You know, there is still one question that lingers around the Eliot Spitzer...um...client #9....situation.  How the heck did Karl Rove pull this off??!!  Man, Rove truly is a friggen genius!

So, Michelle Obama has not been proud of her country during her entire adult life, until now.  I've spent the day listening to Laura Ingraham, Rush, and now Sean talking about this asinine comment.
In addition, I've watched cable news and all of the pundits or experts try to spin this.  The simple fact is that what she said was just ridiculous.  Michelle Obama wasn't proud of her country when the entire country rallied around NYC, Washington, DC, and the families of the passengers on United 93?  She wasn't proud when churches and private homes were opened to evacuees after Hurricane Katrina?  How about when my Dad and Uncle made separate trips to Mississippi with their respective churches to help rebuild areas of that state after Katrina?  I can't speak for Michelle Obama, but I know I was proud of my Dad when he and several members of his church went on a missionary trip to Africa.  I can't speak for Mrs. Obama, but I'm proud of this country's efforts to spend hundreds of millions of dollars sending AIDS medicine to Africa.  I was proud of our country for helping out the victims of the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia.  I'm always proud when I see stories of American's (including American school children) sending school supplies to Iraqi school children.
And I am extremely proud of my country when I see, hear, or read about 18, 19, 20 year old young men and women who voluntarily sign up to defend this country in the armed forces.  I know the Obama's are against the war in Iraq, but here's a question: are you two proud of those heroic and brave men and women who fight for all of us, including you two?  I know the crazy's in Berkley, CA don't
and the mayor of Toledo doesn't.
I'm willing to give Michelle Obama a chance to clarify her remarks.  But she should do it soon.  And the Obama campaign shouldn't adopt an arrogant tone when it comes to her comments.  They were disrespectful and flat out despicable.  I would normally suggest that if a couple running for the highest office in the country, doesn't respect this country, well they could always move to France and run for office there.  However, the French recently elected a new leader who...GASP!!...actually loves America!
Of course, I heard today that there is an opening in Cuba for a new leader and so much of the Hollywood idiots who support the Obama campaign love and adore Castro.  Hey, just saying you should keep all options open.

With his victory in Florida last night, John McCain is now the unquestioned front runner for the Republican nomination.  It's been interesting to read the blogs today and read how conservatives are leaning now.  They run the gambit.  Some conservatives say they will hold their noses and vote for McCain.  Some say they will vote for the Dem. nominee, the thinking being that let the Dems. destroy the country instead of our party.  Still others say they will simply stay home.  What am I going to do?  I honestly don't know.  I can't see myself ever pulling the lever for either Clinton or Obama.  However, I can't see myself voting for McCain either.  I could honestly see myself voting for my couch...ie. staying home.  But I don't know and at the very least, the positive is that we're still in January, meaning we still have a long way to go.  Here's the one thing I do know.  Conservatives are in this position I believe, because of George Allen's MACACA MOMENT.
Back before he lost his re-election to the Senate in 2006, a lot of people saw Allen as the conservative choice for president in 2008.  But after the macaca moment, his re-election effort went into the tank and he eventually lost, and conservatives lost their nominee for 2008.  The result has been a fractured base desperately seeking a conservative alternative.  With Thompson failing to catch fire and ultimately dropping out, Huckabee gaining no traction outside of Iowa(not to mention learning about his actual liberal record), and now McCain becoming the front runner, conservatives are still looking.  Unfortunately, it appears that we're going to continue this search into the 2012 election cycle.  What am I going to do?  What are conservatives going to do?  I don't know.  I just know we started on the path to where we are now on that fateful day that macaca entered the political/public scene.

While I think Rudy's answer in last nights debate about the NY Times endorsement of McCain was good,
am I the only one who thought his answer should have been a little more direct?  Since he's courting the fiscal and national security conservatives, his answer should have simply been "as a conservative, I wouldn't want the NY Times endorsement!"  And all of the others should have rushed in to agree.  Maybe it's just me.

Today is the Michigan primary and I am interested to see if Mitt can pull out a win.  But in all honesty, my attention has been and continues to be this seeming "redefining" of conservatism.  In that vein, Fred Thompson was on Glenn Becks radio show today and the dominant theme was conservatism.  You can listen to the audio HERE.
For those who have been waiting or wanting Fred to go after John "yes I DID vote for amnesty" McCain, there are some nice comments geared toward that direction, especially with Glenn Beck being incredulous about how conservatives could voted for McCain.  Anyhoo, take a listen.  I may be in the minority, but I really think Fred Thompson has found his groove.

Here are my winners and losers from last nights New Hampshire primary.....

Winners:

John McCain-- lets face it, after the debacle that was Shamnesty last summer, McCain's campaign was supposedly buried once and for all.  But last night actually buried the idea that his campaign is done.  I'm of the belief that the Bhutto assassination brought his national security credentials back to the fore.

Hillary Clinton--in the span of 5 days, she went from "maybe she'll pull out by Super Tuesday" to now back to being the front runner.  Was the "crying game" the turning point?  Maybe, but she won't be able to go to that well again and still be viewed as a credible Commander in Chief in a general election.

Rudy Giuliani--he's been criticized for blowing off the early states, but the simple fact that 3 different candidates have won the first 3 voting contests (don't forget about Wyoming people), the race is simply wide open.  Can his strategery pay off?  Only time will tell.

Fred Thompson--again, with the race wide open, he can now go to South Carolina and make one final stand.
If he's ever going to step up, now is the time.

High Priced Hair Stylists-- with Edwards and Romney vowing to stay in and fight, there will still be a need for the upper end stylists.

The Republican Party-- with Hillary regaining control, this is a good thing for our party.  I firmly believe she is the better person to run against in the general election, regardless of who our nominee is.  She's easier to attack and contrast.  You have to believe there are a wealth of campaign ads already in the vault just waiting to be unleashed.

Losers:

John Edwards--second in Iowa, third in NH, and doesn't have the personal money that Romney has (and is also bound by spending limits since he opted for matching funds).  Where else can he go and have a legitimate chance to win?  North Carolina?  Oopps....he lost his home state in 2004.

Mitt Romney--he has the money, but at some point he needs to win something big.  He won Wyoming, but nobody noticed.  He needs a big win and he needs it soon, otherwise he's going to waste a lot of money and get no return for it (not the signs of a smart businessman, is it?).

Barrack Obama--he still has money and supporters.  But Hillary's win in NH propelled her back to the front.  And at some point the Clinton machine is really going to start throwing punches.  Talking about change is one thing.  Having no real record to stand on is something else.

Pollers and Pundits--I'm a little surprised by the "surprise" of people about how amazingly wrong
pollsters and pundits got the Democratic race in NH.  Does anybody else remember 2004?  The fatally flawed
exit polling showed Kerry was going to win.  Umm...didn't exactly happen, did it?  We should all remember that polls can give an idea, but that is it.  It is very easy to get wrapped up in what different polls are showing, but can we all agree that from now on, we should take all polls with a grain of salt (or perhaps a big freaking bag of salt)?

Ok.....I've been away since August, but I have a good reason.  It's called school work load.  Being invited to do the political science Honors program brings a heavy workload.  Anyhoo, I'm back, and I have things to say about this primary election season.  I am not going to really go back in time, instead I'm going to deal with the recent.  First, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.  I was one of those who really liked him in the early debates.  Witty and quick, he was easy to like.  Then a little fact-finding came in to play.  Rush is exactly right!!  Huckabee is NOT a conservative.  Think of his line in the Foxnews debate on Sunday night.  "I made government work."(true conservatives don't put their trust in the government).  Then there was the whole refusal to answer Mitt Romney's repeated questions about raising taxes in the $500 million figure.  Whether his supporters like it or not, this is the truth, from a real conservative point of view.  He DID raise taxes and there IS video of his support for it.  He DID give illegal immigrant students priviledges that our own military families DO NOT receive, and he DID give over 1000 pardons and commutations to criminals.  Yes, there were some that can be construed as being "Christian" like, but there are others that are Dukakis like.  And more importantly to me, is the simple fact that he is so thin skinned it is not even funny anymore.  How dare anybody raise questions about him?  Mitt was so on Sunday night, especially when it came to the beginning question about taxes.  Huckabee's evasiveness and flat out refusal to admit that he raised taxes was appalling, considering that he's trying to sell his "conservatism."  Then Huckabee had the audacity to say that "even Reagan made mistakes" when it came to immigration.  To invoke Reagan is one thing.  To invoke Reagan and be wrong about it is worse.  Reagan agreed to the amnesty plan based on the idea that Congress would secure the border.  Um, maybe it's just me, but it didn't happen!  And for John McCain to say he "never supported amnesty" is such a CROCK!!!!!  Mitt hammered him on that perfectly, and did it great.  Huck is NOT A CONSERVATIVE, AND NEITHER IS McCAIN!  People may have problems with Romney switching positions, but he's been more upfront about it then John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) could've dreamed about ("I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it").  So, at the end of the day, where does this Reagan conservative stand?  First, I really, really like Duncan Hunter!  Unfortunately, he can't win and that is such a shame!  Secondly, I really like Fred Thompson.  I have to tell you, the Foxnews focus group after the NH debate was clueless!
Now, yes Mitt did well, but I can tell you for a fact that I was IM-ing a few friends while the debate was going on, and we ALL thought Fred was awesome.  And this debate was not the first time we've felt that way.  In a way, it seems like those of us on the Internet actually understand things better than these "focus groups." 
Ok...so where does this conservative stand?
I am an unabashed Fred Thompson supporter.  How anybody could watch these two debates this weekend and not realize how much more smarter he is than anybody else blows my mind.  Want an example, how about Fred smashing Huckabee on Gitmo and their getting habeus corpus rights if they come here?  How about the fact that he has actually offered plans for things, like social security?  Fred is my man....however, he is not going to win.  So, who do I put my support behind after him?  His name is Mitt Romney!
Huckabee is a nanny stater.  I love him on his social issues, but he is terrible on others, including foreign policy.  Closing Gitmo, being nicer to our enemies, not knowing about Pakistan's ending of martial law, not reading NIE's, and just flat out being weak on foreign policy, which include naming people who are "informing" him on issues, who actually are not (Gaffney and Bolton).  We conservatives are in search for the next Reagan.  We need to stop that search.  There is no next Reagan.  There will only be one Ronald Reagan.  We should appreciate that.  We should savor that.  But, we should also stop searching for the next one.  In this election cycle, there isn't one.  So, we need to find the next best thing.  Huckabee is not it.  Neither is McCain.  Neither is Giuliani.  Fred Thompson is the closest, but is not going to win.  I'm willing to trust Mitt Romney.  Are you?

Jack Murtha better watch out, because the Marines are coming after him.  Now of course not literally, but a couple of the Marines that angry Jack slandered and smeared about the supposed Haditha incident, are now going to SUE
him.  Just like I always wish the best for our military in combat, I wish the best for these Marines in sticking it to a disgusting waste of space.  Go Marines!

When Democrats took control of Congress after the '06 elections, Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker, PROMISED
the most ethical Congress ever.  This included the little diddy known as "earmarks."  Apparently, um, not so much.  First, there was David Obey, who decided that earmarks would be put into bills, in CONFERENCE!
What does that mean?  It means that these ridiculous earmarks would be inserted into bills behind close doors and could not be debated when they were brought to the floor.  Yeah, that's ethical.  Then there is JACK MURTHA.
He received the most earmarks of anybody.  150 million dollars worth!   Want to know just a little about his "supposed" earmarks?  Watch this great HAM NATION.
Now look, there are Republicans who deserve to be shamed.  Bridge to nowhere, anybody?  That came from Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who now has his own PROBLEMS.
But the bottom line is this.  Nothing has changed in Congress since the almighty Dems. have taken back control.  Want another example of how the Dems. have not changed anything, but have in fact become (or more correctly, just resumed being what they have always been), the very thing they supposedly ran against?  There is the little story of what happened last night on the floor of the HOUSE.
And listening to Andrew Wilkow fill in for Mark Levin tonight, Kirsten Gillibrand was one of those who changed her vote (after the vote was gaveled, mind you).   This is the same woman who defeated John Sweeney in my state of New York.  Apparently, giving federal funding to illegal aliens is a good thing in her world.  I surely hope the RNC has her targeted for defeat in '08....heck, she won in a heavily Republican district in upstate New York!  But, at the end of the day, nothing has changed in Congress.  Except for maybe stealing and changing votes!  That's a new one.  Can you imagine the outrage if Gingrich had done something like that?  It would be on the front page of the NY Times for days!  The most ethical Congress evah!  Yeah, and my beloved Buffalo Bills actually won those 4 Super Bowls!

So let me get this straight.  Presidential candidate Barrack Obama wants us out of Iraq and doesn't want us to invade Iran.  Meanwhile, in a speech today, he said he wouldn't hesitate to invade PAKISTAN?  Now what he said, was if there was "actionable intelligence."  Where the heck do I start?  First, Iraq and Iran were/are not allies of ours.  Pakistan is.  So, we shouldn't invade countries that were/are not allies of ours, but we should invade a country that is?  Hey, question Barrack?  What the heck do you think that would do to his government?  As Mark Levin correctly pointed out tonight, Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf is the best we can hope for right now.  But under Barrack's thinking, who cares?!  The only thing that I can conclude is this.  Barrack Obama is feeling the sting of Shrill Hill's "attack" on him after his ridiculous answer at the CNN/YouTube debate recently, where he said he would meet with our enemies without preconditions.  Hillary then came out the next day and said his answer was "naive" and "irresponsible."  Obama met with Colin Powell a while ago to talk about national security.  I hardly think that Powell would agree with this type of insanity.  At the end of the day, all this shows is Barrack Obama's inexperience.  And hey, here's another question for the candidate.  How are the loony far-leftists going to react to this, Barrack?  The only war they support nowadays is the war on Global Warming...um....Climate Change...whatever the heck they're calling it now (anyone else wondering where all of these hurricanes are?)  Barrack Obama strikes me as being a nice person.  But, he also strikes me as being clueless when it comes to the War on Terror (of course, most Democrats are....John Edwards bumper sticker anyone?)
Democrats cannot be trusted with the defense of our country.  They cannot be trusted to fight terrorism.  Barrack Obama made that point crystal clear today.

Reports continue to surface that the surge is working in Iraq.  As proof of this, check out this OP-ED Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack wrote, in of all places, the NY Times.  This is not only more evidence that the surge is working (and remember, these are two liberals writing this piece), but it is also evidence that the Dems. in Congress may very well have painted themselves into a corner that they will not be able to get out of (and that's a good thing, mind you!).  Read for yourselves and keep the faith.

There is a lot of talk going around the blogs right now about the Republican debate on September 17th that will be  hosted by YouTube and CNN.  Should they participate or shouldn't they?  Now, I will be the first to admit that the Dems. debate hosted by the same two entities was at times (many times, actually) ridiculous.  The snowman comes to mind (wonder what the poor snowman thought of the garbage left behind after the hardly watched Climate Change concert...not to mention all of the private jets used to fly in the musicians).  As usual, hotair.com has some great thoughts on the September debate and you can check them out HERE and HERE.
After reading quite a few different takes on this, there is one thing that I keep coming back to.  The Dems. refuse to participate in a debate on Fox News, apparently because they cannot withstand the harsh questioning from Brit Hume and Chris Wallace.  Well, if the Repubs. refuse to do the YouTube/CNN debate, then they will have lowered themselves to the Dems. level.  One thing that is supposed to separate our party from theirs, is that ours is not afraid to answer questions, even if they are coming from an obviously biased source like CNN.  What I'm finding interesting, is that the base of the Dems. party have pushed their candidates not to do a debate on Fox News, while the base of the Repubs. are pushing their candidates to do the YouTube/CNN debate.  While I would much rather see a debate where Brit Hume or Chris Wallace are asking questions, lets be fair.  Anderson Cooper does not strike me as an ego-maniac like the blow hard Chris Matthews is.  The Republican candidates should participate in this debate.  If nothing else, it will show voters that our candidates are willing to compete in the arena of ideas, regardless of who is moderating or asking the questions.  The Dems. can't make the same claim.   This is an opportunity to once again show the country a stark difference between our party and theirs.

Here is a very good interview between two of our conservative stars, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham.  They mostly talk about Fred Thompson hiring Spencer Abraham as his campaign manager.  At the end, they also deal with the Alberto Gonzales lunacy.  Take a LISTEN.
Personally, I think we need to take a step back, calm down just a little, and lets see how things shake out.  By the way, if it is true that Jeri Thompson is a hands on wife in regards to her husbands upcoming campaign, doesn't that mean the NY Times owes an apology for referring to her as nothing more than a trophy wife?  Yeah, yeah...not going to hold my breath.

I was just watching Special Report with Brit Hume on the evil Fox News.  The Dems. held.....pardon me....i'm still laughing....the Dems. held a rally today celebrating their accomplishments so far since taking over Congress.  At the core was the minimum wage hike.  Of course to get that little nugget, they had to put it into a funding bill for the War.  Then there was Harry Reid: "We've held a hundred investigations, and we will hold a hundred more....all culminating in bringing our brave troops home."  Well, first of all...if you read my earlier post, you'll see how Harry Reid thinks so much of our troops that he wouldn't even meet with some of them before their sleep over.
On top of that, the libs. during the 2006 election cycle were promising to end the war.  Um, hasn't exactly happened, has it?  These libs have accomplished so much!  Anybody need a post office renamed?