It was nearly three years ago when I penned “Victory in Iraq.” At the time, President Bush’s surge was clearly working, al Qaeda was on the run, and Iraq was enjoying a degree of peace and stability. It was obvious to me that, barring some surprising development, the United States and its coalition partners were emerging victorious.

I summed it up this way:

Yes, we've paid a heavy cost in lives and dollars, but the benefits are enormous: the madman and terrorism supporter Saddam Hussein and his monster sons, who had previously used WMDs, killed hundreds of thousands, and operated torture chambers, have been eliminated; democracy has gained a desperate foothold in the heart of the Middle East; and Al Qaeda has been defeated. The war on terrorism continues around the globe, but Iraq was Al Qaeda's focal point.

Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be a singular victory moment, a day where all of America (and the rest of the civilized world, for that matter) can celebrate the return home of our military heroes with ticker-tape parades and grand speeches. This isn't a conventional war where the enemy is finally forced to formally and unconditionally surrender at a court house or upon the deck of a battleship.

Last night, President Obama announced an end to combat operations, although 50,000 will remain in Iraq for now, and possibly for many years to come. In his typical fashion, he was ungracious and deceptive, not crediting Bush for winning the war, defying the predictions (hope?) of defeat by many on the left. Obama didn’t mention his own opposition to the surge that enabled the victory. Unbelievable, he never mentioned Saddam Hussein the WMD-user and developer, terrorist supporter, United Nations defier, and torturer and murderer of thousands. Apparently, Obama doesn’t want people to remember the awful tyrant we removed from power.

So, knowing what we know now, if we could turn back the clock, should we have invaded and liberated Iraq? I know that many people, even many on the right, will say, “No.” I admit that, while I am relieved that Saddam is gone and happy that Iraq is a fledgling democracy, a beacon of hope in the Middle East, the cost was high.

Of course, it’s impossible to know how events might have unfolded if we hadn’t invaded, if Saddam had still been in power over the last seven years. Does anyone think he wouldn’t still be pursuing (and using) ever more dangerous WMDs and that he wouldn’t be more of a threat than ever to international security? Who knows if we avoided calamity by removing the madman?

By liberating Iraq, we can be certain that Iraq is no longer developing WMDs. We can be certain that Iraq will no longer use WMDs against its own people or those of neighboring countries. We can be certain that Iraq no longer poses an invasion threat to its neighbors. We can be certain that Iraq no longer supports terrorism. We can be certain that Iraq is an example of democracy that, perhaps, will inspire others in the Middle East. We can be certain that Iraq is an ally that owes us a great debt.

The thousands men and women of the armed forced who sacrificed their lives or health to earn this victory did not do so in vain. The nation did not spend hundreds of billions of dollars without gain. If the Iraqis can keep their democracy, we may well see and reap the benefits for decades or centuries to come. If so, the answer will be definitive: Yes, it was worth it.

Regarding the Obama Administration’s and the Democrats’ proposed 2,000 page legislation that would reshape the financial system, one of the chief architects, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) said, “This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives.”

Every single aspect of our lives? Does that scare you as much as scares me? Do we really need the government involved in every single aspect of our lives?

But wait, but it gets even more alarming. Sen. Dodd also said about the legislation, “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”

What? They’re going to ram a 2,000 page piece of legislation down our throats that “deals with every single aspect of our lives,” but “no one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”

Are you kidding me? Please, please tell me this is all just a nightmare from which we’ll awake.

Watch this shockingly bizarre video and ask yourself if Representative Etheridge from Georgia is fit be in office.

The physical assault is alarming enough for me to question his sanity, but the way he keeps asking, “Who are you?” over and over again seals the deal.

I hate to admit it, but if someone grabbed my wrist like that and held on, it would have gotten ugly quickly. That student showed remarkable restraint.

Being a conservative (with libertarian leanings), there are times when I simply cannot understand the left’s world view. When it comes to certain issues, like fiscal policy, I can’t fathom the liberal viewpoint since it seems so blatantly incorrect. Yes, I am not simply saying I have a different opinion, I am saying that their views are often plain wrong.

To be certain, there are a number of issues (primarily social) where I can understand, appreciate, and respect the left’s point of view, if not agree with it. Capital punishment and gay marriage are examples. Likewise, I am sure we can have a reasonable discussion about immigration policy. On fiscal/tax/spending matters, however, I wonder what color the sky is in their world, since it’s certainly not blue.

Today, reading the Wall Street Journal, I had an “Ah-Haa!” moment that clarified matters. Mr. Daniel Klein wrote a piece entitled, “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.” The title is a little snarky, but the piece describes the results of an economic survey that he and Zogby International performed to test people about basic economics and correlate the results with political views.

Read the article for the full explanation, but the result is that those on the left are, on average, woefully ignorant of fundamental economics. I’m no genius, but I can say that, with a moment or two to reflect, I believe I would have gotten all the answers correct. We’re talking easy stuff like, “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable,” and you choose an answer ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

Overall, those identifying themselves as a some shade of conservative missed, on average, about 1.5 questions out of eight. Moderates missed 3.7. Liberals missed 4.7, and “very liberals” missed a whopping 5.3 out of eight.

Wow. That explains a lot. No wonder the left cannot understand the Tea Party movement.

Bear in mind that these results have nothing to do with intelligence. Instead, this has to do with knowledge about the way the world actually works. Economics is a science that describes markets, human behavior, and decision-making. Without some basic understanding of it, I can see how it would it would lead the left to believe that massive government spending and regulation are better for the economy than lowering taxes and minimizing government intervention.

I think it goes back to the right’s love of a reasoned arguments backed up by empirical data. That’s the reason right-wing talk radio succeeds so well: it’s based on being able to express reasoned arguments and defend them at length.

One of my left-leaning friends told me once that she believed the most important trait of a political leader was intelligence. I believe most people on the right, myself included, would choose honesty as the number one, followed closely by wisdom. Intelligence, without knowledge and wisdom of how the world works, is lame -- dangerous even. I’d rather have a leader who has an average IQ, but has common sense and a well-reasoned viewpoint.

By the way, there is one area in which the right, in my opinion, abandons the concept of a reasoned philosophy backed up by empirical data, and that’s religion. That’s a topic for another day.

Two recent quotes from liberal icon Bill Maher:

“How exactly does President Sanford and Son think he got elected — by CB radio? The campaign was based on the Internet.”

President Sanford and Son? Are you kidding me?

And he topped the offensiveness with this:

“I thought when we elected a black president, we were going to get a black president. You know, this [BP oil spill] is where I want a real black president. I want him in a meeting with the BP CEOs, you know, where he lifts up his shirt where you can see the gun in his pants. That’s — (in black man voice) we’ve got a ‘motherfu**ing problem here?’ Shoot somebody in the foot.”

Can you imagine the outrage if Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck said that? Can you imagine? Frankly, if they had, I’d be outraged too.

However, we have to remember that Bill is hardcore liberal, therefore he gets a pass and media silence. He joins a long, long list of other lefties who have enjoyed special treatment.

Tip of the hat to Big Journalism.

A few things swirling through my mind this morning:

Why isn’t Obama getting castigated for the slow response to the ever widening Gulf oil spill? Can you imagine if Bush were still President (I do regularly, but I digress)? He’d be getting ripped to shreds. The Washington Times looks at the situation here.

It seems to me that Michelle Malkin has become a much sharper and refined commentator over the last few years. I haven’t read her pieces extensively, but that’s the sense I get from seeing her on TV and reading her recently. She’s still an attack dog, but she’s a more effective one than she used to be.

Of course, Obama just threw her a juicy slab of red meat with his recent comments. Here’s how she begins her latest column:

President Obama spoke the most revealing and clarifying 10 words of his control-freak administration this week: "I think at some point you have made enough money." Peddling financial regulatory reform at a rally in Quincy, Ill., Obama then ad-libbed peculiar definitions of what he called the "American way" and the profit motive: "(Y)ou can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or providing good service. We don't want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."

Fundamental lesson of Capitalism 101: Governments and bureaucrats don't make what people want and need. They only get in the way. It is individuals, cooperating peacefully and voluntarily, working together without mandate or central design, who produce the world's goods and services. They make what people desire and demand for themselves, not what Obama and his imperial overlords ordain that the masses should have.

She right on, of course, and I can’t recall scarier words than Obama’s from a politician lately. They sum up his mindset perfectly. A question though: would he say, “You’ve made enough money” to a room full of Hollywood elites? You know, the ones that make $20 million and up for a movie?

This story about environmentalist nut cases in California intentionally wasting fresh water in pursuit of a misguided philosophy is, well, mind-blowing.

What the heck is going on in the world? I am beginning to wonder if hardcore liberalism isn’t a form of insanity or delusion. Seriously. The way the liberal brain functions (if you can call it that) is so completely foreign to me that it seems indistinguishable from madness.

Gov. Charlie Christ has left the party that brought him to power, the party that he said he would never leave, proving that his is an unprincipled liar and seeks only political advancement, at any cost. How can any voter ever trust anything he ever says again?

I did the St. Anthony’s triathlon last weekend. What an event! From what I understand, it is the unofficial kickoff event for the triathlon season. A number of pros participate. It’s an Olympic/International distance event: 1.5K swim, 40K bike, and a 10K run. The swim is my weak link and, unfortunately, it showed when the wind kicked up and seas got rough. I was zapped for the rest of the race and finished well over my goal time. Still, I am proud to have been a part of it.

Finally, how about those Rays? Wow! 17-5? Best record in baseball? Are you kidding me? Woohoo! Sure, they’ll come back down to Earth at some point, but man, what a fantastic start!

If I had to name my three favorite political writers, I’d name Jonah Goldberg and Mark Steyn for their humor, and Victor Davis Hanson for his brilliant, clear, and insightful writing.

If you want to know the conservative state of mind in this age of the our Supreme Leftist, President Obama, please read Hanson’s latest, Our American Catharsis. It’s longish, but well worth reading every word.

It’s impossible to pull out one or two snippets and do the article justice, but here are a couple that struck me.

...had Barack Obama run on the agenda he actually implemented during his first year in office — “Elect me and I shall appoint worthies like Craig Becker, Anita Dunn, and Van Jones; stimulate the economy through a $1.7-trillion annual deficit; take over health care, the auto industry, student loans, and insurance; push for amnesty for illegal aliens and cap-and-trade; and reach out to Iran, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela” — he would have been laughed out of Iowa.

I defy anyone to deny this. Obama got elected for three reasons. First, the country was weary (rightfully so) of the Iraq War. Second, Obama is black and for many people, voting for him was a feel-good act. Third, and this is the key, Obama presented himself as a centrist. In other words, he lied. Despite warnings from the right that his track record and associations indicated a solid leftist, if not far leftist, he fooled many people.

Hanson, near the end, says:

The country voted for the party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, and for once such statists are governing in the manner of their rhetoric. Time will soon tell whether this strange American experience is transitory and so becomes a needed catharsis, or whether it will be institutionalized and thus result in an enduring tragedy — this rare moment when the dreams of a zealous few are at last becoming the nightmares of a complacent many.

This is the inflection point I spoke about in my last post. I believe the country is at a critical juncture. I believe that whichever ideology (liberal/socialism vs. conservative/capitalism) wins the next two elections (mid-term in 2010 and presidential in 2012) will set the path for the country for at least a few decades, and possibly much longer.

I haven’t posted lately, but that doesn’t mean I am not horrified and outraged at the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress. This cartoon by Michael Ramirez sums it up for me:

I hate to say it, but I truly believe that Obama’s presidency will be seen as the inflection point where the United States began its slide from being the greatest country on Earth to just another socialist Euro-Weeny nanny-state mediocrity. China will become the world’s greatest power. I pray that the next two elections (mid-terms in 2010 and presidential in 2012) rescue us from that fate.

One more rant please, on a different topic. After this coldest winter in memory (and on record, at least in some ways), you might think that the global warming alarmists would shut the hell up -- forever. I’ll make an easy prediction: when the next winter rolls around, if it is warmer than this winter (a low bar to cross, if there every was one), the alarmists will come out of the woodwork screeching about how the temperature has risen. “It was 38 degrees in January 2011! It was only 36 degrees in January 2010! Global warming is real! We need cap and trade! Shut down capitalism! People are a scourge to the planet!” How utterly annoying they are.

Rants over. Have a nice day.

Back in December, when Congress was getting ready to increase the national debt ceiling by $2 trillion (that’s $2,000,000,000,000), I wrote a piece about trying to imagine that amount of money. It’s such a ridiculously large number that it boggles the mind and remains an abstraction, which makes it all the more insidious since it doesn’t seem real. Since we can’t easily get our arms around it, we shrug and return to American Idol.

In this second part, however, “mind boggling” refers not to the size of the debt or the projected annual deficits, but to the attitudes and mentality of some of our so-called leaders.

The Obama administration has released it budget for fiscal year 2011. Obama is ostensibly experiencing a fiscal awakening, if you judge him by his words. Obama, unfortunately, is either completely delusional, or he’s an extremely good liar. Frankly, I am not sure which it is, but it’s either one or the other. Why would I describe him so harshly? Because the evidence is so clear. Powerline shows us just how clearly his words conflict with reality:

"[O]ur government is deeply in debt after what can only be described as a decade of profligacy." So he proposes to put the country far more deeply in debt through profligacy of a sort that was undreamed of just a few years ago.

Obama said: "[W]e can't simply move beyond this crisis; we have to address the irresponsibility that led to it, and that includes the failure to rein in spending...." But his budget doesn't rein in spending, it increases it over last year's precedent-shattering total by around $100 billion.

Obama said: "[I]t would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children's future to pay our way today...." His budget, in just the next year, will borrow $1.6 trillion against our children's future to pay our way today.

Either Obama has completely lost touch with reality, or he thinks we have.

There is no question that both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to the fiscal crisis (and I don’t use that word lightly) we now face, but the Democrats, lately at least, are so much worse. As Powerline notes, “In 2006, the last year in which the Republicans controlled Congress, the deficit was $248 billion--one-seventh what Obama proposes for next year.”

National Review sums it up this way:

But what had been a chronic problem that all involved knew needed corrective action has now become, in the Obama years, a full-fledged disaster in the making.

According to the president’s budget, released yesterday, the federal deficit for 2010 is expected to reach nearly $1.6 trillion, a record. And that would come on top of a $1.4-trillion deficit in 2009 and before another $1.3-trillion deficit in 2011. Between 1789 and 2008, the U.S. government borrowed a total of $5.8 trillion. But in just the first three years of the Obama administration, the government is set borrow $4.4 trillion more.

And even that wouldn’t be the end of it. If the Obama budget is adopted in full, federal borrowing will top $18 trillion by 2020. Over the period 2011 to 2020, the president’s plan is to run deficits totaling an astounding $8.5 trillion.

Honestly, I could go on and on with examples of mind-boggling irresponsibility by politicians. The news is replete with examples.

Liberals love the word “sustainability.” If there is one path for our country that’s indisputably unsustainable, it’s adopting budgets that add about a trillion dollars a year to our national debt.

I hate alarmism, but there are times when an alarm really and truly needs to be sounded and heeded. Conservatives (as distinct from Republicans) have been saying for decades that government is too big, way too big. Often the sentiment was prompted not as much as much by a concern for the debt as it was by a philosophical notion about the proper role and limitations of government. OK, it turns out that, unsurprisingly, conservatism was right. But, ideology aside, we are heading for a fiscal shipwreck of epic proportions. Whether you are conservative or liberal, the wreck is coming regardless.

I might be missing a possibility, but it seems to me that we will: (A) raise taxes so high that economic growth grinds to a near permanent halt, (B) face higher and higher interest rates on our debt as other nations, China in particular, refuse to buy more and more of our debt without being compensated for the increasing risk of default, (C) start printing more money to pay the ever increasing debt service, which will lead to runaway inflation, and/or (D) we simply decide to default on our loans, much as many “under-water” homeowners have done recently, which would put the United States of America in the same financial category as third-world countries.

I don’t see any way around it. Even if the Dems lose control of the House and Senate, even if Obama the Delusional loses his bid for reelection, even if we have real conservatives running the entire government, I don’t know that we can turn the ship around. There are so many vested interests relying on the myriad of government departments, services, programs, agencies, entitlements, and policies that any actual, fundamental downsizing of government might be politically impossible. Too many people want the bacchanalia to continue, tomorrow be damned.

Still, we have to try. Electing fiscal conservatives (this is not a time to focus on social issues) is our only hope. For our part, we the citizens have to be willing to support candidates and elected officials when they tell about economic realties and propose unpleasant solutions. Every government program, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and foreign aid, needs to put on the table.

Pain is coming. If we are to minimize it, we have to act responsibly, maturely, seriously, and soon.

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial in today’s paper, called “The Audacity of Debt,” in which they discuss the impending vote by Congress to raise the national debt ceiling by almost $2 trillion. It got me thinking about the size of that number.

First, note how much easier it is to write and, more importantly, read “$2 trillion” rather than “$2,000,000,000,000.” There are so many zeros involved in the latter that one has to stop and count them to understand the figure.

Second, how much is $2,000,000,000,000? What’s the best way to visualize it? Is there a way to visualize it?

Here’s one way: imagine an airplane filled with $2,000,000,000,000 separated into bags of a million dollars each. Imagine that the pilot of this airplane takes off and heads due north at a speed of 300 miles per hour. The copilot’s job is to drop one of the bags containing a million dollars out of the airplane every time the plane travels a mile.

Before we go any further, think about how much money a million dollars is. How much difference would a million dollars make to you and your family? How much difference would a million dollars make to a small business or a local charity? Remember that impact.

Back to the airplane dropping a million dollars a minute, how far could the plane travel before the $2,000,000,000,000 ran out? Keep in mind that, at 300 miles per hour, the plane is dropping five million-dollar bags every minute.

A thousand miles? Five thousand miles? 10,000 miles? Around the entire Earth, a distance of 24,860 miles? I am afraid none of these is close. You have to think bigger.

You see, $2,000,000,000,000 is equal to 2,000,000 bags of $1,000,000 each. That right, the plane could travel 2,000,000 miles, or 80 times around the Earth, dropping a million dollars out every 12 seconds, before running out of money.

It would take the plane 6,667 hours to do so, equal to 278 days of continuous, 24/7 flying.

And that’s just the increase in the national debt that Congress will be approving shortly. Shall we talk about the total debt of $14,000,000,000,000?

The New York Times published an article today that is entitled, in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune at least, “U.S. Debt Costs May Soon Soar.” I don’t have time for a long response today, so allow me this brief response.

The Herald-Tribune attached this subhead, “Does Uncle Sam basically have a $12 trillion adjustable rate mortgage?” The article and that subhead make it pretty clear that the national debt is a new discover for liberal newspapers.

Oh, by the way, NYT and Sarasota Herald-Tribune, welcome to the Tea Party movement.

The article is mostly a well-written essay on the frightening implications of having such a gargantuan (if there is a more appropriate adjective, I don’t know what it is) debt, but it falls down on three points.

First, it doesn’t mention the possibility that other nations (China, really) might decide to stop buying our debt, and the complete chaos that would ensue if they did.

Second, even though the deficit under the Obama administration is exploding to unprecedented levels, what with the trillion-dollar “stimulus” package, and now Obama’s government takeover of healthcare, not once is Obama’s name mentioned.

Third, it tries to make the case that the massive spending by the man-whose-name-shall-not-be-mentioned was “widely judged to have been a necessary response.” Yet, no one is quoted to support that claim, and the Obama Administration’s own estimates and data show it to be, without question, a miserable failure:

When a liberal newspaper uses the words, “widely judged” or “the science is settled” or “most experts agree,” you can be pretty sure that “widely judged” should be qualified with “in our newsroom,” that the science is anything but settled, and that “most experts” refers to either some sort of wishful abstraction or to the kind of “experts” that frequent the same cocktail parties as NYT editors.

While liberals may be just now discovering the national debt (actually, I should say, “rediscovering” since they had a similar awakening when it came to the cost of the Iraq war), I am pretty confident that they will forget all about it when it comes to reducing spending, but it will be front-and-center when it comes to the idea of raising taxes. In fact, my well-seasoned cynicism tells me that this is what the article is really about: pin no blame for the exploding deficit on Obama, but provide him cover when he raises taxes. Just wait.

So, in his first nine months in office, Obama has played a whopping 24 rounds of golf. Bush didn't play 24 rounds of golf until he had been president for close to three years.

The economy is in dire straits with the unemployment rate is rising to 10%. The Afganistan war is a serious question mark and awaits presidential action. The national debt is climbing to unsustainable levels. Can you imagine what the press reaction would be if Bush were president now and was playing golf almost three times a month? It would be off-the-chart outrage, and I'd be mad too. Obama, the Most Holy, gets a pass as usual.

Every president needs a break, but golfing 24 times in nine months in times like this is unthinkable. Save the golf for times of peace and prosperity.

Victor Davis Hanson and Charles Krauthammer are two of my favorite commentators. Each has a special ability to cut through the periphery of an issue and get straight to the heart of it.

Mr. Hanson wields his scalpel on the perfect storm that enabled President Obama's election and the bitter truths that have followed in which realities are trumping illusions. Regarding the Obama Administration's reaction to opposition, he writes:

His opposition is no longer ossified, but decentralized and grass roots. One of the oddest proofs of that statement is the sudden leftist furor at tea parties, town halls, the media, dissent, and free speech. As long as Obama was opposed by calcified Republicans in Congress, there was no real danger to him. But once the opposition proved populist, panicked liberal elites started demonizing populism — and Obama now finds himself opposed to the popular grievance-mongering that was once the mother’s milk of our Chicago organizer’s existence.

Mr. Krauthammer dissects the almost unbelievable effort by Obama and his minions to marginalize Fox News, which has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, and which has a more evenly spread viewership (roughly split among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) than either. After all, says Mr. Krauthammer:

Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be comical — and that doesn’t even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.

Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN’s and MSNBC’s combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN — which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a Saturday Night Live skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

It's tempting, at this point early in Obama's term, to extrapolate out and predict that his presidency will continue to be such a failure. Heck, as the days pass and the outrages mount, it seems like he might even make it to the end of his term. I'm not talking in concrete terms about impeachment or assassination, I am talking about the feeling that the trajectory he is on is simply unsustainable. At some point, even the liberal media will have to turn on him. When that happens, look out. He'll be labeled the most colossal disappointment in presidential history.

Will he wise up and order a course change? I believe he will, eventually. Like many politicians, I believe what he wants most of all is power. When it finally dawns on him that the majority of Americans no longer see him as the Messiah (I admit it might take awhile for that realization to come), and that a second term is in jeopardy, and that demonizing his opponents and George Bush and pushing a far-left agenda aren't working, he will become pragmatic and reactivate his campaign's "centrist" and "uniter" themes. Will the public buy it a second time? I doubt it.

This just in from Norway: President Barack Obama has been awarded this year's Nobel Liberal Prize!

What an outstanding achievement! Here's what the Nobel Committee had to say:

The Nobel Committee, after careful consideration, is pleased to announce that the winner of the Nobel Liberal Prize is awarded to President Barack Obama, long may He reign. The Committee was swayed by His outstanding and dedicated efforts to denigrate the history of the United States while speaking abroad. We are continually impressed by His tireless efforts to transform America from an evil, capitalistic, strong, free society into a good, socialistic, weak, and dependent society. President Obama simply won't rest until the U.S. government is as big as His ego, and America is no better than any other country. In fact, if it were a little worse than most, that would be great.

But what clinched the award was the amazing extent to which President Obama is not President Bush the Horrible. We can't get over it. It's like Obama is the anti-Bush. That, by itself, is reason enough for us to award the Nobel Liberal Prize to the One.

Yes, we're serious.

What a great day! I, for one, am having a hard time describing the new level of respect I have for the Nobel Committee. I am not alone.

First, I am rather proud of myself: I competed in the Siesta Key Triathlon yesterday (0.5 mile swim, 13 mile bike, 3.1 mile run) and, while I wasn't near getting a medal, I did finish 12th out of 35 in my age group.

More than the decent finish (I had a better finish in the Venice Triathlon, 3rd, although it was against a smaller and weaker field), however, I am pleased with how fresh I felt at the end. Yes, I was breathing very heavy for the first minute or two after finishing the run, but I recovered quickly and felt great. I'm just better now at managing the race and myself. Nice feeling.

All right, this is old, old news by internet standards (> 30 days), but I still want to comment. This picture is the world's first image of an actual molecule, a million times smaller than a grain of sand. Mind blowing.

There is more evidence that global warming is non-event, and Jonah Goldberg discusses the matter quite reasonably. It all shows how legislation such as the proposed "cap and trade" bill are not really about the environment, but about the expansion of government at the expense of capitalism and sound science.

Rich Lowry has Obama the Arrogant nailed in An Obama Speech in 13 Easy Steps. If there was every a president that was actually the complete opposite of what he claimed to be during his campaign (in Obama's case, a "uniter"), it's Obama.

I haven't quite made up my mind about Sarah Palin. My horse sense tells me that she is what she appears to be: a plain-spoken, honest, corruption-fighting conservative who is not afraid to speak her mind. Her message and language aren't focused-grouped and slickly packaged to move polls, thank God. She's more like the people of America than she is like the people in Washington. She "gets it," so to speak.

No, she's not perfect human being, and yes, she needs experience, but there is no denying that she has one quality that conservative politicians (as distinct from conservative pundits or voters), at least on the national stage, have recently lacked: she's very, very attractive. I hate symbolism over substance, but the harsh reality is that more attractive people have a distinct edge over less attractive people, in a number of situations, most especially including politics.

Let's face it, she's hot. She's as far from the stereotypical old-white-man GOP politician as you can get.

Victor Davis Hanson writes brilliantly, as usual, about where we stand, eight years later.

Last November, fresh off the election, I made a number of predictions about the Obama administration. I was right about some of them, and feel comfortable standing by others that haven't been decided yet. However, I was wrong about two things.

First, I predicted that the economy was poised to strengthen at the beginning of the year and that a moderate recovery would be underway by now. Interest rates were low, oil prices were low, the inventory of unsold houses was declining, and the worst of the credit crunch seemed to be over. Instead of a recovery, we've had severe job losses and the unemployment rate has reached about 10%. There might be some glimmers of improvement, but it's dicey.

A significant factor in the lingering recession, I believe, the Obama Admininstration's "stimulus" and its other massive spending plans. The American people have been shaken by the arrogance and wrong-headedness of the administration's efforts to spend far, far beyond its means while citizens have been cutting back and getting their financial houses in order. I believe the irresponsible and ineffective spending has hurt consumer and, perhaps more importantly, business confidence. I talk to business people from various sectors frequently, and they are all nervous about the future. There is a sense of deep foreboding that we are heading down a dark road from which there is no return. Business men and women are apprehensive, and it is affecting the recovery. While leads me to my second erroneous prediction.

I thought Obama's honeymoon period would last a good year. The press is so deeply in love with and committed to His Holiness that I figured they'd cover for his misteps and the sheer volume of positive press coverage he would receive would keep the average, working, not-much-interested-in-politics American from realizing how far to the left President Obama actually is.

Thankfully, and my eyes are practically getting misty as I write this, I was wrong. The honeymoon is over (via Rasmussen Reports):

Obama's overall approval rating has slipped below 50%, and there is majority opposition to some of his signature items: government-run healthcare, cap and trade, and tax increases. Just when I start to lose hope in America (see the last election), the citizenry always comes through and bucks me up.

If Obama were smart, he'd stop pushing 1,000-page massive government bills. He'd scale back, let the economy recover, take (undeserved) credit for it, and watch his poll numbers increase. It's really pretty simple: the citizens want prosperity, security, and minimal conflict. The prosperity will come, if The One would just get out of the way. We have security, thanks to the Bush Administration, and the conflict in Afghanistan seems far more remote and abstract than the Iraq liberation did (what exactly is the end-game in Afghanistan anyway? Can anybody be bothered to ask? Where are all the war protesters now?).

If Obama isn't smart enough to scale back his far-left agenda, hopefully his sinking approval ratings will prevent him from enacting it.

There's no question that there's a growing sense among many, myself included, that government is headed in the wrong direction. It is far too big, spends far too much of our money (and spends it poorly), and it's far too obtrusive and burdensome to the citizens. Here's a chart that sums up the spending problem and, by extension, the size problem:

Go here for more details.

Our liberal friends like to talk about "sustainability." The government's enormous spending and gargantuan debt are nothing if not unsustainable, and it's a bipartisan phenomenon. The national debt under President Bush increased by a whopping $2.5 trillion dollars. It is projected to increase under President Obama by a mind-blowing $4.9 trillion. That's $4,900,000,000,000. That's $16,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. If my back-of-an-envelope math is correct, if you were to place that amount of cash in one dollar bills end-to-end, it would stretch from Washington, D.C. all the way to the sun -- five times.

And that's just the increase in the debt.

I will attend the Tea Party today in downtown Sarasota. I don't know if all the Tea Parties around the country will have a big impact or lasting effect on the course of our government, but I suspect they might. I believe there's a large, normally-quiet-but-now-fed-up segment of the citizenry that is finally ready to have their voices heard. They aren't happy with either political party. They know (and love) enough about our country's founding to realize how far we have strayed from its principles. They are afraid the United States is turning toward socialism. They are tired of taxes, taxes, and more taxes. They are repulsed by the very idea of a 60,000 page tax code. They hate wealth-transferring policies. They don't like the feeling that we are working for the government, not the other way around. They don't like how incredibly out-of-touch most of our politicians are.

At a time when almost all Americans are tightening their financial belts and streamlining their spending, the government is spending like never before. The Tea Partiers are looking for change... real change (not campaign fluff "change")... concrete change... fundamental change... For the sake of our nation, I hope today will be the beginning.

A number of new stories stuck me today as being incredible. Taken together, they represent the disturbing extent to which people and society have lost their bearings. You be the judge.

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism. That absolutely blows my mind, and it's the scariest statistic I've read in a long time. The survey concludes that Democrats, naturally, are far more inclined to favor socialism. I suppose the silver lining is that at least the Democrats are now being honest about it.

The White House is denying that Obama bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Look, no sane person can say that Obama didn't bow, so this denial shows that the Obama Administration is willing lie to the American people. And if they are willing to lie about such a minor incident (thus risking the the often-repeated PR blunder of turning a small incident into a large incident), they surely will be willing to lie when the political stakes are higher.

Oh, and if you don't believe that much of the media is just a mouthpiece for liberal organizations, see this: The curious case of 200 nearly identical MSM headlines.

A Democrat delegation to Fidel Castro ends up praising him. I have nothing to add.

Obama's "science advisor" is considering shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Can you imagine how the Bush Administration would have been mocked had it proposed such insanity?

I can hardly describe how stunned and horrified I am with the Obama administration. He and his cronies have already broken numerous campaign promises; they've sent the stock market spiraling downward; they're spending such a massive amount of our money that it's hard to comprehend; they're off on the wrong foot diplomatically; they continue to embarrass themselves with cabinet appointees; they're wasting their time and displaying their worst political tendencies by attacking conservatives like Rush; and they are addressing issues like universal health care and carbon trading that should be put on the back-burner, if not dismissed altogether.

Worse of all is the undeniable lurch toward socialism and massive government, as if government weren't already enormous. As Hillary said recently, "Never waste a good crisis." Team Obama is using the worsening financial crisis as an excuse for the implementation for a thoroughly destructive and sweeping liberal agenda.

If the Obama keeps this up, he may well be not only the worst president of my lifetime, but the president that put America on a downward path from which it may never recover. Please, Mr. President, step away from your omnipresent TelePrompTer, take a deep breath, slow down, and realize how you are wasting the opportunity you have been given. Realize that doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.

More and more, I appreciate Ronald Reagan's observation: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

As part of the annual reassessment that inevitably occurs, to a greater or lesser extent, each new year, I reviewed many of the 96 posts I have made to this blog. Strikingly, the negative topics (politics, news bias, ...) far outnumber the positive topics (sports, humor, ...). It has been nice, in a way, to editorialize about politics and get frustrations off my chest. I hesitate to bring up those discussions with family or friends, so this has been a ready outlet.

Still, I can't help but wonder about the site's negativity. I think it reflects what has been a year or two long change where I have grown sick of politics in general. Politics and government in this country are, I believe, largely broken.

Both parties are broken. The Democrats' every action is politically calculated. If you take the politics out of the Democrat party, you have nothing left. They deceive, lie, and pander as easily as you and I walk down the street.

The Republicans, by contrast, are bumbling amateurs at politics and always will be. They are too trusting that the truth of their principles will be recognized by the American people. They don't have the killer instinct to play the game that, unfortunately, must be played in order to "win." When they finally do gain power, they squander it through timidity or the abandonment of the very principles that got them there.

There are individual exceptions to my characterizations, of course, but there is no escaping the conclusion that the country is on the wrong path.

So, what do I do about it? In some cases, such frustration with the system will cause one to jump in the fray and attempt to be an agent of positive change. I took that approach for many years. I was a member of the Sarasota Republican Party Executive Committee for years. I created and ran its website. I attended dinners and rallies. I pollwatched. In short, although I never ran for office, I was active.

I can't do it any longer. I'll still support the party financially, but I'm withdrawing my time. To those people who are engaged and fighting the good fight, I say, thank God for you. I, however, am leaving the battle. Now that I am not part of the "solution," have I become part of the problem? I say perhaps, and shrug my shoulders.

Over the last year, I've been gradually pulling back. I watch and read less political news. I am more involved in positive activities (family, running, sailing, and so on). I have also grown more interested in philosophical (for lack of a better word) topics such as living more simply, staying organized, avoiding consumerism, paying down debt, and so on.

After initially seeing little purpose in social networking sites, I have grown fond of Facebook. More than just a way to reconnect with friends, it's an amazingly positive environment. I have yet to see a comment or post that wasn't friendly, humorous, supportive, or perhaps all three. It's refreshing.

Life is too short to dwell on the negative. That doesn't mean I will bury my head in the sand, but instead of having a strong, ready-to-go opinion about the news of the day, I'll increasingly have only an opinion about the news of the month or year. In other words, I'm not going to worry any longer about the day-to-day machinations of grisly politics.

As for this site, I'm undecided. Should I post more, or perhaps exclusively, about positive topics? Should I simply discontinue it and move on? I am leaning toward the former, but I don't know yet. Stay tuned.

In response to a news article about how it costs cell phone companies very little to deliver text messages, making it a highly profitable part of their business, given the rampant texting by young people, this MacWorld forum was filled with the kind of comments that are typical of society these days and are a glimpse into the kind of liberal/socialist mindset that has me greatly worried. It was too much for me to ignore, so I responded:

Reading some of these posts has me weeping for the future of mankind. What a bunch of ignorant, childish, whiners.

Here's a little secret: nobody in business, whether a sole proprietor or a multi-national corporation, prices their products according to the cost of of producing them, if they know what they are doing. Cost is irrelevant to pricing. Pricing is a function of supply and demand. Period. Sometimes, market conditions are such that you have to sell your products at a loss. Sometimes, you can make a bundle. That's the way it goes.

If I find an Babe Ruth baseball card in the attic, my cost is zero. I am obligated to just give it away for zero or little money? I hope to God you are saying to yourself, "No." Regardless of the cost, I am entitled to get what the market will bear. The fact that handling text messages has little variable cost (don't forget though, that there are huge fixed costs of running a cell phone company) is totally irrelevant to the pricing.

There is nothing wrong, much less criminal, with charging what the market will bear. Profit is not dirty. Profit is what all (sane) businesses strive for. Yes, they can strive for other goals too, but without profit, they cease to exist. There is no such thing as "excess profit," unless there you have a true monopoly situation involving product that people cannot reasonably live without. There is plenty of competition in the cell phone market.

Bottom line: if you think it costs too much to text, switch companies. If you can't find a better deal, don't text. It is that simple. Take responsibility for yourself and your actions. Stop looking for some company to blame or some politician to solve your problems.

Anger at cell phone companies? Government investigations? Talk about "obscene profits"? The self-centered, wimpy, business-ignorant nanny-state has truly arrived.

Rant over.

In Prediction, Part 1, I forecast the election results. I was reasonably close the mark, but it was an easy prediction.

Before I take on the more difficult job of predicting how the Most Holy Obama's administration will play out, I'll make another easy one. In thoroughly liberal Minnesota, enough votes will be manufactured, discovered, or found in the back seats of cars to steal the senatorial election away from Norm Coleman and give it to Al Franken. So far as I am aware, votes "discovered" in one way or another have favored (surprise!) Al Franken in every single instance. Hmmm, what are the odds of that happening by chance...

I won't get into all the sordid details here (Power Line is doing a good job of reporting it all), but there is little question that fraud is occurring. Coleman's lead has shrunk from 705 votes down to 206, and the recount hasn't even started yet. I will gladly, and hopefully, eat my words, but Coleman doesn't stand a chance against corrupt liberal vote counters. And when it occurs, I don't want to hear another peep from Democrats about Bush supposedly stealing the 2000 election.

Now, regarding Obama the Arrogant, immediately after the election I felt there was a fair chance that the guy would actually do what he said over and over on the campaign trail: be a uniter, lead in a new direction, usher in real "change," whatever that means. In the subsequent days, those hopes are disappearing. Why?

1. He has already appointed Clinton-era folks to his staff, including the hyper-partisan Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff. Democrat Paul Begala reportedly described him as a "cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache." This is a uniter? This is post-partisan? This is a new direction?

2. He held a press conference in which he mocked the elderly Nancy Reagan as having held seances in the White House. Classy. Speaks volumes.

3. He contradicts Polish President Lech Kaczynski regarding whether or not, during their conversation, Obama agreed to continue the missle defense project. This is clarity in foreign policy? Or is did he say one thing to Kaczynski and another to the U.S. press?

4. He claimed that he would not meet with Hamas until they renounced terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist. He lied. Senior Hamas officials announced that they have already talked and met with Obama's people, but were told not to reveal that information until after the election. This is change? This is an honest approach?

5. The co-chair of Obama's transition team said the King would be "ready to rule on Day 1." Rule, huh? Obama the Arrogant, indeed.

6. All this has happened in less than a week after the election.

I believe Obama's campaign was nothing but a show designed to fool the electorate by telling them what they wanted to hear. When you consider his association with unrepentant terrorists like William Ayers, radical America haters like Rev. Wright, and Socialist political parties, it's easy to be alarmed at the prospect of the show stopping and the "ruling" beginning.

So, what will his administration be like?

First, I predict he will continue to fill positions with long-time liberals and staunch Democrats. So much for "change."

Second, he will successfully push through his tax increase/wealth redistribution plan, over the outcries of Republicans. So much for being a unifer and bringing people together.

Third, in spite his plan and not because of it, the economy will strengthen. The media loves to talk about what monumental challenges will face Obama and how tough it will be. They're doing this to lower expectations and to make sure he gets the credit for anything good that happens. In reality, Obama couldn't possibly be more fortunate, and he must be absolutely delighted. Here's why:

1. The credit crisis is slowing fading away. The heavy lifting (for good or bad) has been done. The gears of finance are moving again.

2. Oil prices and other commodity prices have tumbled. Remember how Bush was blamed for high gas prices? Funny how he's not getting the credit now that they have returned to earth. The reality, of course, is that Bush has little to do with the price of oil, although he did help matters when he rescinded the ban on off-shore drilling. The price of oil has always been largely about global demand.

3. The inventory of home listings has dropped substantially as the housing market is poised to rebound. It's just waiting on the rest of the economy now.

4. Iraq is won and is now largely a policing and transition situation. Obama will get to bring the troops home, and he will get the credit for ending the war. Bush won't get the credit for winning it.

5. The dollar is much stronger than it used to be.

6. Inflation is in check.

7. Interest rates are low.

8. By the time he takes office, the worst of the job losses will probably be over, or nearly so.

9. These factors taken together mean that the economy is poised to take off, and will start doing so mid-way through 2009. And Obama will get the credit.

My fourth prediction is that he'll get a solid year of honeymoon, and then the press will take off their bridal gowns and realize that, wow, he really is arrogant. He really does say one thing to one group and something else to another. His actions don't always match his words. He really is a lefty, and not a centrist. He really is a human being and not a god.

Don't get me wrong, they'll still love the guy. After all, he is a lefty like they are, but they will start to sober up and, for the first time, he will have to deal with tough questions from the press.

Fifth, the Republicans will rediscover their conservative roots and Ronald Reagan. They will rally and provide meaningful opposition.

Sixth, for those Americans in the political middle that voted for Obama, the bloom will come off the rose around 2010-2011. It will sink in that he is a typical lefty politician and his approval rating will fall below 50%.

Seventh, the midterm elections in 2010 will see modest Republican gains in the House and Senate. Modest because unless Obama screws up completely, the economy will be fairly strong.

Eighth, Joe Biden will continue to be a gaffe machine, and the press will stop covering for him once the late-night comedians start carving him up.

Ninth, I sincerely hope I am wrong about this, but I think Bush's incredibly strong streak of 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on U.S. soil will come to an end. Obama will respond with a lot of words and condemnations, but treat it as a police action, and the terrorists will be emboldened.

Tenth, Iran will attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, unless Israel preemptively attacks Iranian facilities. Either way, Obama will respond will a lot of words and condemnations, but little else.

Eleventh, by the time the election in 2012 rolls around, Obama's tax hikes and increases in regulations (carbon taxes, etc.) will start to affect the economy. There will have been some kind of scandal or corruption. Americans will be concerned about radical Islam and terrorism again. The bloom will be off the Obama rose.

The country will be tired of liberalism by 2012, just as they were tired of the feckless Jimmy Carter. The country will be tired of buffoons like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They will ready to undo the mistake of 2008.

The Republicans, having learned a lesson about what qualities it takes in win a presidential election these days, will find a youthful, attractive, energetic, smooth-talking candidate that can articulate what conservatism is all about. If they don't, if they turned to some old GOP fixture, they'll lose. But if they can find an appealing candidate, they'll win.

Finally, let me say that none the predications represents my wishes (other than GOP gains). I sincerely hope that Obama proves to be a uniter and a centrist. I want America to prosper and enjoy safety and freedom, no matter who gets the credit. If he leads effectively and America benefits, I'll be delighted and admit I was wrong.

We'll see.

Ever since the primary season, when it became clear that Obama and McCain would be the nominees, I've had this uneasy feeling that I haven't been able to put my finger on. Then, when the tide was flowing in B.O.' s direction and his win became inevitable, that nebulous feeling grew. With the Messiah's ascension victory, the feeling became one of slight nausea, but what was it?

It wasn't the mere fact that the Democrat won. That doesn't bother me (much). It was some kind of sensation that the country was on the wrong course, regardless of who won. Today, Mark Steyn on National Review nailed it for me with The Death of the American Idea. The title sums it up well. Countries around the world are drifting to the left, including the U.S. Here's a statistic that gets more depressing as each year passes and it grows larger and larger:

"...federal spending (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) has gone from $600 billion in 1965 to $3 trillion today."

That's right, government is five times bigger today than 1965, at least in terms of spending. Can you imagine how horrified our founding fathers would be at the size and scope of the federal government?

The monstrosity that is our government has changed the mentality of many Americans. A majority of people now feel entitled to pay little or no income taxes, placing an ever-increasing burden on those who are particularly productive, yet the same free-loaders expect to be provided for and coddled from cradle to grave. The government paying for daycare, schooling, welfare, prescription drugs, healthcare? Yes, we can! The mentality extends to the rest of the economy as well. Bailing out insurance companies, banks, and auto companies? Government intervention, regulation, and even ownership of so-called private industry? Sure!

Mr. Steyn's money quote:

The President-elect's so-called “tax cut” will absolve 48 per cent of Americans from paying any federal income tax at all, while those that are left will pay more. Just under half the population will be, as Daniel Henninger pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, on the dole. By 2012, it will be more than half, and this will be an electorate where the majority of the electorate will be able to vote itself more lollipops from the minority of their compatriots still dumb enough to prioritize self-reliance, dynamism, and innovation over the sedating cocoon of the nanny state. That is the death of the American idea — which, after all, began as an economic argument: “No taxation without representation" is a great rallying cry. “No representation without taxation” has less mass appeal. For how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it's unsustainable and you've got to give some of it back?

The left loves to talk (and talk...) about "sustainability." The increasingly liberal nature of our government is unsustainable and should be an affront to all Americans. It seems unlikely to change anytime soon.

The day after B.O. was elected, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 5%. That's 5% in one day.

So much for the idea that Wall Street is excited about the Messiah's economic policies. It's finally dawning on everybody that he wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, which immediate decreases the stock values.

I'm glad I'm in commercial real estate.

Not much to say about the election results that I haven't already said, but Powerline, as usual, has a nice summary of the outcome and what it mean. While they don't believe the results should be termed a landslide since the margin was 5 to 6 points, it was certainly a solid victory.

Locally, there were some important Republican victories, so Obama's coattails weren't particularly long. In fact, most of my choices won, which is satisfying.

The thought that keeps going through my head is that the country had to endure Jimmy Carter and come to grips with its mistake in electing him, to then correct that mistake by electing Ronald Reagan. If Obama's presidency results in the public realizing how awful liberalism is, and the next Ronald Reagan is elected in 2012... well, I'll take that tradeoff every time.

Today is election day (finally!) and it's time for predictions. My first prediction (today) will be the election outcome, and the second prediction (soonish) will be what the next president's term will be like.

Back around the 2000 election, I discovered Rasmussen Reports, a polling firm. They have proven themselves to be among the most accurate and serious of the polling companies, with no discernible bias. I tend to discard the noise of the latest NYT/CBS/Whatever poll and just pay attention to Rasmussen.

The popular vote is irrelevant. The only tally that matters is the electoral college, and here's the bottom line: Obama leads 260 to 160, with 118 toss-ups and leaners. It's easy to see that McCain would have to win almost all of the toss-ups to pull off a win. Baring a enormous turnout by Republicans, the Messiah will easily reach the magic 270 needed to win and descend from heaven to show us His Way. I never thought I'd see so many people turn off their brains and follow such a leftist.

So, will Republicans turn out en masse? I can't see it. Sure, conservatives are scared of an Obama presidency and what it might mean for our country, but there isn't a great deal of enthusiasm for McCain. He's a bona fide hero, but he is a mixed-bag politically. I don't think Republicans will be voting for McCain as much as they'll be voting against Obama. That's no way to win an election. Still, I want to thank John McCain for his extensive service to the country he so dearly loves.

I predict Obama takes it by a minimum of 310 to 228. It will be termed a "landslide," and it'll be hard to argue.

When Obama wins, it will confirm once and for all that experience is irrelevant, ideas are irrelevant, military heroism is irrelevant, honesty is irrelevant, consistency is irrelevant. What matters is: youth, slick speaking, physical attractiveness, gobs of money, a willingness to tell people whatever they want to hear, and perhaps most importantly, a press corp that is willing to cover for the candidate when he flip-flops, associates with terrorists, America-haters, and Islamic radicals, and pretends to have mainstream views.

OK, next time, I'll predict what Obama's administration will be like. Here's a hint: he'll serve only one term.

Drudge linked to an article in the New York Observer about some feminist named Erica Jong. I was interested due to the title:
"Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss 'Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets'"

I, too, believe there will be violence by the deranged left if The One is not elected. I have already pointed out examples of Liberal Rage Syndrome, and there are more. But what does it tell you about the left that they are willing to turn to violence if they can't get their way at the voting booth?

Regardless, I am here to tell you that there won't be any "second Civil War". First, it would make a complete mockery of all those "war is not the answer" bumper stickers. But more importantly, there is the question of armament. What are the libs going to attack with? Hot lattes? Are they going to figure out how to convert a Prius to a tank? Can you imagine your average vegetarian teachers union member going up against a shotgun and buck knife equipped conservative from Texas or Tennessee? That "war" would be over before it began.

What I love most about the article are the quotes from Ms. Jong:

"The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged."
What record? And has she heard of ACORN? Or is she talking about Daley's Chicago? Who knows!

"My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves."
I hate to hear Follett is a lib, but hearing that Jane Fonda is a bundle of nerves brings me a bit of twisted pleasure.

"My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium."
So liberals are so weak minded that the mere possibility that The One-Whose-Middle-Name-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned might not win the election is causing back problems? Get a grip!

"After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…"
Ahh, yes, the tin-foil hat is firmly in place now.

"If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets."
Can you believe this? Libs were demanding that troops come home from Iraq. Because we've won, some troops have been brought home,. But wait, the real reason was to prepare for an inevitable civil war! That boggles the mind. And this woman is considered an intellectual in the liberal community? Yikes.

"Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act."
I absolutely love this. Remind me again, which campaign just kicked reporters off the campaign plane since they work for newspapers that had the temerity to endorse McCain? And is she referring to the Patriot Act that passed the Senate 99-1? That evil Bush! He must have rigged the Senate voting machine!

Very amusing stuff. I have to thank Ms. Jong for making my Friday.

Although the polls are tightening a little, one has to assume that the combination of these factors will ensure Obama's election:

• The Messiah's massive war chest, permitted by his broken promise to accept public campaign financing and comprised partly of illegal foreign donations (oops, that's a secret -- don't tell anyone!)

• The credit crunch and the associated dive in the stock market, due in large part to the Dems mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the pressure exerted on banks by Barack's ACORN to make high-risk loans (oops, that's a secret -- don't tell anyone!)

• The media lap dogs who, at the beginning of this election cycle, finally gave up trying to hide their biased reporting and switched to outright advocacy (oops, that's a secret -- don't tell anyone!).

• The amazing ability of The One, who was rated the most liberal member of the Senate, to hide his liberalism as he lurches to the center (oops, that's a secret -- don't tell anyone!).

• The lack of enthusiasm conservatives and moderates feel for John McCain. Yes, he is a war hero. Yes, he is great on defense and spending. Yet he is terrible on other issues like campaign finance reform, drilling in the Alaska wasteland, the treatment of terrorists, and climate change. He has a long history of poking conservatives in the eye and, in combination with his innate lack of charisma, he has left the Republican Party unenthusiastic about him. What enthusiasm we do have is strictly due to our fear of the alternative.

I hate doom and gloom. I hate end-of-the-world statements. I hate unwarranted hand-wringing. But I have to wonder if the election of Barack Obama will be the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it. I don't mean that the U.S. won't survive, but it might be in a form unrecognizable to our founding fathers.

I'm afraid we will see the Democrats move us toward their beloved socialism and Marxism.

I'm afraid the press, emboldened by the realization that they still trump the alternative press and having invested everything into The Messiah, will continue their worshipful ways and will continue to avert their eyes at his transgressions.

I'm afraid for freedom of speech since the "Fairness" Doctrine is lurking the in wings, and the Dems have already shown us they are more than willing to shut down the speech of those with whom they disagree.

I'm afraid that we will have reached a tipping point in our tax code, where majority will not pay income taxes and will realize they can make the productive minority pay the tab.

I'm afraid for our strong ally Israel and its fate, if a feckless Obama doesn't support them and stop Iran from developing a nuke.

I'm afraid our Supreme Court will be stacked with law makers instead of Constitution interpreters.

I'm afraid chimeras like global warming will stifle business and productivity with insane regulations.

I'm afraid corruption will go unchecked.

I'm afraid terrorists will be emboldened and will attack us on our own soil.

I'm afraid government will get so large that it cannot ever realistically be changed and that the nanny state will be with us forever.

I'm afraid the people of Iraq won't get the support they need, and our victory there will turn into defeat.

I hope and pray that my fears are unwarranted. I hope and pray that should my fears be proven justified, the nations will wake up, and a wave of conservatism will sweep over the mid-term elections, as it did during the Clinton administration.

All that said, my happiness isn't a function of which party or person is in the White House. Some people "own" the election internally, and will be extremely upset if the results don't go their way. I used to be that way. I'm wiser now. Yes, I'll be disappointed in the judgement of that portion of the electorate that voted for Obama, but life goes on regardless.

This story of a female McCain supporter being mugged, and then maimed with the letter 'B' (for Barack) scratched into her face is certainly a prime example of LRS... if it's true. The picture of her face is very disturbing -- the 'B' is clearly visible and she has a black eye.

While her story does have some inconsistencies, as far as I can tell they have little to do with the meat of the story and more to do with her fuzzy recollection of the some of the details. Who could blame her for not recalling horrific events perfectly clearly? To her credit, she has taken a lie detector test.

Unless information to the contrary comes forth, I am going to count this as another example of Liberal Rage Syndrome.

Update: Nope, she apparently made it up. Did she maim her own face? If so, get this woman some help...

Wow, that was quick. I just wrote bit about Liberal Rage Syndrome and, voila, here's another example of it:

Republican HQ Manager's Home Shot Up Over McCain Signs

Excerpting:

The home of a Central Florida Republican headquarters manager was shot up and damaged over his support of Sen. John McCain, the man told police...

Coverely said he has taken about 300 calls concerning stolen or vandalized McCain signs in the area. "It says this campaign is getting vicious," Coverely said. Coverely said it appears Democrats are becoming more aggressive in the county.

"I wouldn't say slipping but I would say the Democrats have become far more aggressive in Seminole County because it is such a heavy Republican area," Coverely said.

Hmmm, now bullets are flying. It that the "change" liberals are looking for?

For years, conservatives have noted a phenomenon they've called "Bush Derangement Syndrome." There are a wide variety of symptoms for the disease, but they include an irrational hatred of President Bush, illogical thinking, blaming any and all problems, whether domestic or foreign, on him, and using words like "Bushitler". BDS comes from a lack of clear cognitive functioning in combination with the frustration of losing the last two elections and the subconscious realization that most of the country just doesn't care for liberalism.

I am seeing signs that BDS has morphed into a more generalized hatred that includes violence. I've never liked the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" since it isn't Bush who is deranged, but those on the loonie left. So, I'll call this new variation "Liberal Rage Syndrome."

What is LRS and how do I know it exists? Not only have I read about instances of it, I have witnessed it twice recently. The first instance occurred a few weeks ago at the LSU-Florida football game pre-game festivities on University Avenue in Gainesville. There were thousands of people tailgating and walking about, all having a great time, Tiger fans included. There was a small McCain-Palin tent set up nearby and my wife impulsively grabbed a couple of name-tag-sized McCain-Palin stickers, put one on the side of her dress, and gave one to me. I stuck it on my shirt. Not 10 minutes later, a guy walking the other direction lunged over toward my wife, jabbed his finger at her and screamed "F*** McCain!" Both of us were so stunned that by the time we recovered the guy had disappeared into the crowd. OK, it wasn't a huge incident, but it fits a pattern, as you will see next.

Last Saturday morning, I got up early to go for my long run downtown. I was driving along at about 6:50 AM, and stopped at a red light next to the only other car on the six-lane street, a car with numerious liberal stickers on the back. You can probably guess what kind of car it was. I thought nothing of it, and when the light turned green, I accelerated normally and the other car fell behind slightly.

Then, all of a sudden, the car speeds ahead, swerves in front of me, and hits the brakes -- not enough for me to lock up my brakes, but close. I immediately swerve to the empty lane and the car swerves back in front of me to keep me behind him. I blow my horn at him, and then it hits me -- this nutcase is trying to get me to see his bumper stickers, including his Obama sticker, and he is enraged because I have the temerity to have a McCain-Palin sticker on the back of my car.

At this point, the adrenalin is pumping because I don't know if he is really trying to get me to crash into him. My instinct told me to gun it and get past him. It probably wasn't the safest move, but it worked. After all, I was in a 300 hp CTS and he was driving a lame (you guessed it) Prius. I blow past the psycho, and thankfully he decided to turn off onto a side street. I eventually calmed down and had a really nice long run.

Today on Drudge, I see this story: Owner Believes Lexus Vandalized Due to McCain Sticker. Read it and be shocked.

"Someone etched obscenities and "KKK" into the paint, burned several areas of the car with cigarettes, set the flag on fire on his hood and may have urinated on the vehicle. Officers and the owner think the car was singled out because of its political stickers, including one reading "Nobama."

"This is definitely a hate crime," said the Armstrong (the owner), a 41-year-old physician.

Police estimated damage at $4,500. Police classified the incident as "criminal mischief/hate crime" and said it appeared "to be politically/racially motivated because the victim affixed a bumper sticker supporting the McCain campaign as well as an anti-Obama bumper sticker."

As bad as that incident is, and as much as it is another example of LRS, it is only doubled or trebled when one reads some of comments left by readers of the news story.

They range from complete stupidity ("So the KKK vandalized the car...and left their calling card..")...

...to stunning denial ("It's McCain's political machine trying to make Obama look bad.")...

...to blaming Republicans (!) ("Probably the car was vandalized at Palin's HATE rally. LOL Really they most likely reaping what they sowed.")...

...to glee and a suggestion to cower ("I love happy stories. May I suggest an Obama sticker next time.")...

...to a hope for more violence ("I can only pray that Frank-the-Lexus owner has a McCain-Plain yard sign.")...

...to the non-sensical ("Such a sad story. Sorry to hear his Rebel flag probably a family heirloom was destroyed. Sorry to hear that Republicans cannot get credit and must destroy their own cars to get a new one. I know how those KKK member like to remain hooded and not outed like this.")

I could go on and on with more examples. An anchorwoman was beaten and stabbed, possibly because she played a conservative in the "W" movie. We'll see, if and when she recovers. For more about intimidation tactics, see my previous post on Obama's Thugocracy.

Look, I realize that elections bring out intense emotions in people. I realize there have been violent incidents in previous election cycles, by perpetrators from both parties, although the vast majority seems to come from the peace-loving left. But I firmly believe we are seeing the syndrome reach a new level. It is infecting a greater number of people. It is almost impossible to have a civilized discussion with hard-core Obama supporters. They are so emotion-based and have so little regard for reason that the conversation ends almost as soon as it begins. They don't even know what he stands for, other than "change." They just know the He is The One.

It's no wonder that people who are so ill-equipped to conduct a calm, logical discourse turn to violence and hatred so easily. They have no other tools in their toolbox. They're empty. They're exposed. They have an internal dissonance (thinking of themselves as a member of the peace and love party, yet intensely hating conservatives) and rage that they can't resolve.

It's likely Obama will win the election, and we will be on our way toward socialism, higher taxes, and a stifling of free speech (the "Fairness Doctrine"). Hopefully, I am wrong, and he will turn out to be a centrist. Hopefully.

But imagine if McCain wins... I predict LRS will go into full bloom, and we'll see violence. Shocking violence. Violence that the Obamedia won't be able to ignore. Hopefully, I am wrong there too, but I doubt it.

Assuming the Chosen One does actually go on to become president, here's what we can look forward to: The Coming Liberal Thugocracy, by Michael Barone.

Barone is as cool-headed, even-handed, and respected in anyone in politics. So when I man of his stature observes anti-free speech behavior of Obama and his supporters, which is so very typical of the hard leftists these days, and when he predicts more of the same under an Obama priesthood administration, it should be a wake-up call to all sane Americans.

Also sounding the klaxon is Paul Mirongoff with his Guilty by Participation: Barack Obama’s radical associations and what they mean. Can you imagine if George W. Bush had the kind of associations that Obama has when Bush was running for president? OK, neither can I, since Bush is just not that kind of person. But if he had those kinds of "friends," my God, we would have been hearing about nothing else in the press. But because Barry is The One, the mainstream media is (nearly) silent.

We've been warned.

Rays win! Rays win!
Another giant hurdle crossed as the Rays make it to the American League Championship Series against the Red Sox. They used to be intimidated by Boston and by the Yankees, but no longer. Still, it should be a very close series. I predict the Rays will take it 4-3.

It is bitter irony that Obama will probably end up being elected Messiah President of the United States due, in part, to his support of the corrupt ACORN organization, ACORN's and Obama's intimidation of banks to make high-risk loans, the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Democrat Harold Raines, and the Dems' (especially Chris Dodd's and Barney Frank's) success in blocking Republican efforts to reign in those organizations a few years ago -- all of which helped created the mess in the financial markets, which a large, ignorant portion of the electorate blames on... wait for it... Republicans. Having the mainstream media totally and completely in your pocket sure has it benefits.

Speaking of the economy, while the market is alarmingly volatile these days, there are three strong developments: oil prices, which had been the cause of so much angst, have plunged to well under $100; the dollar has strengthed dramatically; and real estate inventories, at least in the Sarasota area, have plunged, a sign of increasing residential recovery. But if good news trees fall in a forest and there is no one there to hear them, do they still make a sound?

Disjointed thoughts...

How about those Rays? Winners of Game 1. My wife and I are going with some friends to Game 2 tonight. Can't wait!

Had to take a break from running due to a bad sinus infection. I felt so weak, particularly in my legs, that I felt as though I was a new runner again. Glad to report that the weakness is gone, and I'm about 90% back to where I was. My next race is Bill's Beer Run on October 26 (5 miles).

Did anybody see this AP story? Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq... Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada. Yet more evidence that Saddam was up to no good, and that getting rid of him was wise.

And here's more evidence of what I consider to be the #1 problem facing the United States: news bias. The liberal press have abandoned any pretext of impartiality. It's all out war now, and Republicans better learn how to fight back. (As always, I could provide a several bias stories like that every day without any problem. I just don't have the time.)

I wish every politician on the planet was like Sarah Palin. I'm not talking about her political views, which I largely agree with, I am talking about genuineness and her real-ness and her natural charisma. There is nothing fake about her. I can't recall anybody in politics today who better represents the anti-politician. If politics-as-usual is an illness (and it certainly makes me sick), Sarah Palin is the cure. Here's what former Sen. Fred Thompson had to say about her and her strong debate with Sen. Biden. He nails it:

“One of the reasons I feel so good for her, just as a human being is I have never seen anybody undergo the ridicule, the slanders and the lies, and the blogosphere and what they’re doing, and breaking into her private e-mail, rumors and things about her, and now, most recently, belittling her, taking little snippets of interviews and laughing at her and satirizing her. Those people ought to be ashamed of themselves, if they’re capable of shame, because they’ve proven that what they were doing does not represent who she was and who she is. Thank goodness, just as she said, that this was an unfiltered event for an hour and a half. She could stand toe-to-toe with Joe Biden, who’s been around for all these many, many years, and basically take him to the woodshed.”

I bought a used sailboat! It's a 1986 Spindrift 22. It needs work, and I have a lot of learning to do, but I love it. Now if my family and I could just find the time to use it! Soon. Very soon.

Who or what is responsible for the current mess in the housing and financial markets? Until recently, I figured there were three culprits.

First, I think Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve kept interest rates too low for too long, encouraging people to take on greater debt than they should have. The low interest rates also contributed to the decline of the dollar and the rise of oil prices.

Second, many individuals got caught up in the fervor over seemingly ever-increasing housing values and tried to get in on the game without knowing what they were doing or properly assessing the financial risks they were taking. Real estate investing takes careful planning since it is illiquid, as overextended investors eventually and sadly realized.

Third, many banks, although not all, joined the game (kudos to my favorite bank, Northern Trust, for staying out of it) and made many loans that were not properly scrutinized. They weren't conservative enough.

However, as I learn more about the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their emphasis on buying risky loans from banks, I am convinced that they played perhaps the most important role in the whole affair. They were the principle enablers, so to speak. Ironically, Alan Greenspan and some Republicans in Congress recognized the danger back in 2005 after Frankllin Raines, President Clinton's former budget director was fired as head of Fannie Mae due to shoddy accounting practices. Republicans proposed legislation that would have reigned in Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats voted it down, and the rest is history.

This Fox News clip clearly explains it all:

As I have acknowledged many times, President Bush has made many mistakes during his two terms, although he has also made plenty of correct decisions. However, when he was first elected, he never imagined that he would be a war-time president, yet the liberation of Iraq and the fight against terrorism will surely be the hallmarks of his administration.

I have always believe that, despite the mistakes he, his administration, and the military made in the the middle part of the Iraq war, if the liberation proves successful and a terrorism-fighting democracy is established in place of Saddam's evil dictatorship (and that outcome certainly looks likely), history will, in the long run, look very favorably on George W. Bush. The United States and the peaceful West will reap the benefits of a peaceful Iraq for generations, notwithstanding the high cost in lives and dollars.

Charles Krauthammer has written a piece for National Review Online examining history's shifting view of wartime presidents. Here's part of his conclusion:

...Bush is much like Truman, who developed the sinews of war for a new era (the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA), expanded the powers of the presidency, established a new doctrine for active intervention abroad, and ultimately engaged in a war (Korea) — also absent an attack on the U.S. — that proved highly unpopular.

So unpopular that Truman left office disparaged and highly out of favor. History has revised that verdict. I have little doubt that Bush will be the subject of a similar reconsideration.

Read the whole thing, and forget about approval ratings.

Oh, Baby. What. A. Speech.

Finally, finally, Obama was giving the dressing down he so richly deserves to a huge television audience without the MSM able to filter. Gov. Palin is smart, authentic, down-to-earth, tough, well-spoken, a true reformer, and -- let's face it -- a very attractive woman. She really is, as some are calling her, the anti-Obama.

Scanning some of the reaction this morning, here are two quotes I love:

"She was put on this earth to do two things: kill caribou and kick butt. She's all out of caribou."
-- Jonah Goldberg, National Review

"I would like to thank the US media for doing such a grand job this last week of lowering expectations by portraying Governor Palin - whoops, I mean Hick-Burg Mayor Palin - as a hillbilly know-nothing permapregnant ditz, half of whose 27 kids are the spawn of a stump-toothed uncle who hasn't worked since he was an extra in Deliverance.

How's that narrative holding up, geniuses? Almost as good as your "devoted husband John Edwards" routine?"
-- Mark Steyn, National Review

I love it.

It's crystal clear that Gov. Sarah Palin has the Obama camp and the mainstream media (OK, OK, I know they are one and the same) frightened. Obama is reduced to saying that he is more experienced than Palin (never mind that she is not running for President) because, well, he has run a presidential campaign with a big budget! No, really! As Power Line puts it,

Apparently Obama hadn't heard about Palin being Governor of the State of Alaska, which has a budget in excess of $11 billion annually and more than 24,000 employees. Also, on Obama's theory, the act of running for President gives you the experience you need to qualify to be President. That's convenient for a guy who has accomplished so little in his career in public life.If our intrepid reporters could focus on something other than Bristol Palin for a moment, maybe they would notice that Obama continues to make a fool of himself on a near-daily basis.

Plus, unlike the Messiah, Gov. Palin has an actual track record of reform, battling corruption, and reaching across party lines. She doesn't just talk about those things, she has gotten them done.

The MSM, for its part, is absorbed with Bristol Palin's pregnancy as a way of trying to undermine Gov. Palin, who represents such a threat to the Democrat Party. They are mystified that Bristol isn't going to have an abortion. They can't believe she is actually going to do the right thing and get married and raise the child. I guess they have forgotten the mother of His Most Holy Obama conceived the Savior when she was only 18.

National Review has more on the disgusting bias in the media. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: liberal bias is the #1 problem in not only the United States, but in the world today. When almost all news, issues, and problems are filtered through liberal lenses before reaching the public... whoops, I need to stop -- that's a topic for another post.

The Republican convention, or really just the fact that Republlicans exist on the planet, has brought the hard-core Dem wackos are out in force. Check out Power Line to learn about attempted murder and attacks on Cub Scout buses. Then stop by From the Duke for samples of Dem hatred and irrationality.

Of course, these disgusting incidents go unreported by the MSM, since they can't report anything unsavory about Obama's supporters, much less about His Holiness Himself.

There are moments when I wish I had more time and/or energy to devote to this blog. As I read about an Obama gaffe, then another, and another, in a seemingly endless stream, I wish I could note all of them in blog entries. Frankly, and I mean this in all seriousness, I just can't keep up. Every once in a while, though, I just can't stand it any longer and need the catharsis of blogging.

The guy is undoubtably an intelligent human being, and he delivers prepared speeches very well, but get him away from a teleprompter and his is a disaster zone of gaffes. I have already noted many of them, but there are many, many more. Just recently, Obama said in Amman, Jordan, "You know, it's always a bad practice to say 'always' or 'never'." Hmmmm, that's a head-scratching self-refutation.

And then there is this (quoting from Investor's Business Daily):

Consider his claim during a news conference Wednesday in Israel that "just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran."

His committee? Obama isn't even a member of the Banking Committee, let alone its chairman. So was it a self-promoting lie or a misstep? Only he knows.

He doesn't even seem to know how long a president's term is, and combines that ignorance with the incredible arrogrance of assuming he will not only be elected in November, but reelected in four years: (In reference to various foreign leaders), "who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years."

Remember when he said: "I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, I listened to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'? Ummm, no those aren't the first words. Try: "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

And of course this one: "As we begin our fourth century as a nation..." Wow, I always thought the birth of the United States was 1776, not 1676. I stand corrected, because, you know, the Obamessiah is never wrong.

And the mainstream media's reaction to all of this? Silence. They are too awed by the man to muster up any kind of critical thinking, and lack the backbone to compare their silence to the despicable way they treated Dan Quayle over his insignificant "potatoe" mistake.

Still, I think Obama's arrogance, ignorance, gaffes, inexperience, liberalism, not to mention his shifting positions, will find a way to seep into the average citizen's awareness, even if the liberal press covers for him. I have a growing feeling that Obama might be in for a rude awakening on election day. Call it my audacity of hope.

Here are some recent headlines from Iraq:

Iraq Meets 15 of 18 Benchmarks

Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission (yes, Saddam really was pursuing nuclear weapons)

Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda

Iraq's Al-Maliki Wants Short-Term U.S. Agreement (in preparation of eventual withdrawal)

Taken together, these stories confirm that the liberation of Iraq has succeeded. We are now in the winding-down stage: completing the last few benchmarks, cleaning up any remaining dangerous materials, eliminating straggling Al-Qaeda operatives and, most interesting of all, working out agreement that will pave the way for U.S. withdrawal -- if not completely, then probably to some sort of long-term base, much as the U.S. maintains in Germany, South Korea, etc.

The liberation of Iraq had a brilliant beginning (the invasion and the overthrow and capture of Saddam and his sadistic sons), a brutally tough middle (Iraq became the central front in Al-Qaeda's war on the west), and now, an unglamorous, yet effective and smart conclusion where we not only wore down the insurgents, but also won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizens.

Had President Bush listened to the Democrat Doomsayers (sorry for the redundancy), we would have lost. Iraq would be a miasma of Al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni strongmen, Syrian operatives, and Iranian forces, to name but a few of the vultures that would have descended. I hate to think what the price of oil would have become.

Thankfully, President Bush persevered and adjusted. Too slowly? Yes. But mistakes, big and small, are made in every war. You have to have the strength of character to overcome them. You can't wilt and withdraw during the tough times. The Democrats wilted, but Bush didn't wilt, and our armed forces didn't wilt.

We have won. Our armed forces have won. President George W. Bush has won. The Iraqi citizens have won.

I haven't posted a lot lately, but that doesn't mean I haven't had anything to write about. I just haven't had much time. Time to clear the decks with these quick hits.

First, if you live in Sarasota and you don't know about From the Duke, a conservative blog by Rich Swier, do yourself a huge favor and check it out. Rich writes well, posts every day, and, among other things, takes on the monumental task of refuting the liberal nonsense that pervades the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Highly recommended.

Next, here is one of those news stories that, upon reading it, will divide people into conservative or liberal camps. No, that's not strong enough. Let me elaborate. When you read this story, your reaction will be one of the following:

1. "That's great! I love it! It's about time we got serious about being green! But are they going far enough?"

If this is your reaction, you are insane or, if not insane, then at least completely out to lunch. You live in a fantasy world. You are lost in the deep end of liberalism. You are beyond help. Please, please don't ever get into a position of power.

2. "OK, that's fine with me. It makes me feel good."

You aren't insane, but you have been lightly brainwashed by the media and other members of the left. You aren't strong in critical thinking skills. You are not beyond help, but it will take a jarring episode to snap you out of your trance.

3. "Wow, that seems a little extreme. It makes me a little uncomfortable."

You are a moderately conservative and sensible individual, but probably not one who spends much time thinking or reading about politics. However, your horse sense tells you when something is wrong.

4. "The idea that those people will be running our country if Obama is elected scares the living bat poop out of me."

You are a rock-ribbed conservative, and you know the direction this country is headed, and you know well the dangers of liberalism.

Concerning Obama

The Friends of Barack Obama. Can you imagine the mainstream media's reaction if George Bush, when he first ran for President, had the kind of slimy friends that Obama has?

But Can He Walk On Water? Of course Obama gets away with so much because he believes he is a Messiah figure, and the press and other liberals agree.

Opportunism Knocks. As a Messiah, he gets away with flip-flops...

Obama Rejects Public Financing. ... and more flip-flops...

Cocky Ignorance. ... and can say whatever he wants, however ridiculous, and...

Does Obama Know What He's Talking About? ... then say some more ignorant things. It doesn't matter. He's the Obamessiah.

Obama's Own Presidential Seal. He can even create his own presidential seal. The arrogance of this guy knows no bounds. Again, imagine the reaction if George Bush the candidate, running against Al Gore, had made his own seal. Can you imagine the mockery?

Total Confusion. ... he gets away with moments of complete confusion and stumbling. If you haven't seen the video shown at that link, please do so. The point is not that Obama got completely lost. It happens to everyone now and then (well, maybe not to such a degree). The point is that Obama gets away with it. Can you imagine if McCain had lost himself in the same way? The media would have fallen all over themselves in calling it a "senior moment" and evidence that he is too old. They would have played the video on a continuous loop for weeks.

Obama's Web Site: How the Jewish Lobby Works. It's amazing how many unsavory people are attracted to Obama...

Communist Party of the USA Endorses Obama. ... like communists.

10 Concerns About Barack Obama. How did they possible narrow it down to just 10?

Concerning Radical Environmentalism

The Truths Shall Set You Free. A nice summary of the unintended consequences that result from overbearing liberal environmental policies.

Who's To Blame For High Gas Prices? A nice reminder of how we got where we are.

Our Greener Planet. Greener because trees, crops, and other vegetation love the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month. Is there an award for the biggest hypocrite of all time? If so, Gore has it absolutely locked up. No one else is even in the same league. They can name the award "The Gore," and call off all future competitions. Just retire it. No one else will ever be close.

Concerning Iraq

As Surge Succeeds-- Iraq Coverage Declines 92% In One Year. Gee, what a surprise. We are winning in Iraq, so the press is no longer interested. Actually, I would argue, as I have for quite awhile, that we have won, period. The war is over. What we are seeing and doing now is really police action to clean up stragglers. The Iraqi army and civilians have asserted themselves to such an extent that there is no turning back. Finally.

Bush Announces Withdrawal of 30,000 US Troops From Iraq (In Victory). This story was completely ignored since reporting it would help Bush and McCain way, way too much, and would completely trash the liberals' fantasy of defeat in Iraq.

Whew! That's enough for now. My mind is cleared of negativity. Next time, some positive thoughts.

It appears that Hillary's campaign may be coming to an end, if not now then very soon. It amazes me that the Dems are so desperate to win back the White House yet they are going to nominate a guy who is so far to the left that you have to crane your neck to keep him in view. Bill Bennett sums it up this way:

...the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.

To that, I would add:
The Democratic party is about to nominate a candidate who:
• apparently does not know how many states are in our country.
• who will say Iran is not a threat and then the very next day say, yes, it is a threat.
• thinks other countries should be able to tell us what kind of car to drive, how much food to eat, and how to set our thermostats.
• thinks 10,000 people died in a Kansas tornado that killed 12.
• has trouble with geography and timelines, and who commits enough other gaffes to make Dan Quayle's misspelling of potato the non-event it should have been all along.

The Dems have always had a significant contigent of naive, nutty socialist-types that are easily swayed by emotions and dreamy visions, but that contingent has been firmly in the minority. Until now.

It's not a news flash that the Bush administration is unpopular. That unpopularity is justified in some cases (rising government spending, the early mishandling of post-overthrow Iraq), but unjustified in others (the rising price of a barrel of oil; the over-heating in the housing loan markets, etc.) In addition, Bush get absolutely no credit for the astounding success of the Iraq surge or the fact that we are, in actuality, safer since 9/11 due to due to his aggressive fight against terrorism. He has decimated Al Qaeda.

Regardless, Bush (and many of the Republicans in Congress) have set the stage in such a way that Barry might actually win. If the Republicans had a candidate that they were excited about, I don't believe Obama would stand a chance. McCain, however much he stands in stark contrast to Obama, is not a guy that is going to drive down-trodden Republicans to the voting booths. The spectre of Obama as President, on the other hand, just might be.

I'll never forget my introduction to National Review. I was in my 20's, at an airport, looking for reading material for my next flight. I was unfamiliar with National Review, but something prompted me to take a copy of the magazine off the rack. I flipped through it, and was astounded by the quality of the writing and thought. I purchased it and devoured it on my flight. My eyes were opened to intellectual, pragmatic conservatism.

In an age when conservatism is being ill-defined by the poor practices of some our elected, so-called conservatives, National Review, and these days its website too, are steady beacons of clear thinking. National Review is conservatism, period. It's very safe to say that my own conservative beliefs have been shaped by largely by my father, National Review, and Rush Limbaugh, each in his/its own way.

I have added this quote of his to my Favorite Quotes section. It perfectly demonstrates his quick wit:

(As told by Ronald Reagan) "And once when Bill was asked what job he wanted in the Administration of his friend the President, he replied in his typically retiring and deferential way: "Ventriloquist."

Thank you, Mr. Buckley, and rest in peace.

Prior to this election cycle, I was wrapped up in politics. I was involved at the local party level, but beyond that I would devour political news, commentary, blogs, and talk shows. I'd get extremely annoyed at the omnipresent liberal bias in the news, on TV, or at the movies. Even though I ended up on the winning side more often than not, it just became too much. Ask my wife.

I decided to make a change. Cut back, waaaay back, on politics. Life's too short to get so caught up in it, especially when so many politicians run as one kind of person and end up being a different kind once in office, Republicans included.

So, this election cycle, I've sat back, relatively detached from the primary battles. A funny thing has happened though. The primaries on both sides have become extraordinarily interesting. No, I'm not back deep into politics, but I have been following the broad strokes, and it's fascinating that:

• The Clinton machine is crumbling before our eyes. Not only has Saint Barrack captured the imagination of liberals, but even Dems are finally discovering the Clintons just aren't good people. We Republicans have been telling them that for years. See, we told you so.

• So many people are taken with Saint Barrack, when in reality he is as far-left as they come, at least on the national stage. He is the most liberal member of the Senate. Only a relatively small fraction of the country, perhaps 5-10%, is as liberal as he is. Since he's an eloquent speaker, the press swoons for him, and he's managed to avoid discussing his actual record. Will the electorate wake up before the election? That's John McCain's task. It won't be easy.

• McCain is actually the Republican nominee. I can hardly believe it, but that's what happens when there are numerious, similar candidates in the race. Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson all split the traditional Republican base vote, allowing Maverick McCain to waltz in. I hope he picks my man Romney as his running mate.

• The timing of business cycles has been very unlucky for Republicans lately. The first George H. Bush was not a great economic president, but he did hand Clinton a growing economy. Clinton did nothing to help, except finally agree to go along with the Republican plan to reform the welfare system, yet he was the beneficiary of the arrival of the internet age. And just when that bubble was bursting, he hands George W. Bush a recession, which is only exacerbated by 9/11 and the arrival of terrorism into our nation's consciousness. Thankfully, Bush wisely lowered taxes, creating the longest sustained period of job growth in U.S. history. But banks and individuals go overboard with their new wealth, and create a housing boom and then a housing bust, which is magnified by the rising price of oil, thanks to growing economies in China, India, etc. So here we are, in the middle of another election cycle, and then economy is at a low ebb while the housing mess is sorted out. If Saint Barrack is elected President, he will be taking office just as the economy gains steam again. And the press will credit him.

• Even though Saint Barrack is a hard-lefty, I'd rather see him as president than Hillary Clinton. I think he'd be this generation's Jimmy Carter: charming to those looking for "change" or a fresh face, but a huge flameout once in office, ushering in the beginning of a new conservative era.

• I will be voting for McCain. Yes, I will hold my nose, especially when it comes to his stances on Guantanamo, climate change, and campaign finance "reform," but he is a spending hawk, which we desperately need, and he is is very strong on national defense, which is vital in this age of Islamofascism.

In a sane world, a contest between the experienced, moderate, national hero McCain and inexperienced, far-left, empty suit Obama wouldn't be a contest. In a sane world.

I haven't posted in awhile, but not because I haven't had anything to say. Rather the opposite: there have been so many crazy events that I sometimes think the world has gone insane.

If it's not 10,000 people traveling by jet to Bali for a global warming conference, it's CNN's utterly embarrassing attempt to host a Republican presidential debate. If it's not the Dem's antics over what appears more and more to be victory in Iraq, it's the reaction to the NIE report about Iran, as though good news about Iran is bad news for Bush (if only the report could be trusted!).

If it's not the madness associated with the college football BCS system (if this year doesn't show the need for a playoff system, nothing ever will), it's insane Islamists calling for imprisonment/lashes/death for an English teacher over a teddy bear. If it's not the welcome surprise of Chavez being denied dictator-for-life status by his own people, it's the significant and growing (and therefore disappointing) flaws in all the presidential candidates.

I will post again with more substance soon, but in the meantime, I'm shaking my head.

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained."
- Mark Twain

On November 6, Sarasota County voters will vote on the "penny" tax. I support the tax (well, at least projects for which the money is targeted), but I find offensive the deceptive term "penny" tax. It's not a penny, it's a 1% sales tax on top of the 6% collected by the State of Florida. By my rough, back-of-an-envelope (and certainly flawed) calculation, it will cost the average family of four, directly or indirectly, about $800 a year, every year. That's not a penny. A penny doesn't raise $1,400,000,000 as this tax will (over 15 years).

I am also bothered by the extensive marketing campaign being conducted by Sarasota County and school system in favor of the 1% tax. Since when do governments get involved in campaigning? I'm not talking about an individual commissioner or school board member expressing his or her support, I'm talking about government employees marketing/campaigning as part of their jobs. It's not right. Advocacy is a job for citizens and advocacy groups.

Again, I support the tax, but I am considering voting against it due to the very disturbing and deceptive way it is being presented to the voters.

That's my two pennies worth.

It's sad to see what's become of the Nobel Peace Prize over the years. PowerLine has a good summary:

When did the Nobel Peace Prize go off the tracks? Today's award to Al Gore and the IPCC "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" fits in with a subset of cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts going back about twenty years:

2005: MOHAMED ELBARADEI (joint winner). He's done such a nice job with Iran.

2002: JIMMY CARTER JR., former President of the United States of America. A true cosmopolitan, he has undermined the foreign policy of his own country and vouched for the bona fides of tyrants and murderers all over the world.

2001: UNITED NATIONS, New York, NY, USA. KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General. Among other things, respectively served as the vehicle for, and presided over, one of the biggest scams in history.

1994: YASSER ARAFAT (joint winner), Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority for his efforts to create peace in the Middle East. A cold-blooded murderer before and after receiving the award.

1992: RIGOBERTA MENCHU TUM, Guatemala. Faker and author, sort of, of I, Rigoberta Menchu.

1988: THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCES New York, NY, U.S.A. Notwithstanding rapes and sex abuse committed by the team in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and the Congo, still doing fine work all over the world.

Jay Richards, on National Review Online, notes how Al Gore is dropping all pretense that his global warming crusade has anything to do with hard science:

Keeping to the trend of politicized awards, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given jointly to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In his initial statement, however, Gore explains that global warming isn't a political issue at all: "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."

Glad he cleared that up. I had been thinking it had something to do with science.

Of course, Gore winning the Nobel Liberal Prize comes right on the heels of a UK judge ruling about the many inconvenient inaccuracies in Gore's alarmist propaganda film:

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children.

...In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia.

...Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

What's so amazing about the Al Gore phenomenon is that his followers view him, and he views himself, as some sort of quasi-religious figure. This is part, I think, of a larger movement, especially among liberals, but not exclusively, to fill a spiritual void in their lives, a void caused by, among other things, the rejection of any kind of traditional religion, or belief in God, and the fantastic standard of living most in the West have achieved.

Hmmm, sounds like a post for another day.

Barack Obama spoke at a church on Sunday and said, "I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God." And he also stated, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

Now, I have no problem with Obama expressing his religious faith and vision. Just stop for a moment, though, and consider: what would be the reaction of Obama supporters to those words, if President Bush had said them, say at his inauguration? The Obama folks would be screaming, "Bush wants to turn the U.S. into a theocracy!" and warning about crazy and dangerious Christians. There would be pledges to leave the country for Canada or France.

Think I am overreacting? Nope, because those on the left made precisely those kinds of comments when Bush won election and took office, even though he never said anything like wanting to be an instrument of God or wanting to create a Kingdom right here on Earth. I remember reading dozens of panicky entries on Democratic Underground, one of the nutty hard left blog sites.

However, look at the comments at the bottom of the CNN story I linked to, and you'll see lots of lefties praising Obama's comments. Do they have any idea how hypocritical they are?

After President Bush fell off a Segway on his first ride, Piers Morgan, editor of the Daily Mirror, ran the headline "You'd have to be an idiot to fall off, wouldn't you Mr President." He added: "If anyone can make a pig's ear of riding a sophisticated, self-balancing machine like this, Dubya can."

As Powerline reminds us, "The wheels of justice grind slowly, it is said, but they grind exceedingly fine." So what happened when Morgan finally had his first ride on a Segway? He fell off, cracking three ribs.

I hate to see anybody get injured, but I sure don't mind seeing a Bush-hater get his comeuppance.

I love it. A guy makes a racist website, but tries to fool people into thinking it's Fred Thompson's. Too bad he's too dumb (and he's an attorney!) to cover his tracks. It's safe to say the conservative blogosphere is smarter than this guy. The blog Captain's Quarters nailed him, and uncovered his contributions to MoveOn, the DNC, and John Kerry. Beautiful.

Power Line is covering the outrageous actions by House Democrats to subvert democracy. They reportedly called an end to an important vote, which the Republicans won, only to then allow more of their own people to vote, thus changing the legal result.

And then what happened? I can't quite believe it, but the Dems then expunged the entire episode from House record!

See Eric Cantor's blog (the Chief Deputy Republican Whip) for more. What an absolutely disgusting outrage. I didn't think it was possible for the Dems to sink that low, but they have. Oh wait, I'm forgetting about the comment on the liberal Wonkette site, about Chief Justice John Robert's recent seizure:

"Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed."

Nothing is beneath these people.

Now, let me very clear here. I know, and am friends with, many Democrats. By and large they are sensible, honest, good people, and I respect them. The Dems I'm talking about are not the rank and file out in the heartland. I'm talking about the hard-left. Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership has an abundance those types, and they put political gain above absolutely everything else, including the rule of law, defeating our enemies, and even simple decency.

Update: See the great response to this debacle by Roy Blunt, Republican Whip, on YouTube.

New Gallup data show confidence in Congress at all time low

Now, which party controls Congress again?

Roy Pearson, the judge who filed the world's most frivilous lawsuit: $67,000,000 over a pair of supposedly lost pants at a dry cleaner.

William Jefferson, corrupt Representative from Louisiana, filmed taking $100,000 cash as a bribe.

Mike Nifong, utterly disgraced District Attorney who is responsible for enabling the Duke rape hoax.

Hmmm, I wonder what political party they have in common...

Billy Donovan remains a Gator. The sun is a little brighter today, the sky a little clearer, and the world makes sense again.

Scientists invent wireless device that beams electricity through your home. When I was a kid, I used to dream about this kind of thing as I watched the Jetsons.

Rising immigration fuels 26-year fertility high (in the U.K.) and Mohammed is expected soon to be the most popular boy's name. Hmmm, I wonder what ethic group is having all those kids...

Jimmy Carter: Profile in Incompetence. A Ten Part Series on the Worst President in American History. Ten Part? Ouch!

Revolt Against Al Qaeda Spreading. I think the only way the Iraqis, and the allied forces, will find peace is if the revolt keeps spreading.

Finally, I know one thing this guy in Wyoming is not thinking, as he shovels snow on June 7:
"We need to tackle global warming!"

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune did not see fit to put the foiled JFK terrorism plot on the front page, nor did the indictment of Democrat Congressman William Jefferson for red-handed bribery make the front page. They will, however, put the news of Scooter Libby's sentencing on tomorrow's front page.

National Review has written a strong piece on why President Bush should put an end to the whole farcical/tragic/absurd CIA-leak affair by pardoning Mr. Libby. Unfortunately, I'll bet Bush won't do it. I hope I'm wrong.

Mark Twain said, "When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." I suppose we are all, indeed, mad to to a greater or lesser extent, but thankfully most people can be safely classified in the "lesser" category.

Not so for the anti-Americans. They are mind-bogglingly irrational. Consider for a moment this statement: Among all the nations of the world, the United States of America is the greatest force for good in the history of the planet. Disagree? Please, tell me what country has done more for the cause of freedom than the USA? What country gives more money, works harder, or sacrifices more young soldiers in pursuit of great causes for the aid and benefit of complete strangers around the globe? (No, the United States isn't perfect. Like all countries, we have made, and will continue to make, mistakes, some of them grievous. But those mistakes are overwhelmed by the good we've done.)

Now look, if you're from, say, England, and think your country is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I think that's wonderful. It's great to be proud of your country. Americans aren't looking for people to praise them or declare that America is #1. Americans aren't even that concerned about whether or not the many recipients of its aid say thank you. But is it too much to ask not to be reviled?

Take Mexicans, for example. You would think that Mexicans would love the United States. For decades, we have allowed tens of millions of Mexicans, with a wink and a nod, to flood illegally into our country to live and work. Frankly, it's been an arrangement which has benefited both sides: the Mexicans make far more money than they could back in Mexico and get to live in a much more desirable country. We, on the other hand, benefit from the illegals (relatively) low wages and their hard work.

President Bush, much to the dismay of conservatives, is even leading the way in trying to give Mexican illegals amnesty and allow them to stay in this country permanently. You would think that Mexicans would be cheering the United States and the amnesty plans, and would attempt to remain on friendly terms with our country.

But no. Anti-Americanism runs so deeply that even a sweet girl from Tennessee is booed repeatedly by a Mexican audience. And that's just the latest example. Mexican crowds have (again, repeatedly) chanted "Osama! Osama!" during Mexico-USA soccer games and tossed bags of urine on the American players.

Rachael Smith, the Miss USA contestant, naturally responded to her incredibly poor treatment with dignity and class. Donald Trump, the event co-owner, showed once again why he's no gentleman when he refused to condemn the Mexicans' response to his fellow American. Michelle Malkin has a must-read piece on Mexican anti-Americanism (she's a far better writer than I am).

I realize that many anti-Americans around the world have been essentially brainwashed by their predictably left-wing media sources and their socialist leaders. And I realize that when those anti-Americans see hard-left America-haters, like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and the MoveOn.org looneys, their beliefs are cemented. But you'd think that a tiny bit of rationality would creep in to temper those beliefs, or at the very least, a tiny bit of class would prevent those beliefs from turning into actions such as booing innocent women, chanting the name of a mass murderer, or throwing bags of urine. But no.

Unfortunately, the anti-Americans truly are mad.

I've been extremely busy lately, and continue to be, so I haven't had time to post in awhile. However, I was dumbfounded to hear that Jimmy Carter, of all people, said that the Bush administration was the worst in history. If there's one person who should keep quiet about worst presidencies, it's Jimmy Carter. Naturally, there are now numerous editorials and other opinion pieces shredding Carter's statement and, more importantly, recalling the disaster that was his presidency. Investor's Business Daily, for example, has a good one. Here's their clever opening quote:

We didn't think we'd see the day when a president-elect of France would be more appreciative of America's role in the world than one of our own former presidents.

And a closing one:

Jimmy Carter, the man who makes Neville Chamberlain look like Dirty Harry, made his remarks about President Bush while promoting his audiobook series of Bible lessons for children. Jimmy, thou shalt not bear false witness against your president and country. Haven't you done enough damage? If you want to see our worst ex-president, look in the mirror.

In tomorrow's IBD, we're promised "How Carter ran the world's greatest economy into the ground." Yikes. Well, he asked for it...

The 2008 presidential candidates are an interesting group. Among the top tier (Obama and Hillary for the Democrats, Guiliani, Romney, McCain for the Republicans), there don't seem to be any clear favorites. Every one of them could conceivably become President.

I sense that may slowly be changing. Of course, the primaries are a long way away, and candidates will inevitably rise and fall, and new ones may emerge (Fred Thompson). Still, I think the Obama boomlet may be waning. He recently made two serious gaffes. The first, he said that 10,000 people died in that Kansas tornado, while the actual number was 12. Then, while chastising U.S. auto makers, he stated that Japan's lineup averages 45 MPG, while the actual number was the far less exciting 30 MPG. (Can you imagine the media frenzy if Bush had made those errors? Yikes.) Everybody has a slip-up every now and then, but I get the impression that Obama is similar to Al Gore. Not only are his views far-left, like Gore's, which most Americans don't yet realize, but he is showing a tendency to make false statements to make his point more dramatic or his speech more interesting. Perhaps he'll get his act together, but if he doesn't, the free pass he's getting from an adoring press will disappear eventually.

Hillary provokes a visceral reaction among conservatives (although that reaction is tame compared to the Bush Derangement Syndrome we see among the hard-left crowd), yet she appears to "get it" when it comes to the biggest issue of our times: Islamofascism and Iraq. Sure, she is leaning left now to appease primary voters and, sure, she's a lefty in most (all?) other areas, but in my book, she'd be preferable to Obama as President.

As for the Republicans, I like 'em all, but none is perfect. Guiliani is wonderful on security and is fiscally conservative. While his moderate-to-liberal social views don't bother me that much, his muddiness in articulating them does. His personal life might also be a distraction, and therefore a problem.

McCain is also wonderful on security, although his definition of detainee torture is, well, tortuous. Also, I'll never forgive him for McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform." I just have a hard time fully accepting McCain, although I'll admit he'd probably be a decent President.

Romney, in times of peace, would be an ideal President. Here's a true, successful businessman and a fiscal conservative. If I hear a strong, detailed foreign policy speech from Mitt, one that reassures me about his commitment to fighting Islamofascism, he might be my man. I really want to like Mitt, but he needs to get more detailed in his speeches. I'm rooting for him.

Fred Thompson? Frankly, most of what I know about him is what I've heard from others: he's a rock-solid conservative. I have read a couple of the articles he's written for National Review, and they're fine. Until he actually steps forward to run, there doesn't seem to much point in getting excited about him.

Victor Davis Hanson is one of my favorite columnists. He's one of those people that has a remarkable ability to cut through the chaff to show you the wheat that you didn't even know was there. One of his latest columns is about Iraq and the Middle East, specifically about on the growing feeling among Americans that, since our substantial efforts to help the Middle East, whether it's sacrificing American lives to end tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan, saving lives in Somalia or Kosovo, or contributing billions in aid to Egypt, Jordan, etc., go unappreciated, the effort just isn't worth it. At best we get back a shrug of the shoulders and expectation of continued help; at worst, more virulent anti-Americanism.

The situation is exacerbated by the obvious hypocrisy we see on television:

"A sense of imbalance is everywhere. Imams call Jews 'pigs and apes.' The Pope is threatened for his dry recitation of history. Cartoonists, novelists, filmmakers, and opera producers are all promised death or beheading, while the worst sort of racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian hatred is broadcast and published in state-run Arab media."

I believe the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban and the liberation of Iraq were the right moves. Given the events of 9/11, we simply couldn't allow a terrorist sanctuary to exist, or allow Saddam Hussein, who had developed and used WMDs in the past and who had supported terrorism, to remain in office. In fact, the liberation of both countries were tremendous military successes in the face of dire predictions of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of allied dead.

Yet, the restoration process has been far more difficult than expected due the reluctance of Middle Easterners themselves to embrace freedom and fight for it, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in neighboring countries. We get glimpses of hope in the form of Iraqi's purple fingers and occasional stories about Sunnis turning against Al Qaeda or a small Iraqi army success, but it's not enough to stop the slowing draining of American will to support "those people."

The reality is that Iraq is a stalemate. The terrorists in Iraq can never defeat us militarily, therefore we cannot lose in Iraq -- unless we decide to lose by pulling out. If that happens, I believe we will see a new definition of chaos and bloodshed, and Al Qaeda recruitment will skyrocket.

We can possibly win if we strengthen our military efforts (the "surge" is a good start) and, more importantly, receive increasing levels of cooperation from the Iraqis themselves. That's the hard part, complicated by Iraq heterogeneity. Iraqis, and the rest of the Middle East for that matter, say they want democracy, but the majority don't seem to understand the hard work, sacrifice, commitment, and bravery it demands from themselves.

I previously noted that President Bush gets little credit for a strong economy. In today's Wall Street Journal, Brian S. Wesbury wrote an editorial called "Economic Showdown," which examines the economic records of both Presidents (article available on the web only to online subscribers). It's an interesting piece which very persuasively comes to the conclusion that the Bush economy is as good or better than the Clinton economy.

Here's an important distinction though: the Clinton economy was good despite Clinton's policies (such as raising taxes) due to factors beyond his control (handed a growing economy by his predecessor, very low oil prices, the internet boom, no thoughts about terrorism). On the other hand, the Bush economy is good despite factors beyond his control (handed a economy heading into recession, 9/11 and the continued threat of terrorism, high oil prices) due to his policies (such as lowering taxes).

President Bush is certainly worthy of criticism on several fronts. Economic performance is not one of them.

Gary Kasparov, the former world chess champion and an outspoken critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was arrested in Moscow while participating in a public rally against Putin. The peaceful rally had been banned by Putin's government, as has a similar rally planned for Sunday in St. Petersburg.

Kasparov was released after 10 hours of detention. He pointed out that the arrest now paves the way for imprisonment if he is arrested a second time. Kasparov has written several editorials for the Wall Street Journal and other publications about deteriorating democracy and freedom in Russia. By banning free speech in Russia, it's clear Putin has no intention of allowing dissenters a voice within Russia.

The episode reminds me of another place where free speech is often quashed: college campuses. At some colleges, conservative voices are routinely shouted down or disallowed. These campuses, once bastions of free speech, have become such strongholds of liberalism, and conservatism is not tolerated. Guest speakers are shouted down or even assaulted. Conservative flyers are torn down. Students are charged with "hate speech". Thankfully, a movie is being made about the phenomenon: Indoctrinate U. Check out the movie trailer. Hopefully, the movie will find wide distribution, but since the movie industry leans left, I'm not holding my breath.

A more subtle form of silencing opposition can be found in the global warming debate. Actually, debate is the wrong word since that implies two parties airing their views in an equal forum. In reality, only global warming believers get heard. The media, using words like "mainstream" and "consensus", favors the views of those who believe warming is man-made. Those who disagree are marginalized, if they are heard at all. Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is given wide coverage and treated as scientific gospel, which a contrary film such as "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which features prominent scientists, in their own words, debunking Gore's film, is given scant attention.

What do these three subjects (Kasparov arrested, squashing conservative voices on campuses, and the one-sided global warming coverage) have in common? All three demonstrate insecurity. Putin can't allow opposition rallies since he knows he's guilty of disintegrating freedom. Liberals on (some) college campuses can't allow conservative voices to be heard since they know their positions on issues cannot stand up to rationale, logical debate (the same reason Air America floundered while conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck flourish). Global warming believers are scared of doubt being cast on their doom-saying, so opposition must be marginalized. In short, bad ideas cannot stand up to good ideas.

I believe that, eventually, freedom beats tyranny, truth beats falsehoods, and science beats fear mongering. "Eventually" can be a long time though, and it requires people to overcome intimidation and censorship to make sure their voices are heard.

The unemployment rate dropped to a paltry 4.4% in March while the country added 180,000 new jobs. The economy has been humming along like this since the President Bush's tax cuts ended the recession (handed to him by President Clinton) and helped the nation recover from 9/11. Since August 2004, 7.8 million jobs have been created. New jobs have been created for 43 straight months. Even over the last 12 months, when the housing market slowed and other indicators showed uncertainty, the Bush economy added about two million new jobs. Power Line has more:

Real after-tax income per person has risen by 10 percent since President Bush took office.

Real wages rose 1.8 percent over the past 12 months through February, which is substantially faster than the average rate of the late 1990s economy.

The economy has now experienced more than five years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 3.0 Percent a year since 2001.

Since the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth has averaged 2.8 percent, which is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

Yet, poll after poll shows that only a minority of the American people approve of Bush's handling of the economy. Insanity? No. Ignorance caused by the media's refusal to tout good news? Partially. The biggest reason, I believe, is the carry-over effect of Bush's overall job approval rating. Given his overall job approval rating is low, some people will apply it to all facets of his performance, fairly or not.

Amazingly, according to Rasmussen Reports (probably the most accurate polling company out there), about 33% of the American people think the U.S. is in a recession. Now, that's plain ridiculous. Whether the country is in recession is not a matter of opinion; it's a clearly defined economic situation (two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, if I recall correctly). What's even more amazing is that the percentage (33%) has remained around that level for the last several years. Frankly, I don't believe economic ignorance alone can account for it. I think there is just a certain portion of respondents who will answer a poll question to hurt the President, even if they know they're lying, if the President has the opposite party affiliation.

At American University campus, Karl Rove is assaulted:

Rove was on the campus to talk to the College Republicans, but when he got outside more than a dozen students began throwing things at him and at his car, an American University spokesperson said.

Remember when liberals had those bumper stickers on their Volvos that read "Hatred is not a family value."? Irony. Check out this Patterico's Pontifications page for many, many examples of liberal hatred. Yes, there are those on the right guilty of this kind of stuff too. But it's the left that, more often than not, gets away with it.

Can it really be true? Nancy Pelosi is blocking a resolution which would condemn Iran for taking those 15 British hostages? If so, it will go down as one of the most mind-blowing examples of the difference between the hard-core Dems and the rest of us. She is apparently putting politics ahead of supporting Britain. I can't put it any better than the Republican staffer who wrote to Power Line:

"It is simply staggering to me that Pelosi refuses to stand beside America's closest ally. I literally would not have thought this possible, until I saw it this week."