With all due respect to Andy Rooney, did you ever notice how political reporters quite often use romantic terms when describing a particular candidate “winning over” voters to their position.

Phrases like “Hillary attempts to woo female voters.” And “Obama courts African-American voters.” And McCain, “serenades union workers.”

I mean it’s downright insulting and if I were the romantic type, I would be furious. These people are cheapening our courtship terms that have existed for thousands of years. And for what? A vote? A pledge? An endorsement? The nerve!

First of all, when I envision Hillary attempting to court me, my gag reflex just takes over. I can’t be courted by her. I don’t care what she offers. But now, it seems she is taking her ball and is going home.

 Then the thought of Obama wooing me gives me the case of what we used to call the “heeebee-jeebees”. I do not play on that side of the fence. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Obama is whatever you want him to be. I believe him to be a fraud.

Then we have John McCain. He can sing to me; he can dance for me; he can promise me this and claim to do that and it will to be of no avail. I already know the guy. Once a maverick, always a maverick. He will, sooner or later cheat on me. He has in the past.

I will be left with a broken heart.

Summing everything up, I guess I’d rather be left with a broken heart than having to be wooed and courted by a couple of liars.

Ohh… the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the wetting of undergarments, the histrionics and the cries of impending doom –and that’s just in the NY Times editorial room!

The Supremes (no, not the Dianna Ross Supremes) but those God-like black-robed bastions of  all that is good, perched in their chairs on high,  not only ruled that I am allowed to own a firearm, but that the state can not take it from my cold, dead fingers. Except, of course, if I can be proven to be as brain dead as the typical Bob Herbert column. No, he should not be is allowed to have a gun or (now that I think about it) even a lap-top.

The arguments liberals make against the second amendment are as predictable as the many incoherencies they spew whenever they advocate for any of their illogical policies. They claim that if we just outlawed all guns, then people would stop shooting each other. They fear for the children, don’t ya know. That actually makes sense to liberals. It also makes sense to them when they claim that a law that mandates an increase in fuel economy will, somehow magically make it so. If they think a 30 m.p.g. law helps the effort, then why not just  make it 50 m.p.g.?

How about just making a law that prohibits killing people? Why not give everyone a raise by increasing their pay by two bucks an hour?  Hey, how about we ban illegal drugs? By God that should do it! Why don’t conservatives ever come up with such wisdom? I digress. Forgive me.

Here’s a thought. How about when you left wingers want to change the law of the land; you do it the way it was first prescribed. You write or otherwise communicate with the lawmakers and ask them to draft whatever change you desire. Then they all get to vote on the proposal and then the President gets to chime in with a signature or a veto. And amazingly, it becomes a law!

 I have had enough of this searching for a sympathetic judicial hack who imposes his singular opinion upon the nation. You people claim to fear tyrannies? Yet, you embrace and encourage the most dangerous tyranny we have ever faced in this country; a judicial tyranny.

I am not a lawyer and I don’t even play one on television but I am a citizen. As such, I have a right and a duty to question those who presume to rule over me. Indeed it is usually my political opposites who make the most noise over our government’s real or alleged abuses of power. What are the slogans they use?... “Speaking truth to power?” “Standing up for those unable to stand?” “Fighting special interests?” “Demanding out civil rights?” “Power to the People?”….all of the above?

Having read our constitution and been taught it’s truths a few years back, I am still astounded by what learned and experienced judges can find in its text. It really is not a complex document. It was written by wise, practical people who simply believed power must be diluted or it will become oppressive.  Actually it is very straight-forward in its words and rules. Basically, whatever power NOT delineated by this document is to be the providence of the states or the people.  The founder’s worst fears are becoming true.

No state ever gave up its right to operate its school systems. Yet we openly have Presidential candidates calling for national tests and standards, along with a Judiciary who demand that they educate non-citizens.

No citizen ever gave up his right to choose how he provides health care for himself and his family. Yet we have politicians and lawyers in a black robe writing law that does nothing to help, either the cost or the choices, we have.

No state has yet given up its right to determine what marriage is and isn’t. It is almost universally accepted, of course, that the principles of a state sponsored union of two people are of the opposite sex.

But a few courts, since the Bowers case (that de-criminalized sodomy) have decreed state laws obsolete.

On the other side, when citizen rights are overrun by government interests, the courts have been just as troubling.  When a land developer, in concert with a town council, decided it needed more revenue; the town simply sold private property out from under its citizens to that developer. And the court AGREED with the town. Individual property rights fell to a few ambitious politicians, with the left wing Justices, nodding in agreement.

And nowhere did I ever see where the states abdicated its authority to uphold its criminal laws to the Federal government. In short, the Feds do not have the authority to change such a law, unless it runs counter tour Constitution. How in the world can anyone argue, by using the written words in our founding documents, that states can not determine what is a capital offense? How is it cruel to inject a sub-human with a needle to sedate him and then another to stop his monstrous heart? If they can deduce that this is cruel and unusual punishment, then why could every addict and drug user who ever lived  argue that this simple procedure often brings pleasure, not punishment.

 They can nod with approving looks to each other, when a lower court starves and de-hydrates a brain damaged woman, yet they can somehow find sympathy for a child rapist? This is insanity!

  Where is the tipping point between proper judicial oversights in the idea to protect those most vulnerable, between a naked, vulgar power grab by Washington lawyers?

And how is it that foreign terrorists now have all the rights and privileges that I have? Where is that written? Or is that simply a penumbra or an implied right or somehow, in the tortured logic of a liberal psycho lawyer, just “fair”. We must be fair.

In other words: Who wins when the court takes power it does not have?

Why bother with states and municipalities and popular seventy at all? Let’s just run everything through Justice Kennedy. Let’s just make him Pope. Might as well, he claims infallibility already.

How have the most vulnerable among us-the children-been protected by the courts? Not well.

How have the courts helped in our war on terrorists? Not well.

How have the courts promoted individual liberty or states rights or property rights or individual responsibility? Not well.

How have the true victims of rape and murder been helped by the misplaced sympathy shown by the closeted men in robes for the monsters who prey on the innocent? Not at all.

When will the other two-co-equal branches-reassert their authority and rein in the overreaching justices who are becoming a national disgrace. You see, when we give up our freedoms and rights; there will always be a tyrant standing there to take them. And we don’t get them back easily.

Who wins when the court sides with monsters? I think the monsters.  And how is that a good thing, Mr. Justice?

For the life of me, I just can not understand the genuine affection liberals seem to have with the lowest forms of human debris we have to deal with. It seems to me that liberals either have an enormous blind spot, a tragically misplaced sense of victimhood, or maybe, just a chronic mental disorder.

During the trial of John Cooey, here on the west coast of Florida, the local paper ran daily updates on the status of the guy’s defense strategies. The paper often wrote opinion columns trying to explain away this lunatic’s behavior as either: predictable, blamable, and even justifiable. They went on and on about the man’s family dysfunctions; about his alleged chemical dependencies; about his social problems and about how society may have created this monster. With liberals, it’s always our fault.

For those of you who don’t remember, this creep kidnapped and raped and bound a young girl in a closet for days and then, to top things off, he then buried her alive outside his singlewide. My newspaper and most of the other local media took it upon themselves to actually defend this guy.  It was nauseating and I often averted my eyes at the headlines or turned the radio volume down when a breathless newscaster provided trial details. He deserved no such defense.  He forfeited any right to draw a breath, I believe, the moment that young, terrified, helpless girl drew her last. As they used to say in the old Western movies:”give him a fair trial and then hang him.” We euthanize animals, don’t we?

A year or so ago, we all went through the enforcement of the Tookie Williams death sentence. Liberal do-gooders, without any encouragement from the defendant, took up the cause that would spare this animal’s life. To what end, I have no idea. Here was an unrepentant, cold blooded murderer who ignored the pleadings of one of his wounded victims, during an armed robbery, and calmly fired a shotgun shell into the young mans chest, point blank.  Yeah, where do I sign up to speak on this guy’s behalf…charming fellow, this guy Tookie.

But in prison, this lunatic wrote a children’s book. I guess that was enough for many in Hollywood to come to his defense. I honestly can not recall any of his defenders showing even one ounce of compassion for this guy’s victims. All compassion went to poor Tookie.  Liberals love victims so much that they will invent them, if none otherwise exist

And now I see the headlines in the world’s most revolting newspaper, The NY Times, trying to defend, in their own way- Khalid Sheik Muhammad. They`still try to argue that water boarding is torture, when our own special forces undergo the same treatment in their training. They argue loud music is torture for the little dears in Gitmo; yet it is manna for our teenie-boppers. They claim humiliation is torture, but Bob Herbert humiliates himself weekly in his predictable, insipid column. They point out that disrespect is torture, yet never show any respect for people like the “Gold Star” moms.  Cindy Sheehan is their poster mom. They say serving pork is torture. I say reading Frank Rich and their editorials is torture. Liberals are amazingly predictable. The true victim is never to be sympathized with; the perpetrator always has their reasons. And I won’t even start on the abortion issue! Who is more vulnerable; a six month fetus or a thirty year old, married female executive?

I simply do not understand why anyone would argue for murderers or rapists or psychotic gang bangers. To what end or for what purpose does it serve, if I were to be persuaded to side with these animals. Why does anyone even attempt to explain away the unexplainable?

Liberals always say things like: “We must be above that.” Or: “We mustn’t judge.” Or: “We must set an example.” Or: “What will the world think of us?” Or “We are better than that.” Or they spout the one line that truly defines all liberals: “We must be fair.” Fairness trumps even common sense.

 Sympathy for the devil? I’d say so. And this attitude may just get us all killed.

[… Barack Obama spoke on Father’s Day about the tragic flight of so many American fathers, especially black fathers, from their children’s lives.]

[In 2006, for the first time in U.S. history, a majority of all births to women under 30 — 50.4 percent — were out of wedlock. Nearly 80 percent of births among black women were out of wedlock.]

[By comparison, when John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960, just 6 percent of all births were to unmarried women under 30.]

Let’s see…what happened during the sixties and seventies that may have contributed to this dramatic upturn? Could it be, Mr. Herbert, that that’s about the time Johnson was unveiling his “Great Society” on America? You remember the idea that we were going to fight and win a war on poverty by making Uncle Sam the daddy to American children, especially the blacks. How did that war go?  By your own stats, it was a dismal failure. Except that it bribed blacks who now vote at a Saddam Hussein-like 90% for the Democrats! That was the purpose of Johnson’s plan. It worked.

It’s a sad fact that liberals never seem to learn. Let me restate it…when you give people incentives for changing their behavior; they will eventually change their behavior.

[“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important,” said Senator Obama, “And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation ...

“But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that too many fathers are missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”]

Let’s see. Obama makes a speech that says that fathers are important and implores them to retake their responsibility (after the Federal government stuck their nose in the middle of our social order and completely destroyed the black family.) And Mr. Obama calls for MORE incentives to be given (out of the national treasury, of course) that would bribe these absentee fathers to magically retake their responsibility? How about the government stays the hell out of the social structure entirely? Where in our founding papers is it written that Washington has ANY such role? The government is the only institution in history that can consistently fail and then claim that “if only” they had more resources or more time or more bureaucrats or more programs or more oversight that somehow all of our concerns could be dealt with.

[Senator Obama… talked about the need for certain policy changes to make it easier for young men to fulfill their parental obligations — for example, offering tax incentives and job training to those making a sincere effort.]

Yeah, that’s it. Let’s bribe them some more! It worked so well the first time.

[But a lot more is needed. One of the main reasons out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed in recent decades is because it has become so difficult for poor and poorly educated young men to earn enough to support a family.]

So what is this now? The poor can’t earn enough to support their families, so let’s raid the treasury to bail them out? I had 2 children and no wife at the age of 21. I was fortunate to have family help, but I’ll be damned if I ever looked to Washington for crumbs. Its called pride; a trait sorely lacking in the inner cities and mocked by do-gooding liberals. Obama knows better.

I do notice however that there never seems to be a shortage of pimped out cars and “bling”-laden homeboys spending their meager earnings looking for more booty.

And this fool points his finger at me?

[There is no doubt that a lot of clowns have fathered babies when they shouldn’t have…]

And there is no doubt the NY Times hires some of these clowns when they shouldn’t have…

[The U.S. economy does not come close to providing decent employment — enough jobs — for everyone who wants to work. At the lowest end of the economic ladder the crisis in employment is reminiscent of the Great Depression in its intensity.]

This is, quite simply a lie. Unemployment has hovered around the full employment mark for years. Herbert does his best Stalin impression. If you’re going to lie, you might as well make it a whopper and constantly repeat it, until it becomes the accepted truth

[It is in this group of poor and educationally deprived young people that out-of-wedlock births are highest.]

No. Amazing insight, this Herbert. I never would have guessed.

[“Unfortunately, the mean annual earnings of young men without four-year college degrees have plummeted substantially over the past 30 years, and declined again over the 2000-2007 period. Declining economic fortunes of young men without college degrees underlie the rise in out-of-wedlock child-bearing, and they are creating a new demographic nightmare for the nation.”]

Herbert quotes an academic here who seems to say that one can only thrive and be a good father if one has a four year degree. Nonsense. Have you called the plumber lately? Or hired a carpenter? Or ridden on a train or a bus? Or seen the paystub of a union laborer or Teamster? My father was a laborer and raised five. He never once asked the government for a handout.

I’ve never read such crap. And they pay this jerk to write?

Obama and Bob Herbert: typical liberal snobs.

[Employment is the master key to the thriving families that Senator Obama talked about and that are supposed to be the American ideal.]

You think? In order to thrive, you need a job? Such a stroke of brilliance, again stated by the holy one: Barack the Great.

Not to put too fine a point on my pencil here, but I would like to remind Herbert, Obama and every other socialist hack who promote a nanny state existence for their subjects that I, alone, am responsible for any and all actions I take. I demand my rewards when I have earned them and I accept the punishment and ridicule I have coming when I fail. Why are minorities routinely excused from taking the personal responsibility that most others naturally assume?

 Government, except in extreme circumstances, should play absolutely no role in our life choices.

Please stop trying to help. You can’t. And you have historically only made things worse.

In the current, never ending, political cycle, what has been raised and spent?

 Five hundred million?

 A billion? 

More than that? And what do we, as a country have to show for all the money raised and spent?

Neither guy seems to have an answer for the gas issue. Each one panders. They both tell me to use less. Neither really wants us to produce more oil. Even Bush, the evil oil man, tells me I’m addicted to oil.

Look, give me a car that will run on peanut butter and I’ll become addicted to that. Guess I’m just addicted to living. Sorrrrrrry!

In casual golf, we have what is termed a mulligan. At the beginning of the round, the foursome would agree on the number of mulligans that would be allowed. Depending on the caliber of my opponents (and how many pre-round rounds we may have consumed) the number could range from zero to five. So, should I duck-hook my drive into the drink on the first hole….I could simply holler “mulligan” and be spared the indignity of fishing out the wayward ball. It’s like nothing ever really happened! A do-over! A “whoooopsie”! Just tee up another one and flail away.

See above example on what I wish would happen to the two who wish to be the leader of the free- world.

One of your main campaign slogans is: (and what is a political campaign without slogans?) “Yes, we can!” If this is true, then why can’t we win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why must we lose? Perhaps this slogan should be changed to: “No, we can’t.” or “We should never even try.”

Your other slogan, prominent in all your posters and billboards and mailings is: “Change, we can believe in.” What do you want to change? Our laws? Our customs? Our policies? Why is a strong America something you fear? Are you really saying that we are to blame for most of the world’s ills? I kind of like us the way we are. I don’t want to become France or China or Russia. That kind of change is not something I could believe in

How do you expect us to believe that it is only now that you have become disappointed with Trinity United’s weekly pastoral messages? You want us to believe your present presidential aspirations have nothing to do with your leaving your bitter, racist and sexist congregation?

Nothing was ever spoken from the pulpit in the previous twenty years that revolted you or shamed you or embarrassed you? This is all a recent phenomena? A press conspiracy? Karl Rove?

You claim to be against “weaponizing” space. Does that mean you would dismantle S.D.I.? Putin says we are weaponising space with this missile defense shield. Do you agree? If so, why?

You also have said that you would meet with almost everyone without preconditions. Does this willingness to meet extend to terrorists? To non-state entities? To militia or tribal leaders?  To our avowed enemies? Where do you draw the line?

Your social programs seem to be very ambitious, though amazingly non-specific. You also seem to demonize the private business sector and appear to favor significant tax increases. So the question would be….Where do you propose to get the money for your social spending, if you dis-incentivize our business sector by your excessive taxation? If you kill the goose, you’ll get no eggs.

I’ve heard nothing from you on how you would make energy more affordable. I’ve heard many things from you and your spokesmen that would lead me to believe that you would place the “green” agenda above the human cost. You’ve proposed nothing that would actually increase oil production or coal mining or nuclear or anything. The cost of your inaction hits the lower economic strata the hardest. But, I guess you’ve already got their votes. And most who support you can either afford you or are politically ignorant or simply smitten with your skin color or teleprompter readings.

You claim you want to unite us. How can I be united with you when you smile approvingly and write of racial stereotypes that offend the hell out of me? Is reparations part of your platform? Am I to be blamed for the corruption and pathology of Chicago’s south side? The Democrats, your party, have controlled Chicago forever…they assume no liability? Is it all whitey’s fault?

Well, there’s a few, off the top of my head…I’ll never get the chance to ask them, but for the good of our country, let’s hope someone asks them. And that Obama provide simple,  direct, and honest answers, but I'm not holding my breath. 

Or is the “straight talk express” exclusively a Republican domain?

And I’m sure many of you will, but can anyone out there tell me what strategy our congress has for dealing with a problem that any fool could have seen coming years ago. I can only assume that our congress is not just anybody’s fool. They are fools unto themselves.

We still are a country that runs on the given that we have an affordable supply of energy. Chief among the architects of our country’s economic health is the availability of affordable oil recourses. Oil lubricates our economy today as much as it has for the past hundred years. We presently have no affordable alternative. So how can our elected representatives tell us with a straight face that we are addicted to oil? We are to blame, I guess because we dare drive our mini-vans and SUV’s contrary to our friends in Manhattan who can jump on a train and get to work.

We common folk are to blame because once or twice a year we would like to board a plane to visit our grandchildren or spend a Christmas with an aging parent or rekindle childhood memories with a far-away friend. They say we are to blame for the four (and soon to be 5) dollar gasoline. We are greedy. We are energy hogs, so Mr. Obama says, After all, we are but 5% of the world yet we consume 25% of its energy! He says the world will not tolerate it.

Well, I’m about to be intolerant of Mr.Obama, of the majority in Congress, of my state’s congressional delegation and even of Mr. Bush and his friend, Mr. McCain.

All I want to do is live as well as I can and be as prosperous as I can. And for that I am at fault? I am at the bottom of the pyramid. People like me are least able to weather this storm, but, need I remind the people in power, we make up the majority of their constituency. And we vote.

It is the people in power who have created this mess. They somehow think they can arbitrarily mandate a mileage figure and magically it will happen. The think they can reject all attempts at domestic oil production and then send the President, hat in hand, to Saudi Arabia to beg for a few more barrels of oil. They think that by punishing the producers-by endless congressional show trials-and by threats of raising taxes, that somehow this will produce more oil or reduce demand. It’s insane. Excessive taxes will depress exploration and depress production. They always have!

Price controls fail, as well. It’s been tried. Jimmy Carter tried it. Richard Nixon tried it. Price controls and wage controls do nothing but put a lid on a pressure cooker. Unless the heat is removed, it will blow up-again.

I simply ask my Governor, my Senators, (and thank my Congressman Bilarikis for his understanding) and the Democrat majority in both houses to reconsider their ban on in-state offshore drilling, ANWAR development and accelerating the work on the Bakkan deposits out west. Excessive oil pricing hurts us all, but especially the people who are the worker bees of our country.

 We can drill responsibly and safely. So drill here, drill now, build more refineries and more nuclear plants and give incentives to those who would create alternative sources. Incentives always work…punishment never works.

Until we have viable alternate energy sources that can compete with oil, we need to at least utilize our domestic supplies. It is astounding that Washington can create the shortage and then have the gall to blame us for having the gall to live.

Maybe there is a psychiatrist somewhere who can come up with a thesis as to why virtually everything liberals say always boils down to a zero-sum conclusion. It’s amazing when you examine it. For example:

If we are engaged in a war in Iraq, we can not execute a war in Afghanistan. Our military, I suppose they are claiming, is incapable of doing two things at once. God help us all.

We can not drill our way out of the energy crisis. It’s as though they believe conservation and awarding billions to research alternate sources of energy by themselves will get us out of the situation. Actually putting more oil on the market, somehow, will not help. Wow. I guess they slept through the Economics 101 class that went into supply and demand laws.

We can not help the poor without punishing the wealthy.  In truth, you can’t help the poor become productive without the aid of the wealthy. How many jobs do the poor produce? Yikes!

If we don’t extend constitutional rights to terrorists, then we can’t claim the moral high ground and we are guilty of terrorism ourselves. Maybe I missed it, but when did our constitution become the world’s constitution? I understand that a few lunatics on the Supreme Court routinely apply foreign law to their decisions but when did the world approve of our constitution? Or have we finally passed the global test that John Kerry spoke so admiringly of. My God.

Either we approve of all “gay rights” now or we are homophobic Neanderthals. Gay people have every right that I have. They demand special rights. They are all free to marry any one person of the opposite sex. Society made the rules that we have all lived by quite well for millennia. Why is it now necessary for sodomy and lesbianism to be approved of?  How about don’t ask, don’t tell and I don’t care for a policy? …works for me.

War is never an option and all conflicts can be resolved by negotiation. A negotiation is worthless without the threat of force in the background. The simple historic fact is: there is no such thing as a negotiated lasting peace. True peace only occurs when one side has won the war and imposes its will on the other.

We must allow open borders or we will be labeled as racist xenophobes. Never mind our immigration laws. Thanks for nothing, Mr. President.

Again it’s either all or nothing with these people. They demand tolerance, yet give none. They demand freedom for our enemies yet offer none to their detractors. They demand free speech yet they disallow honest debate at their institutions. They call for countless investigations and relish in their show trials yet they condemn our soldiers before they are even tried in a court of law. They have called for the elimination of the Electoral College when it suits them and for its relevance when it benefits them. They demand that every vote count, yet they routinely suppress the military vote and feign surprise when dead people have been discovered to have voted under their supervision.

They are indeed sick. It’s just that no one has come up with a term for their illness.

I now present to you either a suicidal strategy (if employed) or an excellent reason why Huckabee was defeated in the Republican primary. The man is, quite apparently, a fool…

From Yahoo News 6/18/08:

[Former US presidential contender Mike Huckabee urged his fellow Republicans on Wednesday not to denigrate Democrat Barack Obama, saying they should celebrate the historic moment of a black candidate.]

I’m sorry, but if this is actually what Huckabee said; he should lose all rights and privlidges given to those who hold a Republican party identification card.

We Republicans should celebrate the nomination of Obama? We should jump for joy over the Democrats promotion of a Marxist for President? Why is the man’s skin color of any significance?

And what did the Huckster mean when he supposedly said not to “denigrate” Obama? ( I note well these remarks were not in quotes, it seems for obvious reasons.)

Isn’t that special...(again please note the absence of quotation marks, makes me wonder what the hell he actually did say!)

Huckabee now throws his region under the bus. Sounds like ONLY the south was segregated. This is a popular myth perpetrated by the northern elite who also practiced segregation, and do so yet today. The north is just as segregated as the south ever was; only they refuse to acknowledge it. It fits the NY Times template, though. The south is still racist and the north is past all that. They are the enlightened ones.

Charisma? If that’s sufficient to elect someone to the leader of the free world, then why not elect Tiger Woods? How about Beyonce? She has charisma, among many other assets. The Reverand Wright oozes charisma, why not him? What benefit does charisma bring to the oval office? Are we electing a salesman, a preacher, a miracle worker or a President?

And who can tell us Obama’s message?  Not even Obama knows. And, once again, I do not care what color he is. His mother was white and his father was black. So what? My mother was English and my father was Polish. Does that fact equate into something of political value? Of course not.

So the entire article never had any significance to begin with? It almost sounds like an Obama endorsement.

If McCain chooses this moron as his running mate, he will have lost me. But honestly, I really don’t think he cares.

I’m not young enough to know everything, but I am old enough to know when a man begins a reply by calling me his "friend"-he is not my friend.

So is the habit of the new front-runner: the selectively conservative John McCain.

He must have called Mitt (and most everyone else) his friend countless times over the past week or so.

Taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion…John McCain hates everybody but his enemies, since he runs away from his natural allies, the conservatives.   It is sadly strange that he seeks approval of the very people who wish him the most harm.

Is there any doubt that Teddy Kennedy would love to bury the guy’s party to a minority status forever?

Does anyone question whether or not Russ Feingold would wish for a Democrat from Arizona to unseat him?

Tom Harkin? Dick Durbin? Chuck Schumer? Hillary? John Kerry? Al Gore?

Has there ever been a recorded instance when ANY of these liberal warhorses EVER reached out to McCain enough to compromise their core beliefs in the interest of "getting along"?
No.
Yet McCain stupidly believes he is accomplishing something by bending to the liberal will.
I think they pity the man-but not enough to not take advantage of him. This is politics after all. Liberals never compromise. When they lose, they wait for another opportunity to impose their values.

How can a conservative Republican ever utter the words: “I think Senator Clinton would make a good President?”

 Is this a psychological manifestation of the “Stockholm Syndrome”?

Have people in similar circumstances demonstrated similar puzzling tendencies?

I’m not a shrink. I don’t even play one on TV but I am sure that I never want one Mr. John McCain to ever call me his friend.

It was with mild amusement that during the last debate, we were treated to the straight talk of John McCain’s 95 year old mother. She thought the proper thing for all of us to do was to “hold our nose” and vote for her son.

I’ll take part of her advice-the hold my nose part-but in no way or fashion could any self-respecting conservative mark an “X” next to his name in next week’s primary.

Much has been written about the man’s temper, his vindictiveness, his love of the spotlight and his complete disregard for those who empower him. He believes he owes his base nothing. He would rather shuck and jive with that (anything but) “nappy-headed” Don Imus or likewise yuck it up with any other liberal pseudo-celebrity, than support his own party.

He would rather hold hands with a Teddy (The New England Whale) Kennedy than with Mitch McConnell (the Senate minority leader) because he feels that would show the world that he is “above the fray” and somehow beyond the partisan bickering that many claim paralyzes Washington.

He speaks in glowing terms of his friendship with the phony, lying, pompous jerk John Kerry who daily opposes all conservative initiatives.  He reaches out to all in the liberal spectrum and spits on all on the right. Then has the audacity to point out how conservative he is; going as far as invoking Reagan out of nothing more than political expedience.

His latest insult involves the ads he has now splashed all over Florida’s television screens. He rekindles a few of his P.O.W. stories. God bless him….but…

It is nothing more than a replay of Max Cleland’s Senate campaign. It is a tactic stolen from John Kerry’s “reporting for duty” nonsense of the last election cycle. And it borrows a page from the tactic that even Mrs. Clinton now uses when her poll numbers take a dip. That is: portray yourself as a victim. Sympathy alone will garner at least a quarter of the electorate.

 If being a victim alone qualifies you for office-then the obvious choice for President could be most us.

We are all the victims of a great hoax. Here perpetrated by a man who was once one of my heroes.

Now, instead of addressing his past inconsistencies, he wants to tug at my heartstrings. It almost worked.

No thanks, Mr. McCain. I choose to use my brain and oppose you. You have insulted me for the last time.