"I use the word pontificate deliberately, because the tone is often condescending—as if they were telling a young child to “eat your vegetables.” Hand-in-hand with the pontification is a stubborn resistance to looking for new sources of domestic oil production, either onshore or offshore, or in Alaska."

"The implicit message is that allowing such drilling would interfere with the lesson that the American people need to learn."

"Ok, we have got to conserve more; I agree. And we have got to find alternatives to foreign oil. But, in the meantime, the “lessons” the elites are seeking to teach us are killing the world’s economy. And nobody feels the pain more than working-class Americans and the poor."

"Historian Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote about talking with some people at a rural gas station in central California. These people could not afford a “new fuel-efficient” car, and “they were now spending a day or two of their wages just to fuel their cars for their long rural commutes.”

"As Hanson put it, the “truly ethical and environmental solution would require embracing positions long considered anathema” to our elites. “Fairness to the poor and middle class” means lowering oil prices, not raising them as part of some social engineering scheme"

"At this point, people object that increased drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices. They insist it will be decades, if not longer, before the increased exploration pays off in new supplies."

"l, they are wrong: Before the moratorium on offshore drilling, oil companies had already discovered billions of barrels of reserves on the California coast. A friend of mine in the industry says they could be online and pumping within two years."production would quickly lower prices at the pump—because traders would be convinced that the supply is going up, not down."

"Nobody would benefit more from offshore drilling than working Americans—those being hurt the most by the status quo. "

"This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline. "

Subject: Oback Arama and Drilling

We can learn much from history for history repeats itself. If only Hitler had learned from Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, he would have kept his pact with Stalin, divided up Eastern Europe with him and concentrated on the West, invading Britain instead.  Who knows what would have happened then.

We can also learn from history about American Presidential elections. History will show us Presidential voting patterns of the nation as a whole, generalizations for sure, but useful guidelines just the same. But before that we need to know how the party machinery works. Like many other organizations, the most committed, the most zealous and the most ideological work and volunteer for a political party. Those who have a passion for the dogma of a party are the ones who staff it both with paid and volunteers. For these people the “Cause” is everything and they are devoted to the most radical interpretation of the ideology of their party. Looking at an American political party spectrum looks something like this:

1__________2__________3__________4__________5__________6__________7

1= Hard Left

2= Regular Liberal

3= Soft left

4= Centrist

5= Soft Right

6= Regular Conservative

7= Hard Right

The party workers and the party apparatus then is staffed by 1s and 2s for the Democrats and 6’s and 7’s for the Republicans. These would include local workers in the field such as precinct captains as well as a majority of primary voters. Only about 50-60 % of the general populace vote in Presidential elections. In the primaries the number drops to about 20%. The primaries then sees a majority of 1s and 2s and 6s and 7s. The party nominee has a tendency to be closer to the extreme end of the political spectrum than to the Centrist middle. But in the general election most voters are 3s, 4s and 5s. In fact the voting population as a whole shows it to be about a 4.5. These general election voters do not like hardcore more extreme nominees and they vastly out number party ideologues. Thus a candidate running for President will go through the primaries catering to the political base but in the general election will move the rhetoric closer to the center. Furthermore, we are truly a nation divided right down the middle in party affiliation and/or sympathy. The nation is 45% Democrat and 45% Republican and the 10% left are uncommitted, undecided middle of the roaders. These 10%, however, play a crucial part in the election of a President. They will mostly stay away from the extremes of either party, voting for the candidate who is closest to the middle. So if you have a 1 running versus a 5, the 5 will always win. Conversely a 7 running against a 3 will most often be a loser. Let’s take a look at post WWII Presidential elections.

1952 Dwight Eisenhower a 5 defeated Adlai Stevenson a 1- 55.2 % to 44.3% (popular vote only, as will be the rest of the comparisons). 1956 saw a repeat of the same two work out to be, Eisenhower 57.4 %, Stevenson 42%. The extreme candidate got soundly trounced. In 1960 John Kennedy a 2 barely defeated Richard Nixon a 6, 49.7% to 49.6%. 1964 saw Lyndon Johnson a 3 defeat Barry Goldwater a 1, 61.1% to 38.5%. Here again the radical got the stuffing beat out of him. In 1968 the resurrected Richard Nixona6 got 43.4 % of the vote and Hubert Humphrey a 2 – 42.8%. Notice like in 1960 when both candidates are Regular liberal/conservative nominees how close the vote is. The country is evenly divided and in both instances the centrist 10% split about evenly between the two nominees as neither was on the extreme end of their party. Notice what happens in the next election when one of the nominees is selected from the extreme end of his party. In 1972 Nixon a 6 beat George McGovern a 1 60.7% to 37.5%. It is after this election that the Democrat party changes its nomination process to include Super Delegates who are supposed to never let a McGovern happen again to embarrass the party so much. Consequently the Democrats nominated a far more moderate Presidential candidate in 1976. The Republicans also had a very centrist leaning candidate. Jimmy Carter a 3 beat Gerald Ford a 5 - 50.1% to 48.0 % , the Republicans feeling the identification with Watergate. In 1980 Ronald Reagan a 6 beat Jimmy Carter a 3 – 50.8% to 41.0%. But in this year most of the centrist voters went for a third party candidate John Anderson 6.6%. That took votes away from Carter not Reagan. 1984 saw Ronald Reagan a 6 trounce Walter Mondale a 2 - 58.8% to 40.6%. The Democrats went back to a northern liberal and a highly popular president had an easier time with him then a more centrist candidate. Some would make the case that Mondale was really a 1.5 but we refuse to split hairs here. In 1988 George Bush Sr. a 5 beat Michael Dukakis a 2 – 53.4% to 45.7%. Here the centrist candidate was Bush who was riding the coat tails of his highly successful predecessor. But notice that those coat tails did not last long. The Democrats got smart the next time and went back to a Southern more centrist Democrat rather than a committed liberal from the North. So 1992 saw William Clinton a 3 defeat incumbent Bush a 5 - 43.0% to 37.5%. Here again a third party candidate eschewed the results. Ross Perot got 18.9% of the vote taking three votes from Bush for every one for Clinton. 1996 showed the same problem, Ross Perot ran again but this time he only got 8.4 % of the vote which if they all went to the Republican would have resulted in a dead heat. But it was Clinton a 3 defeated Robert Dole a 6 - 49.2% to 40.7 %. In 2000 George Bush Jr a 6 - got 47.9% to Albert Gore’s leading 48.4 % as a 2. But here again a third party candidate Ralph Nader got 2.7% of the vote. Nader took the hard core left and cost Gore the election. In 2004 Bush running again as a 6 beat John Kerry a 1.5 50.7% to 48.3%.

There are other factors than ideology that determine a winner. Charisma, eloquence and compassion all count as characteristics that the American people look for in their Presidents. Incumbents have a distinct advantage for a second Presidential term unless they have screwed up badly. And let me make the point that the ratings you see here are subjective, they are my opinion. Your opinion may be different. But I rated them as they were perceived at the time of election not as they really were after years as President. Goldwater was perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, as a far right radical. Bill Clinton was perceived as soft left when he ran.

The point to once again make very plain is that  the majority of the party faithful, the workers and those into politics as a vocation and the way they earn a living are 1s & 2s on one side and 6s and 7s on the other. These people determine the nominees for President and supply the campaigns with money and manpower. They therefore will always try to nominate a hard core liberal on the Democrat side and a hard core conservative on the Republican side. But when it comes to the general election the 3s, 4s and 5s come out in large numbers. In fact they are more in number than the 1s, 2s, 6s &7s. The majority of the everyday American workers are “middle of the roaders”. They will vote for a slightly liberal or a slightly conservative candidate. If they were to ever get a nominee right smack in the center they would overwhelmingly vote for that person. But they won’t vote for radical, hard core ideologues and they comprise the largest segment of the electorate. So a Democrat who is a 3 is not going to vote for a Democrat who is a 1 unless the Republican choice is a 7. However if the Republican choice is a 5 he (she) will desert the Democrat Party and vote for a Republican for President while at the same time voting for all Democrats for Congress. Similarly a Republican who is a 5 is not going to vote for a Republican who is a 7 unless the Democrat choice is a 1. However, if the Democrat choice is a 3 he (she) will desert the Republican Party and vote for a Democrat for President while at the same time voting for all Republicans for Congress.

This is one of the main reasons for the success of third party candidates for President. Many Americans feel that the Presidential nomination process is flawed. They end up either not liking either candidate or voting for the lesser of two evils. Thus Anderson, Perot and to a lesser extent Nader in recent years have spoken to those centrist majority voters searching for that practical rather than doctrinaire politician. Hard core radicals do not win Presidential elections but both parties have this death wish to nominate them, especially the Democrat Party. Democrats just can’t seem to let go of their ideology long enough to nominate someone acceptable to the middle. Hubert Humphrey came within a whisker of defeating Richard Nixon in 1968. The next year the Democrats ran a far left radical against him, George McGovern, and they were swamped. Nixon to his own discredit got involved with Watergate and paid the price but many Democrats at the time said that it was foolish to nominate such a hard liner to oppose Nixon. And thus was born the rise of the Super Delegates as part of the Democrat nominating process, so that never again would the ideologues in the party make it look so foolish and inept again. So the next Democrat nominee was Jimmy Carter, a southern more centrist Democrat, at least that was how he was perceived. Then after two defeats with Northern committed Liberals Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis the Democrats once again nominated a Southern more centrist Democrat in William Clinton and hit pay dirt.

Now we come to the 2008 Presidential election. The Republicans with a lot of help from Democrat voters have nominated John McCain a 5. The Democrats are running two 1s. They haven’t learned. But here is what’s been going down. Both Democrat nominees know that their radicalism will not fly. Hilary expected little serious opposition to her candidacy. She expected a coronation. So some two years ago, since she thought for sure that she was the nominee, she started to move to the center.  This was the remake of Clinton. Her radicalism was tempered by many speeches and position papers that moved right. This angered a lot of the party faithful who as always want that hardcore liberal radical. Many Democrats thought that Hilary was deserting her Liberalism. Along comes Obama to fill the void. But he too knows his radicalism won’t fly. So while clueing in party regulars as to his real feelings, he campaigned on a platform of Unity, Hope & Change. He said he was a liberal, a moderate and a conservative all rolled into one. He pledged to change things while being a uniter.

Much of America would like to put the history of our treatment of African American blacks behind us. We long for the day when race does not matter. And when along comes a black man running for the highest office who isn’t talking about race but about uniting all people, we release a sigh of relief and say to ourselves –“at last.” We can put an African American into the white House and have this sad chapter in our history behind us. Today starts a new day with closure and we have no trouble promoting this little known man because he is preaching centrist views with great eloquence.

But what change is he advocating? Who cares he is a good man. What will be his specific policy decisions? Well based on what he is saying how could they be so bad? What do we know about this man’s real feelings on the issues? Who cares, he’s a fresh face offering hope and change and everybody pulling together.

But then the real truth came out. Obama was really a hardcore radical, some even said a Marxist. Last time I wrote about Obama he was generally considered the third most liberal Senator. Today he is number one, the most far left Senator of them all. And much has been revealed about his associations and his views.

How liberal is he stacked against other liberals? Take the BAIPS – The Born Alive Infants Protection Act enacted to protect infants who were born alive during attempted abortions and left to die. While the bill was supported by Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton, Obama opposed it on the Illinois state level and in the US Senate. And Obama has a virtual cornucopia of socialist government programs which the cash register has totaled up to be more than a trillion dollars in cost. When in doubt try to buy votes.

What has been most revealing are this Presidential candidate’s friends and associates. Take the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who has said:

9/11 was retribution for America’s racist and unjust past

That he considers the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, a friend and one of the “greatest voices” of the 20^th century.

That the government invented AIDS to exterminate Blacks

That because of their brain patterns Blacks and Whites learn differently

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is “Condoskeeza Rice” – a street term for whore

And Obama who has called Rev. Wright his “spiritual advisor”, his “mentor”, His “sounding board”, “one of the great preachers of America”, who included him on his campaign committee of religious advisors, who sat in his church for twenty years wants us to believe that he did not know that Rev. Wright had these extreme views, that he never heard him say anything like that! Yet he disinvited Rev. Wright from giving the invocation when the Senator announced his candidacy for the Presidency. His sermons “can get a little rough”, Obama said. Well Rev. Wright said he was there but hidden in the basement praying with the family.

Of Jeremiah Wright Obama said, “I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother.” Last year Obama gave $26,000 to Trinity Church.

Faced with these revelations High UCC officials and sympathizers in the press said well these are statements taken out of context. Rev. Wright has delivered thousands of sermons with millions of words and you are cherry picking a few snippets. So I listened for days while the Hugh Hewitt radio show played Wright’s sermons in full. It didn’t change the perception. Then Rev. Wright appeared before the National Press Club and reiterated all that had been played over and over in these snippets supposedly out of context. He went on to reaffirm every one of these statements. Suddenly Obama was shocked and disowned the Reverend. But nothing new was proclaimed. It was political expediency at its worst.

Obama went on to address in San Francisco a private Democrat Party gathering. This event was closed to the public and press and Obama operatives were charged with seeing that no unauthorized persons should crash this private affair. Well one got through and recorded Obama’s words. Here amongst Party only hacks and operatives this man could let down his hair and say what he really believed. And he said that people in America’s heartland were bitter and clung to their guns and their Bibles.

Next was revealed his relationship with unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn former members of the Weather Underground who helped to bomb government facilities. Obama says they were not close friends and barely knew each other. Yet both served together on the Board of the Woods Fund for years. They made speeches together. Obama launched his Congressional campaign with a fund raiser at the home of Ayers and Dohrn. But the cross association goes back to 1988 when Michelle Obama an associate of the Sidley Austin law firm of Chicago was assigned to mentor an intern named Barack Obama. Also at that law firm was Bernadine Dohrn.

Ayers and Obama through the Woods Fund were to give $75,000 to prominent Israel basher and Arafat apologist Rahid Khalidi who many say has ties to the PLO. Khalidi was to return the favor by hosting a fund raiser for Obama. Later Obama, Ayers and Dohrn attended a goodbye party for Khalidi.

Now some might say that this is an attempt to prove guilt by association. Yet who you hang around with, your friends, says a lot about you. Obama comes from Academia and like Adlai Stevenson he is a product of college hard left teachings. This tradition is anti American, anti Israel and socialist. And that is precisely what Obama’s associates are. Rev. Wright constantly trashes America and has made a point of visiting Castro’s Cuba and Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya. In a 2001 interview with the New York Times, Ayers is quoted as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.” In a reunion of aging radicals in 2007 Ayers and Dohrn were outspoken in their hatred for America. Michelle Obama said, “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.” 

These are not the positions and the kind of talk which resonates with the average American. Most Americans will look on these statements and these positions as abnormal, fringe, extremist, radical and unacceptable. Middle of the Roaders are not attracted to such views.

The American people need to know all about a Presidential nominee. He should be properly vetted before he has gathered the majority of the primary delegates. This is especially true with a little known new face. The job of the press is to investigate and report. And they have been so busy being cheerleaders for the Obama campaign that they have failed to do their job. Facts coming out to light now probably would have headed off an Obama victory from the start. Many Democrats admit off the record that they know Obama will lose badly. But they will not deny him the nomination because of the large amount of new people he has brought into the party, many who have never voted before. And because Obama’s list of donors are mostly all small contributors, their names cannot be made public and those names remain under the strict control of Obama. The Democrat party cannot afford to lose all these new voters and will let Obama run and hope that those supporters will be back next time for whoever the nominee is. Meanwhile Hilary will openly support Obama but behind the scenes will do everything in her power to see he is defeated. For you see with the Clintons it is all about the Clintons and everybody else be dammed. Hilary looks to 2012 when she can say “I told you so” now nominate me this time.

It is this strangle hold that the far left has on the Democrat party that hurts its chances of winning the Presidency. This year looks to be a Democrat year. The Republicans had the power and fiddled while Rome burned. The American people are in the mood to give the other guy a chance. Democrats are poised to make significant gains in the House and Senate. And they could have easily had the Presidency too if they would have nominated someone more moderate.   A Joe Biden of Delaware or a Tim Kaine of Virginia would have beaten any Republican easily.

Meanwhile McCain as a 5 should be a shoe in to be our next President. The American people are not going to elect a radical extremist to be President. They are not going to install as Commander In Chief of our armed forces a person who hates America. But never put it past the power of a Republican to lose an election. I have written John McCain and advised him that if he truly should want to be the unity candidate that he should select as his Vice President Joe Lieberman. But McCain having no understanding of how a Capitalist economy works, being a poor speaker and a mumbler stumbler can stick his foot in his mouth so badly that Obama will breeze right by him if he is not careful.

THE OBAMA PHENOMENON

Hillary is reeling from shock. A year ago Obama wasn’t even on her radar screen. She has been prepping for the Democrat nomination for President for six years. All that fund raising, networking, arm twisting and she is being badly beaten from this upstart from nowhere. Why is Obama doing so well?

Obama is striking a chord with the American people. He is young, eloquent and above all just a plain nice guy. He is honest and sincere and he doesn’t trash his opposition. Contrast that with Hillary who if she was a dog would be a Pitt Bull/Rottweiler mix. The word most often used to characterize Hillary is B**ch, for Obama it is charismatic. They swoon over Obama.

This new Senator from Illinois is also smart. He understands that the American people are tired of the bitter partisan acrimony. We have had six years of trashing George Bush. “Bush lied, people died.” Americans like to look up to their President. They don’t enjoy a leader who cannot be honest and straight with them. They are tired of all the name calling and the infighting. They are also tired of nothing getting done because each party is vying for power at the expense of what is good for the country. The Democrats really never got over the impeachment of Bill and the loss of the 2000 election which they feel was stolen from them. Instead of doing what would help this country they have been consumed by revenge. Some say obsessed!

In walks Obama. Instead of being an attack dog like Hillary or John Edwards he tells the American people that they are good people and that they can rise to even greater heights. Instead of telling them how bad they are and how wrong everything is and whose fault it is he inspires and lifts up the American people – SHADES OF RONALD REAGAN. And since Ronald Reagan we have not had a leader who could touch the hearts of the American people. No one did it better than Reagan and Obama has taken a page from the Reagan handbook, a man who he says he admired, at least for his style. The American people are just plain fed up with being told that they are evil, war mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, Yankee Imperialists by those who seek to lead them and that there is a vast Right Wing conspiracy. They want someone to lift them up not put them down. Obama has a vision, one of optimism. The glass is half full and he has confidence in the innate goodness of the people he will govern.

So Obama calls for unity everywhere he goes and preaches a message of hope and of change. But all is not rosy in this picture. Change, change, change but change what? Hope! Change! Tell me more. But Obama deliberately avoids being specific. If you asked twenty people to name one political accomplishment of Barack Obama you would get twenty blank stares. If you asked the same people to name something he would change you would get the same result. He is being all things to all people. But where does his heart lie?

So let’s look at his voting record. Viewing the combined ACU/ADA ratings where 100 is the most liberal and 0 is the most conservative, we find the top three liberal Senators, all Democrats,  to have these ratings:

1)      Barbara Boxer, CA           96.5

2)      Chuck Schumer, NY         95.1

3)      Barack Obama, IL             94.8

That makes Obama more liberal than Hillary or Ted Kennedy and the most liberal running for President. In reality he is a far left socialist whose presidential promises already have been calculated at close to one trillion dollars of additional federal spending if enacted.

Then is this call for unity genuine? I might place more stock in it if it was coming from a middle of the road moderate, from the center, who could say – “look, come to the middle with me, compromise and let’s get something done”. But when it comes from the far left or the far right then the change is going to be radical and contentious. But for the moment few really know Obama’s position on most issues. And they don’t care. He is not running an issue driven campaign. He’s running a feel good campaign. He is the redeemer who will save us all from our iniquities.

Obama will raise 137 million dollars this month of February. He has everything going for him to win and he is running a very clean and professional campaign. But in his heart Obama is a radical left wing Socialist. He may be able to run a slick campaign on platitudes but he can’t govern with them. As President he must come out of the closet and declare what he is for and what he is going to submit to Congress for legislation.   When he does that and he finds the going not so easy anymore will he label the lack of unity as unpatriotic and un-American? We shall see.

Still I don’t see any way he can lose. And take it from me a balding, old, war grizzly white man is not going to defeat a young, eloquent, clean cut black man. Not this time around. Here in Texas we have what we call early voting. The first day of early voting in Harris County, Texas – one of the largest Counties in the nation – in the last Presidential election year recorded 1,200 total votes cast. This year on February 19, 2008, the first day of early voting Harris County recorded 12, 000 total votes cast. Just so there is no mistake here that is twelve hundred versus twelve thousand. Of those 12,000 votes, 9,000 were cast in the Democrat primary and 3,000 were cast in the Republican primary. Now that is here in Texas a red state. New voters are stepping up to become involved and the overwhelming majority are in Barack Obama’s camp.

The Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves. Just a few short years ago they had the Presidency and the majority in the House and in the Senate. They were in full control and they did nothing. Now granted Democrats were being deliberately obstructive, but Bush was not The Great Communicator and he vetoed not one thing. While the Cat in the White House was consumed with the War on Terror and Iraq, the Mice in the Congress were piling on the pork with no opposition, even building bridges to nowhere.

I think I’ll cast my lot with Obama this year. After all if we are going to have a big liberal let it be a Democrat. The next ten years economically are going to be an American disaster with deep recession. John McCain hasn’t the foggiest notion of how to run the economy. He is an economic ignoramus. But then so is Obama who if elected would be one of the few Presidents elected to the oval office with such little experience. The last President we elected with this little experience was Jimmy Carter whose record will go down in history as the most disastrous administration of the second half of the twentieth century.

Have you noticed as I have that the Democratic Party is a ferocious attack dog but that when cornered they have no alternative suggestions, in fact they have no programs of their own to put forth? ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!!! OK, but replace the Bush way of doing things with what? Well we are a great party, says the Dems. If we put our heads together I am sure we can come up with a better way. Such as? And then we are left with the words, well anything would be better than this?

Have you ever talked to a Democrat about the War in Iraq? Notice how they constantly dwell on what has already happened. Bush lied; he got us into war under false pretenses. Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush didn’t do this, Bush didn’t do that. Their whole contribution to helping America in a difficult time is an obsession with hatred. They dwell constantly on the shortcomings of our President and his party but they rarely tell you what they would do. Stop telling me what was done wrong in the past.  Anybody can be an armchair quarterback after the game is over. What's done is done.  What matters most is WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

This  Bush bashing follows a pattern of obsessive hatred, fueled by a 2000 loss they feel they should have won and a Republican impeachment of the last successful Democratic president since JFK. Their whole plan of action has been to take down the President. It’s revenge time. And if you can’t get to him right away then launch a campaign of political abuse of his most trusted advisors. So they ganged up on Attorney General John Ashcroft. They screamed and badgered and struck blows of hatred so venomous that you would have thought that Himmler was in the Cabinet. Finally the poor man resigned only to be replaced by Alberto Gonzales who after a short grace period was under the same attacks. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!!! Having disposed of Ashcroft the Dems turned their bile on Donald Rumsfeld. Over and over again they attacked. Finally this man too resigned. All the while they have constantly heaped vulgar abuse on Vice President Cheney and chief advisor Karl Rove. Now if they could just get these two to resign. Well two out of four ain’t bad and they did mange to get Scooter Libby, not the big cheese they wanted to topple but the message was loud and clear.

So know we come to this recent theatrical enterprise of the US Senate authored by Democratic majority leader Harry Reid. With cots and pillows and pajamas they came to the Senate for an all night ballyhoo on the Iraq War. Anybody who took this seriously as some sort of great concern for the nation knows little about American politics. It was show and tell time, a great PR stunt and an appeal to their extreme left wing and most of all – a fundraiser for the Democratic Party.

Harry Reid had been saying “The War is lost, the War is lost” leading up to and at this pajama party. So if we have lost the War, who won? Somebody must have won. If somebody lost, then somebody else won. Al Qaeda? SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

It was these same Democrats who with the Republicans approved General Petraeus and his surge policy by a vote of 81-0. That approval was granted with a stipulation that the War surge would be re-evaluated in September. Now just three weeks after the last surge battalion had arrived in Iraq, the Democrats were pulling a Senate all nighter to stop the war now. OK we stop the war now but WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Those who say that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the War on Terror forgot to tell the terrorists who are coming across Iraqi borders in droves and bringing with them all types of armament. The terrorists know that a defeat of the all powerful United States would be a great feather in their cap and would aid them considerably in recruitment. Pulling out won’t stop the War. It will just end American involvement. And what will happen when we do pull out. Is anybody thinking down the road? SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has stated that enough American troops should be left to fight Al Qaeda, train, equip and support Iraqi forces and stop infiltration across Iraqi borders. Other Democrats in a sort of fuzzy way have said that, well some troops should remain, but how many and what their role would be is just not formed into a coherent policy yet. In response Pentagon officials have stated that such a position as Hillary’s would require a minimum force of 75,000 troops. 75, 000 TRROPS! Golly gee wiz what do we have there now? And what are the ramifications of immediate troop withdrawal; of partial withdrawal; redeployment? Who knows? Who cares on the Democratic side? WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

The purpose of all these shenanigans and all this hot air by the Democrats is to get Bush to make the withdrawal moves, to get Bush to pull out, to get Bush to admit defeat. If the Democrats were really serious about ending the War then they would pass a bill to cut off funds for the War and that would force Bush to bring home the troops. But they don’t want to do that because then defeat would be by their hands. The slaughtering and genocide that would follow would be blood on their hands. They want the American defeat to be by Bush’s hand. The Democratic Party has staked its winning of the Presidency in 2008 on the defeat of America in Iraq. If we were to win this war then they would lose at the polls.

The American public is beginning to get it. They voted in a Democratic Congress in order that some things might get accomplished. The problem is that they voted in a party who had no well thought out plans, policies or programs. Their claim to fame was there negativeness. They were the anti Bush. No one told them they had to be for anything. And so the Democratic Congress has not passed any major legislation. Not only have they failed on the issue of the Iraq War but also on education, energy, immigration, taxes, health care and a whole host of important issues. THEY HAVE FAILED TO PASS ONE MAJOR PIECE OF LEGISLATION. In the process they now have an approval rating of 14%. Fourteen percent of the American public think that Congress is doing a good job. But what you most often hear from the media is that President Bush has an approval rating of only 34%. Of course when all you are is negative hatred it’s hard to boast of any accomplishments.

When Hillary and Obama win the presidency in 2008 on another round of negative hatred Bush bashing, I still will be asking, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?