeeding in such tasks as bringing peace, happiness, and prosperity to the Philippines. Unfortunately Taft's big heart was not into the job. He never wanted to be president and suffered from the taunts aimed at his ever expanding waistline. Although he enjoyed some successes, he suffered the worst loss of any GOP incumbent seeking reelection.

Giuliani likely referred to a less heralded Republican president, Warren G. Harding. We learned our lesson after Harding. This man was likable, attractive, and a good speaker. He garnered votes by vague promises of "normalcy" after World War I. However, Harding came from the Ohio political machine. He spent a short and unremarkable amount of time in the US Senate. After election, his friends took advantage of his congeniality and engineered massive scandals. Meanwhile he played a lot of golf, attended many parties, and befriended a lot of young women around the country. Luckily for Harding, he died before his friends could embarrass him too much.

The GOP figured out after 1920 that inexperienced senators with impressive speaking abilities do not make good presidents.

Triumph of the Shrill

In the 1930s Leni Riefenstahl became the filmaker tapped to document the political rise of Adolf Hitler. Tremendously talented, she crafted an image in her Triumph of the Will for the new leader that distracted Germans from his bizarre beliefs and buffoonery and manufactured a vision of a powerful, wise, all knowing savior. Joseph Goebbels masterminded this image production and helped by staging spectacles. The larger the stadium, the more attendees, the more references to German and classical history and culture, the better Hitler could appear. In other words Goebbels and Riefenstahl sought to clothe the inadequacies of a lunatic in the robes of a demigod.

The 2008 Democratic Convention is no Nazi spectacle and Obama is no Hitler. This attempt at savior manufacturing looks more like a Mel Brooks parody of Riefenstahl's work. You half expect to see "PREZ" emblazoned in white on Obama's back. The goal is to unite the loud, neurotic, Bush haters with moderate and loyal Democrats in a last ditch effort to derail the McCain train.

Fortunately, Americans rarely accept this kind of stage handling in their politics. Anything so packaged raises suspicion in the eyes of most American voters. Only George Washington and, to a much lesser extent, Franklin Roosevelt ever enjoyed demigod type popularity and loyalty. Washington actively shunned any material manifestation of his authority, preferring to maintain tones of republican simplicity.

In 2008 the choice is clear. In McCain we have an accomplished man who acts in Washington's mold of republican simplicity. In Obama we have a demagogue seeking to win the presidency through the triumph of the shrill.

Why Not Mo-Joe instead of Boring Joe?

When Obama selected Joe Biden last week as his running mate, it caught some folks off guard. Tim Kaine was assumed by many to be the front runner, a moderate Democrat from a prosperous swing state. Maybe he decided this was not the right year to go national, maybe Obama decided against him.

Joe Biden is solid in experience, but otherwise an odd selection. The podium beneath him has more natural charisma and name recognition. He comes from a state likely to support Obama anyway and will not help the Democratic nominee score points with conservatives.

Was another Joe at one time in consideration? Certainly Manchin has charisma and conservative credentials. He comes from a small state likely to go McCain, but Manchin has influence among voters. One must wonder if the recent WVU scandals eliminated Joe Manchin from the list of possibilities. Other than that, he would seem to have been a better choice than Biden in many ways. Then again Manchin also may have declined to become first officer on this sinking ship.

The Democratic Party is looking at a significant, if not a landslide loss this year. Obama's ties to domestic terrorism will shock the public when they become widely known. William Ayers is the Left's version of Timothy McVeigh, he just did not succeed in his most ambitious plans.

*************************************************************

Once again the media has opened a flurry of under the bus tossing. Obama has thrown a lot of folks under the bus lately as the wheels fall off his bid for power. This phrase likely refers to the statement often made bythe Bolsheviks that a just society would happen when the child of a factory worker could throw the child of a doctor under a bus and most would approve.

Pretty typical.

Decision 2012

It takes very little time at all for the 24 hour news networks to get started talking about the next presidential election with seriousness. I doubt that Fox waited more than a year after Bush's re-election to begin discussions highlighted with the logo "Decision 2008." Certainly this caters to political junkies that crave the discussion and speculation (if not usually die hard facts) that one hears on news programs.

It was probably before the 2006 congressional elections that the various news networks anointed the nominees. Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton would battle for the presidency. Commentators probed strengths and weaknesses of both, and talked about the supposed eventual losers such as John Edwards and John McCain. Would they be offered vice presidential spots? Obama never entered any serious consideration. By 2007 McCain had dropped from the radar was well.

Then we got reminded that voters decide elections. A plain spoken Arizona senator and an utterly inexperienced Illinois senator shocked the media world.

This election may have been partly a result of the early speculation on Giuliani and Clinton. Candidacies have a momentum all their own. Some build and keep building, others build, climax, and fall. The earlier one's name comes out as a certain candidate, the more likely that voters will get fatigued on the person. Also an early entry gives ample time for the press to dig up the kind of goodies that torpedoed the Giuliani attempt.

One lesson from this campaign season is to try to avoid early discussion of your candidacy. Enter later, make sure you have no foolish blemishes to hide, and try to be experienced and public enough so that people know who you are from the beginning. That is the formula for winning this season, as we will see in November.

Interesting Military Statistics

Thanks to Anne Palmer who sent me a link to a report recently put out by the Federation of American Scientists. This is a non partisan group that often publishes on the internet some fascinating material on the militaries of the world, among other topics.

Some of the numbers that one sees are very interesting. In the three year span that opened the Clinton Administration, 3,328 American service personnel lost their lives. These represented the worst three years of losses during his presidency. Incidentally, this was the high tide of post Cold War budget cutting as well. The highest three years of US military casualties during the George W. Bush Administration in this report (which only extends to 2006) number 5,489. So yes the Bush administration's number is higher; however we must remember that we were fighting a tenacious enemy on two separate fronts in the Bush years.

Amazingly in the top three years of accident related deaths, the Clinton Administration's worst three years totalled 1,714 while Bush's presidency saw 1,825. In time of war, one would expect higher levels of stress and long term deployments to lead to more accidents. They have, but not by a substantially higher number. The figures for self-inflicted incidents are eye opening as well. The media has continually reminded us that our forces are in a seriously strained condition. Undoubtedly the horrors of war do take their toll on each man or woman exposed to them. However, the top three years of self-inflicted incidents during Clinton's term total 718 while Bush's top three years in the study were 579. Almost 150 fewer than in Clinton's first three years of office.

These numbers do not say anything personally about Bill Clinton; however since Democrats including his wife have continually bashed the military's performance at war under Bush, it is worthwhile to listen to what they tell us. Under George W. Bush the military has shown itself to be at a peak of efficiency and effectiveness. This is the result of the pride shown by each serviceman and the leadership demonstrated by officers as well as the determination to see the job finished correctly and effectively.

The report can be read in its entirety at the link below.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

********************************************************************

Every day we see Barack Obama shoot himself in the foot. Now he needs to explain why tapping into the strategic oil reserve is a good method to lower gas prices and alleviate suffering now, but tapping into the massive pools off our coastlines and under ANWAR will do no good for decades. Simply put, Obama has figured out that he must deal with John McCain's arguments of substance in some fashion.

Obama's Campaign Called Arrogant By Democrats

Apparently Democrats on Capitol Hill and in their party's organization have already had their fill of the presumptive nominee Barack Obama.

This comes as the latest in a series of Obama related problems that have plagued the campaign. The New Yorker magazine, an extremely liberal publication, produced a cover with Obama wearing a turban, his wife sporting militant black attire, an American flag burning in the fireplace under a portrait of Osama Bin Laden. Prior to this, Jesse Jackson threatened to relieve Obama of a sensitive part of his anatomy. CNN recently called joint appearances with Hillary Clinton the "Disunity Tour." The proposed "dream ticket" could prove a nightmare now. Select Hillary and risk more personality conflicts while alienating more moderate Democrats. Fail to select Hillary and they have her outside the tipi causing trouble inside instead of inside the tipi aiming outwards. Now congressional Democrats blast the campaign for not helping with fundraising or even communicating with them. Some have voiced complaints about Obama using a new venue for his acceptance speech.

Meanwhile John McCain continues to push forward as a calm and reasonable voice. He has deftly created a policy identity independent of President Bush while supporting the general ideas behind current policy. Obama's backwards pronouncements on foreign policy have caught up with him as McCain trotted out again his opponent's bizarre desire to invade our Pakistani ally. Obama also continued the tired mantra about the United States losing the war in Iraq in a time in which even moderate anti-war protesters realize that we have almost achieved our objectives.

The polls show that Obamamania has drastically cooled. McCain, according to Newsweek, had fallen fifteen points behind as little as two weeks ago. Now they are in a statistical dead heat. This resembles the election of 1984 when Walter Mondale held a tremendous lead over incumbent Ronald Reagan until the summer. Liberals tend to fare worse as elections draw closer and voters start to consider real world issues instead of dreams.

As long as John McCain stays on issue and keeps to the high road while aggressively pushing his ideas, he should win easily in November.

Coming Soon to a Stadium in Colorado....Obamanation

Conventions in recent years have transformed into attention getting parties for candidates but nothing in the past will top the "look at me"fest that Barack Obama has planned for his party. Instead of holding the climactic day in the convention hall, Obama wants to issue free tickets to try and fill a 75,000 seat stadium. He plans to show the country, the world, and most importantly the Democratic Party how much the people love him.

Obama hopes to garner the same kinds of press accolades that he got when he spoke after a massive rock festival. The press gave him the credit for attracting tens of thousands of attendees who had really come to see free music. How will this play with the Democratic Party, though? Party conventions serve another purpose other than anointing the next nominee for the presidency. They also function as rewards for hard working, cash donating, or long time faithful party members. All of a sudden the restricted club will be completely open to the public on the most important day. How will the old Democratic machine politicians react to this?

Obama also faces a serious problem. Certainly the backbone of his support thus far has lain with the antiwar crazies to whom he promised a definite end date on Iraq. He also slammed Bush's refusal to agree to a timetable that might encourage terrorists to lay low until the danger is gone. Now gas prices have taken center stage as an issue and the Democrats do not fare well here due to their refusal to allow expanded drilling. Iraq has stabilized; its government and military gain more confidence monthly while the violence plummets.

As a result Obama recently announced that as president he will not stick to a set timetable, but evaluate the situation as it develops. Smart thing to say, but his statement almost precisely mimics the stance of President George W. Bush. Iraq itself may make this a moot point because they themselves want to set a plan for US troop withdrawal. If President Bush comes to an agreement with Iraq on this issue and the country remains stable, the war cannot be defined as anything but a success. The extreme anti-American anti-war crowd will not stand by a candidate that admits in the least that President Bush's policies actually succeeded. On the other hand, mainstream America knows success when they see it.


Meanwhile John McCain has started campaigning aggressively. His style differs strongly from President Bush's campaign in 2004. Senator McCain gives a speech, then walks into the crowd to engage the people one on one. His campaign runs opposite to that of Obama. McCain sees the opinion and perspective of each individual as important, something that reflects America's belief in individualism. Obama emphasizes the collective experience, making the individual feel part of something larger, but small himself. His Colorado extravaganza reflects a Benito Mussolini style that works well for sports fans and rock concert attendees, but is not conducive to stating a rational message.

The obstacles continue to pile up for Obama. Perhaps that is why he now calls himself the underdog in the race.

******************************************************************

Let's give credit to President George W. Bush for making a courageous decision this week, overturning the executive ban that his father placed on offshore drilling and exploration. Anyone who knows anything about the current President Bush understands that this had to be a personally difficult decision. George W. Bush has always demonstrated a sincere and powerful loyalty to his father and the legacy of that presidency. To personally repeal a measure his father imposed must have been gut wrenching.

However President Bush understands that times have certainly changed. In the first Bush's presidency, gasoline prices hovered around a dollar a gallon on average, lagging far behind inflation. Now they drive inflation and threaten to undo twenty-five years of prosperity. It is not to go back to relying solely on cheap oil that we must do this. The US should continue expanding its use of native natural gas and oil as well as coal while also generating more power from wind and solar sources. Diversification brings stability.

Who's Next On Their Hit List, Sergeant York?

Much to Barrack Obama's chagrin, the looney left wingers that he has depended upon for support just cannot keep quiet. With friends like these, he needs no enemies.

An avalanche of criticism from the anti-American extreme Left has been launched against the war record of John McCain. Yes, John McCain. A former prisoner of war, tortured until he was permanently injured, a man that elected to stay in captivity so as not to embarass his country, his service, and his family. Yes, that John McCain.

It started not long ago. Our very own US Senator Jay Rockefeller questioned the morality of John McCain launching munitions that might have killed civilians. Of course the US did not use the types of weapons he described at the time. Additionally American forces were much more selective about their targets in Vietnam than the Allies in World War II. Not to mention the fact that airmen drop bombs where they are told.

Since then lefties have criticized McCain for making a video in captivity that included statements supporting North Vietnam. One accused McCain of disloyalty. Outrageous! How can anyone criticize the actions of John McCain while in captivity unless they walked a mile in those shoes? The North Vietnamese relentlessly beat this man physically and mentally. He had no idea whether or not he would survive. Most of the extreme Left consider ten minutes in Wal Mart as excruciating torture. God forbid they walk into a place where people watch Fox News. Oh the humanity! Sure, sit there on your easy chair banging out a blog on your computer in your comfortable house, passing judgment on a righteous man living in hell.

The most sinister criticisms thinly veil a condemnation of any US involvement in war. McCain gets accused by these crazies of being a "war criminal." Their explanations reveal that they see any US war as being criminal because they use the term so broadly. It galls them that a man who endured so much torment during the war could possibly support President Bush in our current situation.

I suppose the US ought to simply allow the Hitlers and Husseins of the world to continue pushing their horror onto the people who find themselves in terror's hands. Maybe the US should turn its back on its friends, like so many Monday morning quarterbacks advocated during and after the Vietnam War. They forget that the US had an ironclad guarantee of support for South Vietnam. We had as much treaty commitment to them as to Britain or any other NATO nation at the time.

Many of those that oppose the war do so out of a difference of opinion, but retain their respect for the military and the government. America is all about expressing differences, but at the end of the day good citizens must all support the men and women that sacrifice to defend us. However, others are much more malevolent. So many of them hate America and have contempt for Americans. The excrement they spew befouls a body politic generally unaccustomed to hearing from those that hate our entire system and society.

Whether or not you agree with him or vote for him, it cannot be denied that the man sacrificed for his nation and deserves the highest respect for it. John McCain is a hero. Period.