STILL ON PATROL

Senate Is Perverting Constitutional "Advice and Consent" Role

I have read two articles over the last 24 hours that are but further proof that the U.S. Senate is out of control as a body and is actively engaged in perverting its role within the Constitutional framework of our Federal government.  That our two Presidential candidates are both Senators, placed in this context, is not at all encouraging for our future.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution includes the following statement of one of the powers afforded to the President:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

We have all seen over the last twenty+ years the political debacle of several public hearings in which Presidential appointments have been voted down by the Senate.  Some of the Senate's actions have ultimately been good ones, particularly in the case of some questionable Supreme Court appointments by certain Presidents that shall go unnamed.  What we could say, at the very least, though, is that the process played itself out in all of its bloody transparency, and the checks and balances of the Federal government worked even if the motivation in some instances might have been questionably political.

More recently, however, the Senate has resorted to a substantially less transparent, and more nefarious  tactic in exercising its "advice and consent" role.  Rather than voting, up or down, on Presidential appointments, the Senate merely buries them in Committee for an indeterminate length of time, subject to the whim of Committee chairs to bring the appointments to a vote.  In the meantime, the already-poor ability of the Federal government to function is being significantly hampered.

The two examples of which I have read are judicial appointments to the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and the pending appointment of a U.S. Surgeon General.  In the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina), there are FIVE vacancies for Federal appellate judges.  Some of those vacancies have had three to four different qualified jurists appointed for each one, some by Democratic administrations and some by Republicans, but for no better reason than partisan politics, none of these appointees are being brought to a Senate vote. Most appointees have withdrawn their name from consideration after a year or two of waiting, whereupon another person is appointed, and they sit in limbo as well.  In the meantime, case loads build up on sitting judges, and justice is slowed to a crawl.  The Fourth Circuit has not seated a new Judge since 2003, thanks to stonewalling by the Senate.

As for the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. James Holsinger of the University of Kentucky was nominated by President Bush exactly 400 days ago.  Dr. Holsinger is well-qualified as a physician for this post, having served as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Family Services for the Commonwealth of Kentucky for 3 years, Chancellor of the University of Kentucky Medical Center for 9 years, and worked for the Department of Veteran's Affairs for 26  years.  The hold-up?  In 1991 Dr. Holsinger authored a paper for a Board he was on within the Methodist Church explaining the pathophysiology of male homosexuality, in which he took the position that such activity was incompatible with Biblical teachings (sound familiar?).  Despite Holsinger's effort to back-peddle from that position, his appointment has languished now for over a year, and there is little prospect he will come to a vote given the short time remaining in the Bush Administration.  No doubt Senate Democrats are betting on an Obama presidency in which they will be able to have a Surgeon General appointed who will say gay sex is "just fine."

This is a rank perversion of the Constitutional system for Federal appointments, and it is another manifestation of the fears Thomas Jefferson had of a strong central government, i.e. that it would be all too easy to flex its political muscle without regard to the needs or will of the people.  The "advice and consent" provision was designed as a check and balance on the Executive power to appoint Federal officials, in hopes that it would force appointment of qualified individuals and not simply political cronies.  It does assume, however, that the person who won the Presidency will be able to surround himself/herself with like-minded individuals, as an extension of the choice of the electorate for governmental leadership.  It was designed for the Senate to make an up-or-down vote on appointees, NOT to use archaic procedural rules and the political fiefdoms of committee chair positions to frustrate the processes of government.

This abuse accomplishes nothing more than advancing the tit-for-tat gamesmanship that is the unfortunate order of the day in Washington.  The machinery of government is boggled by the Senate's gaming the system - in these examples, appeals through the Fourth Circuit are significantly slowed by the absence of five judges, and the Surgeon General's office is without a Surgeon General to conduct the important work of public health in America.  This is the same mentality that is only capable of passing lightbulb legislation while we are faced with an energy crisis approaching a critical mass unseen since the oil embargoes of the 1970's. 

This is also another compelling argument for term limits to throw the current bunch of bums out of office; to those who proclaim a message of "change" in Washington, what about it?  Many of the current office holders in the Senate and the House of Representatives have been there far past any usefulness in their position, instead growing fat at the public trough.  Should we not throw them out like dirty bathwater and run something clean and fresh into the Congressional tub?  We limit our Presidents to 8 years - why not Congress, too?  Two terms for Senators and five terms for Congressmen should be plenty.

Michelle Obama Is Fair Game

There has been a lot of noise this week critical of political pundits who have been critical of Michelle Obama.  To that, I say nonsense!  While I do not in any way support falsehoods like the alleged "whitey" statement attributed to Ms. Obama, I do believe it is fair game in any election, particularly a Presidential election, to draw what conclusions we can from the people with whom the candidates surround themselves.

Let's face facts.  By the time anyone has obtained a party nomination to run for President, he/she has been packaged, polished and fine-tuned to fit some beaux-ideal of who, or what, should be President.  Thus, one somewhat telling way we can assess the reality of any candidate is to evaluate the kinds of people with whom he/she has associated in their past, and with whom they associate during the campaign.  This clearly includes spouses.  Both sides.

Looking at Obama specifically, this is a guy who has made his place in politics largely on the public perception of him through highly fine-tuned speeches that he delivers in excellent style.  Yet in the past week, we have seen him not only refuse to participate in unscripted town meeting debates with John McCain, but stumble horribly at a public appearance when his teleprompter broke down.  Is Obama tantamount to the blond in the old joke who would die if her headphones stating "breathe" at intervals were removed?  I don't know, but I heard the audio of him being unable to form coherent sentences and talking about a young boy with asthma being given a "breathalyzer."  He obviously had so little knowledge of his text and the points he was to make in that speech that he was left as if he were a sock puppet with no hand inside.  What would he do is the proverbial 3 a.m. call came on the Oval Office hotline and no teleprompter were around?

So we are left to discount the fancy speeches and look at the man, including those with whom he surrounds himself.  Jeremiah Wright, he of "God D*** America" fame.  Tony Reszko, now a convicted felon.  Michelle Obama, who did say in recent months that her husband's campaign was the first time in her life she had been proud of America.  She can try to explain it away all she wants, but we heard that one, Ms. Obama, and we are left to wonder about you.  If this picture doesn't scare you, well, I am left to wonder about you, too.

My New Political Hero: Congressman Ted Poe (R-2nd -Texas)

I have a new political "hero" these days, and his name is Lloyd "Ted" Poe, Congressman from the 2nd District of Texas.

Here's a little snippet from his biography, which will give you a hint of why I like this guy:

Congressman Poe first made a name for himself in Texas as a straight-talking, no-nonsense chief felony prosecutor. As an assistant district attorney for eight years, Poe tried hundreds of cases, even those seeking the death penalty, and never lost a jury trial. When Poe became a judge in 1981 he continued his dedication to justice and became one of the youngest judges in the State of Texas, serving as a Harris County felony court judge for 22 years.

Elected six times to the bench in Houston, Texas, Judge Poe garnered national media attention for his “Poetic Justice” in sentencing criminals. Among his innovative punishments Poe ordered thieves to carry signs in front of stores from which they stole; required men who abused their wives to publicly apologize on the steps of Houston’s City Hall; commanded sex offenders to place warning signs on their home after serving jail time; and directed murderers to securely place a photo of their victims on the wall of their prison cells creating a daily reminder of their crime.

It gets better.  Since Mr. Poe has been elected to Congress, some of his speeches have become instant classics in poking holes in the over-inflated nonsense that emanates from Capitol Hill these days.  For example, this speech from May 2008 on a new energy bill that would ban incandescent lightbulbs:

Congress's energy bill bans incandescent light bulbs by 2014, and requires Americans to buy compact fluorescent bulbs. Those are called CFLs. Now we can say goodbye to Thomas Edison's incandescent bulb and his invention.

Madam Speaker, I have a Constitution here and, like most Members of Congress, I carry it with me. I've read it through and through, but I don't see anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that it gives the government the power to control the type of light bulbs used in Dime Box, Texas or any other place in the United States. Besides the lack of constitutional authority, let me discuss these light bulbs further. Nothing in Congress seems to be easy, and that phrase is certainly true with these CFL light bulbs. These light bulbs contain mercury, so they have to be disposed of in a certain way. According to EPA rules, you're supposed to take them to a local recycling center. Thanks to Congress, nothing is easy.

If you throw them out at home, you're supposed to seal the bulb in two plastic bags and place them in the outside trash; otherwise, the bulb may break and pollute the landfill, of all things.   CFLs are made of glass, so they're fragile. If one breaks it or drops it, you have to follow simple rules, thanks to Congress. And according to the EPA, here's what do you if you break one of these light bulbs, and I quote. ``Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the area.'' We must evacuate the room," Madam Speaker.  I continue. ``Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more. Shut off the central heating and air conditioning system. Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with a metal lid.'' Obviously, that's readily available.  I continue. ``Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small grass fragments and powder.'' Of course we do have lots of duct tape in Texas, so that's no problem. But we're not through yet.  I continue to quote. ``Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipes and place them in the glass jar or plastic bag. Do not use a vacuum or a broom.'' If you break a light bulb in a high rise where the windows don't open, will the EPA light bulb police haul us off to jail because of improper disposal procedures?

If I dropped this light bulb, we would have to evacuate the House of Representatives, according to the EPA light bulb law. Have we gone a bit too far with this nonsense?   Thanks to Congress, we're making what is simple very difficult. And besides, these light bulbs, are expensive, and using them may fade photographs on the wall.

Now, Madam Speaker, I'm going to carefully remove one of these light bulbs from a box that contains all these warnings on the outside. And this is one of those CFL light bulbs that Congress is requiring all Americans to use by 2014.   There's more to the requirements of using these. It says here, and I quote, ``these light bulbs may cause interference to radios, televisions, wireless telephones and remote controls.'' Now we're in trouble for Monday night football because we're going to have to turn out the lights so there's no interference with our TV.   We can also thank Congress for giving more money to China. This light bulb, it says right here, with all the warnings on it, is made in China. And Madam Speaker, they are only made in China. They're not made in the United States. We import every one of these things.   You know, over the past year we've seen Chinese pet food kill our dogs and cats; Chinese lead paint is poisoning our children, and now Chinese light bulbs that contain mercury can be harmful to our health. Doesn't this bother anybody?

Meanwhile, gasoline nears $4 a gallon, and Congress still has no energy plan except turn on these light bulbs.  Oh, I yearn for the day when America took care of Americans by developing our own abundant natural resources like coal and natural gas and crude oil to provide affordable energy to America. But those days have gone the way of Edison's incandescent light bulb. We might as well turn out the lights, the party's over.   And that's just the way it is.

Please go over to Congressman Poe's website, click on the "Floor Speeches" button, and browse through some of his words of wisdom.    One more short one, about gasoline prices:

Madam Speaker, with all the gloom, doom and despair about the high gasoline prices, there is a remedy to this pessimistic pump panic. Before we start passing out bicycles to the multitudes or start going to Dr. Phil for therapy, we can and should obtain more crude oil here in America. Crude oil will still be the driving energy of this Nation for the foreseeable future until we find some alternative. And we don't need to line the pockets of OPEC and Third World dictators by begging them for more crude. We already give them $425 million a day!   The U.S. Geological Survey has released a report that says the ``sweet crude'' oil find in the Williston-Bakken Basin is larger than first believed. It is enormous. According to the report, it is over 500 billion barrels, and it is located in the Dakotas. It is 15 times larger than the oil in the Alaskan North Slope.   America needs to take care of America. We need to remove the silly restrictions that prohibit drilling. We need to drill in the Badlands of the Dakotas; remove the offshore drilling ban; drill in Alaska; and we can cure this pump panic disease.    And that's just the way it is.

Democratic Primaries Come To End (Thank The Lord!)

  Today marks the end of the Democratic primaries, and the overwhelming questions are "Will she or won't she?"  Will Clinton concede defeat, or will she carry this thing through the convention?  Will Clinton swallow her pride and accept a VP slot on Obama's ticket?  And, will Obama swallow his pride and offer such a slot to Clinton?  An Obama-Clinton ticket has been seen as a "dream ticket" by many Democrats and would be a formidable opponent for GOP candidate John McCain.

Here's what I would like to see happen.  Let's have an Obama-Clinton Democratic ticket.  Then let's have a McCain-Condoleeza Rice Republican ticket.  Then all of our gender and race issues are in some form of equilibrium (not to mention that Ms. Rice is extraordinarily talented, far beyond what she has been allowed to demonstrate under the Bush administration, and we should not let her get away just yet), and maybe, just maybe, we could have a presidential election where some real issues are discussed.   In reality, all equilibrium jokes aside, these two tickets might just be the best foot each party could put forward at this point in time.  The substance of the respective women on these prospective tickets would immeasurably enhance the choice of the two men at the top.

Surely, the Iraq war will be one of the big issues, but recent reports seem to indicate a trend that would allow the next president to look very good simply by surfing the wave of improved conditions over there.  Fuel prices are probably the issue which is most paining Americans today, and the candidates have to-date shown precious little interest in offering substantive proposals that would make a change in that issue.  I would hope they will not be allowed to skate on fuel issues in the fall campaign.  Health care, education, etc., etc., are all issues that will require something well-thought and creative to convince many voters in the general election.  Race is an issue that needs to be taken head-on, especially given the racist invective of religious figures such as Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright.  It seems that the racial issues in this country have almost turned around, with African-American pastors continuing to fuel a fire for reasons that are just not entirely clear.

Regardless, this summer's conventions and the run-up to them promises to be interesting.  Stay tuned.

Splitting Constitutional Hairs in Kentucky

The Kentucky Constitution contains a provision which has been virtually interpreted out of existence.  No surprise in that, because over the years the Courts have done this to many Federal and State Constitution provisions, either obliterating them, or expanding them beyond any reasonable meaning of the prose.  But this one is particularly significant.

Section 57 of the Kentucky Constitution states:  A member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the General Assembly, shall disclose the fact to the House of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon upon pain of expulsion.  Seems simple enough, right?

In the just-concluded session of the Kentucky Legislature, however, it has been reported that at least one in five members of the Legislature supported and voted on legislation which benefitted either themselves or their employer.  Examples include a legislator who works for a state-funded university and works for favorable funding for that college;  a legislator who is an automobile dealer who supports and votes on legislation favorable to dealers; a legislator who opposes coal mine environmental legislation and works for  a mining equipment company; etc., etc. 

Do these facts render the legislation in question unconstitutional?  Not in Kentucky.  This section of the Constitution has been interpreted to mean ONLY if the legislation is ONLY of benefit to the legislator himself or herself.  If others in his/her District also benefit, that's OK.  Proponents of this legislation cite to the concept of "citizen-legislators" as permitting such representation of special interests.  This is a perversion of this concept, as anyone who has given any level of study to American political history is well aware.

The Kentucky Legislature has also performed another bit of legislative ledgerdemain.  The Kentucky Constitution places strict limits on the length of sessions.  This year's was to have ended on April 15.  Because so little had been accomplished throughout the first 95% of the session, both houses were rushing to get something done in the waning minutes.  when the clock was winding down to the last few moments, the Kentucky House of Representatives decided to "stop the clock", declaring that time stood still until they decided to let it move forward again.

There is no truth to the rumor that this clock-stopping maneuver so affected the Earth's rotation that IT was the cause of the Illinois earthquakes last week.  On the other hand, I cannot  help but point out that, although people make fun of attorneys filing motions to "enlarge" time, I know of no attorney who has actually asked a Court to stop time.  On a more serious note, though, the Kentucky Attorney General has been asked to opine whether any legislation actually passed after midnight (on the rest of the Eastern Time Zone's clocks) is legitimate, or unconstitutional.

As seems always to be the case with the Kentucky Legislature, I have to laugh to keep from crying.

More Inconsistency From Obama Campaign

In the aftermath of Barack Obama asking that America engage in a conversation about racism, his campaign has demonstrated a chip-on-the-shoulder over-reaction to what seems to have been an innocent neighborhood statement by one of its own elected delegates.  This type of incident, if one believes that actions speak louder than words, raises serious questions about what kind of President Obama might make.

Linda Ramirez-Sliwinsky, a Hispanic woman who is a Carpentersville, IL, village trustee and who was an elected Democratic delegate for Obama, was "persuaded" to resign as a delegate this week by Ben Labolt, an Obama operative.  Her "offense"?  She saw some neighbor children climbing in a tree adjacent to her property, was concerned for their safety, and said to them to quit playing in the tree like "monkeys."  The mother of the children, who are African-American, took offense at the remark as "racist" even though Ramirez-Sliwinsky said she did not i ntend it as such and that she refers to her own grandchildren as "monkeys."  There is apparently some history of bad blood between the two women.

To heighten the absurdity of the whole scenario, a Carpentersville police officer issued a citation to Ramirez-Sliwinsky for "disorderly conduct," which will carry a $75 fine.

There is no indication or prior incident by which Ramirez-Sliwinsky has demonstrated any racist actions or tendencies.  There is a perfectly rational explanation for her comment to the children that has nothing to do with racism.  Yet the Obama campaign, instead of being conciliatory and bringing people together, has thrown one of its own elected delegates under the campaign bus and branded her a "racist" in the process.  This strikes me as much more of Jeremiah Wright's ilk than of a candidate who would have us see him as a positive influence on the entire race debate.

Over the years I have come to strongly believe that one's actions speak much louder than one's words, especially when the words are spoken for the purpose of achieving some end result.  Obama's words are spoken to persuade enough American voters to make him President.  To achieve this end, he must overcome racial fears of white Americans and appear to be a unifying force, not a divisive one.

But what of his actions?  He has relied heavily on the advice and counsel of divisive, racist black pastors such as Jeremiah Wright and James Meeks, both of whom regularly spew anti-white, anti-Jewish, and anti-America invectives from the pulpit.  Now, over a fairly insignificant remark, his campaign has thrown one of their own delegates under the campaign bus.  Are these the actions of a unifying force, or a man with a tendency to a knee-jerk, overly-sensitive, reactionary view of racial relations?

The choice of a President is, or should be, all about assessing what kind of President a candidate would make.  This involves not only how  he or she would react in situations a President will face, but some thought should be given to anticipation of the kind of advisors and government functionaries with whom the candidate would surround himself or herself. 

Setting aside Obama's pretty words, the actions he has taken and those of his campaign continue to raise huge concerns in my mind.  Based upon his past and current associations and actions, one would have to believe that rather than advancing the cause of racial relations in America, Obama as a President might well set that cause back by decades by bringing to the Oval Office a militant hyper-sensitivity that actively seeks to interpret virtually any words or actions as racist, regardless of the context, intent, or record of the person in their cross-hairs.  Coupled with the many words and acts of Obama and his wife that lead inevitably to the conclusion that they are not American patriots but condemn this nation, serious questions must be addressed from the whole picture.

I have said it before and I will say it again now - the closer we look at Barack Obama as a Presidential candidate, the more dangers he poses to America.  The so-called candidate of unity has demonstrated himself time and again to be anything but.  His actions are not consistent with his words, and his actions are what are truly the mark of the man. 

UPDATE:  Reports early this morning indicate that in the aftermath of the firestorm of criticism by conservative media over this story, the Obama campaign has reversed itself and Ramirez-Sliwinsky will stay on as a delegate to the Democratic convention.  While this may be a more just result, the questions about Obama posed by this incident and many others still remain.

New Questions About Obama Associations

A tip o' my kepi to Greg Griffith at StandFirm for bringing this story, albeit from the website "GayWired.com", to our attention.  Read the original article here:  http://www.gaywired.com/NewsArticle.cfm?Section=66&id=18614&CFID=21546521&CFTOKEN=37822081

  Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama is now facing even more questions about his associations and advisers with whom he has surrounded himself.  First, he stood to answer questions about his long-time church membership and personal relationship with stridently racist and anti-America pastor, Rev. James Wright.  Obama has tried to distance himself from Wright with a stirring speech on race and other comments, but the fact remains that Obama has associated for around 20 years with the man who shouted "God Damn America" and other vicious, divisive rhetoric from his pulpit.

Now, the Presidential microscope is focusing on Rev. James Meeks of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church.  Meeks, an Illinois State Senator, is a pastor with whom Obama has sought "spiritual counsel."  Meeks is an Obama delegate to the 2008 Democratic Convention; Obama  has campaigned several times from the Salem Baptist pulpit; Obama has attended prayer and Bible studies at Meeks' church, particularly after winning a Senatorial primary; Meeks was on Obama's exploratory committee for the run for the Presidency, and is listed on Obama's website as an "influential black supporter"; and Meeks' church choir was chosen to sing at Obama's Presidential announcement.  Meeks and Obama also share an affiliation and have received campaign contributions from indicted real estate developer Tony Rezko. 

In apparent contrast with Obama's political message of unity and hope and his call for a conversation about race, consider some of Meeks' rhetoric:  In a 2006 sermon in which he was attacking Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Meeks referred to Daley as a "slave master", and to black preachers and black public officials who supported Daley as "house niggers" (my apologies for use of the n-word, but this is a direct quote from Meeks).  Meeks is a renowned gay-basher, rated one of the ten worst by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  In 2006 Meeks' church staged a "Halloween Fright Night" in which part of the program simulated burning of two gay men in the "fires of hell."  In another recent speech, Meeks blamed "Hollywood Jews" for the making of the film "Brokeback Mountain."

Obama will no doubt quickly move to disassociate himself from Meeks, just as he has done with Wright, although in this instance it will be more difficult because Meeks is not retired, but is a convention delegate and active in Illinois politics.  The problem, though, is the continued development of evidence that Obama's historic actions and affiliations are very much at odds with his persona developed for the Presidential run as being a candidate to bring American together.  His friends, mentors, and "spiritual advisers" Wright and Meeks represent anything but a unifying voice on race, but are far more stridently and extremely racist, anti-white, and anti-American than any public figures on the American scene since the open racial conflict of the 1960's.

Regardless of how much Obama would like us to evaluate him on his personal merit and his own words, we cannot in good conscience do so.  Political pundits like Roland S. Martin of CNN are simply wrong when they claim that we can and should do so.  Why?  Two very clear reasons.  First, Obama has himself made his personal judgment an issue by crowing about his vote against the Iraq war, claiming to be the only candidate with the "good judgment" to have so voted.  Given his larger track record in choosing his political allies and advisers, should we not now question the quality of his judgment and perhaps question whether his Iraq vote was "judgment," or simply made to look good by a later turn of events?

Second, no President is an island.  If elected, much of the rise or fall of an Obama administration will happen based upon the Cabinet officers, government officials, and advisers with whom he surrounds himself.  Much of George Bush's problems may be left at the feet of Chaney, et al., who were war hawks who had no patience for planning what to do with Iraq after the invasion was completed.  The initial decision to invade and topple Saddam Hussein was far less to blame for where we find ourselves now than the lack of planning for turning Iraq into a functioning country post-Saddam.  With Obama, his choices for advisers and personal mentors and affiliates should create much fear and concern in average Americans of any race, because it should be highly questionable whether such men as Wright and Meeks, or others of a similar mind, can effectively run a country with such divisive venom in their hearts and minds.

As I have said for a long time, the closer we all look at exactly who is Barack Obama, behind the high-flown ideals pronounced in his rhetoric, the more we should be concerned about the prospect of his potential Presidency.  I am no Hillary Clinton fan, but I cannot help but believe that she sees the serious flaws in Obama's background and has chosen, at least in part, to remain in the Democratic race out of hope that America will also sense these problems and back away.  As for John McCain, he must be smiling as these developments continue, as I can think of no better event to unite and bring out the Republican base than an Obama candidacy.

We Must Question Obama's "Judgment"

I have been wrestling with how to respond to and analyze the stories of Barack Obama's relationship with incendiary Chicago minister Jeremiah Wright since they became widespread and more well-defined.  Adding the over-the-top rhetoric of Wright to some of the other statements by Obama and  his wife, indicating at minimum questionable patriotism, in my mind further raises very serious questions about the fitness of the man to potentially serve as President of the United States, for his apparent view of America would do anything but keep us, as a nation, "United."

By now you have heard the excerpts from Wright's sermons.  He has said African-Americans should sing "God Damn America" instead of "God Bless America."  He has said that America is at fault for the 9/11 attacks, in a sermon less than a week after that tragedy.  He has claimed that the United States invented the AIDS virus as a biological instrument to kill blacks.  And so on.  In other words, Wright is one of those African-American pastors who seem intent of fomenting and whipping up a frenzy of racism directed from the black American population toward whites, instead of working toward reconciliation and peace among the racial factions of our society.  We have seen much of this in recent years - even as anti-discrimination laws in this country are really taking hold and effecting change, and even as racial discrimination issues are improving on many, many fronts, too many African-American leaders continue to advocate anti-white hatred by making such outlandish accusations to cheering, "Amen"-shouting crowds.

Many political pundits have argued that both Hillary Clinton and John McCain also have "embarrassing" people in their respective camps.  Clinton has had to ditch Gerry Ferraro and on occasion throw a wet blanket over Bill.  McCain has some radical right-wing ministers from whom he keeps his distance.  But the Obama-Wright relationship is quite different, in my estimation.  Obama himself has described Wright as a "mentor", "spiritual advisor", and a source of inspiration.  He was married by him, has counseled with him on a regular basis, consulted with him on political decisions, and taken inspiration from him for his books and speeches.  Obama has attended Wright's church for some 20 years, finally admitted this week to being "aware" of Wright's inflammatory statements, and yet has done nothing to repudiate or distance himself from Wright until called out on Wright's divisiveness on the eve of possibly obtaining a presidential nomination.

It now appears that many in the media are once again mesmerized by Obama's speech-making ability, as many are waxing on about how well his speech on March 19 responded to these issues.  While there is no doubt that Obama's rhetoric is terrific and his delivery is sublime, in my opinion he has not sufficiently addressed the real issues, nor can he.  Obama himself has, from the beginning, made his own claimed "good judgment" a central statement of why he should become President.  This claim is based solely on his vote against the Iraq war, which, in retrospect, was probably in part based on the belief held by the Jeremiah Wrights of the world that black soldiers are disproportionately put on the front lines and become the victims of our military actions.

As I suspected would happen, however, as the magnification power of the political microscope gets dialed up the closer to November we come, there is much about Obama of which all Americans, not just white Americans, should be very afraid.  By his many other actions throughout his life, Obama has demonstrated a clear lack of judgment which makes one tend to believe that there is little to be learned about him from his Iraq vote.  He refuses to participate in even the most mundane patriotic gestures.  His wife claims to never have been proud to be an American until this election.  And now it becomes clear that he has maintained a 20-year very close relationship with a pastor who has made a career of not just criticizing America, but condemning it in the most violent and ugly of terms while encouraging his congregations to hate and revile our country.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the continued political viability of Barack Obama, mush less him becoming the Democratic nominee, would probably not advance the cause of equality and racial peace in America, but would set us back on a divisive course that would indelibly damage relations among the races.  White Americans who have heretofore been considering this man as a candidate now must question his "judgment" as well as his ability to become a unifying leader.  Given his inculcation in this sort of divisive racial rhetoric, and his failure to act against it until he sees the need to do so when the prize is almost in his reach, one must question how he would react with the reins of power in the White House, when the pressure is on and critical decisions must be made.  Can we trust a man whose closest spiritual advisor has shouted "God Damn America" from the pulpit to act in America's best interest when the chips are down?

I have often heard it said you can tell a lot about a person by the friends and associates with whom he or she chooses to spend time.  The 20-year association of Barack Obama with Jeremiah Wright tells us ever so much more about Obama than a few self-serving interviews and one speech offered in the midst of a Presidential campaign could possibly do.  I have said it before and I will say it again - Barack Obama as a presidential candidate is a dangerous man, for all Americans.

Clinton Ad Points Up Presidential Choices

A television commercial being run by Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Texas puts a pretty fine point on a significant issue in the current choice between presidential candidates.  Over a background shot of a child sleeping in bed, the ad asks the question "When the call comes at 3 a.m. in the White House, who do you want answering the phone?"

Good commercial, and a very good point, in my opinion.  I'm no Hillary fan or supporter, but this ad is one of theb etter ones run so far in this campaign.

Obama supporters will no doubt criticize this ad as a scare tactic aimed at his inexperience.  It is a scare tactic, but in my opinion a very legitimate one.  National security, a phrase which has been overused to the point of becoming trite, is nonetheless still one of the single most important tasks we give our President.  Not so many years ago, we knew who the "bad guys" were and where they lived.  We knew how to guard our borders and our homes.  Now this is very much not the case. 

National security in the next President's term will be increasingly complex and difficult, fraught with dangers we cannot now contemplate.  Terrorism is growing more sophisticated and intrusive.  Border security will continue to be a significant problem until politicians in Washington remember how to be statesmen instead of partisans, and find a solution that is best for America as a whole.  And our military will need to be continuously upgraded and re-configured to meet new and different threats in unconventional theaters of operation.

"Change" has been the over-used mantra among the candidates this election cycle.  Obama has done everything but "change" his middle name to "Change" in his efforts to wear out this word, although his eloquence, as pointed out by McCain, remains largely empty of specific plans and proposals.  But "change" does not describe an answer to this question, unless, of course, the 3 a.m. telephone call inspires fouling of one's jammies. 

There are five remaining candidates in the two major parties, plus Ralph Nader and perhaps some other fringe candidates.  I urge you to look at each one of them and ask yourself this question, especially if you live somewhere that still has a primary vote.  Once the final candidates are chosen, ask this question again:  "When the call comes at 3 a.m. in the White House, who do you want answering the phone?"

UPDATE:  Clinton won primaries in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island last night, at least somewhat on her willingness to point out that the Emperor has no clothes, i.e., her new-found strategy to point out that Obama simply is not qualified to be President.  While some pundits have described this as "going negative", when compared to other "negative" political advertising in our recent past, this is simply good strategy by pointing out FACTS which have until now obscured by Obama's rhetoric. 

Clinton gets my award for the best line of the night, when referring to the 3 a.m. phone call ads, she said, "When that call comes to the White House at 3 a.m., there will be no time for fancy speeches and on-the-job training."

Candidates' Silence on Gas Prices is Deafening

Take a step back with me for a few moments and consider what issue, which is of huge significance to the vast majority of American voters, has received mostly the silent treatment from the three Presidential candidates still standing.  But for understanding the ins and outs of campaign finance and how certain large donors can influence the political discourse, I would be amazed to see that in a time when gasoline prices have crept well north of $3.00 per gallon, with predictions of $4.00 per gallon by this spring, and big oil profits continue to grow into multi-billions per calendar quarter, that no candidate has made a big, central issue of getting a firm handle on our energy situation and reducing gasoline prices for consumers.

High fuel costs influence nearly every sector of our economy.  It is more expensive for most of us to get  to work, so we have less money to spend on consumer goods, food, etc.  It is more expensive for any business which relies on oil-based fuels to produce its goods or services, a cost which is passed along to consumers to some extent but also cuts into profitability.  And, our growing dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security and integrity on a daily basis, and has a substantial effect on the value of the dollar in world markets.  Yet we hear so little from government generally, and virtually nothing from the candidates, in the form of real, solid propositions to solve this problem.

Nancy Pelosi in the House had proposed an $18 billion tax on oil companies.  This is clearly a Democratic, liberal, knee-jerk reaction to high oil company profits, without much logical consideration of the problem or the solution.  How will that help, when this cost will certainly be passed on to consumers?  The problem is on the supply and production side - oil companies have failed for decades to expand or improve their refining capacity while pocketing obscene profits, and have been unduly constrained by environmentalists from exploration and development of new oil fields outside the Middle East.  Expand the supply, and the cost of fuel problems will resolve themselves by the force of the market.  The key here is to find some way to incentivize supply growth so that the companies will pursue that strategy, instead of keeping supply low and profits high.

I have written in this blog before of the surprising (to most people) availability of oil shale as a solution and yet the minimal discussion of making it a reality in our energy picture.  Environmentally-safe technology has been developed to extract crude oil from this shale, and sufficient quantities exist on land owned by the U.S. Government in three western states to provide our fuel needs for at least the next 300 years.  This development would reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, lower fuel costs to Americans, create jobs in a new industry, and boost our economy - where is there anything wrong with that picture?  In fact, I would predict that the mere announcement of a major push by the U.S. to develop commercially-feasible oil shale extraction plants would immediately drive oil prices down internationally, just from the prospect of competition that now does not exist.

If we couple development of a new source of oil with environmentally-responsible changes such as hybrids, stronger emissions standards, and higher fuel efficiency standards, the United States could begin to see some light at the end of the energy tunnel which is something other than the onrushing train of international oil markets and our dependency.  It could also place us in a position where we have less to worry about in countries such as Iraq and Iran, or having to deal with the duplicity between our interests in the Saudi regime while at the same time that country is a hotbed of radical Islamic beliefs and terrorism.  A Presidential candidate who is willing to step outside the rhetoric and make some bold proposals in this regard would excite me about this upcoming election.

Any takers?  Can John McCain be enough of a maverick to step away from big oil interests in the Republican fold and make some bold proposals?  Will either Hillary or Obama push for realistic solutions instead of the typical Democratic tree-hugging ideals?  I'm not holding my breath.

The Obamas and Patriotism

Michelle Obama recently triggered a firestorm of criticism and resurrected the questions over the Obamas' patriotism when she stated:  "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."  This statement has re-focused attention on the Iowa photo where Barack Obama did not place his hand on his heart during the playing of the national anthem, and his refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin in some sort of protest of the Iraq war.

While liberal Democrats tend to blow these things off as insignificant, conservative Republicans see them as anything but.  I tend to agree with the latter.  The sort of conditional patriotism displayed by the Obamas is not the sort of belief in this country I would consider for the ultimate leadership position.  The Obamas and many liberals only evidence pride in America when things are politically going their way.  Otherwise they join in with the condemn America crowd, blaming the United States for any number of ills and evils being perpetrated abroad.  This kind of "sunshine patriotism" has been condemned by true patriots since the days of Thomas Paine and should remain so.

We live under a system of government that, while flawed in application, remains the best ever conceived in the history of humankind.  We should celebrate the fact that every four years we engage in a political process to change our government, or in some elections retain the incumbents, without military coups or violent transitions.  While we may be unhappy if our candidate does not win, this should never vitiate our pride and patriotism in being Americans.  And while we may disagree with a decision or policy implemented by the present government, we should positively revel in the fact that we are free to say so publicly and free to participate in the political process to try to change that with which we disagree.

For Michelle Obama to only now have pride in the United States in her 40+ years of life is quite troubling.  It belies a racially-based chip on her shoulder that constitutes a dangerous disconnect with the necessary level of patriotism to be entrusted with leadership of this country.  The United States has an inconsistent record, at best, when it comes to racial equality, but I daresay our record is little different and in most cases better than that which one would find in nearly every other country in the world.  "Ethnic cleansing", after all, is not a term that originated in this country.

There are many milestones in recent history which should have evoked a pride and patriotism in any right-thinking person.  That this country spawned a powerful leader for change such as Martin Luther King and his unequaled words for equality spoken in his "I Have A Dream" speech should have thrilled Michelle Obama's heart to be in a country where that could and did happen.  We have passed many pieces of legislation designed to mandate equality based on race, gender, national origin, religion, age, and physical disability, a legislative record virtually unmatched on the globe. 

We live in a country where the candidacy of an African-American, Barack Obama himself, is being embraced across all demographic lines.  Can Ms. Obama really believe this arose from the whole cloth of one man's candidacy in 2008, or is it not in actuality the result of many years of struggle and transcendence of the many leaders who came before?  That such attitudes can and do change in the United States should be a source of longstanding pride and patriotism, in what this country is capable of accomplishing, and what our Founding Fathers created to enable that to happen over 200 years later.

The United States is a country of great people and great ideas.  It is a superpower that has built its position in the world on a philosophy of freedom, democracy and liberation, not one of dominance and imperialism.  It is the beacon of a better life to so many struggling people of the world - else why do so many still seek to immigrate to the U.S.?  That so many people voice hatred of the U.S. is more a mark of the success of fanatical religious leaders using America as a vehicle to build their own control of their people, as opposed to any overriding wrongs America has committed.  Despotic leaders worldwide fear America because of our philosophy of giving the ultimate political power to the people; their only solution is to demonize America with false claims and false promises.

It is indeed troubling that the Obamas do not seem to grasp this and instead make their sad public displays and comments of a lack of commitment to the greatness of the United States.  If they do not believe in this country enough to take pride in what it stands for, and what it has accomplished, by deed and by example, in liberating the world from the chains of fanatic dictatorial forms of government, then in my opinion they do not qualify for any significant leadership role.  Their attitude reveals a startling naivete and very myopic world-view that would not serve us well in the White House.  Theirs is a politics of self-flagellation and appeasement of any and all who criticize America.  Theirs is a McGovern-esque weakness of will and patriotism that could indelibly damage this country by the infusion of debilitating self-doubt and unbelief.

I do not for a moment contend that we should not engage in critical self-examination of policies, nor that we should from time to time change political course to serve the needs of this country as it projects itself in the world and at home.  Such a process,  however, is markedly different than someone to be able to publicly state that she is only now, upon her husband's political successes, proud of this country.  Be afraid of such people, America, be very afraid.

It Looks Like McCain vs. Obama in November

The Presidential primary season is finally beginning to show some real front-runners.  On the Republican side, John McCain is very close to having the required number of delegates and should get them in the next set of primaries, notwithstanding the criticisms of the far-right conservative talk show hosts.  McCain has already started acting like the presumptive nominee, and has started floating some themes for the fall campaign, such as describing Obama's mantra of "Change" as "eloquent but empty."  I like that one - Obama talks in nice platitudes and is a compelling stump speaker, but is very short on actual policy or specific programs.

I'm not sure I get the vehemance with which the conservative media continues to attack McCain.  After all, a  prominent conservative group rates him as 83%, which is not a bad score at all.  While his proposal on immigration was not the hard-right "throw 'em all out" position, it struck me as having some practical recognition of the fact that there are over 12 million illegals in this country and something needs to be done with them that recognizes their role in our economy.  That he has partnered with Democratic Senators on certain other Congressional initiatives likewise does not bother me, in that it portends well for a President who may be able to work WITH the Congress.  And given his military record and support of the Iraq War, how can conservatives question his patriotism?

McCain's reputation as "Senator Hothead" is somewhat troublesome, but one would hope that if he ascends to the White House that the surroundings and responsibilities would motivate him to calm reflection that has not been required of him as a so-called "maverick" Senator from Arizona.

The Democratic race is close in delegate count, but Obama has won ten straight primaries and has momentum and a clear cash advantage over Hillary.  One has to conclude that many Democratic voters have decided that Hillary is just too polarizing and Obama represents their best chance of winning the White House.  I suspect they are right, because polls for some time now have shown Obama running much better against McCain than does Clinton.  Even though Hillary has conceded in her stump speech that there is very little difference policy-wise between herself and Obama, her argument that she has more experience is gaining little traction in any demographic group.  Could she be positioning herself for the #2 spot on the so-called Democratic "dream ticket"?

It is no secret that Republicans have been hoping for some time that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination, because they see her as capable of rallying the conservative base better than any Republican candidate has yet been able to do.  Hillary as a Presidential candidate would bring out extensive relieving of the bad days of the Bill Clinton administration, including the Whitewater scandal, Hillary's disastrous health care plan, and Monica Lewinsky.  It appears, though, that Democrats simply do not want to go there and are willing to hang their hat on a rising, albeit very inexperienced, star.

So it looks like it will come down to Mr. Experience vs. Mr. Eloquent.  I know this is a gross over-simplification, but it is the gist of the casual impression of the two putative candidates.  It will be interesting to see how McCain's record holds up in a general election, not just within his party.  It will likewise be interesting to see what substance Obama will put on the bones of his "change" stump speech.  I suspect when he begins to do so, some who have rallied to his banner may fall to the side.

I think this may be another one of those elections where the conservative vote, both Republican and Democrat, may decide this thing.  If Republican conservatives decide to vote for McCain instead of staying home, then the same coalition that elected Bush might hold once again.  On the other hand, Democrat conservatives who have supported Hillary may find themselves feeling disenfranchised by the Obama "change" policies, and crossover to McCain, a palatable moderate.  I expect this will be a close-run election, with a few key states once again deciding the next President.

Kentucky State Senate Leaders Travel to Turkey?

Boondoggle, thy name is Kentucky General Assembly.  The Lexington Herald-Leader is reporting today that State Senate President David Williams and Senate Majority Leader Dan Kelley, both Republicans, were guests of a consortium of 32 Fortune 500 companies in Istanbul, Turkey, last September, for a "Senate Presidents' Forum."  Williams, who is apparently on the Forum's Board, has traveled also to Beijing, China, Jackson Hole, WY, Bonita Springs, FL, and Santa Barbara, CA since 2004 in this position.  While most expenses are paid by the Forum and its funding companies, Williams and Kelley also drew their State Senate salaries for the time they were on the trip.  Paid to go on an all-expenses-paid vacation, as it were.

The excuse given for this trip was to "broaden the perspectives" of the legislators.  Right.  Never mind that the lobbyists along for the ride outnumbered the legislators by 32 to 24.  Never mind that Kentucky only exported $8.9 million out of $14.2 billion (6.2%) in goods to Turkey in 2007 and has no direct economic investment in Turkey.  Never mind that there is little reason to believe that Turkey has anything to do with economic planning for Kentucky in the foreseeable future.

In fairness, House Speaker Jody Richards, a Democrat, belongs to a similar group, and has made trips to Costa Rica, Dover, DE, Birmingham, AL, and Las Vegas in connection with meetings of that group.  Richards dodged an ethics complaint about the Costa Rica trip when no one could prove that he knew that Phillip Morris was one of the contributors to the trip.

There is little doubt that the real, unspoken purpose of these trips is to gain influence and access to key legislators.  Take them out of town, wine and dine them, and hold them as a captive audience to hear what the sponsoring companies have to say and want them to support.  So long as it is legal, who can blame the corporations for seeking such special access?

But I can blame the legislators for taking undue advantage of their office and stretching their fiduciary responsibility to the public they are supposed to represent.  Does anyone believe for a minute that any regular citizen or group of citizens could gain even a modicum of such access?  Just ask the group of widows of the Lexington Comair crash victims, who were treated very rudely, as if they were street beggars, by Williams in the 2007 session when they tried to lobby for a change in Kentucky's wrongful death statute.  Maybe if they had pooled their money and taken Williams on a trip he might have listened to their plight.  Nah - once you've been to Istanbul, how can we hold him down on the farm?

Viewed in perspective of Kentucky's current budgetary crisis, which was spawned during the preceding Republican administration and its penchant for funding continuing obligations with one-time money, these actions by our legislators seem little different than Nero fiddling while Rome burned.  Should they not have been spending that time and energy anticipating these problems and working to build a consensus on solutions rather than being wined and dined in exotic but irrelevant locations?

Turkey, indeed.

Ted Kennedy Endorses Obama: The Good, the Bad, or the Ugly?

Ted Kennedy broke his silence on the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination this week and endorsed Barack Obama.  Obama has been doing so well of late that the timing of this endorsement seems more like Kennedy jumping on a speeding bandwagon than providing a useful boost to the Illinois Senator.  Given Ted Kennedy's marginal political relevance these days, I am a little surprised at the extent of the media interest in this endorsement, not to mention the strong negative reaction of women's groups such as NOW*.  Obama, of course, has to appear excited by the endorsement if for no other reason than to show respect for a Senate elder, but I would love to know how he really feels about it.

The Kennedy name simply does not carry the political cache it once did.  The massive political capital once carried by that family has been squandered by Ted and other family members in a series of embarrassing peccadilloes, including Ted's infamous hand in the drowning death of Mary Jo Kopechne, for which he should have done some serious prison time.  This is not to mention that Ted, once pegged by Robert Novak as a "shallow lightweight," not only lacks the political respect nationwide that his brothers had once earned, but in some quarters may be a political kiss of death for undecided voters considering Obama.

NOW* released a somewhat curious statement characterizing the Kennedy endorsement as a "betrayal" of women.  Given the Kopechne episode, not to mention Uncle Teddy's role in the rape charges against William Kennedy Smith, and as NOW* points out, Kennedy's back-bench roles on several major pieces of legislation in which women were strongly interested, I am not sure why NOW* ever saw Ted Kennedy as pro-women's issues such that his support of Obama could be characterized as a "betrayal."

The Democratic race will continue to be interesting as Obama, for now the front-runner, continues to seriously challenge the once-anointed candidacy of Hillary Clinton.  Clinton had unleashed former Prez Bill as her attack dog, only to see that tactic backfire of late.  The Clintons, however, still have many tricks, some dirty, in their ditty-bag and will no doubt be unleashing those at Obama as Super Tuesday approaches.  The Illinois Senator has been remarkably resilient, though, and has put together a coalition which seems to transcend the race issue quite handily.  It also appears that some Democratic voters are becoming convinced that Obama may be the better candidate simply because he is less polarizing than Clinton and thus will be less likely to rally the conservative base of the Republican Party.

*I should note that these statements were made by Marcia Pappas of the New York Chapter of NOW, who also recently compared attacks on Clinton by male candidates as a "psychological gang bang."  Ms. Pappas seems fond of very strong hyperbole.  The national organization has made a much more measured statement in response to the Kennedy endorsement.

Huckabarbs Liven GOP Campaign

I'm still not certain in my own mind which of the GOP candidates might make the best President later this year.  Given the never-ending changes in the polls it seems that I am not alone.  But I can say this - Mike Huckabee's sense of humor and willingness to seemingly speak his mind on some tough issues is somewhat refreshing in the land of political platitudes known as primary season.  In other words, he does not continually bore us to death with endless, meaningless blather about "hope" and "change" such as we hear from the Democratic side of the fence.

On the Confederate Flag issues in South Carolina:  “You don’t like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag. In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole.”

In response to a question characterizing his views on marriage being one man and one woman as "radical":  "I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.  Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again."

Of course, the LGBT lobby is now accusing Huckabee of equating homosexuality with bestiality, which is a typically absurd misdirection of the issue.  Huckabee did nothing of the kind, but is being attacked by the LGBT simply because he is a conservative Republican and they were looking for some "hook" with which to do so.  I suspect the spectre of a God-fearing former Baptist minister in the White House is pretty scary from the LGBT perspective.

While the possibility of another President from Hope, Arkansas is at minimum a daunting prospect, at least Huckabee is making it interesting to read the political ticker and headlines in this campaign.  For that I definitely give him credit, and hope that he stays in the race for a long time.

Presidential Primaries Start Today

After what seems like years, the 2008 Presidential campaigns begin in earnest today with the Iowa caucuses.  The Democrats, according to some polls, are in a statistical dead heat between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, and it is certain that whomever loses will immediately claim that Iowa is "meaningless."  The Republican race in Iowa has seemingly narrowed tothe religious duel between Baptist Huckabee and Mormon Romney, where the decision will probably boil down to whether Romney's attack ads will cause the Huckabubble to Huckaburst.  Giuliani has given up and moved on to New Hampshire and Fred Thompson has faded into the background altogether.

I have heard some political pundits state that the races are so close because there are numerous "strong" candidates.  Far be it from me to dispute what the media talking heads have to say, but I wonder if it is not moreso because all of the candidates are weak, or at least uninspiring. 

The Democrats are all fairly polarizing as candidates, inspiring a rabid segment of supporters but raising questions in the minds of the vast moderate wing of the party.  The biggest question facing all of the Democrat candidates is electability - which one has the best shot to defeat a Republican candidate?  And, which one of them is most qualified to be president?  So far none of them make a compelling case to be the answer to those questions.  Senate experience is not administrative experience, and none of them has ever served in significant government executive branch positions. 

The Republican candidates have more to offer in terms of track record - Huckabee and Romney are former Governors with positive accomplishments to claim, and Giuliani was by and large a successful Mayor of New York, his personal scandals notwithstanding.  Romney in addition has been a successful businessman and claims the accomplishment of rescuing the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics.  Yet all carry heavy  personal baggage in the all-important electability question.  Coming out of a low-rated Bush administration, the Republican candidate will get little help from the fact that a Republican has been in office for eight years and may actually find that to be a hurdle.  The ultimate nominee will not only have to display independence from Bush, but an image that will convince voters that he will be a different kind of Republican in office.

Despite the Fred Thompson sticker on the back of my truck (chosen more for its "Original Intent" statement than as an endorsement) I still cannot reconcile myself to any one of the candidates on either side of the political aisle.  I have read in-depth profiles on all of them but still do not see the one person I would choose to lead my country.  Could any of them do a good job?  Sure.  Our history is full ofboth talented and lack-luster individuals who have risen to the challenge of political office in trying times.  But it is also full of others who failed, miserably, when given the power and authority elected office carries.

The good news is that the primary season has started.  We are engaged in the process of electing a new President and will once again peacefully transfer power from one individual to another.  Every time I see the political violence around the world in places such as Pakistan, I give thanks that in this country, for the most part, transition in government is a civil process.  Come November, we will choose between the two candidate who survive the next few months, for better or worse.  A year from now, one of these people will stand on the Capitol steps and take the historic oath of office. 

As you consider which candidate to support, place each of them on those Capitol steps with their right hand raised in the air.  How does that picture strike you?  This may be the best measure by which to choose a candidate - is this person qualified to be President?  Does their appearance taking the oath inspire you or frighten you?  The thought here is to choose the best person for the job, not because of their gender, their religion, or their position on one issue of particular interest to you.  Who will make the best President should be the measuring stick applied by all.

Flowers to Hillary?

What a great week for the Hillary Clinton campaign.  First a crazed pseudo-bomber with road flares taped to his chest takes her Rochester, NH, office hostage.  Then ex-president and potential First Spouse Bill gets chosen as one of TV pundit Barbara Walters' "Ten Most Fascinating People of 2007" - by himself and NOT with the candidate.  Then today CNN reports that ex-Bill mistress Gennifer Flowers thinks she's leaning toward voting for Hillary.

Flowers, now a 57-year-old lounge singer in Las Vegas, thinks she may support Mrs. Clinton because she wants to see a woman president.  Remember, she claimed during the 1992 campaign that she had a 12-year affair with Bill?  He later admitted in a deposition during the Paula Jones case having had a one-time fling with Flowers but nothing more. 

Ms. Flowers also likes Joe Biden as "smart, sexy and experienced."  Biden?  Sexy?  Okay, well, she did have an affair with Bill - 'nuff said.

Who's next?  Monica, Paula, what say you?

This has got to be the last endorsement Hillary wants to receive.  She would probably dearly like to forget her "Stand By Your Man" days and run on her own merits.  Problem is, her campaign is so dependent on Bill's charisma at live appearances and in her web-based videos, and the implied offering of him as part of her administration, she cannot just make it all go away.

But wouldn't you just love to have been a fly on the wall, or some kind of 'bug" when Mrs. Clinton got word of the CNN story and Flowers' endorsement?  Betcha the audio would have rivaled her curse-filled tirades at her Secret Service detail.

Time to Send Senate Dinosaurs Home

I saw that today is Senator Robert Byrd's (D-W.Va.) 90th birthday.  Happy Birthday, Senator Byrd!  Now, Senator Byrd, do something statesmanlike to celebrate your birthday by going home and letting someone else take a turn on the national stage of the U.S. Senate.

Byrd is but the latest in a long line of dinosaurs to hold onto a U.S. Senate seat far longer than logic or reason dictates.  Can you spell S-T-R-O-M  T-H-U-R-M-O-N-D?  His supporters would argue that he has the power of seniority and has been "effective", which in today's Washington means he has excelled at bringing tons of Federal "pork" home to West Virginia.  Certainly, you can hardly visit any county in West Virginia without seeing a "Robert C. Byrd _____" building, road, senior citizen's center, etc., etc.

But do we not at some point have an obligation as citizens of the United States to send Senators and Representatives to Congress who can be national leaders?  The decline in the stature of this country can be traced to many things, but one of them is the view that the primary qualification for a Congressional seat is the ability to gather in Federal pork.  I am not naive enough to suggest that bringing home the bacon has not always been a consideration in selecting representatives, but there as a time when it was not the overriding consideration it is now.  When foreign leaders take the view that America lacks the common will to accomplish great things as it once did, it is Congress they are talking about.

Considering the case of Byrd, who out there really listens to his finger-wagging, revival-tent-preacher diatribes on the Senate floor?  If we do listen, how often do we find ourselves asking if all of the synapses just aren't firing any more?  When is the last time we have seen Byrd be a true leader on any issue in the Senate?  Or is he there just to serve as comic relief - "funny old Senator Byrd is at it again" ?   

Failing some move to set term limits on Senators and Congressmen, it is left to the states to wake up and realize when it is time to put the dinosaurs out to pasture and let them become honored relics of our political past.  I am certain that there are plenty of talented individuals who would step up and fill a Congressional seat if it were not for our constant homage to "seniority" in our representation.  Seniority can be a virtue, but it should not be a reason to sacrifice leadership ability and statesmanship on the altar of longevity.

"Throw Da Bums Out!"

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released today does not bode well for incumbents in the U.S. Congress who are seeking re-election in 2008.  Fifty-three percent (53%) of those polled do not believe that current members of Congress deserve re-election.  This is a record high number since this question has been asked by this particular poll 16 years ago.  Overall, Republicans (38% for re-election) in Congress received far less support than their Democratic colleagues (50% for re-election).

Some will take solace in the poll showing that only 39% believe their own Congressman should be tossed out, except for the fact that this is also a record high number for that question.  This statistic illustrates why most national movements to change Congress fail - most people think other people's Congressmen are to blame, not their own, and each election vote for the usual suspect at home so that we end up with the same Congress.  In some ways it's too bad we don't choose each other's Congressman.

Maybe it's time to resurrect the old question of term limits for Congressmen and Senators.  I have become more and more convinced that much of the reason that Congress seems to constantly be engaged in a game of political "gotcha" instead of acting as statesmen is twofold:  (1)  we have too many who have been in Congress for too long such that it has become more about holding onto personal power and prestige than about doing the people's business; and (2)  seniority systems inevitably reach a point where they reward longevity as opposed to ability, leaving too many talented candidates to fight the incumbent's argument that his/her constituents "don't want to lose my seniority"