The Debates Should Come First

Immediately after the nominees have been decided, the candidates should hold their debates.  Then maybe they would be worth something.

This is how I'd like to see it.  There is either an incumbent that has his record to run on or defend or two candidates who have been beaten up during their respective primaries.  That's the time they should face off.  Before the media, their advisers and PACs and Super PACs can get a word in edgewise and the candidates may still bear some semblance of being a human individual rather than the robotic creation of their handlers.

The policies at issue will have been decided.  This time it's the economy and due to unexpected circumstances, foreign policy.  For the sake of argument, lets stick with the economy and all it entails like taxes,  jobs, etc.  Each candidate will be there on the strength of their policies, having beaten back other challengers.

Take them one at a time and have each state his or her position, defend it and explain how it will be implemented.  Each is allowed to challenge the other's ideas.  May the one who has the policy and the ability to put it into practice win.

Hopefully this would happen before they are so over coached they no longer recognize from whence they came.  Perhaps they would actually lay out a plan they could campaign on rather than merely demonizing the other candidate and the candidate's party.

When you come right down to it, what is past is past.  If it needs fixed explain how you're going to do it.  Leave personality, wealth, religion and wives and their gardens and horses out of it.

Of course for this to work the parties would have to agree to support their candidate with more than faint praise.  They would have to have nominees for other offices who are on the same wave length.

Oh, I almost forgot.  The media.  We'd have to have a media that returned to the basics of being objective.  This perpetual fan club for Democrats gets tiresome even though its totally predictable.  Most of us are too lazy to do the necessary research to sort it out.  It isn't easy since the media is known for it's left leaning bias.  How do you circumnavigate it?

I don't know.  Ask the candidates directly?  Seek out one liberal and one conservative to share the duties of moderating a debate without weighting it one way or the other.

What?  Wake up?  Was I dreaming?  The first debate is Wednesday?  How anticlimactic!  We've already been told ad nauseam what Romney has to do to win and what Obama has to do to win.  We can pretty much guess what the spin will be  afterwards from both sides.

Oh well.  What will be will be.  Yawn.  What's sad is we won't get to see either man say, "I am what I am."  There are just too many fingers in the pie.

Winning No Matter The Cost

One by one they come tip toeing back.  Newt Gingrich, former Senator Kit Bond, Senator Roy Blunt. Who will be next to reverse course and come creeping back to Todd Akin's camp and why?

Who is any ones guess but the why is obvious.  The Republicans need him if they are to have any hope of winning the Senate.  He had actually been ahead of incumbant Claire McCaskill for awhile.  Until he made a humongous gaffe on national TV by stating a woman's body is programmed to keep from getting pregnant in the case of a legitimate rape.  Remember the hue and cry that was raised?  Rightfully so.

There was a massive call for him to quit the race so a gaffe free candidate could take his place.  He refused. He was denied funds.  Still he refused.  Romney asked him to drop out.  He refused.  But he did  apologize and it would appear that now all is forgiven.

After all, Newt Gingrich suggests the Republicans should support him because they have a 'moral obligation'  to win a majority in the Senate.  Strange, he doesn't seem to feel a 'moral obligation' to support his party's candidate for President.

With Akin being solidly pro-life, I'd like to think he'd have a better grasp of how women get pregnant and that there are no degrees of rape.  He apologized for what?  Being ignorant?  Nope.  I don't think so.  More then likely he meant what he said, believed it for whatever reason, and apologized hoping to make it go away.

It worked to an extent.  As I've mentioned, supporters are returning.  After all he apologized.  I don't buy it.  It has now been revealed that he was arrested many years ago for an anti-abortion protest.  I don't have a problem with that per se.  Lots of people have been arrested for participating in protests.

What I question is if he was involved in such a protest would he or would he not be expected to be familiar with what brings about the need for an abortion?  Like pregnancy.  Many times from rape.  Or was he just a young buck out there protesting about something he knew nothing about because it was politic?  Either way, he doesn't look good.

The whole situation reeks.  It's one reason why politics and politicians turn people off.  Everyone who is supporting this man would seem to have a self righteous reason.  They want to prove how magnanimous they are.  They can forgive.  They understand. They need the seat in the Senate.  If they don't get it there will a whole lot more than a pregnancy aborted.

I'm sorry.  Honest I am.  I'll correct the error of my ways.  Until it happens again.

Politics And The Red Carpet Factor

I've come to the conclusion we go about deciding who our leaders should be in exactly the wrong way.  It's what happens when you get old and things have changed to the point you no longer want to keep up.  You give in to being judgemental and un-hip or whatever the current term may be.

We should be looking at the awards shows and process. The Emmy's have just concluded.  There are so many categories it's hard to keep track, yet there are a set number of nominees for each.  Rather than the nominating and electing bodies let's substitute the American voter.  In this system we'd be able to vote for not only President and Vice President but also the supporting cast.  We'd get to vote on the quality of their policies and the people who frame them.  Actually we should be doing that now but it's been lost in the foot lights.

The lead actors and more noticeable supporting actors make the rounds of the talk shows.  Not unlike politics.  Forget the Sunday talking heads, real talk shows.  You know, like The View.  Who ever gets booked the most will of course win at the polls because it's the self promotion that counts.  Not the quality of the production.

It's no wonder the President is leading.  He wins the slobber factor - you know, when the hosts slobber all over you.  Consider candidate and spouse as interchangeable now because both are often interviewed and the judgement on one carries over to the other.

 So who has been where lately?  Obama and Michelle, of course on The View.  The Eye Candy Award consideration here. Forget that he himself suggested it.  That's part of the self-promotion.

Ann Romney on  Live! With Kelly and Michael  went for the Boxers or Briefs Award in her discussion of what Mitt wears to bed and how they squeeze their toothpaste or Michelle's being ready to be tucked in.

 Honestly, have these people no pride?  No sense of privacy? No dignity?  Do we really care?  Does it make them worthy or unworthy of the office depending on how they answer? Well, of course it does.  Why else would they do it?  It's all part of the busy schedules that preclude meeting with world leaders.

We hear about Mitt singing on horse back and are to privy to Obama singing a ditty.  We see them both on Letterman, Leno, Fallon, Entertainment Tonight and in People Magazine.  We listen to them discuss Snookie and what kind of chili they like and peanut butter and chocolate milk. Ah, it makes them more like us, more real.

They do have their limits however.  Obama refused to appear on Saturday Night Live  because it's un-presidential and Romney refused The View until pressure made him succumb.  His reluctance was most likely because he knew they like Obama better.

One last criteria to be considered is the Red Carpet Factor.  Who looks the best on awards night.  That's a tough call.  Both couples are quite stylish.  I'd guess it would boil down to a matter of taste.  Not like Hillary who often looks like she killed the drapes.

That makes it really tough when you walk up the red carpet and the polls are tied. What will break it?

It obviously won't be opinions on substance like terrorism or jobs or the economy.  It's just too tough to ferret out the truth, to think things through and make an informed decision.

More likely it will be, "He looked hot on The View" or "Piers Morgan didn't have him on", things that really matter.  Why sweat the small stuff?

Mr. President, What About US?

As the President made his speech to the U.N. today I wondered how many of the world leaders in attendance were feeling miffed by the lack of his personal attention.  Maybe what they might have wanted to say face to face is just some of that noise he prefers to block while he tries to avoid more bumps in the road.  After all, Whoopie, Babs and company make for much smoother travel.

That being said, he really missed a great opportunity in talking with the ladies of the day.  He could have taken his U.N. speech and parsed it for domestic consumption and explained a few things to us.

Let's take his comments about Islam and interject the good ole U.S. of A. into them.  I'll take a portion of his statement and put my terms in parentheses.  For instance:

Let us remember that Muslims (American voters ) have suffered the most at the hands of extremism.

A politics based only on anger - one based on dividing the world (country) between us and them - not only sets back international (political) cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces.

Maybe most importantly:

Together, we must work together towards a world (country ) where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

Mr. President, listen to your own words - and mine and apply them to your country before trying to apply them to the entire world.  If you still don't get it I'll post a video.

The $70,000 Denial

It's true, some times, that desperate times call for desperate measures.  But this?

The entire middle east plus has been erupting in a wave of anti-American rage for better than a week now.  We've gone from blaming it on the video the Islamists say they are protesting to admitting that at least the attack on the consulate in Libya was indeed an act of (gasp) war.

Still the video is being used as the excuse for the rampages that are still taking lives. What to do to?  How do we convince the angry mobs that the United States government was in no way involved with the making of the video and that it deplores the disparagement of any religion?  Are we missing a point here?

Why bother?  They aren't going to listen number one.  Number two, 99% of those protesters haven't, and never will, even see the video.  It seems just a few words from their Imams is enough.  What might those words be?  Protest the video?  Protest against the Americans for they have insulted Mohammad? Probably neither.  I'd guess more likely it's something along the lines of,  "We've got the momentum - keep it going!  Death to the infidels!  Death to America!"

With that in mind, why in the world did the State Department spend $70,000 to produce a video reiterating the joint statements of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton and distribute in Pakistan alone?

Well, they had to something, right?  Actually I thought the whole idea was border line groveling. It will fall on deaf ears and actually I think it makes us look less than sincere. Besides, isn't it time to accept the video for what it is - an excuse to riot!  Put out a video on the unacceptability of that!


 

 Even though it's an exercise in futility I'd like to think we could have produced something that smacked of something at least approaching sincerity! Neither Obama nor Clinton have one iota of passion in their voices as they speak.  Well, it was a quick and dirty.

Then why bother?  It's not the money.  $70,000 is chump change.  It's the embarrassment of trying to do something in seconds that hasn't been done over centuries and missing the point to boot.  To add insult to injury, it was done on the cheap.  Just hope this is another video the Pakistanis won't see!

Romney - Why I Wonder

I've spent the last several years articulating why I don't think President Obama is suited for his job.  I haven't changed my mind.  Today, however, I'm going to share a few thoughts about Mitt Romney.

First, what doesn't matter to me.  The fact that he's wealthy or Mormon or not very warm and fuzzy doesn't matter to me at all. That he had his own version of Obamacare doesn't matter nor does his flip flopping on issues.  All politicians, except tea party types, flip flop when it's expedient.  He doesn't speak particularly well, but neither does Obama without his teleprompters.  Doesn't matter.

What I do wonder is really pretty basic.  It goes to his ability to lead.  Does he have that skill or would he be just another leader who governs by sound bite?

He is reputed to have been a highly successful businessman.  Perhaps his wealth is testimony to that but I don't see his success in business translating to success in politics.

He may have been able to create  business plans to save troubled companies but he has yet to lay out a plan to save a troubled nation.

As is true with most politicians, he is loyal to those who have stuck with him through thick and thin.  However, if those advisers he would have to choose as President are no more astute regarding what's going with the country then his current advisers are with his campaign I've no reason to have faith in his  ability to choose top notch cabinet members.

The race is virtually a dead heat.  He is correct about one thing, a recent revelation that has come about purely by accident - whether or not we want to be a nation driven by individual effort and the freedoms that allow it or a nation driven by government demanded distribution of that which the successful have earned to the less successful.  On that matter, to me, there is no choice.  And it scares me.

Elections these days are poll driven.  Romney has his pollsters.  Are they finding different results no one knows about?  If not, why aren't the polls being paid attention to and adjustments made?  Why are the same advisers kept on?

If Romney runs his campaign with a deaf ear will he not run the country the same way?  If he makes gaffes week in and week out why would we expect them not to continue into his presidency?  How bad does one need to be to cause similar unrest like we're experiencing at the moment?

He ran for the presidency four years ago and lost to a weak candidate.  I'd like to have seen some evidence that he learned from what cost him the nomination then.  I've seen no evidence that he has.

I'm really disappointed with the Republicans.  I'm disappointed in the men who have led in other venues and could lead this country who chose not to run.  I'm disappointed in the slate of candidates they put before us.  I'm disappointed in the candidate that has been chosen.

I don't know if I have another four years, but Hub and I are already in our  'how are we going to make do' mode.  It is not a comfortable place to be.  There are innumerable reasons I want to see a Republican victory and yes, it has to do with ideology.  I just don't see the current crop of candidates, be it House, Senate or the presidency being able to carry it off.

How I wish there was a 'none of the above' to vote for by default.

Will Satire Prevent Violence?

Friday 20 French embassies in Muslim countries will be closed.  It is a precaution because the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has published illustrations of a naked Prophet Mohammad including a reference to the film that is causing the current unrest.  Why Friday?  After Friday prayers is the usual time to call for protests.  Tell me these events are unplanned!

Actually, the magazine takes jabs at just about everybody, including Mohammad, all the time.  It's what they do.  Needless to say the French government isn't too keen on the idea because of the current climate across the Muslim world.  Especially considering just last November the Paris offices of the publication were firebombed after a front page assault on Mohammad.

Man, I can just see the editorial staff sitting around with a couple bottles of fine French wine coming up with this.  The timing to create more chaos is perfect.  The French do require some understanding!  Or maybe it's just satirists.

In a way, however, I admire their courage. It's a delicious poke in the eye to the mobs of radical Islams who respond like Pavlovian dogs to whatever they're told to protest. This does not diminish the tragedy of the lives lost in Benghazi nor the property lost in all the other countries that have endured these outbreaks of savagery.  But it does let them know we're sick and tired of these tantrums every time they claim to have their feelings hurt.  I cannot think of one other religion in the world that reacts in this manner.  These people who kill and maim and basically  enslave their own, especially women, for infractions not even considered wrong doing in the rest of the world.  If they'd grow up and behave like civilized human beings, perhaps the poking would cease.

I hope no more are killed over the protest of French satirists, though I doubt the world will be so lucky.  We need to remember the beginning og the Serenity Prayer ~

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

Accept that we cannot change the way these people act upon every preceived insult. But to go groveling for their forgiveness every time it happens solves nothing. They are never appeased.  They over react because they get world wide attention.  We over react hoping to calm them, which we can't.

That poke in the eye though, no matter how unwise, just feels darn good.

Who Is Lying?

Someone is lying to us about the current turmoil in the middle east.  Is there really any question as to who? If it is the governments in Egypt and Libya, why?  If it is our government, which I strongly expect, I cannot begin to voice my contempt.

Our government is telling us that four of our citizens, including an ambassador and two former Navy Seals, have been killed in Libya, at least 6 more in Afghanistan and probably several more I've yet to read about, all because of a two bit video that someone had to search out on You Tube and get to several thousands of Muslims in numerous countries around the world.  Spontaneous turmoil so it's said. How many of those protesters actually saw the video and and are able to verify its content?  Or could it possibly be well orchestrated turmoil?

Okay, with an election coming up the last thing the President needs is this kind of distraction.  Best place the blame and move on.  Come on.  At least make it credible!

When both the Egyptians and the Libyan governments say they not only heard rumblings of the possibility of trouble on or around 9/11, but also warned us several days in advance, why has this not been verified and reported if not true?  They aren't backing down and we're not doing anything to discredit that information except deny it.  Are we supposed to swallow this hook, line and sinker?  I think not.

Instead we get bombarded with the video story ad nauseum.  Our ambassador to the UN even goes so far as to denigrate the ability of those governments to have intelligence sources capable of ferreting out such information by claiming we have intelligence they do not.  Funny, they're on the ground, they live there, speak the languages and understand any nuance that might apply.  Can we honestly match that?

If we're so intelligent, in a different context, why were the Marines in Egypt told to not have live ammunition on 9/11?  With all the security heaped on us in this country around that date, why would we not double down in the middle east and any other heavily Muslim area?

Information is still coming out and the protests continue.  I can see no other reasonable explanation for any of this except that, for whatever reason, we dropped the ball. It's embarrassing.  It cost a lot of good men their lives.  It appears one of a couple of ways.  Either we just can't be bothered to look after business or we are incredibly naive.  Neither is very flattering.

If it turns out, however, that a communique or something similar should appear verifying what those governments have told us, those who have concocted the current scenario should all be held in contempt of and by the citizens of the United States.

Remember all this when the movie, that was made with the help of the United States government, about the killing of Osama bin Laden hits the theaters in December, that these 'spontaneous protestors' have been shouting, "We're all bin Laden!"

Stirring The Middle Eastern Pot

Every once in awhile I grit my teeth and tune in to Greta Van Susteren. I don't watch her more for a couple of reasons.  One, and I'll admit it's a pretty stupid reason, is I find her voice extremely annoying.  The other is that she's like a dog with a toy she refuses to relinquish.  Even when a guest answers her question every which way but naught she continues to press until I'm ready to shout, "Stop and listen!"

On the other hand, her tenacity is a good thing.  She doesn't let her guests off easy and if they're avoiding a straight answer she hounds them until they give one.

Last night she had an interview with the Libyan ambassador which was enlightening.  It applies not only to the turmoil in Libya but all middle eastern countries that are heavily Muslim.  It shows, really, how little we pay attention to their culture, where they're coming from.  Something I harp on often.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the offensive video was the cause of the ongoing outrage against all things American rather than the most recent convenient excuse.  I think the riots were going to happen anyway, but for now that's beside the point.

Van Susteren asked if the Libyan people didn't understand that the American people as a whole and the American government weren't  responsible for the video.  She seemed genuinely taken aback when he told her they didn't see it that way and attributed it to the difference in our systems of governing.  Hello?  It's a big 'duh' moment isn't it?

In their countries everything is controlled by the government therefore the government is at fault.  That's their reality. He agrees with his people, too, that the film maker is a terrorist as much as those who stormed our properties.  Admitting the attackers were a very small group of 'stupid' people, he could reasonably equate Terry Jones and the film maker as a very small group of 'stupid' people.  But terrorists never-the-less, right along with the government.  They don't grasp the separation of the two because they've never known it.

That a lot of information is now coming out about our having been forewarned, etc. doesn't bring me any comfort when it comes to how savvy we are on handling our interests in the middle east.  The one thing that is clear is how they view us and why.

Jane As Nancy - Inspired Or Insulting?

My initial reaction when I read the headline was that some things just shouldn't be.  One is Jane Fonda playing Nancy Reagan in a movie.

Granted there has been a lot of misinformation about Ms. Fonda, never to be forgotten by a certain generation as Hanoi Jane.  She has been accused of deeds that supposedly led to torture and even the deaths of men who were prisoners of war.
These have been rebutted by many who were named.  Thank heavens for that.

It does not dispel the fact that she was the guest of the North Vietnamese during the war and photographed sitting by an anti aircraft gun.  A Hollywood star should certainly understand the power of images, but she explained she was tired from her trip and didn't realize until afterwards the implications of that photograph.

So why did she go?  She was against the war.  So was most of the nation.  Did she really think she could help?

I wonder about Hollywood types who are political activists in the first place.  As private people they certainly have the right, but to use their celebrity  seems to be of little value in most cases.  It gives them no credibility what-so-ever other than a recognizable name.  It always generates publicity, good or bad, as if that's the most important thing to them.  Perhaps it is.  Mostly we ignore them.  That seems fitting.  But in Ms. Fonda's case, true or not, she appeared to be consorting with the enemy and all the denials in the world will not change that perception.

So to cast her in a movie as Nancy Reagan astounds me.  Mrs. Reagan, widow of one of the most popular of our recent Presidents,  took on as one of her many  causes the welfare of  Vietnam veterans as well as fundraising and lobbying for former prisoners of war and those missing in action.  She even donated proceeds from a syndicated column to The National League of Families of American POW-MIAs.

Normally I'd think little of casting.  Meryl Streep as Julia Child seemed a stretch just like Tom Selleck as Eisenhower, but that's Hollywood.  Both did stellar jobs in those roles.

There are, though, some things that just shouldn't be.  I think Jane Fonda playing Nancy Reagan is one of them.  At least they didn't cast her as Margaret Thatcher.  Another role that went to Streep.  Bet she could play Nancy Reagan too, just as well and without the baggage.
   

Apologies Don't Win Wars

I've been harping on the need to pay attention to foreign policy for some time.  It has now come to a head.  Three situations have come together at such a time and in such a state that shivers should be shooting up your spine.

First is the refusal of the President to sit down once again with Netanyahu to discuss the options regarding Iran.  We don't seem to grasp how nervous Israel is over how close the Iranians are to making their first nuclear weapon.  If we sat as close as they do perhaps we would.  After all, they don't like us any better than they like the Israelis. But no.  I just don't think the President has the stomach for anything as complex and difficult as making a decision.

Second is the attack on the embassy in Cairo, the destruction of our flag and the raising of the al Qaeda flag in its place in protest to a video on You Tube supposedly insulting Mohammad.  We've been through this before.  Are we handling it correctly?  Each time a pastor in Florida with a minuscule congregation seems to be at the heart of it.  Our officials plead with him to stop because it puts our people at great risk.

It is his right, by our laws, to say what he wishes.  Perhaps we ought to do as Karzai has so often done.  Demand an apology for their behavior rather than apologizing for ours!  I'm not saying its right or in good taste or anything positive - but we do have free speech.  They want us to respect them, their religion, their prophet.  Should we not expect, no, demand, the same in return?  Freedom has its untidy consequences.  Would you rather be without it?

Third is the attack and murder of consulate personnel in Benghazi.  This was no mob angry over a video.  This was deliberate,  called for and well planned revenge for taking out one of theirs.  This is an act of war.  Not a declaration, an act.  The war has been going on for years and is escalating, not winding down. It's moving beyond the borders within which we've been fighting.  That makes it worse, not better. It is not the time for platitudes.  It is not the time to apologize for some nut's insensitivity to religion. It is the time to admit to exactly what's happening.  We are at war.  When are we going to fight it to win it?

It is time to get some backbone. No more leading from behind or ignoring what's going on under our nose. If we're going to maintain a presence in countries who have shown time and again we're not welcome, then we'd better set some conditions.  One, as a diplomatic guest in said countries it is the responsibility of those governments to protect our people and property.  It happened neither in Egypt nor Libya.

We pour billions of dollars into those countries and their brethren.  Tell them if they don't live up to their responsibilities, the open wallet will close.  Then close it.  They don't believe we will.  Will we?

It is time for this administration to admit sweet talk and extended time lines, or no time lines,  don't work in our favor but in the enemies.

I think you'd find Mr. Netanyahu would agree with that.

It is time to pay attention to what's happening in the middle east.  They've chosen the anniversary of their greatest success against us, 9/11, to ramp up activity.  I don't expect to see a change in how the current administration handles such situations.  Feigned outrage from the Secretary of State then nothing.

Will this be the time it's different?  Will al Qaeda decide to quit toying with us and do some real damage?  Is killing our soldiers getting boring because it's so easy?  Now they'll try for ambassadors and our civilian personnel because it takes some creative planning and coordination?

It's time to quit parsing words.   War is terror.  We've been purposely attacked.  Tsk tsk, we're sorry if we've offended you no longer cuts it.

Let's Not Forget The Others Running For Office

The pollsters are polling, the surrogates are sniping and the candidates striving to hit just the right pitch.  It really isn't going to matter which man wins unless we get the right people in Congress.  If we don't, it will be the usual stalemate complete with name calling and finger pointing and nothing getting done.

I don't mean a Republican majority nor a Democratic majority.  What we need are men and women who are willing to work together and get something concrete done.  What a tired cliche that has become!

It is said we need more taxes.  That's probably true if for no other reason than the cost of doing the country's business is going up.  Just like tending to our own.  Food, gas, all that stuff equates with the cost of building and upgrading infrastructure.  It's getting more expensive.  Understand that taking more from the rich isn't the answer.  Nor is making those who pay nothing pay something going to solve the whole problem.  There needs to be a formula to incorporate both so everyone has a stake in the taxing process.  That's fair.  The Robin Hood method is not.

It is said we're spending more than we bring in.  True.  But understand, even cuts are going to take time to make a dent in the debt.  Plus, we all spend more than we take in.  At least you do if you have a mortgage or a car payment.  You owe.  Period.  How long does it take for you to clear your debt? A while.

We're over regulated.  True, but that doesn't mean every regulation is bad.  There needs to be oversight to keep those with the power to regulate from running amok. No unelected official should be without oversight.  The elected officials have it - us.

I worry about large majorities in either house.  I especially worry about one party holding both houses and the Presidency.  Obama wasted an opportunity when he had both for two years.  I guarantee he won't make that mistake again should that be the outcome this cycle.

I feel just as strongly about the Republicans.  Both sides have too many extreme ideologies that would be far too easy to push through.  Look at how Obama got Obamacare through.  Once is enough.  Do we really want people who have a grasp of rape like Representative Akin writing abortion legislation?  I think not.

I have the feeling things will change dramatically if Romney loses.  I think we will see the demise of the Republican Party as we know it today.  And maybe the Democrats to go along with it. The far left and the far right will go their own way. It just may bring about the third party many of us would like to see.  Somewhere along the line some one, or few, or many, will have the gumption to say, "Enough! I don't agree with this and I'm not going to back it!"

We recently had a very prominent member of our community change her voting registration from Republican to unaffiliated.  She just got tired of being backed into supporting positions with which she disagreed all for the sake of the 'party'.

If  a prominent member of the community, one which is heavily Republican, has the fortitude to do so and make it public, why not a politician?  Surely there must be some who care more about their country than their 'career'.

The country needs such people to step forward, regardless of affiliation, and stand together.  I think they'd be surprised how many of we voters would stand with them!

My Take

Well.  It has been quite a slog hasn't it?  I've spent more time reading Fact Check than anything else for the past couple of weeks and find neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have been exactly pristine with facts.

What I do know is that we have a tremendously important choice to make.  More important than how much we like a particular candidate, but rather how we view government's role.

If we want less government in our lives, fewer regulations,  more opportunity for the little guy to succeed we lean Republican.

If we want government to regulate everything, even to the extent of corporations not being allowed to have profits a la Elizabeth Warren, then we lean toward the Democrats.

Both parties have huge downsides.  The Republicans are being over run by Christian Conservatives whose focus on social issues sticks in my craw. Too many are personal and no business of a political party. The Democrats are dictatorial and too intent on having everything equal.  That means the more ambitious and better equipped are obligated to share their successes with the lazy or those lesser equipped.  There are no allowances for the reasons that may be contributory.  Lazy of course is self explanatory.  Less well equipped can mean anything from IQ to opportunity.  It is not an equal hand.

Both parties have less than inspirational candidates for the top job.  Mr. Romney is probably  quite capable.  The problem is the Republicans haven't yet been able to articulate, at least to my satisfaction, what they are going to do and why they think it will work.  From the economy to jobs to strengthening the military to regaining our status in the world.  Do their policies now differ enough from previous Republican administrations to be effective?  In theory they should but there is certainly no guarantee.

President Obama was ill equipped for the job when he was elected and seems not to have grown into the job as Bill Clinton did.  To say that he 'Peter Principled' as President is pretty accurate.  That is he has reached his level of incompetence.  If anything, he has left legislation to the far left of his party with no guidance from himself nor any controls.  We have chaos.

Choosing between the two parties to me is a no brainer considering what is at stake - the country and how it is governed.  However, no matter which is your preference, the choice of a leader is bleak.  Both parties had to scramble to avert disaster at their conventions.  The Republicans for the way they treated Ron Paul and his delegates plus the abortion issue in their platform that their candidate will ignor.

The Democrats in their platform too with the leaving out God and further irritating the Jews  by not stating that Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel.  It's a pander to be sure, it's really not our business but it's been done for decades as a nicety more than anything because of our bond with the Jewish state.

The tone of the Democratic convention seemed to waver between uncertainty, lackluster performances and nastiness toward their opponants.  The Republicans was more rah rah but lacking in specifics. Why didn't they spell out their policies and demand the Democrats do the same?

We are left with uncertainty no matter which way we vote.  Will the far left or the far right prevail?  Will the moderates from either side have a voice or will they be forever silenced?

The future is bleak.  There is no sense of enthusiasm about the prospects for the future for our children or for ourselves.  Just resignation that little will probably change and we'll keep slogging along as best we can.  What has happened to my America? It's no longer quite as beautiful as it once was.  If the Democrats want us to share, then let us all share the blame.

Eastwood - Because A Friend Asked

I wasn't going to get into the criticisms of Clint Eastwood's comments at the Republican convention, but since a friend asked I will have my say.

I loved it.  What better metaphor for an empty suit than an empty chair.

True, he stumbled over his delivery and you had to listen but if you did, oh did he say things that needed to be said!  No one has taken Obama to task for unkept promises and plain ineptitude quite like it.

Don't forget he ad libbed it.  How well could the talking heads do without their scripts under the same circumstances.  They were well primed to find fault.

Let's consider content over delivery. Risque?  Poor taste?  Only to the holier than thou types.  Obviously they were in the minority in the live audience.  They appeared to love it.

Call him all the disparaging things you can think of.  Tell him how he's embarrassed himself.  Deny anything he said was true.

Then go out and get a life.  It was fun.  It was a nice break from the rubber stamp speeches that came before and after.  At worst he brought to mind Presidential failings and told us it's perfectly okay to fire the guy.  At best, he made my day.

Morsi Gets It!

I have yet to form a strong opinion on the whole of the Arab spring movement.  We have been witness to civilian uprisings, military crackdowns,  dictatorships falling and governments rising.

We've wanted people to have democratic elections and at times we've tried to influence them to no avail.  Sometimes we've seen our choice elected and disappoint.  We've seen others elected and surprise.

I think newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is one such.  There was much concern when he battled his own military for control.  There is concern that he is a member of the feared Muslim Brotherhood.  There was concern when it became known he was to attend the conference of non-aligned nations in Tehran.

The conference was of course a ploy by Iran to create an illusion of support against the crippling sanctions imposed because of its nuclear program, its support of Syria and its stand against Israel.

All I can say is Hallelujah, it failed.  In front of 120 countries Mr. Morsi condemned Syria's regime as 'oppresive and devoid of legitimacy'.  That is a pretty strong rebuke.  He went on to condemn all of the countries for their lack of intervention to stop it.

To emphasize what one can hope is a growing realization that things must change by their hand, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon joined in the condemnation of Tehran along with their threats to Israel and penchant for denying historical events - namely the Holocaust.

The Iranian media even went so far as to quit translating Mr. Morsi's comments and branded him as 'immature' and new at diplomacy.

Even though Iran has been elected to head the Movement for the next three years, there have been complaints about the cost considering the strain the sanctions have imposed.  Not that Ahmadinejad cares a whit about what the people think.  His hope was to negotiate oil deals with the delegates to ease their problems but success seems unlikely.

 Can it be that even rogue countries who don't like us any better than the Iranians finally recognize the poison in their midst?  Obviously Mr. Morsi does.

That leaves Iran with it's tried and true allies for what they're worth.  Venezuela, if Chavez lives.  Syria, if  al-Assad lives and the untested Kim Jong-un of North Korea. It's not a group I'd want to trust.  I'd expect they'd turn against me in a minute if it suited their purpose.

It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.  It would be the most promising action in decades if Iran's own neighbors brought it to heel.  Peace in the mid-east might then be more than wishful thinking.  If Obama is re-elected it will all be on their shoulders so they are indeed masters of their own fate.

The end of the tunnel may not yet be in sight, but the light from within seems to be coming from Mr. Morsi.  May he be successful in switching on the others.