WhackyNation

… the Democrat ticket this year might have been Lieberman-Clinton which might have been formidible.

Instead, the Democrats appear to be nominating the most radical leftist standard bearer in party history, Senator Barack Obama, and setting themselves up for a smashing defeat after average Americans learn what the Illinois Senator really stands for: socialism and American defeat.

Eight years ago Senator Joe Lieberman was a Godlike star for the Democats, the first Jew nominated to a presidential ticket.  Now he’s Judas, but they can’t throw him out of the party, despite the fact he supports Republican John McCain and puts down Obama’s foreign policy especially on Iraq.

But, Lieberman still is the critic the Dem’s don’t want to lose.

The Dems have to tolerate Lieberman because he singly controls the political sway in the senate.  Although re-elected in 2006 as an independent because Move-on.org loser candidate Ned Lamont had won the Conneticut Democrat primary, Lieberman today still caucuses with the D’s in the Senate.  That gives the D’s a 51-49 control.  If Lieberman caucused with the Republicans, the count would be 50-50 and Vice President Dick Cheney would cast the deciding vote in favor of the Republicans.

Wouldn’t that be fun?

Personally, I would love to see McCain offer Lieberman the V-P slot.  The condition would be that Lieberman would have to flip the senate.

I think Lieberman would bring strength to the Republican ticket.  He would solidify the Jewish vote as Obama has been warmly receptive to unconditional talks with Iran which threatens to wipe Israel off the map.  Lieberman would also bring some Northeast states into play and woo independents across the country.

The real question to be answered is: would Lieberman bring strength in areas such as Western Pennsyvlvania and Eastern Ohio, the areas which will probably decide the next election.  The people in those areas are still stinging from Obama’s “bitter” remarks.  I can’t anser the battleground question, because I haven’t seen polling data on Lieberman from this area.  Has anyone else?

Whiney Democrats can’t foist the high cost of gasoline onto President Bush or the Republicans.

No, sir.  Expensive fuel and busting household budgets are the result of a generation of do-good, think-little baby boomers swallowing the Jimmy Carter energy and transportation policies 30 years ago.  Then, as a nation we stopped drilling domestically and stopped building refineries.  The Carter Democrats convinced the boomers that ramping up domestic production would be bad for the environment.  Now these policies are about to seriously hurt the economy when boomers are approaching retirement.

British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward today told the Asia Oil and Gas Conference in Kuala Lampur, “Producers are being hampered by 25 years of low investments, because of low prices.”  He added, “The result is a supply chain being stretched to a breaking point.”

Hayward gets part of the picture, the reality of what is today and the near-term future.  He doesn’t own up to the real reason the refining industry has not added much capacity because B-P is one of those “Green” oil companies that is trying to suck up to the socialist liberals.  The real reason the refining industry hasn’t added capacity is because of the excessive costs involving compliance to over-burdensome environmental regulations.  Economists have been predicting for years the shortfall we are experiencing as China and India have been increasing their demand for oil products.

Washington and Oregon State nambypambyism when it comes to sensible energy policies hasn’t provided any leadership.

But with gasoline prices spiking, the soccer moms who up to this point have been going along with the politically-correct energy policies of the Democrats may take another look at the trade-offs between a way-of-life and ridiculous over-reaching environmental and over-restrictive energy policies.  These moms don’t want to stop driving the kids to practice.  And the bus doesn’t work either.

Newt Gingrich, the feisty former Speaker of the House, whose leadership in the 1990s led to a Republican rebirth and control of Congress, recently announced a new program he labeled “American Solutions for Winning the Future,” which is patterned after the Contract With America, with which he revived the G.O.P.

I say “Bravo!” to Newt and all members of the Republican Party who follow his new lead. He is just what the party needs after losing control of Congress in the last elections. However, I would say that a movement that is even more important is a much needed rejuvenation of the Democratic Party!

When I have made that pronouncement in speeches lately, the audience has been quick to express surprise. But when I explain to listeners what I have in mind, they soon start nodding their approval and then ask, please, to provide some detail to what I have proposed.

In addition to my English major at college, I minored in political science and learned quite a bit about American political history in several classes and in the reading that was required. In tracing the history of American political parties from the creation of the U.S. Constitution, I learned that, in time, two major political parties evolved and became permanent fixtures of government.

The two major parties that remain to this day are the Republican and Democratic Parties. However, the changes that have come over both parties in the past half century would have made our founding fathers shudder. And for good reason. Until the middle of the last century, the 20^th, the two parties disagreed frequently in their platforms and in their actions in and out of Congress.

Despite the disagreements, the two parties managed to get along harmoniously and help run the country without serious conflicts. Third parties arose on occasion, but their platforms were usually absorbed by one of the major parties or scrapped as being not worthy of consideration.

Perhaps the most important point is this one: Throughout our history — except in the past few decades — members of both parties supported the sitting President whenever the nation became involved in a foreign entanglement or in an outright war. It had been taken for granted by both parties that they would join forces whenever the nation’s security and protection were a factor.

At first, it appeared that the longtime tradition would hold when terrorists attacked on 9/11 and we invaded Iraq to depose dictator Saddam Hussein. Then the Democrats tossed historic tradition in the ashcan, opposed the President, and withdrew its support of our effort to free Iraq — all to pursue a political, rather than a patriotic, goal.

In addition, the Democratic Party has left no doubt that it intends to pursue its socialistic intentions and support of Big (and Bigger) Government. In fact, it is no longer the Democratic Party of historic tradition but America’s out-and-out Socialist Party. That has meant that the nation’s onetime political strength has been frittered away, and that the two parties no longer can function together to solve the nation’s serious problems.

My hope is that the Democrats will listen to a wiser head, Senator Joe Lieberman, return their party to the principles enunciated by our forefathers, and abandon their Socialist and anti-President stands. The nation’s future depends on it.

Remember that old Broadway show tune, “Promises, Promises”? Well, it has come to mind with reference to the current session of Congress and the fact that early in the session the controlling Democrats in both houses promised rapturously and often that they supported an end to pork, which they began calling “earmarks,” as if to take the curse off the “pork” label.

It didn’t take long for the Demos to forget their political “Promises, Promises.” In the worst display of forgetfulness, the lawmakers poured pork items into the new $290 billion comprehensive farm bill, despite the fact that President Bush had pledged to veto the legislation if it came to him with all the millions of dollars’ worth of pork in it.

True to his word, the President vetoed the bill. But that didn’t faze the Demos, who knew they had the support of all the lawmakers who had laced the farm bill with home-grown pork. Sad to relate, many Republican congressmen, who had invested the bill with their own brand of pork, joined the Demos in both houses to override the veto.

Without the help of the Republicans, it is probable that the President’s veto would have been sustained and the bill would have died the death it deserved. It was another indication that the G.O.P. lawmakers have failed to support their President when he needed their help most.

Fully two-thirds of the enormous farm bill will go to the much abused nutrition program, such as food stamps. The rest will go to equally unnecessary farm subsidies and the program designed as a “charity” allotment to farmers to keep them from planting crops deemed unneeded.

Is it any wonder that the national budget and the nation’s economic reins are out of control and food prices, gasoline prices, the housing crisis, and virtually everything else are leading us to a severe recession — or worse? Unfortunately, the Demos’ love affair with political pork has blinded them to the serious issues that need the lawmakers’ attention.

For example, if the Demos would end their blind love affair with the environmental extremists, they could join the Republicans in approving measures that would put the nation back on a prosperous economic path. One of those actions should be to end the extremists’ campaign to block the creation of new oil refineries.

Thanks to the extremists’ negative action, the U.S. has not built a new oil refinery for more than 30 years. It’s one of the reasons prices at the gasoline pumps have skyrocketed and are now at the $4-a-gallon level. The lack of refineries has placed us at the mercy of the foreign oil-producing nations.

Another equally significant issue related to the gasoline shortage is the failure of the U.S. to build nuclear-power plants, so vital in furnishing the people with inexpensive electric power. We have not built a nuclear plant for more than three decades, while other nations in Europe and Asia are surpassing us in power supplies.

There are many other areas in which the Demos should “divorce” their extremist bedfellows and start taking care of the day-to-day needs of the American people. If American voters are aware of the serious needs, they will vote the Demos out of office at the federal, state, and local levels in November.

Because of the reckless, mud-slinging tactics of the two Democratic senators, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the presidential campaign, the most boring and repetitive that I can remember, has deteriorated into a meaningless battle over racism and has cast aside the real issue in the race.

That issue is which candidate will help solve America’s most serious problem: How will we rescue our economy from the shackles of Big Government and prevent the rapid slide toward Socialism? Even the Republican front-running candidate, John McCain, has paid little attention to that issue, although one hopes his record in Congress indicates he will address it sooner or later.

When they have taken a little time away from the race issue, Obama and Clinton have both indicated that, if they get to the Oval Office, they will pursue a continuation of the Democratic spend-and-spend policy and the revocation of President Bush’s program of tax cuts.

If the Liberal print and broadcast news media were doing their job properly and not taking sides in the political struggle, they would have reported in detail that Bush’s tax-cutting program had helped improve the economy greatly — until the Democrats seized control of Congress in 2006 and set the stage for the present downturn.

With regard to the racist issue, Obama’s pastoral pal, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, may have tossed a black-white bombshell into the campaign, but he has accomplished what he probably did not intend. He has taken the public’s mind — and the media’s attention — off the far more important issue of the nation’s economy.

Maybe that was his hidden purpose, and, perhaps, Obama’s, as well. Whether it was or wasn’t, he has succeeded in a most abominable fashion to re-ignite the race issue, despite the fact that, in the past half century or more, the nation’s black community has made many important gains toward equality and economic improvement.

In fact, the black community needs new leadership, not the bombastic, America-hating rhetoric of a Rev. Wright — or other misguided characters, like the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al. I’ve long wondered, for instance, why the black community hasn’t tried to persuade a truly dedicated black American, Colin Powell, to run for the presidency.

Powell, a Republican and a leading conservative, would certainly have had my vote. It’s too bad he didn’t make a run for the White House back in the early 1990s, when polls showed he would have won in a landslide — and, besides, prevented the victory of one of the worst Presidents we’ve ever had, Bill Clinton.

There are other excellent black leaders who should have come forward to take the lead in the political derby. I don’t understand why they have permitted the Jacksons, Sharptons, and other loud-mouths to assume the un-elected position of spokespersons for the nation’s large black community.

Whatever the case, race should not be an issue in this or any other presidential campaign. Saving America from advancing Socialism should be the No. 1 issue for the candidates of both parties.

Somewhere in the middle of the 20^th Century, something went terribly awry in America’s once balanced and healthy political system. Up to that time, the nation’s continuing equilibrium was graced by the presence of two sensible, practical major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Throughout early American history, the two parties frequently disagreed on domestic or international matters, as well as the conduct of the nation’s economy. But both parties obeyed the principles of the United States Constitution and settled even the most serious matters amicably and for the good of the country.

In essence, the Democratic Party followed Liberal principles and the Republican Party conservative principles, although the two parties sometimes crossed over when they sensed the needs of the American people. However, one principle was maintained at all times: Whenever the nation was drawn into a war or other dangers abroad, the sitting President at the time received the full support of both major parties.

In the middle of the last century, two catastrophic events came along to begin the drastic change in the nation’s political structure. The first was the Great Depression of the 1930s and the second was the Second World War. In the Great Depression years, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, desperate to bring the nation out of a severe economic slump, created the New Deal, which brought a series of measures which initiated America’s drift into Socialism.

By the time another President, Lyndon Johnson, came along and added the Great Society to the drift, a great change came over the Democratic Party. Because it now supported a growing bureaucracy and Big Government, it was in reality no longer the “Democratic” Party, but the Socialist Party, which it remains today, despite the fact that its members kept insisting they are “Liberal.”

In my early years, I thought of myself as a Liberal, as did many other misguided progressives. But it didn’t take me long to realize I didn’t belong in the Democratic Party, because its continued championing of Big Government proved to me that it was more interested in having Big Government control the lives and livelihoods of all Americans. By the time the Second World War had run its course, most of the damage had been done, and Big Government controlled not only our domestic affairs but our foreign policy, as well. The “government by handout” style of control ushered in by the Socialists in the onetime Democratic Party mesmerized the public and Big Government continued to grow.

The growth was stymied temporarily by the presidency of Ronald Reagan, but the “Socialists” in Congress kept him from making the deep cuts that should have been made in the federal government. The same has been true of the efforts of the two Bush administrations, but even they have not been able to cope with the “handout” strategy of the Socialists in Congress.

Tragically, the politicos who call themselves “Liberals” aren’t really Liberals, at all. They’re Socialists and don’t realize it. The onetime “Democratic” Party needs revolutionary restructuring to return it to the honest Liberalism it once enjoyed. The party could begin that revolution if it chose honest Democrats like Senator Joe Lieberman, for example, to lead the restoration of federal government away from its Socialist drift.

Here’s the story according to David Seago.

1. His wife who wasn’t proud of America until Barack ran for president.
2. His Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
3. His friend, Weather Underground member and bomber Bill Ayers.
4. Most Democrat Senators, Representatives and Governors.
5. Most Democrats.

Do you see a pattern here?  Why is the Democrat Party the party of anger, hate and the surrender flag?  What has happened to it since the days of Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson?  Can’t today’s Democrats get beyond the sixties?

We’re heading into another McGovernesque landslide this fall as Senators Obama and Clinton reveal their true selves and what the Democrat party stands for.

My hero of all time, Marcus Cicero, said “Words once spoken fly forth irrevocably.”

The power of a word can truly change the world.  And that’s what Senator Barack Obama, his supporters, and the other Democrats will realize in the coming months.

If the Democrats don’t dump Obama for another nominee, then the Democrats will lose big time in November, perhaps way down the ticket.

The word in question?

“Bitter.”

That’s how Obama described the working class who ”cling” to religion and guns and are mad about illegal immigration.  He said they vote that way because they are bitter about Washington.

Whoa!  What a condemnation of a whole class of Americans and their values.

Obama just lost the presidency with that remark because he deeply insulted the swing constituency in the key battle ground states, especially Ohio and Pennsylvania.  The Senator won’t apologize.

If the Democrats don’t start doing damage control, this put-down of the working class could seriously damage the party brand.  What’s been obvious to a lot of conservative commentators is now becoming obvious to the population at large.  The Democrats are the party of anti-war kooks and elitists and are out of touch with most Americans.

Are you aware that Governor $pendmore is about to sign HB 2815 which directs government to combat the hoax global warming by wasting tax dollars and forcing you to change tour transportation habits whether you like it or not?

According to Lisa Stiffler of the P-I:

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gases in Washington, because electricity is generated mostly by low-emitting hydroelectric dams. To cut emissions, the number of cars and trucks on the road will have to drop.

The legislation calls for miles-traveled reductions of 18 percent by 2020, 30 percent by 2035, and 50 percent by 2050.

Democrats like Barack Obama talk about change.  The change they have in mind is absolute government control over you.

“Change is going to take place, and we need to prepare for it,” Sen. Rosa Franklin, D-Tacoma, told her colleagues before Wednesday’s vote.

In the present boring, repetitive, and often embarrassing presidential campaign, we hear principally on the Democratic side that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are constantly repeating the promise that they are dedicated to the spirit of “change” in the federal government.

Obama is banking his entire campaign on the elusive word. And just exactly what are the changes he would make in the presidency if the voters put him in the White House? Don’t expect the Liberal minions in the nation’s print and broadcast news media to help define what Obama’s so-called “changes” will be, so I will do it for them.

Whether it’s health care, education, the economy, or any other aspect of American life, Obama promises he will bring changes, and his proposals have a very familiar ring to them. Primarily, his changes will involve no changes at all but, simply, the increased growth of Big Government and Uncle Sam’s involvement in every aspect of your life.

Ditto Hillary. The language both candidates are using daily in their campaigns is quite understandable because it is merely a repeat of the Socialist legislation that originated with FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. It says, in effect, “don’t worry, ladies and gentlemen, the federal government will take care of you and run your life, whether you like it or not.”

Take the health-care issue, for example, which both Obama and Clinton have hammered again and again. Like it or not, both of them will force a massive governmentally controlled health-care program on every living soul in America, regardless of their age and circumstance.

Don’t worry about paying for the government-sponsored health-care program. “The other guy” will pay the tax burden to support health-care for everybody. Neither Hillary nor Barack has learned from the tottering Canadian example that government-run health care just doesn’t work.

They refuse to accept the fact that a great many Canadians come to the U.S. for their serious surgeries or other serious health problems. Why do they do so? Simply because the doctors, hospitals, and clinics in Canada are so overwhelmed with patients who don’t have serious health problems that the Canadians have no choice but to cross the border.

The irony of the entire situation is that, when Canadians get their operations or other treatments in the U.S., they return to Canada and get paid for surgeries or treatments they go in the good ole U.S. of A.! Some national health program that is, eh? In fact, Canada, like most European countries, offer clear proof of the monstrosity that government-subsidized medicine has become.

Concerning Obama, in particular, have you noticed that he sounds more like FDR did in his heyday than FDR did? Well, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but you see my point. Change? What Obama and Clinton want to do is go back to the same old Socialist dogma preached by FDR, LBJ, and other Democratic presidents.

I am deathly afraid that if either Barack or Hillary wins the presidency, his or her insistence on “change” that is not change at all will finally push America toward the goal of total Socialism — something the Democrats have been yearning for since the early days of the New Deal. Will Americans awake in time to avoid that terrible denouement?

Hey, but it’s only money.

As if most consumers really care, the Democrat controlled legislature sent a bill to Governor $pendmore which

requires all new passenger cars, medium duty passenger vehicles, and light duty trucks beginning in model year 2010 to display a label that discloses comparative greenhouse gas emissions for that vehicle.

Senate Bill 6309 was sponsored by all the loon left including Senators Rockefeller, Kohl-Welles, Jacobsen, Regala, Oemig, Pridemore, Murray, Marr, Hatfield, Kline and Tom.

Don’t you feel good knowing how much carbon dioxide your beast will breath into the air?

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been urging Republican voters in today’s open primaries to crossover and vote for Clinton.  The effort might give her enough votes to keep her campaign viable and continue the civil war that is waging in the Democrat Party between the MoveOn.orgers and the Clintonistas.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I total disagree with this strategy.  You setting up a Clinton-Obama reconciliation ticket.  You’re going to get two of the most immoral, unscrupulous Clintons back in unchecked power and we are going to be screwed.

RUSH:  We’re already screwed.  What we have to do is limit the being screwed to as small a screwdriver as it can be.  And here.  Here’s the thing.  The strategy is not to have these guys win.  They may form a fusion ticket at some point down the road.  Do you understand what the purpose of the strategery is?

CALLER:  Yes.  To keep Clinton in, to keep Clinton in. You think they’re going to claw their eyes out.

RUSH:  No, the strategy is… Yes.  The strategy is to continue the chaos in this party.  Look, there’s a reason for this.  Our side isn’t going to do this.  Obama needs to be bloodied up.  Look, half the country already hates Hillary.  That’s good.  But nobody hates Obama yet.  Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically because our side isn’t going to do it. Mark my words.  It’s about winning, folks!

This is getting pretty entertaining, isn’t it?  Looks like the Democrats are ending up with a brokered convention and they are just going to get angrier.

Friends studying the proposed budgets in Olympia tell me that although the Senate Dem’s funded all day kindergarten, the House D’s did not and instead are using the money to give the teachers an extra one percent raise.

Doesn’t this expose the hypocrisy of the D’s?  Screw the children and pay off labor’s support!

Washington State spending has increased 33 percent ($8.4 billion) in only four years.

Because of the fiscal irresponsibility of Governor $pendmore and her Democrat Legislature, the projected shortfall in revenue to fund all their new liberal programs is projected to be $2.4 billion for the 2009-11 state budget.

The Democrats are hoping to keep a lid on this until after the next election.  If they succeed, they will create a fiscal crisis …  and they are only one seat away in the senate from having a super majority that can pass major legislation including Constitutional amendments such as a state income tax to solve the “revenue crisis.”

Is anyone awake out here in the so-called objective media?  We don’t have a revenue problem.  We have a spending problem.  And the Democrats are out of control.

The Democratically controlled Washington Legislature and Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire are not only playing strange games with the state budget and failing to find ways to curb spending and the growing pressure on taxpayers. Now they also are proposing to soak the state’s citizens with the millions needed to support a terribly misguided and unscientific approach to non-existent global warming.

One wonders if the state’s citizens are aware of the skullduggery being hatched in the minds of the Demo leaders. They certainly are not getting the dangerous message from the Liberals in the state’s print and broadcast news media. The media’s Liberals seem to be quite satisfied with the errant plans of Gregoire and the Democratic Party.

In recent days, for example, the House gave its OK to the governor’s proposal to create limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. The Associated Press characterized it as “another step in the state’s long-term drive to curb the causes of climate change.” In case you weren’t aware of it, the term, “climate change,” is the Liberals’ motif to soften what they are really talking about — global warming.

Like the Left-leaning news media, the Democrats have completely ignored the other side of the global-warming issue — the side represented by the great majority of honest and reputable climatologists, who have been trying to warn the public that global warming and climate change are a hoax and that it would be folly to damage the nation’s economy severely by spending billions trying to check a danger that doesn’t exist.

Whatever happened to the news-gathering tradition I remember so well and practiced constantly as a reporter, columnist, and, eventually, as managing editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer? That tradition required the presentation of both sides on every issue and total objectivity in reporting the news.

If the news media, as well as the Liberal Democrats, were interested in seeking the truth about global warming, they could find it quickly and emphatically just a short distance south of Washington State’s southern border in a small town called Cave Junction, Oregon.

There resides one of the finest, most intelligent scientists of America, Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, president and research professor of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. In an effort to find the truth about the global warming or climate-change issue, he sent out a petition a few years ago to thousands of bonafide scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

At last count, more than 22,000 of the respondents, most of them acclaimed climatologists, signed the petition, saying that global warming was a hoax, that stratospheric warming conditions have come and gone from the time the earth was born, and, specifically, that mankind was not responsible for the occasional warming.

Nevertheless, Governor Gregoire and the Democrats prefer to believe the unscientific, idiotic bleatings of a global warmer like former Vice President Al Gore — as well as the Europen contingent of misguided global warmers, including the Nobel board members who voted to give Gore a Peace Prize.

In the meantime, the flawed global-warming bill passed by the House resides in the State Senate, where it will most assuredly be passed by the Demos, who aren’t interested in determining the truth about a major worldwide hoax called global warming.

An abominable bill that is now rolling through the spend-and-spend Democratically controlled Congress is going to cost American taxpayers close to a trillion dollars, and, unfortunately, it has the support of several Republican members of Congress, who certainly should know better.

Of course, one has to hope that President Bush retains his common sense and vetoes the bill when it reaches his desk. That bill is the brainchild of an ultraliberal congressman from our very own Washington delegation,