What was wrong with Obama’s speech? Everything.

In presenting his so-called “Jobs Plan” to the Congress, President Obama was 100 percent in everything he is good at. 

1.  It was a well crafted and delivered  campaign speech — more fitting for the stomp than a joint session of the United States Congress.  There is no doubt that Obama can make a good speech.  It is hard to disagree with a lot of things he says.  However, what he does not say and what he does has little in common with his words.  This was not an exception.  It is a character trait.  He lies on a grand scale — a strategy that I suspect he learned under the tutelage of his Chicago Machine handlers.

2.  In that mode, he was naturally lacking in detail.  His repeated call for the Congress to quickly pass his self-proclaimed perfect plan before seeing if there is even a pig in the poke is outrageously arrogant.

3.  He reinforced his reputation as a strident philosophic and political partisan.  The speech was all about politics to the exclusion of economic realities.  Notice that he wants the taxpayers to provide hundreds of billions of dollars to feed money to his base, mostly the unions and government workers.  His promised assist to the millions of small businesses is a sop and any advantage will be wiped out by the negative impact of the increased debt and continuation of draconian regulations.  He is using the federal treasure and our children’s money in the hope of gaining permanent empowerment for his party and his radical left philosophy.  His unabated scheme is to make Washington and the White House more powerful at the expense of the people.

4.  He set up the same old trick that got us into this mess.   He wants to spend up to $500 billion more borrowed dollars with the claim that it is all “paid for.”  That is not just a lie, it is a dangerous and damnable lie.  According to Obama, the $500 billion will come from cuts in the envisioned increases in federal spending over the next ten years.  Under his plan, the federal budget will continue to grow, the deficit will surge to a new unfathomable level and our children and grandchildren will pay the price when the federal budget bubble bursts.  Even if he was well-intentioned, there is no way that he can guarantee that future congresses will follow through on even the cuts in proposed new spending.

5.  He played the shop worn “bleeding heart” card.  He wants to help the elderly, and children and keep teachers in the classrooms.  He carried forward the progressives’ favorite tactics — social division, class warfare and fear-mongering.  It is easy to talk about all the good things we could do with another trillion dollars or two.  But it does not take a degree in economics (and I have one, by the way) to understand that even our best intentions and most charitable instincts have to be carried out within the limits of our resources. 

So … if Obama knows all this, and I am sure he does, why does he pursue such destructive policies.  It is obvious.  His goals and objectives are purely political and partisan.  He and his ilk want to use the financial crises and public fear to gain more power for their idea of a ruling elite.  Yet!  That’s it, folks.  Remember, it was his senior advisor, Rahm Emmanuel, who opined that “no good crisis should go to waste.”

If you want to understand the Obama game, look at it this way.  let’s say I earned only enough money to pay 52 percent of my bills, so  I borrowed 48 percent of the money from the bank– and this has been going on for years until my interest payment to the bank each month is more than all my other bills.  Even though I am not sure of my income in the next ten years, I go to the bank and ask for another huge loan on top of all that I already owe — and I promise to repay them out of the additional money I hope to make in future years.  I suspect the banker would think I was stark raving mad — and I would be.  But this is exactly the Obama jobs scam.  He expects the American public to be suckers at least one more time.

I THINK … Robert Gibbs reveals the truth about White House ambitions, perhaps unwittingly.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stepped into the political doo-doo if you follow the reports of the mostly leftish press.

What most of my political colleagues call the “radical left,” Gibbs more politely calls the “professional left.” I actually like his term better. “Radical left” is a tautology – meaning that the adjective is unnecessary because both words mean pretty much the same thing. Now, “professional left” expands the understanding. Not only are the lefties “radical” America bashers, but they are “professional” – it is the self employed occupation — or should I say preoccupation – that drives them rise up in opposition to America .

Gibbs went on to say that these professional lefties would never be satisfied unless kooky anti-war Congressman Dennis Kucinich was made Secretary of Defense and the White House imposed a Canadian-style health system. In his lament, Gibbs, perhaps inadvertently, mocks the anti war movement and all but confesses that the Canadian health system is not suitable for free market Americans. Further, he slaps down the folks who thought Barack Obama was their guy – the radical left or progressives, as they euphemistically call themselves.

The pundits on the left argue that Gibbs is tone deaf for attacking the President’s base. This is how out of touch they really are. The professional left (I like the sound of that) is no more Obama’s base than the John Birch Society is the base of the GOP. The radical left, loud as they may be, is still the fringe.

Entirely too much public debate centers around the level of Obama’s socialism – or fascism, as I prefer. This diverts attention from the real issue – the real concern. The Obama forces are “autonomatrons” – and by that I mean they seek autonomous power. They lean left, because that is the more traditional road to the consolidation of power. What the Obama White House is seeking is the rigging of the structure to ensure permanent empowerment by the liberal wing of the Democrat Party – or, to put it another way, themselves.

Never forget that Washington is now being ruled with Chicago style governance. If Chicago was a nation, it would be a fascist banana republic. The government model is not dissimilar to that of China, where one party rules with leaders chosen by an elite bureaucracy.

The Chicago crowd has the White House, with Obama as the figure head. The power behind the throne rests with a troika of David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel and Valerie Jarrett. All three of them (and I have known them all personally to some degree) see the acquisition of power as the primary rule of politics.

Over in the Senate, you have the significant influence of another take-no-prisoners partisan Democrat right out of the Chicago Machine – Senator Dick Durbin. If Senate President Harry Reid is defeated and the Dems hold onto the Senate majority, Durbin will likely take over that extremely powerful position.

If Nancy Pelosi retains the speakership, two branches of government will be in the hands of those who think – to paraphrase Civil War General Philip Sheridan — the only good Republican is a dead Republican. Though not from Chicago, she comes out of a similar power-based political environment.

The point is that ideology and philosophy are not what drives these folks. They manipulate for power. What the Gibbs’ comments reflect is the White House’s recognition that the loony left is not only not their base, but largely irrelevant to their ambitions.

Under the marquee of liberal doctrine, the Chicago folks are carefully crafting policies of permanent empowerment. The White House programs should not be measured and debated on the liberal/conservative scale, but on the individual freedom/oppression gauge.

A postmortem on the postmortem of Ted Kennedy

Have we passed the mourning period for Ted Kennedy yet? Since his name now appears in the press less than Princess Di, I assume we have. I did not want to seem disrespectful at the moment of the Senator’s internment, and I thought I should wait to see if my reflections of the moment would prevail over time. They did, and I assume it is now safe to be disrespectful.

You see, there was a moment in time that I thought the Kennedy industry would set aside their usual pompous self importance and their habit of putting everything in their lives (and deaths) to some partisan political advantage. They presume that somehow their personal affairs (no pun intended) are of epic historic proportions. If their family constitutes an American dynasty it should be appropriately known as the Dysfunctional Dynasty.

I was hoping for some dignity in the latest Kennedy nationalized funeral. Now, I said “dignity” – not to be confused with pomposity and grandeur. In that, they are without peers. To be brutally blunt, the funeral and the reporting thereof, especially the left wing blogs, made me puke – well, figuratively.

The objectives of the Hyannis Port public relations machine were three-fold. First, was the effort to sanitize a history of debauchery and immorality that characterized the youngest of the Kennedy boys to a greater degree than his older siblings. No small task, to be sure. Second, to advance his legislative agenda. Third, to create the illusion of good standing with his Catholic Church.

I know one does not usually delineate shortcomings in obituaries – although the most dramatically flawed public figures often find their peccadilloes noted along side the accomplishments in the public press –especially if they are conservative or Republican.

However, the Kennedy obits, written and spoken, created an entirely fictional character. Listening to one speaker after another delineating the biography of Kennedy, the man, I was unable to find anything recognizable from my 45-years of observation of his public life (and a few personal involvements with him). Funereal protocol aside, I must say, there was not much to admire about the man other than his successful grasp of fame, fortune and power.

The second mission of the Hyannis Port public relations machine was to put as much steam behind the faltering healthcare legislation as possible. The funeral was less a wake than a lobbying event. “Single payer” and “public option” were as common an uttering as the more conventional “doesn’t he look good” and “he will be missed.”

Any hope of solemnity and dignity, evaporated in the crassly political content of the various memorial events. The Intercessions portion of the high Mass (in which God is called upon to bless specific pleadings) became a roll call of his liberal legislative agenda. Apparently, the Lion of the Senate was channeling his political roar through his own requiescat.

Obituary after obituary favorably referenced Kenney’s political causes, with an array of political guests advancing the illogical notion that Kennedy’s demise should, for some reason, end opposition to the liberal agenda – especially the current healthcare bill. Some suggested that they should pin Kennedy’s name on H.R. 3200 as if that, in and of itself, would de-putrefy the proposal.

Thirdly, there was the painfully obvious effort to turn the apostate into a devout Catholic. I do not think Mother Theresa could have been deemed a more faithful Catholic than the dead Kennedy based on the eulogies.

The low point was the letter to the Pope from the dying senator, carried to His Eminence by none other than President Barack Obama – perhaps the most powerful messenger angel ever so deployed. Keeping with the Democrats’ and the Kennedy’s propensity for the grand scale lie, Kennedy introduced the President to the Pope as a man of enormously deep faith.—who, incidentally, is still trying to figure out where to attend church in D.C.

The epistle to the Pope was nothing less than a pre-posthumous, self-serving stunt to make Kennedy appear to be a devout Catholic. It, too, contained Kennedy’s legislative agenda. The letter carried to the Pope served both the legislative and the canonization purposes.

However, the Holy Father was to smart to be suckered into a backhanded absolution of Kennedy’s Catholic failures. Teddy received a reply from a staffer that was more or less a boilerplate “thanks for your letter” response, with a promise of some prayers on the Senator’s behalf — much like the letter my wife’s grandmother received posthumously from the previous Vicar of Christ via a staffer.

The grandeur of the Catholic funeral would suggest the demise of one of the Knights of Malta. The praise of powerful clerics reinforced the image. Kennedy’s own priest/confidant gave an obituary that was so biased that even the press called it an attempt to refute any critics who might question Kennedy’s devotion to and good standing with the Church of Rome. Not only was Kennedy given the appearance of a general absolution for his apostasy, but it was alleged that his separation from the Catholic Church never occurred.

Despite the best efforts of the powerful Kennedy media mill, there were hints of the bad Catholic Kennedy. In a sly political move, the funeral was shifted from the likely Boston Cathedral to a lesser church so there would be an excuse for Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley to take a pass on officiating. He had been under considerable of pressure from pro-life Catholics to reject a high ritual canonization-style ceremony. At Arlington Cemetery, it was retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who did the honors.

Dealing with the letter from the Pope …er … not the Pope, the Kennedy media spinners began selling the notion that it is the tradition of the Pope to answer through underlings. Of course, this is true for all the mundane mail the Pontiff receives, but the Pope actually does communicate in writing when he see fit. He did not see fit in this case. Put in its proper perspective, the Pope showed more contempt than respect for the public relations gimmick.

According to the Catholic Church, anyone who engages in abortions, patient or practitioner, and anyone who supports abortions exists outside the Catholic communion. It is an excommunicable offense – beyond the simple matter of confession and absolution. Repentance and forgiveness requires a course correction. Senior Church theologians have placed the encouragement of abortions as an automatic excommunication. You will recall that when running for President, Senator John Kerry was denied communion for his stand on abortion.

It seems to me that no amount of power and money, and no level of corruption within the Church, can alter God’s mandates as Catholic teachings state and enforce them. On this issue alone, Kennedy cannot offer himself as a devout Catholic adherent. He may not have been a Catholic at all in the eyes of the true Church.

The Catholic Church’s bending to the power and money of the Kennedys has garnered it significant and well deserved disrespect. Bending dogma to accommodate Kennedy’s cash-on-the-barrelhead annulment of his 25-year marriage to his first wife and mother of his children; to overlook his stand on abortion, the Church’s most fundamental issue of the day; and to turn a blind eye to his public infidelity and his repeated tendency to cause scandal (another major Catholic no-no) have all harmed the Church more than it helped him. The Church’s granting him its highest rituals, honors and endorsements have shown the Boston Catholic hierarchy to be as easily bought off as a Chicago city inspector.

Even from the grave, Kennedy is his own salesman. His recent book is little more than a long press release to spin his tawdry legacy into a Camelot fantasy. To entitle his autobiography “True Compass” is reflective of his unmitigated gall. “Crooked Shillelagh” might have been a more appropriate title.

Following the assassination of brother John Kennedy, there was a folk ballad with the lament “Johnny we hardly know ya.” In hearing the funeral oratory and examining the posthumous autobiography, one can come to the same conclusion about Teddy.

>OP ED: Obama is getting it right … and the left is feeling left out

>President-elect Barack Obama is off to a pretty good start. I know this – if for no other reason – because the so-called progressive (<– read that archliberal) radio gabbers are apoplectic. Just as the far right feared, the far left believed that Obama was a radical leftist who would initiate some sort of “age of socialism” by personal edict – a communist Camelot, if you will. The left wingers chose to forget that Obama (with Mayor Daley, left) was the product of old time corrupt Chicago politics. In doing so, they overlooked the fact that politically, the Democrat machine of his political upbringing is a bit right of center. Also, Obama and his people (the Chicago crowd) know that his legacy depends on being a centrist President. If he wants to be remembered for more than the first half black guy to work out of the Oval Office, he has to have accomplishments. Starting class warfare is not going to do the trick.

So, what has happened since Election Day that keeps my conservative anxiety in check?

First, his appointments have been pretty good … considering. Most of the Cabinet picks are moderates who have been hanging around Washington bars since the Clinton administration, waiting for the next meal ticket. Obama has won praise from such groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and televangelist Pat Robertson (right). Who would have thought?

His team of economic advisors, who will be the vanguard in setting down the economic recovery plan, are mostly free market guys. None have a history of supporting systemic socialism. America’s leading capitalist, Steve Forbes (left), gives the team pretty high marks. That’s good enough for me.

Obama has already let it be known that he will most likely not reverse the Bush temporary tax cuts as the progressives believed he would. They assumed that this was a slam dunk on day one. Instead, Obama has decided to allow those tax cuts to run their course. The left is clinging to a hope that when the cuts run out in 2010, Obama will let them die. I say … don’t be so sure.

The difference between his view and Bush’s view of the various corporate bailout schemes is negligible – though in this case, I think they are both wrong. Nonetheless, Obama is in the political mainstream of the moment on this.

Though he opposed getting into the Iraq war, Obama has proven himself to be quite malleable on the strategies to end it. He is not a cut and run appeasement guy. There is a general consensus that a phased pull out will occur. Bush, Obama and the Iraq government seem to be in general agreement on the timing.

On the other hand, Obama favors a kick-ass build up in Afghanistan. The fact that he is keeping both General David Patraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in place seems to suggest that there will be no dramatic change in the conduct of the war on terrorism. Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is a very high priority for the President-elect.

When not focusing on the economy and the war, Obama took time to assure the gun owners of America that he is “no enemy of the Second Amendment.” He stated his belief in the right of gun ownership with responsible regulation – a view closer to the National Rifle Association than the Brady Bunch (<– referring to the Jim Brady, who was wounded alongside President Reagan and whose wife is our nation’s number one gun grabber). I recall hearing the squeals of disbelief and disappointment on (hot) Air America when Obama joined John McCain for a polite debate hosted by conservative Pastor Rick Warren (seen being embraced by Obama — literally and figuratively), of the Saddleback mega church. Now … Obama has passed over all those other reverends in his past life, Wright, Jackson, Sharpton and Pfleger, to have Reverend Warren provide the historic invocation.

Because of Warren’s opposition to gay marriage, the gay rights leaders are all a twitter over his selection. They feel betrayed. Hellooooooo. While mostly avoiding the issue — but when pressed — Obama was squarely in the ranks of those opposing gay marriage. He is not likely to jump on board the stupid anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, but he will not be out there pushing for gay weddings. Mostly he leaves that up to the several states – a good position constitutionally and politically.

Now, I am sure that Obama is going to give me a lot of reasons to toss a shoe or two in his direction over the course of the next four or eight years, but so far I am not even untying them.

>OPINION: Conservatism never made it past the primaries.

>In the musical 1776, there is a scene in which John Adams, frustrated by seeming lack of support for his independence proposals, enters the empty assembly chamber and sings his lament with these opening lines.

Is anybody there?
Does anybody care?
Does anybody see what I see?

He then continues to sing of his vision of a free America.

Those of you who believe in the basic conservative values, and who have looked to the Republican Party to represent your cause, must share the feelings of John Adams at this moment. I sure do.

The GOP leadership abandoned our values for a cheap imitation of the Democrat big government agenda. Instead if offering an alternative to the historically oppressive and failed policies of statism, the party of Lincoln and Reagan has offered up an inferior brand. Lyndon Johnson’s butter and guns policy that ravaged our economy for a score of years was revisited with avengence in the Bush adminsitration — running the national debt through the stratosphere. The appitite of Republican legislators for earmarked pork was on par with any liberal Democrat. Under the weight of reckless greed, the economy tanked. The conservative standard bearers all fell in the primaries — essentially removing the conservative agenda from the general election. Yes! McCain was too much like a Bush third term.

In this campaign season, the Democrats offered the people a better life, and the hope of a rescue from the ravages of an economy mismanaged by the Republicans’ abandonment of conservative monetary and fiscal policies. The fact that the Democrats were only offering a stronger dose of the same toxic snake oil did not matter. I looked like change … and gave hope. They offered something. The Republicans offered nothing.

In times of fear, it is not uncommon for people to surrender freedom for a sense of security, false as it maybe. We have seen this in times of war — Lincoln suspends habeas corpus, Roosevelt inters innocent Japanese-Americans and Bush signs the falsely named Patriot Act. This is equally true in times of economic fear. Against every warning and admonition of the Founding Fathers, we entrust government to take care of us.

With the Democrats in full control of our national government, we can expect to see the creeping plague of socialism spreading further in the body politic. Even before the election, and with the compliance of thoughtless Republican leadership, we have seen the banks partially nationalized. Almost a trillion taxpayer dollars appropriated to take control of the national economic tiller from the steady hand of the free market – ergo the people – in favor of the oppressive hand of a government cabal.

In this election, the Democrats claimed the credit for rescuing the people from a burning house, never to reveal that they were the arsonists who set the blaze originally. The witless Republicans willingly provided some of the fuel in a moment of irrationality.

In listening to the excuses and rationalizations of so many GOP leaders, one has to conclude that nothing has been learned. Some see resurrection through the same failed policies of the past. Many call on the party to be even more like the Democrats, and further abandon the conservative principles. For their own self interest, they arrogantly point the finger of blame at those of us who prefer an alternative to the Democrats’ liberal tax, spend and control policies – not the poor quality imitation.

Conservatism did not fail in this election because it was never on the ballot. What failed was mock liberalism offered up by a second rate party with a philosophically corrupted leadership. The old guard has become the very old guard.

Conservatives lack an effective political vehicle to offer the alternative to liberal Democrat “big brother” government. We must either take over the Republican Party or find a new platform … a new party. One of the other – but not the divisiveness of trying to do both.

I think the party of Lincoln and Reagan is the best means for many reasons, but we cannot allow the America of John Adams to be lost by the additional incompetence of even conservative leaders and believers. If we blame the Republican leaders for discarding our conservative values and policies, and surrending the election to the Democrats, then we must look at the failure of the conservative leaders within the party to keep the GOP agenda on the right rightward course.

Newt Gingrich mobilized a nation behind a positive conservative platform in his “Contract with America.” Ronald Reagan was super salesman of conservaitve ideology. Where are those kind of leaders now? Perhaps it is good that the current GOP establishment has been decimated by the Democrat sweep. There now is a vacuum. It will be filled by either the clones of the vanquished Republican establishment, or the political descendents of John Adams and Ronald Reagan. The future of America rests in the balance.

I wonder … does any one see what I see?

>OPINION: America (On Line, at least) gives debate win to McCain

>Looking at the current** (Saturday, 5:30 p.m.) results of the AOL Hot Seat (unscientific) poll, John McCain won the first debate by a 57 to 37 margin, with about 6 percent who are clueless. The state-by-state break down confirms my impression of this year’s presidential race. Barack Obama is the clear choice of blacks and left wing loonies. I draw this conclusion because McCain was declared the winner in every state of the Union (including Obama’s home state of Illlinois) except Washington, D.C. and Vermont.

**Results may change as more voters express their preferences.

Now we all know D.C. has the highest proportion of black population of any place in America. The apparent propensity of blacks to vote skin color and even (partial) ethnicity over any and all issues is racist, by definition. So, when the Obama whiners talk about how he will suffer unfair disadvantage due to non-black racism, remind them that he is gaining an offsetting advantage from black racism.

Less known, but easily provable, Vermont is like that candy bar — chuck full of (left wing) nuts. It is the home base of the only truly socialist senator in Congress, Bernie Sanders (left, of course), and the headquarters of Ben and Jerry, who dole out left wing propaganda with ever scoop of their ice cream.

You may recall from past blogs, it is also famous for the alien village of Brattleboro, which voted to have President Bush arrested for violating the U.S. Constitution if he set so much as one toe across the village boundary. The irony that their action is … ah … unconstitutional is lost on the good people of brattleboro.

I have said it before, and I will say it again … the American part of America would glady let Vermont slip out from under the Union if it was not for thier maple syrup.

So … there you have it. The bedrock of Obama’s support are racists and nuts.

DISCLAIMER: In these days of uptight politics and anal attitudes, I find it necessary to note that the above blog is offered as a tongue in (my) cheek commentary. It is not meant to be reverse reverse racism or mean spiritedness. If you cannot see the good natured jest then you don’t get it — or you are uptight with an anal attitude. Lighten up!

>FOLLOW-UP: More naked truth?

>

A while back I was wondering out loud why liberals think nudity adds to the relevancy of their various protests. In one of those blogs, I noted the ditzy views of one Earth Friend Gen. She claims you cannot address (or is it undress?) the problems of the world until you are … as they say … comfortable in your skin. And … she believes you cannot be comfortable in your skin unless you are willing to show your comfort level to the mostly unwilling eyes of unsuspecting men, women and children. <–Listed in the ascending order of unwillingness.

I mean … it is okay to be comfortable in one’s own skin, Gen, but that does not mean others are as comfortable with YOUR skin as you are. In many cases, naked bodies are … sorry to say … unattractive at best and nausea-inducing at worst.

Seems my friend Gen (rhetorically speaking, since I never met her) is in the news again. This time for naked skating. She initially sought permission to skate naked in the Portland, Oregon Fourth of July Parade. They turned her down. I guess if you don’t have any place to stick a flag pin you can’t parade in Portland on Independence Day.

Well, despite the parade ban, or maybe protesting it, Earth Friend Gen has been gliding around town wearing only a pair of inline skates. Police report that a number of construction workers have complained.

Whoa! Construction workers complaining about a naked woman whizzing by on roller blades. We all know that construction workers are the number one “bird” watchers in America – and no one appreciates jiggly boobs and bouncing butts more than those guys with the hard ones ….. hats, that is. (Shame on you!) If they are complaining, you would think Earth Friend Gen has to be a bit on the au naturale ugly side. Judging by her photo (left), I would say not pin up pretty, but not bad enough to have the Portland construction gawkers calling the police, for heaven’s sake. They are a hard to please crowd out in Portland. The pot bellied construction workers of my hometown of Chicago would think Gen a Venus — and if they did call the police, it would only be to join in the chorus of wolf whistles.

With all that is going on in the economy and in the war on terror, I should not spend too much time on the antics of Earth Friend Gen. However, this blog has now made it a mission to keep you updated on the latest news in nude protesting. After all, someone has to do it.** Maybe I should add to the banner head, “All the nudes that fit to print.”

Rest assured, I will keep you posted on any future naked protest sightings.

**I don’t usually use the expression, “someone has to do it.” When you read that, don’t you more often than not say to yourself, “No. No one really has to do it” — whatever “it” is?

>REACT: Jamie Lee Curtis acting intelligent

>Speaking of “stupid.” In her latest contribution to the liberal blog, The Huffington Post, Hollywood star Jamie Lee Curtis (right) asks the headline question: “Do you think I’m stupid?” Since she asked, yes I do — but that’s just one man’s opinion. My opinion is jaded by the fact that Hollywood personalities have proven time and time again that despite talent in producing fantasy, they can be quite … well … shall we say … stupid in the real world.

One of the things that seems to differentiate liberals and conservatives is their regard for the public. Folks like Curtis think THEY are the only smart ones. The majority of Americans, who disagree with their left wing notions, are considered stupid. That is why liberals have a self-proclaimed noblese oblige to regulate and care for those they see as the ignorant masses.

If you think this is not true, tune in to (hot) Air America a listen to their strident left wing talk show hosts and callers. Anyone who is not a liberal, Democrat or Barack Obama supporter is ignorant, stupid, dumb, idiotic, at best, and sleazy, mean-spirited and corrupt, at worst — and mostly both. I am not interpreting their comments, this is what they say. These are the words they use to describe you and me. That is why they don’t trust the public to exercise democracy.

Conservatives, on the other hand, trust the people to make the decisions about their lives with as little interference from government as possible. We think the public is innately intelligent and capable of sound judgment.

I don’t think a person who disagrees with me is automatically stupid — just wrong. But I respect their right to their opinion — and even their sincerity, in most cases. Occasionally, I have to admit, I come across someone who I consider to be stupid — sometimes even a fellow conservative.

>OUTLOOK: Congress no slam dunk for Dems

>Now that the real election season is started, and what parties and candidates do and say has significance to the outcome, we can expect to see the GOP rev up the congressional election machine. With the presidential race on a track to victory, they can focus some attention on the congressional races — House and Senate.

Rather than allow the Dems to realize their heady dreams for substantial gains in the House and a veto-proof majority in the Senate, the GOP is ready to challenge them in every district and state. Funding will improve as prospects improve.

The “change” theme, so persuasively advanced by the donkey party is about to bite their own ass — in both usages of the word. If you don’t think so, just remember that the public’s opinion of the Congress is lower … yep, lower … than their opinion of the George Bush presidency.

Just as John McCain has burst the Democrat bubble of optimism at the White House level, the GOP has ever opportunity to burst it at the congressional level.

>REACT: Palin panics the progressives

>As a political tactic, McCain’s selection of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is working out better than I could have imagined. The now apoplectic progressive democrats are positively in panic. They are piling on. Frankly, I am stunned with the meanness and viciousness of the first round of attacks. Barack Obama must feel like a general attempting to keep his troop under discipline command as they break ranks – running helter skelter across the political battlefield firing verbal assaults at every shadowy target.

They seem to have settled on a Dan Quayle comparison, referring to the young guy selected by George Bush the Elder to be his new-generation running mate, as their best option. Dan who? Right. The problem is, most of the general public have no real specific recollection of Dan Quayle. So, whether the compassion is justified or not, it is rather ineffective.

I am surprised that they did not find a better comparison in Spiro Agnew, the county exec from Maryland who was the surprise pick of Richard Nixon – making “Spiro who?” a political cliché. The allusion is more negative because Agnew was forced to resign in scandal ahead of Nixon. (I still have my Spiro Agnew watch.)

In irresponsible meanness, left wing bloggers, such as Kos, are floating claims that her Downs Syndrome child is really the offspring of her 16-year-old daughter, Bristol, and is only being raised as her child. First, there appears to be too much evidence that that is not the case – so much that Kos (and others) publishing the rumor can only be describe as scurrilous to the extreme.

But even if it were true, Palin might gain from the story. It is a human story to which most non-elitist families can relate. Consider this. A teenager gets pregnant. The child in the womb is determined to have Downs Syndrome. The family comes together to work out the best solution for all concerned. Most importantly, there is no abortion. Not for the benefit of the young mother. Not for the benefit of the family’s public reputation. Not because the child is less than perfect. Instead, the Palin family lives their pro-life values – as the story would go.

If this were the case, the anti abortion crowd will flock to the polls for this woman. Of course, the story appears to be ugly rumor advanced for misguided political purposes by those who accuse Republicans of cruel tactics. Just how low can they go?

In attacking her status in life, a hockey mom without experience on the world stage, the Democrats reveal their true elitism – one of the more serious chinks in the Obama armor. If they want to challenge the experiential credentials of the GOP vice presidential candidate, they will soon discover that she – point by point – supersedes the credentials of the Democrats PRESIDENIAL nominee. Her executive experience is infinite compared to Obama’s none. Her personal story is every bit as compelling.

As an agent of change, she has an impressive record of courageous and successfully confronting the entrenched corruption in her own state AND in her own party. Conversely, Obama never made any attempt to confront and reform the incredibly corrupt Chicago and Illinois political machines. Far from it. He rose with their support. He took money from the most sleazy of their benefactors. He endorsed the worst of them. He played their crass political game with taxpayer money. His poverty-stricken, crime-ridden Illinois senate district shows no signs of hope or improvement from his stewardship. In terms of reform, Obama cannot hold a candle to Palin.

The Democratic attack team proffers that the Palin pick is cynical. She was not chosen for her intellect, political philosophy, position on issues, experience or good judgment. It was simply broad over brains. If you believe the left wing rhetoric (and how could you?), the progressives and feminists are basically saying that this highly intelligent and successful woman is … well … a bimbo. That’s the feminist equivalent of and “uncle tom.” Methinks this tactic is going to backfire.

They say the Palin pick was to shore up McCain’s weaknesses. We used to call that balancing the ticket – and it was considered a smart thing to do. However, if that is the measure to be applied, what does the Joe Biden pick tell us. Hmmmm. That Obama knows nothing about Washington … nothing about foreign policy … lacks experience. He needs to fill in much more substantial gaps than McCain.

In picking Biden, Obama may have boo booed. When you look at the two of them standing side-by-side, the very presidential looking Biden diminishes Obama’s political stature. Biden looks like the real thing. He looks presidential. Obama looks like an actor playing a black president in a television mini-series.

Looking at it another way, why did the candidate offering “change you can believe in” pick a good old boy for a running mate? Maybe it is because Obama is more interested in gaming the system than changing it. Maybe his rise in Chicago’s smarming politics is a better indicator of his passion for change than are the eloquent words he spews on the campaign trail.

More and more, the public is beginning to recognize the thinness of the Obama façade. Beyond a spellbinding speaker and a very lucky candidate, he seems to have nothing to offer. His substance is as ethereal as his words. I once referred to him as the “cotton candy” candidate. After you consume the billowy mass and savor the sweet taste, you realize that there never was much there.