Rudy, what ha-happened?

One year ago, former New York City Mayor Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani was the front-runner in the republican field of presidential hopefuls. He was the candidate to beat.
Today we learn that he is on the verge of dropping out of the race for the republican presidential nomination. He may even announce an end to his campaign before California’s presidential primary on Super Tuesday, February 5.
So, what happened to Rudy’s campaign and the momentum he was carrying with him most of last year? Where did it all go?
Unfortunately, the Giuliani campaign appeared to downplay many of the so-called lesser primaries held earlier this month. As a result, the impact these contests had on subsequent primaries was also underestimated by the Rudy team.
After the Iowa Caucus, Rudy Giuliani became just another horse in the race. He was not the one everybody else was watching, and instead grew more obscure.
Rather, the attention shifted dramatically to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. A week later was New Hampshire, where U.S. Senator John McCain of Arizona scored big. Suddenly, the press began reporting the republican race as a three-way that did not include Rudy Giuliani. Then there was Nevada and South Carolina, where Rudy was no where to be found.
In fact, Giuliani purposefully missed the last two state contests in order to focus squarely on Florida, whose delegates were winner-take-all. The Rudy team apparently calculated that a Florida win would put him back in the thick of the race. But Giuliani did not bank on how effective media coverage from these earlier contests would be on Florida voters. By the time of the Florida primary, everyone knew about Mitt Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. But few really knew who Rudy Giuliani was or where he stood.
Rudy did a lot of campaigning in 2007. But most people operate on short-term or immediate recall, as opposed to long-term memory. Few people are going to remember what Giuliani said about his campaign in 2007. The vast majority of voters are only going to remember yesterday and today.
That is where Rudy Giuliani went wrong in the first place. He thought by coming out of the gate first, he would set the pace and be in control of the race. Evidently, Rudy doesn’t spend much time at the track, because the first horse out of the chute doesn’t always win. And pace cars never win at all.
Second, Rudy underestimated the power of the press and its coverage of the so-called lesser primaries, which Rudy mistakenly considered insignificant compared to the larger, more populated states with more delegates at stake. I think this mistake was more than a miscalculation. It was an insult to all the smaller states, whose voters were summarily dismissed and felt disrespected by the Rudy campaign. In fact, he did little to no campaigning in earlier primaries on purpose, so that he could focus on Florida and all of the Super Tuesday primaries—namely California.
Third, Rudy did a very poor job of marketing himself once the primary season kicked off. He did most of that in 2007 before things really mattered. He kept a low profile the first three weeks of 2008. That is like a retailer not advertising for Christmas sales until the last weekend of the holiday shopping season. Big mistake.
The fact that Rudy will be dropping out of the race for president is unfortunate not just for him, but for the republicans. While he is far too liberal for me personally, I think he would have made a formidable opponent for the democratic nominee. He’s a tough, gutsy guy who is not afraid to take what he dishes out. Rudy has proven that he can stand in there with the best of them and take the hits; then hit back with as much or more ferocity. Yet, despite the attacks against him, Rudy remained consistent on the issues, regardless of whether or not we agreed with him. I admire this side of Rudy Giuliani.
I think Rudy would have cleaned Hillary’s clock in the general election, and he probably stood the best chance against Obama because of his toughness and grit.
As a president, Rudy would be terrific on national security and foreign policy. He would draw a line in the sand and keep it there. He could weather the storms of criticism against him. I think, too, that Rudy would have kept his word about appointing only strict constructionist, conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. The reason why I believe this is because Rudy is not a flip-flopper; he’s consistent and follows through. I think that if Rudy says he will do something, then we can believe him.
But all these virtues aside, perhaps the republicans are better off without Rudy, whose failed primary strategy could have set him up for failure in the general election. What the republicans don’t need is a guy who plays the averages with votes. When you do this, you risk (1) becoming an obscured candidate, and (2) offending many other voters who feel you don’t think much about them or their state. He is not likely to do very well on Super Tuesday for both of these reasons.
Well, Rudy, look on the bright side: You’ll have plenty of time to correct all of your campaign mistakes this year—four years, to be exact. Good luck.

Countdown to The Day

One week from today, America should have a pretty good idea which presidential candidates will be on the November ballot.
Next week is Super Tuesday, or primary election day for more than half of the states with delegates still up for grabs on the way to national party conventions this summer. For all intents and purposes, the candidates who come away with the most delegates from Super Tuesday primaries will likely go on to receive their party nominations and be one step away from the White House.
On the republican ballot, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. Senator John McCain, R-AZ, appear to be running neck and neck down the stretch to Super Tuesday. McCain may have won the Florida primary today, but he hasn't won the nomination yet. Romney is right on his heels. So for McCain, a former Vietnam POW, to claim that his win in the Sunshine State should give him extra momentum going into Super Tuesday is probably an overstatement.
Rather, the importance of McCain’s Florida victory rests in the delegates he received. This contest was winner-take-all. Unfortunately for Romney, he now trails McCain in the number of delegates needed to obtain the republican nomination. The fate of his campaign now rests in the hands of voters on Super Tuesday.
But neither count Romney out yet, nor give the McCain campaign more credit than it has earned at this point. Should Romney emerge victorious Tuesday, then he—not McCain—will be in the driver’s seat; and vice-versa.
My forecast is for Mitt Romney to come away with the most delegates on Super Tuesday. There are many conservative states whose primaries are scheduled for next week. Romney is, by far, the more conservative of the two candidates. Furthermore, many republican voters, like many democrats, are tired of the same old thing. John McCain represents the old guard that has absorbed the ire of republican voters in recent years. Romney, by contrast, is a Washington, D.C. outsider with a lot of private sector experience in business. If anyone can develop policies to strengthen our economy, it’s Mitt Romney. Moreover, Romney is a former state governor. Candidates with gubernatorial experience historically do better in presidential elections. Consider Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as recent examples of chief executives who were also former state governors.
Should Romney end up securing the republican nomination, then he stands a solid chance against the democrat nominee.
I honestly do not believe that John McCain has what it takes to compete neither with the charisma and contagious optimism of Barack Obama, nor the ruthless political nature of Hillary Clinton, who will pull no punches against her republican rival.
Romney, on the other hand, has the charisma, charm and presidential swagger to literally eclipse Hillary Clinton, who does not enjoy the same likeability and favor that her husband did. Romney also has the wits to match Obama with; although I have a feeling that if Obama wins the democratic nomination, he may well beat the republican nominee, because of this whole “change” movement that appears to appeal to and resonate with undecided and swing voters.
Speaking of the democrats, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won a meaningless primary in Florida, whose delegates were not awarded because it had moved its primary up before Super Tuesday and upset the national democrat party. Florida, like Michigan, had its delegates stripped as punishment. As a result, Clinton did not win any delegates today. Instead, she won what she considered to be a moral victory for herself following Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s runaway win in South Carolina last week.
Currently, Clinton leads in the number of delegates needed to secure the party nomination. But with South Carolina’s results, her lead has narrowed considerably. This makes Super Tuesday all the more important for Clinton, who is in the fight of her life to continue on her quest as a so-called candidate of “destiny.”
If Obama manages to close the delegate gap even further after Tuesday, then I’d say he will probably end up snatching the party nod right out from under Hillary’s nose. Several key democrats have endorsed Barack Obama, and not Hillary Clinton, for president. Among them are Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, as well as Vermont Sen. Patrick Lahey. These are the good old boys, the movers and shakers who set the party agenda. They represent the democrat base; the party mainstream. And their endorsements carry a lot of weight. Obama has them; Hillary does not.
However, should Clinton instead manage to break the race wide open Tuesday, then those “movers and shakers” endorsing Obama may just as well change their minds.
Frankly, the republicans stand a better chance of winning the White House in November if they face Hillary Clinton. There are enough undecided and swing voters out there with negative perceptions of Hillary to render votes against her more significant than votes for her opponent.
Obama, on the other hand, will prove to be a much tougher nut to crack should he win the party nomination. He’s smooth and statesman-like in his approach. People are drawn to his optimism, his charm and his charisma the way bees are drawn to honey. The republicans will have a difficult time competing with Obama’s energy, enthusiasm and positive media image.
My personal feeling is that if Barack Obama wins the nomination, then he will in all likelihood go on to win the White House, because there is enough negative perceptions out there about Mormons to deprive Mitt Romney of much needed votes against a formidable opponent like Obama.
But there are more than enough “Anybody But Hillary” bumper stickers circulating around to make Romney’s religion a moot point.

What happens when the creditors come calling?

For more than seventy years, the United States government has been spending like a drunken sailor. Somewhere along the way, America acquired a proverbial charge card and a seemingly unlimited credit line with which to spend. And while there have been endless possibilities to what she could buy, the reality is that her credit line is not so infinite. So this begs one, big question that I think Uncle Sam must answer: What happens when our creditors come calling?
Indeed, what will the United States of America do when China, Saudi Arabia and other countries from which we have been borrowing money finally decide that we’ve reached the end of our credit? What happens when the loans are called? How will America pay her bill with a growing nine trillion dollar debt?
Will China, the Middle East and Europe begin to divide up our vital interests around the world? Will these creditors claim rights to every square inch of real estate in the United States? Will our spending spell the end of our sovereignty, which shall be summarily dissolved once the creditors have claimed their collateral?
So many questions and too precious little time left to answer them all.
Something needs to be done now to stop the spending and our mounting debt.
There are those who say ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will allow us to pay down the debt faster than at the rate we are currently spending. They only have half a point. While the federal government is spending billions of dollars to fund the wars in the Middle East, it is also spending billions more on the rest of its pork infrastructure—not the least of which are social programs paying out huge gobs of mullah in the form of benefits and handouts to its “needy” citizens.
Liberals have claimed for years that disarming our country and adopting a foreign policy of daisies in the rifles would save us from a national debt. But they conveniently ignore all of the money spent on domestic policy, such as social and human services, public health, the humanities and the arts, the environment, science and many other subjects in the name of compassion. This type of spending is a cornerstone of liberal advocacy and has gone largely unchecked since the Great Depression.
In the 1980s, spending under President Ronald Reagan skyrocketed because of all the extra pork and Congressional earmarks attached to his bills, which were designed to strengthen the military at the height of the Cold War. So while a bill may have left Reagan’s desk to build a few B-1 Bombers, the same bill would return weighted down heavily with additional monies earmarked for welfare or the National Endowment for the Arts. This happened more often than not because President Reagan was dealing with a liberal democratic Congress, the majority of whom subscribed to former President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society” vision.
Reagan, meanwhile, realized that the only way to get his “Star Wars” and other Cold War military programs off the ground was to compromise with Congress. As a result, Reagan affixed his signature to many an overweight bill returned to his desk. And consequently, he absorbed the lion’s share of the blame for the national debt accrued during his tenure in office.
There was a period of military peace in the 1990s. Saddam Hussein had been driven out of Kuwait and corralled within his own borders. The Soviet Union collapsed. Communism had retreated back into the shadows. China was just beginning to compete with us in the global economy, but still retained its Third World, pre-nuclear status. And Islamic terrorism was considered to be a mere nuisance to us, rather than a formidable and dangerous enemy.
Combine these events with a conservative Congress voted to power in 1994 and a liberal democratic president forced to act more conservative to win re-election, then it’s no wonder that spending was significantly reduced and our country ended up with a revenue surplus by the end of the decade.
Unfortunately, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks changed everything. While America was enjoying a deficit surplus, her vigilance suffered and she fell asleep. It took a horrific event like 9/11/01 to wake her up. But the cost of America’s complacency was a war she knew she had to win for the sake of her own survival.
Now six and a half years later, we have a nine trillion dollar debt, in large part due to the “War on Terror” that we were compelled to wage courtesy of religious fanatics obsessed with our destruction. Further complicating matters was an increasingly more liberal republican Congress and a president who identified himself as a “compassionate” conservative who did nothing to slow or stop the amount of domestic spending our government has indulged in for decades.
Moreover, there was NAFTA and other global economic agreements signed into law during the 1990s. The intention of these policies was to foster free trade with other countries, but the unintended consequences of which have meant manufacturing and production jobs outsourced overseas. Now, China has become more than just an economic partner to the United States; it is necessary to keep our economy going.
Not only are we beholden to China for furnishing us with the goods we consume on a daily basis, but we have grown even more dependent on the Middle East for oil.
In fact, our dependence on foreign oil has come back to bite us big time ever since we started to restrict the exploration and development of our own petroleum products with prohibitive environmental laws, beginning some 30 years ago.
Now, we cry every time OPEC, Venezuela and other oil-producing nations put the squeeze on their supply to drive up our price per barrel. They grab us by the balls and we sing soprano for their amusement.
In recent years, we have looked to the wealth of the Middle East and China from which to borrow money—a frightening prospect, considering that these countries don’t exactly hold us in the highest regard. In fact, the United States of America has literally been the envy of the rest of the world since World War I. Other countries have been jealous of America for years. Now, some of them have found a way to get what we have: By digging into our back pocket. Because good, old Uncle Sam can’t contain his compassion or compulsive spending, he has resorted to dealing with loan sharks who are wringing their hands in delight.
The bottom line here is that while military spending has certainly contributed to our monstrous debt, so has our domestic spending habits, our trade policies, the global economy and our own idiot laws that put the handcuffs on our self-sufficiency. The result has been a growing dependence on other countries to lend us money that we turn around and spend faster than we can secure the loan.
I agree that an end to war would reduce our spending significantly. So let’s go ahead and win it already. Why are we playing patty-cake with the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of kicking them to kingdom come? We unleashed the fury of our military when we first invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq; but for some reason, we pulled our punches and let the enemy fight back. Consequently, the wars have lasted five years instead of five months as perhaps they could have. But what we should not do is pull out entirely, leaving our military’s business unfinished. To cut and run would be worse than staying, because then we will no longer be on offense and instead will end up waiting on defense with baited breath here at home for the next terrorist attack. Furthermore, cutting and running from the Middle East would make the investments already made there in vain.
I wouldn’t want to look a war veteran in the eye and have to explain to them that their efforts over there were for nothing.
Besides winning the war, let’s tighten our belts here at home, too. Start by making serious spending cuts to areas of our government not essential to the functions of Congress as defined in the Constitution. That would mean cuts to probably 95 percent of the federal budget.
Finally, we ought to insist that Congress put an immediate and permanent freeze on the salary increases it has voted for itself over the years. I’ll go even further than this and demand that Congress also roll back its salaries and benefits to those more comparable to our own.
But I doubt the boys on the hill will agree to such a demand on the basis that it is “Constitutionally essential” to the operation of government. That would figure. They’ll slash benefits to the needy before they cut their own perks.
All I know is, we had better do something soon before our creditors call their loans. Then we’ll all be working for the Chinese and the Saudis.
Scary. Very scary.

Call 9-1-1 you idiot!

I read a blurb on the internet reporting that the massage therapist who discovered actor Heath Ledger dead in his bedroom actually called actress Mary Kate Olsen of television’s “Full House” fame first before dialing 9-1-1.
A massage therapist, who is supposed to be formally trained and state licensed to provide therapeutic health services, did not have enough common sense to call 9-1-1 when she found somebody unconscious.
When you find someone unconscious, the first thing you should do is try to wake the person. If that doesn’t work, then you or someone else needs to call 9-1-1 right away. Then start CPR.
I cannot believe that a professional massage therapist does not have the sense enough to call 9-1-1. She’s a health care provider, for heaven’s sake!
Instead of calling emergency right away as she should have, the nimrod called somebody on the actor’s cell phone speed dial and asked them what to do!
The “somebody” turned out to be Mary Kate Olsen, who evidently did not have the sense enough, either, to tell the idiot masseuse to call 9-1-1. Instead, she sends a private security detail over to the apartment.
If Mary Kate had any brains inside her head, she would have instructed the masseuse to hang up immediately and dial 9-1-1.
When the massage therapist finally did call 9-1-1, the dispatcher had to instruct her over the telephone on how to perform CPR.
I am flabbergasted to learn that this massage therapist, a health care provider, did not even know how to perform a basic medical technique like CPR.
Based on reports so far, it is unlikely that Ledger would have been revived anyway had the masseuse acted with common sense. But, as I learned from my CPR classes, every moment counts.
How long did the masseuse spend talking to Mary Kate Olsen before hanging up and dialing 9-1-1? How many seconds or minutes went by from the time the masseuse found Ledger to when she actually called 9-1-1? Could Ledger have been revived had the idiot masseuse dialed 9-1-1 immediately instead of calling another idiot on a cell phone?
Better yet, had the masseuse known CPR, would she have had a chance to revive the actor?
Unfortunately, we will never know whether or not quicker action would have revived Ledger. What we do know is that his last opportunity to return to life may have been placed in the hands of nimrods.
Sorry we couldn’t have done more for you, old boy.

First caucus experience not a good one

Yesterday, I was supposed to participate in my first presidential caucus. Radio and television advertisements trying to promote the event made it sound so easy. Imagine how surprised my wife and I were when we showed up at our caucus precinct only to find a line of voters a quarter-mile long and no parking within about three blocks. Because my wife is disabled, it was unrealistic to expect her to stand in a long line out in the bitter cold morning air for who knows how long. Normally, she votes absentee in the primaries so she doesn’t have to stand and wait at the polls. But our first-ever caucus did not permit absentee voting. Anyone who wanted his or her vote to count had to show up at the precinct.
Because we could not stand around outside, I decided to take my wife home and then return after lunch to at least place my vote. By then, I figured the line would be smaller and I could get in and out a lot faster. When I returned in the afternoon, I found that the line was quite a bit smaller than it had been earlier. In fact, there was no line at all. As a matter of fact, I was surprised to find that the precinct had closed. Unfortunately, I had lost the chance to cast my vote in our state’s presidential primary because my wife’s health had been more important to me. I had, in effect, forfeited my right to vote. Needless to say, I was upset.
Media information leading up to the caucus reported that people would be able to cast their votes for president during the day even if they did not wish to participate in the caucus. I had presumed that this caucus would function similar to our past presidential primaries, where precincts remained open throughout the day until polls closed in the evening; the only difference being that voting during the caucus selected delegates to the party conventions. But the information I gathered on the event was wrong. Apparently, voting only took place during the appointed time of the caucus.
So, all excuses aside, I missed my chance to vote. Admittedly, I chose not to wait in line at the caucus, even if it was for good reason. As a conservative, I take full responsibility for my actions and do not assign blame for my choices. In the end, though, my participation would have been moot and in vain anyway, because my candidate dropped out of the presidential race the same day.
However, I must be forthright here and voice my displeasure with the caucus system. My reasons are thus:
1. Unlike the old primary, the new caucus does not allow for absentee voting, an option particularly invaluable to persons with disabilities.
2. Unlike the old primary, the new caucus is not open for voting all day, so those having to work on caucus day are up a creek without a paddle unless they can take an hour or two off at the time of the caucus. In a primary, at least, every registered party member has plenty of chances and time to vote; not just those who arrive at a certain time to caucus. I wager that taking time off at a specific time is not really an option for most people having to work on caucus day.
3. Unlike the old primary, the new caucus has significantly fewer voting precincts. As a result, there are more people and longer the lines to deal with.
I realize that some people prefer a caucus over a primary, but I’m not one of them. Give me the flexibility and freedom of a primary any day over the restrictions of a caucus.

The best man who won’t be president

While reading about Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, I came across a profound quote of his. To preface what he said, let me tell you that this man enlisted in the United States Army in 1969. He served in Vietnam from 1970-71 as a member of the 75th Army Rangers attached to the 173rd Airborne Division, having participated in 24 helicopter assaults. By the time it was all over, first Lt. Duncan L. Hunter had been awarded the Bronze Star, the Air Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal. About his military service, Mr. Hunter has said, “I didn’t do anything special in the U.S. Army, but I served with very special soldiers I will never forget.”
Nothing special, indeed.
All Duncan Hunter did was put his life on the line for his fellow servicemen as well as his country. All he did was prepare to give the ultimate sacrifice for those he was defending.
But you won’t hear that from Duncan Hunter. He’s a quiet, unassuming and humble individual who is just what we need in the White House.
We don’t need candidates making promises about what they’ll do for us if we vote for them. We don’t need candidates lauding themselves and their accomplishments. Who we need is a person like Duncan Hunter.
Here is a man of integrity and faith. He’s a man of his word; he does what he says he will do. He advocated for and saw to it that 14 miles of border fence between the U.S. and Mexico was erected to discourage illegal immigration.
He lives by his faith and doesn’t flaunt it. As a practicing attorney, he gave free legal services to the working poor in his community.
Duncan Hunter is a combat veteran with a son who has served two tours in Iraq. When he says he supports going to war, I know he does so having put a lot on the line himself already. I am also assured this man knows the stakes and the costs of war. I’m certain that he also knows what it takes to win a war, because if he says we can win, then I can believe him.
Frankly, I want a president who doesn’t “want” the office, but accepts it out of duty and with all humility. In the same way that a soldier doesn’t enlist because he “wants” to go to war, so, too, should a presidential candidate not seek the office because s/he “wants” it. Soldiers serve because they believe it is the right thing to do. As such, a president ought to serve because s/he believes it is the right thing to do.
In my book, a vote for Duncan Hunter is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hunter is no longer a candidate for president. He dropped out of the race right after the Nevada GOP Caucus on January 19, 2008 because his campaign was running out of money.
The fact that money ultimately determines who can run for president is a low-down dirty shame, especially in the United States of America, whose republican democracy has been a model for the rest of the world to follow.
Because of money, the most capable candidate will not be elected president of the United States. Because of money, the candidate with the most humility and integrity to serve will not be commander-in-chief. Because of money, we have to choose from what is left of the field, rather than the candidate we really need and/or want as president. Because of money, we will never know what good could have come from his service. And because of money, we will have to wait another four years before we get another chance.
Hopefully, the United States of America can last that long.

Do the right thing, even if it’s against the rules

I always wondered how I would handle a situation in which my sense of right and wrong came into conflict with my duty. Then I found out just what I was made of.
Over the years, I had convinced myself and others that I was strong, unwavering and solid as the Rock of Gibraltar when it came to my moral standards. I was willing to stand in there and take the punches for what I believed in. But talk is cheap. Words only matter when we have the guts to back them up.
And over the years, I have discovered and had to admit to many self-contradictions of character. I guess that’s a nice way of admitting that I am human after all.
One way many of us end up eating humble pie is when our words back us into a corner and we find ourselves unwilling to fight our way out. So, we swallow a mouthful of humiliation instead.
Well, I have eaten my share of humble pie. In fact, I eat a steady diet of it.
There have been times in my life when I failed to stand up and be counted for my beliefs; when I chose to fall silent instead of speak up and be heard. I have let the world bully me into submission. But not this time.
Not this time. Not when my values, beliefs and morals were at stake. Somehow, I knew the day would come when I’d be forced to choose between doing my job and doing what I believed was right. It is not a position any of us wish to find ourselves in. I did not relish having to jeopardize my job because of my convictions.
This fall I was hired by a state agency, which shall remain nameless only as a courtesy. I will state on the record that I was hired to work in a group home for troubled teens.
One day, I was compelled to act in response to a physical altercation. One teen assaulted and hit another. I responded by placing the aggressor in a therapeutic physical restraint that prevented him from hitting the other teen again. It also diffused the situation by denying the other youth an opportunity to retaliate and escalate the altercation further into a bloody fist-fight.
I thought I was doing the right thing by putting a stop to the assault and battery, and preventing further violence between the two youth. It turned out that I was not; at least not according to the agency I worked for.
What followed was a series of interviews (or perhaps interrogations) between me, my supervisor and upper management. In them, I was asked repeatedly if there was anything I could have or would have done differently. I said no, because I believed that stopping the physical aggression before it could get worse was the right thing to do.
Apparently, my actions went against agency policy, which forbids staff from using physical intervention of any kind on youth—even those who have a history of violence against peers and adults.
So, if I wasn’t allowed to put my hands on a kid to stop him from hurting someone else, then what was I supposed to do? The correct answer is nothing. I was supposed to do nothing; just let them fight it out and not get involved. The extent of my involvement was to call the police. Now, what if a violent youth was to come after me? The correct answer is to run and call police. Meanwhile, I’ve got an out-of-control kid chasing after me and thinking he’s got the upper hand.
See, I posed questions like these to my supervisor and the upper management. Their answers were predictably scripted in agency policy. They could not give me an honest answer of what they would personally do, or what they believed to be the right thing to do. That is because doing what policy says is more important that doing what one thinks is right. Understandably, they were covering their backsides and the agency for the sake of their jobs. When I asked what would happen if we did nothing to stop a fight and somebody got badly hurt, I was told that we could not be sued for following policy.
Well, since I felt unsafe being able to do nothing to stop a violent situation from happening and raised this concern with management, I was eventually fired. Of course, they did so two weeks before Christmas—truly in the spirit of the holiday season.
Nevertheless, I was only disappointed that I could no longer make a difference in the lives of the youth I worked with. But neither was I ashamed, nor did I regret drawing a line in the sand between right and wrong. I chose to stand on the side of right and I did not budge, in spite of the efforts of management to help me see the errors of my ways.
While it may seem that the agency had the upper hand in this matter—I was a problem, I was fired, problem solved—the truth is that I left with a clear conscience, because I believed in what I stood for, and I showed no fear in standing up for my beliefs. Neither did I let bureaucrats intimidate me, nor did I place policy above my values and morals.
I am hardly a rebel. I respect authority and do my job to the best of my ability, because that is what I would expect if the tables were turned and I had others working under me. Besides, it is just the right thing to do. I am not one of these wreckless anti-authority types who feels compelled to question and challenge everything about “the Man,” because life is full of conspiracies against us little people.
However, I will choose my battles…wisely, of course. I only fight when fighting is needed. I only challenge when challenging is necessary. And I resist rules, policies and, yes, even laws that require me to say or do something I do not believe is moral or right.
So, after having said all of this, you may be wondering why I chose to share my story with you. Because I want you to know that it’s okay to stand up for what you believe in. It’s okay to take risks to defend your values and morals. And it’s okay to place morality above the law. When we do, others come to respect us for that. But when we don’t, we lose even our own self-respect.
I lost my job because I stood up for what I believed was right; but it was just a job. I can always find another one. But when a person compromises his values and beliefs, he loses what takes a lifetime to attain: character, integrity and the respect of self and others. I'd do it all over again before giving up these virtues. Besides, at least now I can better sleep at night.
How well do you sleep?

Why would anybody want to be president?

I have grown very skeptical of those who say they want to become president.
I can only ask, "Why?"
Being president of the United States isn’t just about living in the most famous mansion in the world, or working at the most powerful desk. It is a serious and solemn responsibility, the decision to run for which must be met with a strong sense of duty; not want.
Consider what being the president of the United States is like:
Freedom is something you are charged with securing for everyone else; it is not yours to practice. From the time you wake up in the morning to the time you go to bed at night, your time is not your own; it belongs to everyone else. Your entire day is planned to the minute. You operate on a schedule, a routine right down to your cup of coffee in the morning. You are not allowed to go anywhere by yourself, so you cannot go wherever you want; only where you are told to go.
Privacy is something you no longer have, because you gave that up the day you announced you were running for president. You can’t even go to the bathroom without an escort, who has to make sure everything is safe for you to take a leak.
Unless you are Bill Clinton, your sex life is put on hold for the next four to eight years, because when you have the urge, the First Lady is either out of town on tour or you are ushered out to the Rose Garden to present someone with an award and a handshake. And when the First Lady has the urge, you are too exhausted to lift your big head, much less the little one.
Peace is something that sleeping babies have; not you. It is what 300 million other Americans rely on you for. While average Americans are busy toiling away in their homes or at their jobs under the guise of peace, you are busy trying to maintain it for them. In fact, all of the turmoil going on around the country and the world keeps you up most nights, so sleep is something many people take for granted; you long for it.
Security is a feeling most people have of being protected and cared for. It is a burden to you, because you are surrounded by it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Security deprives you of privacy and personal time, because either one of those can leave you a vulnerable target.
Rights are enjoyed by all Americans, except you. Unlike those you are sworn to protect and defend, you do not have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. Doing so can mean dire consequences for yourself and/or your country, depending on who you say what to, how you say it, and when. Your job is to uphold the people’s rights, not to practice them yourself.
If happiness is contentment, then you are miserable, because of all the unhappiness and discontent you have to deal with every minute of every day, 365 days a year for at least four years.
Although you are supposed have weekends and holidays off, you are on call 24/7 and end up working every single day anyway. As president, there is always something presidential that needs to be said or done on any given day and at any given time—even while the rest of America sleeps. If an ambassador’s ill-timed joke insults a world leader in an opposite time zone, you are awakened in the middle of night to deal with it.
Your position as the most powerful person in the world requires you to work even when you are ill, because the fate of the entire free world may hang in the balance. The office of president requires you to speak when you just want to be quiet. It requires you to smile when you feel like frowning. It requires you to be in control even when you feel like to losing it. It requires you to be strong when you just want to break down and cry.
Is it any wonder why every president looks a generation older when he leaves office than when he first arrived?
All of this begs the question: Who in his right mind would want to be president of the United States?
Apparently, a lot of people do. There are a dozen or so going out of their way and spending themselves into oblivion right now just for a chance to get elected to the office.
I have surmised that anyone who wants to be president of the United States is either (1) just ignorant of what it really takes to be president; (2) a sadomasochist who is a glutton for punishment; (3) a narcissist, whose self-aggrandizement is more important than anything else; (4) a zealot whose ambition has no limits; or (5) all of the above.
I venture to guess that every one of the 2008 presidential candidates are either one or all of these.
Ignorance can be corrected. Sadomasochism is forgivable. But narcissism and zeal have no business occupying the office of the most powerful human being on the planet. Too many despots have attempted to rule the world and millions have died because of their narcissism and zeal.
No, the right person for the office is someone who doesn’t “want” to be president of the United States. Running for president is not the same as applying for the job you want or working toward a dream you’ve always had. It isn’t about “want” at all. Rather, what it’s about is a sense of duty; the same duty a soldier feels when he enlists. Going to war is not something a person “wants” to do, but it is something that some people feel they have to or need to do: Duty.
A lot of criticism has been directed at republican presidential candidate and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson for his lack of enthusiasm toward his presidential campaign. Mr. Thompson has said that he doesn’t “want” to be president, but instead he is running for the office because he feels a duty to do so. Even Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, R-CA, has demonstrated he is running for president out of duty; not want.
While the rest of America doesn’t think so, here at least are a couple of guys who get it.

Giving money to idiots

Would you give money to someone if you knew they would spend it foolishly? Most of us would not. But Uncle Sam is not most people. Instead of callous and cold-hearted as the average taxpayer is, Uncle is compassionate to a fault.
The latest example is this push to give relief to the so-called “victims” of the mortgage lending crisis. Many in Washington, including President Bush, are calling for an aid package that would reimburse millions of borrowers who had to default on their loans and are unable to pay back the money they borrowed.
In essence, Uncle wants to reward people for their blunders.
Whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility? By all accounts, the individuals who bought what the sub-prime lenders were selling hook, line and sinker are to blame for their own mess. Call me callous, but if people are foolish enough to jump into a pool without checking for water first, then they deserve what they get.
Yes, the sub-primes were predators looking to get rich quick. Sure, they were greedy. But that does not excuse personal choice. If you choose to do business with a lender promising the lowest rates available, then you are responsible for making that choice. This includes accepting the consequences that go along with it.
A lot of people were suckered into the sub-prime market because these lenders promised rates significantly lower than traditional mortgage loans. Suddenly, large numbers of people were qualifying for mortgages that would not have qualified under a traditional mortgage loan.
The sub-primes were able to offer lower rates and payments, because their loans only paid the interest on a mortgage; the principal was not touched. Furthermore, these interest-only loans had expiration dates attached to them. Upon expiration, the loan would revert to a principal plus interest charge, thereby adding hundreds of dollars onto a person’s monthly payment. Why? Because the sub-primes had to borrow money to secure the house for the buyer, which meant that the former owed money, too. The sub-primes had to make money to stay in business, and an interest-only loan would not allow them to pay off the money they had borrowed. So, to ensure they could stay afloat, these firms inserted expiration clauses into their mortgage products.
Unfortunately for the unwitting consumer out there who did not read the fine print, a number of loans were defaulted upon as people were increasingly unable to afford the monthly payments any longer. Now, we can understand why so many of these people would not have qualified for a traditional mortgage: They could not afford it!
With loan defaults came foreclosures. The balloon burst and the sub-primes began closing their doors.
Now, we have politicians pushing for relief to consumers affected by the mortgage crisis. Following Uncle’s logic, then, everyone who bought anything that they later could no longer afford ought to be reimbursed for their buying decisions. I mean, that’s only fair, right? Shouldn’t I be able to get some money from Uncle if I can’t make my car payment any more? We all can probably make a case for buyer’s regret and ought to be paid for it.
Questions: Why should I have to pay for somebody else’s mistake? Is it right to award idiots money for their idiocy? I suppose these questions are best asked of Uncle Sam.
Forrest Gump was right: Stupid really is as stupid does.

Our (un)official warning

When Hillary Clinton teared up the day before the New Hampshire democratic presidential primary, it should have been a clear sign not to vote her into office. If we do, then we deserve exactly what we get: a self-serving zealot and demagogue with a feminist chip on her shoulder and an insatiable appetite for power.
By electing Hillary president, we would be giving her exactly what she wants most: more power. Consider ourselves officially warned. Truth be told, though, the signs of Hillary's coming have been all around us for the past 15 years; since she began those closed-door hearings on universal health care as First Lady in 1993.
In New Hampshire, Hillary claimed she was crying out of concern for the country. But her words have been betrayed by her actions over the years.
The truth behind the cry is frustration over her presidential campaign, which, prior to Iowa, she thought was all but in the bag. Hillary has thought of herself as a candidate of destiny, the first female president of the United States. She is supposed to break the “highest of all glass ceilings” in the name of women everywhere. She isn’t supposed to lose the democratic nomination for president. If she does, then her dream of occupying the highest seat of power in the entire world will be over.
But with the results of Iowa, Hillary’s balloon burst and she settled back down to earth. Reality has forced her to accept that she would have to work and struggle to earn the democratic presidential nomination; it was not a given. There would be no coronation ceremony, no anointment. She was no longer a candidate of destiny, but one of fate just like the rest of the field.
Hillary was upset by the notion that people may not vote for her and that she may not be elected president of the United States. After all, the acquisition of and ascension to power has been the driving force behind Hillary Clinton.
She wants power the way an athlete wants to win or a gambler wants money—in the worst way.
Think about it: Why else would Hillary “stand by her man,” in spite of his multiple publicized extramarital affairs? An ordinary person would not put up with that kind of treachery. But Hillary did because she knew she could not get elected by herself without Bill Clinton’s namesake and celebrity. She was elected to the U.S. Senate because New York voters (1) recognized her as First Lady to President Bill Clinton, and (2) associated her with Bill’s tenure in office. She was not elected on her own merits.
Furthermore, why would Hillary establish residence in New York instead of, say, back in Arkansas? Three reasons: first, she knew she would probably not get elected in a traditionally conservative state; second, she knew that New York was very supportive of candidates with left-leaning views; and third, Arkansas does not carry the same weight in Beltway politics as New York does.
Make no mistake: Hillary’s move to New York was calculated. Neither was she in love with the state, nor particularly interested in representing its people. She wanted the shortest and easiest route to the national political scene. Lo and behold, she got it.
To this day, I marvel at the gullibility of New York voters, who actually believed Hillary wanted to represent them and really cared about their state. Anyone with half a lick of common sense could see that New York was a means to an end for Hillary. She wasn’t interested in what she could do for New York, only what New York could do for her.
What New York has done is position Hillary for the democratic presidential nomination; this after only one full-term in office. If Hillary really cared about New York, then why is she ditching her senate seat so soon? The reason is because Hillary wants to preside over all the states rather than be a representative of just one. Hillary wants her voice to be the one heard from sea to shining sea, instead of just one in a chamber of a hundred.
She is an egotistical, overzealous and power-hungry demagogue who thinks she has all the right answers to our problems and possesses the cures to the ills of our nation.
Anyone who says, “I have so many opportunities for this country,” is obviously stuck on themselves and their own ideas. She has no interest in the ideas of others; especially opposing views. She believes she alone can save the country from itself. History’s most infamous demagogues all thought the same thing.
The moral of this story is, if you want to give a power-monger what she wants most, then go ahead and vote for Hillary. You’ll receive the thanks of a grateful zealot.

Obasms cause blindness

Everyone likes to feel good. For some people, that alone guides their decisions. It is no surprise, then, that hedonists and wannabes alike are flocking to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), who is saying all the right things to make as many voters feel good as possible.
I have heard that people who attend his rallies feel good about themselves and the product (the candidate and his message). Then again, so do a lot of people on placebos.
A hundred years ago, charlatans would peddle their snake oil from the back of wagons to unwitting settlers out along the frontier. They would say or do anything to make a sale. But their tonics were nothing more than cheap liquor that made people feel good when they drank it. So, too, are the “Obasms” people feel while listening to the junior senator from Illinois speak.
While Barack Obama’s message of hope is inspiring, refreshing and admittedly contagious, it really is nothing more than empty promises—the equivalent of useless snake oil. The right words have been proven to get people off as surely as vibrators do.
Obama speaks of change, like reforming health care and giving coverage to ALL Americans. Yet, he fails to explain how his reform is going to be paid for. He states that his plan would be financed through deficit spending. But this means paying for something with money that the United States government does NOT have. In other words, we will simply charge Uncle Sam’s proverbial credit card every time we go to the doctor. Question: How is this “change” different from the way things are done in Washington now?
Obama talks about giving money to individuals hit hard by the mortgage lending crisis. First of all, appealing to people by referring to them as victims and reinforcing victimization is classic political maneuvering and pandering. Politicians know that the shortest distance to a vote is to promise people things: “I’ll give you something in exchange for your vote.”
The senator surmises that the mortgage lending crisis could have been avoided had the government been there to “save the day” in the first place. In other words, he is talking about the need for more regulation.
But Obama does not place any personal responsibility on the lendees, who bought what the sub-prime lenders were selling hook, line and sinker. Call me callous, but if people were gullible enough to jump into the pool without checking for water first, then they deserve what they got.
Now, we have people like Obama pushing for relief to consumers affected by the mortgage crisis.
Questions: Why should I have to pay for somebody else’s mistake? Is it right to award idiots money for their idiocy? Well, that is what Obama and others like him advocate.
The moral of this story is to warn people about the dangers of succumbing to the “Obasm,” which can lead to cognitive blindness if gone untreated.
Studies show that Obasms can cause HIV (Human Intelligence Void), AIDS (Acquired Intelligence Deficient Speeches) and other STDs (Speech Transmission Diseases).
Warning: Obasms are also known to exacerbate symptoms of certain mental disorders, especially those with anxiety and guilt-related features otherwise known as “liberalism.”
Practice safe-thinking, because unprotected thought is a danger to others.

The Rhetoric of Change

Every presidential election season—I mean, every one—is about change. Frankly, I am so tired of hearing the calls for “change,” especially when it goes undefined.
The theme for both democrats and republicans is this notion of “change.” But what does this “change” mean? What kinds of change are they talking about? What kinds of change are the voters clamoring for?
It is scary when we demand change, but don’t even know what kinds of change we are talking about.
This idea of “change” can be as damaging to our country as it is helpful, depending on what kind of change we want and of which is spoken.
For instance, when Barack Obama says that “the ways of Washington must change,” what is he really talking about? What are the “ways” he refers to, and what kind of change does he advocate? Well, he may be talking about regulating lobbyists, political action committees, and special interest groups in general from influencing lawmakers. Sounds good on the surface, right? I mean, after all, there are a lot of corrupt interest groups who selfishly pursue their own agendas in Washington, D.C. That’s common knowledge, and it frosts us to no end.
But what such regulation really amounts to is the suppression of free speech, which is the people’s right to speak and be heard by their government. It is about Congress not passing laws that abridge our freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which, by the way, is a clause in Article I of the Constitution.
What this means is that lobbies like the National Rifle Association could be prevented from being heard in the halls of Congress. The NRA, which is the foremost advocate of Second Amendment rights in the country, could be silenced. And if we don’t have a group like the NRA standing up for us in Washington, D.C., reminding our lawmakers of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then what is to stop the government from making changes to the Constitution altogether?
What I am talking about is censorship. As much as I do not like many of the special interest groups and lobbyists prowling around my representative’s office, they have that right by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Their form of “speech” is money, and we may not like that. But the fact is that people like you and me give money to these groups to advocate for them. They are a voice for people seeking a redress of grievances. Without lobbyists, Congress could essentially ignore the many different grievances people have.
Well, isn’t that what our elected representatives are for, to advocate on our behalf? Yes, in theory. But as large and complex as the federal government has become—a gargantuan public corporation, of sorts—budget matters, bills and committees seem to take up a great deal of legislators’ time. If we let them alone, then they would be more than happy not to legislate, but to rule.
Two examples of where our voices were heard through lobbies: Illegal immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
If it hadn’t been for lobbyists and interest groups opposing illegal immigration, then the infamous Amnesty Bill of 2007 would have become law, granting legal status to millions of people who are living in our country illegally. Wait a minute, you say: Didn’t the amnesty bill get voted down because legislators were flooded with calls from their constituents? Yes, absolutely. But who alerted the people to the dangers of this bill and inspired millions of us to jam the Congressional phone lines? Lobbyists and interest groups, including conservative talk radio, internet bloggers and more.
Talk radio and conservative think-tanks helped to shoot down the proposed Fairness Doctrine before it could be presented before Congress as a bill.
So, you see, lobbyists and interest groups have their place, even if we don’t like them.
But I digress: Some change can be good for the country, such as a change in our foreign trade and fiscal spending policies. I’d like to see the government tax less, spend less and trade less with China and other countries that have us by the tail.
I’d like to see fewer jobs outsourced overseas, where something can be made for a fraction of the cost because labor is cheaper and more plentiful. Unfortunately, this will require the federal government to stop and roll back regulations on business and industry. American companies have been overburdened with taxes and regulations to such a degree that outsourcing has become necessary as a matter of survival. How can we expect Ford, General Electric or even McDonald’s to continue giving us the products we want and can still afford without the ability to make a profit? If government is allowed to take away company profits, then more and more businesses will be here today and gone tomorrow. Companies are being suffocated by myriad regulations—labor, environmental, legal, economic, and social, to name a few—so much so that the difference between profit and cost margins have shrunk to near hairline levels.
In the past two decades, corporate mergers have become commonplace even among large companies. Why? Because many corporations today are unable to stay afloat on their own. So, in order to stay alive and keep people employed, companies large and small have consolidated their assets with others.
My father worked 37 years for a major oil company. He survived more than a half-dozen corporate mergers and buyouts through the 1980s and 1990s before opting for retirement at the point of the old company axe. He griped all the time about the overregulation of the oil industry and how such government interference was going to bring an end to competition in the marketplace.
Is it any wonder why gasoline prices are the way they are these days? How many American oil companies are left in the marketplace? You can count the large ones on one hand. In my dad’s day, there was competition aplenty. Coincidentally, prices remained around or under $1.00 per gallon. But once the mergers began, we saw prices rise to above $1, $2 and now over $3 per gallon.
Excessive environmental regulations have also contributed to the increased price of gas at the pump. Oil companies are not allowed to build additional refineries because of environmental regulations. In fact, there hasn’t been a new oil refinery built in a generation or so, in spite of the burden of increased demand over the years. So, what we have here is a fundamental problem of supply and demand. Except that the government stands in the way of the marketplace doing its job to correct the problem.
Furthermore, environmental laws prevent oil companies from exploration and drilling on our own property. Laws have forced us to import the vast majority of our oil, which happens to come from political enemies in the Middle East and South America. We are doing business with a bunch of racketeers who have us by the gonads.
Moreover, taxes on gasoline at all levels of governments continue to increase.
Do you still wonder why gasoline has gotten so expensive?
Again, I digress: When a politician uses the term “change,” I have to wonder exactly what kind of change s/he is talking about. I have to ask what the consequences are of such change. Can we really afford this “change” that many of our politicians are tossing around like a beach ball?
Before you start to join in the chorus for change, think about it.
There’s an old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And if it is broke, be sure you know what you are doing before you try to fix it.

Wrong about McCain, right about Romney

Okay, so I was wrong about Sen. John McCain and New Hampshire. The pundits and pollsters were right, and I was wrong. So sue me.
But just because the Arizona senator won the Granite State right on cue doesn’t give him the republican presidential nomination by any means. McCain has historically done well in the Northeast during past presidential bids, because of his moderate standing in the party. He beat George W. Bush there in 2000. But Bush is completing his second term in office; not McCain.
I forecast Mitt Romney to be the gold medalist in New Hampshire. Turns out, the former Massachusetts governor claimed the silver instead. He was also runner-up in Iowa, a state he was not expected to do very well in at all. Furthermore, he won Wyoming’s uncovered primary this month as well.
Although Romney has not won any of the media-heavy states yet, by all accounts he remains the republican candidate to beat in 2008; neither Huckabee, nor McCain—in spite of the fact that they have taken two of the highest profile primaries.
Romney has what McCain does not have: the look, the personality, the charisma, the charm and the swagger of a president. Compared to Romney, McCain is a fuddy-duddy. Seeing the two together reminds me of George Bailey and old man Henry J. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Just as everybody liked George, Mitt is a likable candidate.
As I recall, nobody liked Potter except for Potter.
There is also something genuine about the way Romney speaks. When he talks, his words sound sincere rather than scripted. They dare you to believe in them.
McCain, on the other hand, sounds like the wiley and seasoned politician that he is. His words are heavy on rhetoric and light on genuine believability. His words taste like the same-old-thing, instead of a new flavor full of freshness, optimism and idealism that the GOP desperately needs and republican voters are so thirsty for.
Romney speaks plainly and matter-of-factly in a way that the average person can understand and appreciate. He is real and believable.
McCain, on the contrary, is too well versed in Beltway verbage to really connect with and relate to the common man. The cynics, skeptics and pessimists amongst us have grown too weary any more of the Washington, D.C., dinosaurs who aspire to higher office. To the hard-lined conservatives like me, we are wise to McCain and his ilk. We know that he is a mover and a shaker in Beltway politics. He’s a deal-maker who is more likely to sell the GOP conservative base up the river in order to keep the peace in Washington; just as both the Bushes have done.
Romney is more of an outsider to Washington politics, even though he comes from a political family and is himself an experienced politician.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m as weary of Romney as I am of McCain, Huckabee and most of the rest of the republican field. There are things about him that cause butterflies to stir in my stomach—not his religion, for the record.
Rather, he has a history of flip-flopping on key republican issues, such as gun control and abortion. He may even be more moderate than conservatives like me would prefer. After all, he got himself elected governor of the most liberal state in the union. Romney is a neo-con, to be sure. He’s not the traditional conservative that I am or that many long-time GOP faithful are.
But he exudes confidence and optimism that is Reagan-esque. Of course, so does Huckabee. But the latter is using his faith as leverage to garner votes among GOP voters, a move that I, quite frankly, resent and find distasteful. We are supposed to be electing a president, not a religious leader. A man’s faith is a fine thing, to be sure. And it speaks well of his character and compass. But the oval office, by design, is supposed to be a place of business; not worship.
Romney, by contrast, knows that his Mormon faith can be a stumbling block for him with many GOP voters, who, by and large, identify themselves as protestant, evangelical Christians. He is careful not to use his faith as a tool to win votes, because he knows it just won’t work for him. Instead, he identifies himself with his faith as part of who he is. It is part of the bigger picture of Mitt Romney and what guides his decisions. Frankly, I admire someone who is comfortable enough in his own skin to not peddle his religion in an effort to win votes.
Romney probably will not win South Carolina. That one will go to either Huckabee or McCain, by virtue of their appeal to southern voters. However, Michigan is Romney’s home state and he is expected to show very strong there. In fact, depending on how Michigan goes for Romney, he may be able to take much of the Great Lakes region from McCain. Nevada is a strong possibility for either of them, with a solid southwest and Mormon connection there.
But please, please do not forget about former New York City Mayor Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani, who has been sitting back in the shadows watching the last two major primaries unfold. He didn’t do well in either of them, and he did not expect to. Instead, Rudy is focusing on New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, California, probably Ohio, Illinois and Texas—the bigger fish where raw primary votes are concerned. Many in the media have been expecting Rudy to cash in his chips and leave the table after the first two primaries. Strange that he has not. Why? Because he’s waiting to compete for much larger stakes. The guy is a high stakes gambler, who is not afraid to take some hits before he starts playing for keeps. I’ve said from the beginning that I admire Rudy’s toughness and grit. Furthermore, he obviously has the financial backing enough to let the first few primaries go by without so much as a twitch in his eye.
I continue to stand by my prediction that the GOP nod will go to either Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani; the latter of which stands the best chance against Hillary or Obama, because he has the sand that I just don’t detect from the other republican candidates. While I part ways with Rudy on some social and Constitutional issues, I would cast my vote for him before I would even think about voting for either Hillary or Obama.
So, those of you who have jumped on the Huckabee and McCain bandwagons had better be prepared for a short ride, because when the buckboard stops, it will stop cold.

Never underestimate the power of a good cry

Note to Hillary: As the song goes, “big girls don’t cry.” Apparently, she didn’t get the memo. The voters in New Hampshire didn’t, either. There is nothing that a dyed-in-the-wool, bleeding heart liberal likes more than a good cry. It just tugs at the old heart strings, you know? New Hampshire is full of those kinds of folks. Hence, Hillary’s primary victory last night.
Not to take anything away from “the smartest woman in the world”—because I actually forecast her victory up there in the Granite State, despite democratic presidential rival Barack Obama’s recent momentum from Iowa—but Hillary’s labile moment the other day couldn’t have been timed any better. Fresh in the voters’ minds Tuesday was the New York senator’s apparent sincerity of words during her recent tear session. It would not surprise me at all if Hillary received a few hundred—or even thousand—sympathy votes in response to her well-timed cry.
Media pundits have debated since then as to whether or not Hillary’s tears were genuine or staged. The truth lies somewhere in between. I believe Mrs. Clinton’s tears were real; after all, she is not as good an actor as her husband is. But I also think “the cry” was a calculated risk that Hillary was willing to take. She understood the mindset of New Hampshire voters as similar to those she won over twice in New York. Whip up a few tears and the bleeding hearts will gush with love for you.
But I digress: As timely and calculated as it was, there was something real and genuine about the cry, too. Dismayed by her recent third-place finish in Iowa and all of the attention shifting to Obama, I opine Hillary’s tears were those of frustration, rather than concern for the country. I think Hillary is concerned—about her campaign to occupy the highest seat of power in the world. After Iowa, it became painfully clear that the democratic presidential nomination was not hers exclusively. She learned, perhaps humbly, that maybe she is not a candidate of destiny, but rather a candidate of fate like the rest of the field. Welcome to reality.
Frankly, a little humble pie never hurt anyone. In Hillary’s case, a steady diet of it may actually help her to secure the party nomination and perhaps the White House.
The same goes for Obama, who may have taken his Iowa victory and subsequent momentum for granted. He is riding a wave of popularity right now that seems to transcend primary voting. Maybe all of this positive attention has gone to his head a little bit. New Hampshire ought to serve as a reality check for the “O Factor” that popularity alone will not get him elected president. There is a process to it, and one must master the process to win. Fortunately for “Obamania,” New Hampshire happened early in the presidential primary season. There are still 47 more states to go (less Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire) and a half-year until the Democratic National Convention.
What the democrats have now is a bonafide race for the White House. The candidate with the most grit will win in the end. Questions in my mind are thus: Does Hillary have the emotional armor to weather the coming storms of the primary season? Or, will she break down again after another loss? If the latter happens, then it’s over. Traditional bleeding hearts aside, the moderate and more conservative democrats do not want a fragile presidential candidate; neither do the undecided swing voters. They want someone with the grit to stand in, take the punches and still make the tough decisions. If Hillary cries again, it will be a clear signal to the country and the world that she is not ready to handle the stresses and pressures of the office of President of the United States.
As for Obama, I only wonder whether he is a sprinter or a distance runner? The former wins primaries, while the latter wins races.

Beware of the “Obasm”

Somebody throw water on Barack Obama, because he’s on fire.
The junior senator from Illinois and 2008 democratic presidential candidate has hit a hot streak in the early primary voting season. His popularity has reached such heights that the response among voters is almost, dare I say, “Obasmic,” to coin a term.
Yes, he is refreshing compared with a lot of the same-old-things among the field of contenders. Yes, his charisma, personality and photogenics are attractive. Yes, his life story is inspiring. Yes, even his name is catchy. These “Obasms” are admittedly contagious—even to those of us who are ideologically 180 degrees the other way.
There is no doubt that “Obamania” has taken America by storm this presidential election season. But do not mistake a few moments of idealistic nirvana for reality.
The hard-line traditional conservative that I am, even I dared to believe in all of the hype.
Unfortunately for voters—and even Obama himself—hype is all that an “Obasm” amounts to.
Remember H. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and even former Minnesota Governor and retired professional wrestler Jesse Ventura? All were fresh, popular and full of energy. Each was considered a maverick bringing a positive message of change different from the mainstream candidates. And yet, none made successful bids for the White House. The “noise” generated by their respective campaigns was all but reduced to a quiet whimper by the time the general elections came around.
But all were hyped to the hilt.
Obama runs the risk of becoming an over-hyped “flavor of the month,” rather than a serious heavyweight contender for the title.
To keep his campaign from losing steam, Obama will need to turn his reputation from fad to fashion. For “Obamania” to last, it needs to become a household name—which is to say, a lasting and dependable product—rather than a nifty, one-shot gimmick. He can ill afford to let the media paint him into a corner as some sort of wunderkind. To win the democratic presidential nomination and perhaps even the White House, flash just won’t get it done. He will need grit, and lots of it.
As with anything else short-lived, the “Obasm” will eventually fade and the young senator will not be able to rely on it. Sure, there are the multi-Obasmic voters who will stick with their candidate as long as he continues to feed into their pleasure centers. But many more voters are fickle, skeptical, cynical and pessimistic. While refreshing now, Obama’s optimism can quickly turn on him as voters often grow weary of somebody who seems to be wrapped up in idealism, instead of grounded in reality.
So, don’t let these “Obasms” fool you: They are nothing more than a few short moments of pleasure. They’ll pass.

Iowa votes have been reaped

Congratulations to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee, who won their respective party caucuses in Iowa yesterday. They’ve cleared the first hurdle and rounded the first turn of the race with the momentum and the lead. But this race is a long one—and far from over. There are many more hurdles yet to be cleared, millions more votes to get and 49 more states to win.
While an Iowa victory is indeed an impressive feather in the cap, it is not equivalent to securing the party nomination. The presidential primary season is a long one, and the national conventions are still about seven months away; meaning that there is plenty of time for Obama and Huckabee to fade in the race and give up the lead down the stretch.
The morning after Iowa, the future looks bright for Obama and Huckabee, who have media prognosticators abuzz with their forecasts for New Hampshire, South Carolina, and other primaries. All of a sudden, Obama can beat Hillary, while Huckabee is a heavyweight contender.
But I say again: We have only seen the opening series of the first quarter, the top of the first inning, and the first leg of the race. There is still a lot of ballgame left and a long way to go to the finish line. I continue to stand by my earlier predictions that Hillary and either Giuliani or Romney will be the party nominees, because they have the political machines behind them. The Democratic and Republican national committees have already settled on their candidates. The primaries are mere formalities.
Some pundits are saying that Huckabee’s Iowa victory will open the door for John McCain to become the republican front-runner, because he apparently holds a sizable poll lead in New Hampshire, the primary for which is just days away. The prognosticators are also suggesting that McCain could wrestle Michigan away from Mitt Romney and win South Carolina, Florida and Nevada. At this point, only South Carolina appears to be favorable ground for Huckabee, because it is part of America’s “Bible Belt.” The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister probably won’t do as well in the more liberal and secular Northeast, Florida, and the industrial Great Lakes region. Nevada, being more libertarian, is not really Huckabee country, either. And don’t get me started on the “progressive” Pacific Northwest.
I think Mike Huckabee had better savor his Iowa victory as long as he can, because he won’t get many more.
But I’m not ready to jump on the McCain bandwagon. At 72, the white-haired and balding former Vietnam POW and longtime U.S. Senator is representative of the old republican stereotype of stuffed shirt, country club types. He’s a senate dinosaur who is probably making his last attempt at the presidency. His maverick ways have led him astray of the party at times, and as a result, has hurt his standing among the Grand Old Party leadership. Bob Dole was given the nod in 1996 because he remained faithful to the party through thick and thin during his long tenure in the senate. McCain does not enjoy the same favor.
Furthermore, McCain lacks the poise, charisma and savvy needed to defeat neither the Clinton Machine, nor the “O Factor.” These are virtues that both Romney and Giuliani possess. One must become a fox to catch a fox.
The Obama Factor is much more realistic for the democrats than Huckabee is for the republicans. The junior senator from Illinois smote Hillary Clinton in Iowa by nearly 10 percentage points. Even John Edwards received more votes than “the smartest woman in the world.”
Unlike Huckabee, Obama enjoys a growing and widespread appeal across party lines and among undecided swing voters. He appeals to secular as well as religious voters. His energy, youth, enthusiasm and inspirational style could realistically throw a wrench into the Clinton Machine’s plans for a return to the White House. Unlike Hillary, Obama represents real change from the status quo, which for the past 20 years has either been a Bush or a Clinton. Furthermore, he is fresh, likable and personable—three things that Hillary just is not. Her husband, on the other hand, possessed these qualities in 1992. And just look back at what happened.
But the one “X factor” that the “O Factor” needs to be weary of is the effective reach of the Clinton Machine. Can enough dirt be dug up on Obama to create doubt and/or discontent among current supporters and remaining voters that would put Hillary back in the driver’s seat? Right now, Obama is at the wheel and Hillary is having to just go along for the ride.
New Hampshire will be key for Hillary, who has strong support in her Northeast home state of New York. She should win New Hampshire by a mile. But will she? Is the “O Factor” really catching fire so quickly that it could snatch the Northeast right out from under Hillary’s nose? I guess we will know in a few days.
If Hillary loses New Hampshire, then I believe she will lose the party nomination—unless the “O Factor” really screws up or the Clinton Machine is successful in screwing him over. South Carolina, traditionally conservative even among democrats, will not support Hillary. This primary will go to either Obama or Edwards, who should also win Michigan due to his union endorsements. This is assuming Edwards hangs in the race that long. For all I know, he could cash in his chips after New Hampshire, at which he will probably come in a distant third.
Hillary may win Nevada, Florida and California. But by the time these come around, will it really matter?
In spite of all this analysis, though, I still believe the Machines will prevail. Romney and Hillary are my predictions for New Hampshire.