Sitting in their Ivory Palace

So now it is finally released - the hulking form of the House Health Care Bill. Incomprehensible, incomplete, impractical, oppressive, and Congress excluding, this onerous piece of legislation will be voted on next week!

And from her gilded Ivory Palace Nancy Pelosi peered down upon the lowly and ignorant masses (at least those she had deemed lowly and ignorant) and declared that only those in Congress knew what was best for the American People. Alas, Congress had long since become insensitive to the cries of their constituents. They were now sycophantic and self serving, with a false assumption of royalty. They had forgotten the wisdom of the people. They had forgotten restraint. They had forgotten humility and the sacred trust of the office they held. Instead, members of Congress became drunk on the money they were trusted to spend for the betterment of the nation. They, though mere elected officials, grasped the power of their office as a birthright. And truly, some of the people, their constituents, were so ill informed or so cowed and coerced or bribed or outright lied to with promises of entitlements that perpetuate dependency, that certain of their number - such notables as Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Chris Dodd, Steny Hoyer, Benjamin Cardin, and many others - continued to be re-elected.

How does the travesty end? How does the modern reign of those who believe in the Divine Right of Representatives and Senators end? There are two possibilities.

1. The nation falls under the weight of its own bloat. Inflation rises, national debt rises, taxes rise, and the people continue to suffer more and more to the point of violent rebellion, or secessions as states fall away from the malignant pieces of legislation birthed from viewpoints opposed to the original intentions of the founders of the nation.

2. The people peacefully rise up, become informed of the acts of the great high Pelosi and those like her and seek to remove them from office. The will protest, and they will run for office themselves - the most capable among them - and they will win district by district. And common sense and wisdom will prevail in the land, and the people will see it and rejoice and be satisfied.

Rise up people! Peacefully protest! Call your Representatives and Senators!
Dethrone those who have made Congress an Ivory Palace.

Biden speaks truth to life

ABC News’ Karen Travers reports:

Vice President Joe Biden said today that if Democrats were to lose 35 House seats they currently hold in traditionally Republican districts, it would mean doomsday for President Obama’s agenda.

Biden said Republicans are pinning their political strategy on flipping these seats.

“If they take them back, this the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do,” the vice president said at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) today in Greenville, Delaware.

Republicans need to pick up 40 seats next November to take back control of the House.

OK troops! There's your challenge! Teapartiers, Independents, Republicans, Libertarians! Let's make Biden's words a self fulfilling prophecy! Not too difficult given the current actions and seeming incompetence of our President.

Let's make it happen. Less talk, more action.

Feeling Disenfranchised

I will not pretend to be able to read into the future and tell you which of the presidential candidates will be left standing to proceed toward the nomination of their parties or if there will be brokered conventions. I am only expressing my personal opinion in this article.

People talk a lot about Reagan's "three legged stool" and how they represent the different sectors of conservative voters - the fiscal conservatives, the security conservatives and the social conservatives. They rave about how Reagan brought those three groups together, and he did well at that because he was able to effectively communicate with all conservatives and with those called the "Reagan Democrats". It was what the Republican Party needed at the time.

The Republican party is again fractured and somehow needs to be brought together. George W. Bush has not left us with an 'heir-apparent", and the fractured sections of the conservative base have again become evident. This makes for an exciting, if frustrating, selection process as we try to determine the Republican nominee. Our current choices are a very socially liberal candidate who is strong on national security, a one-term governor and business man who seems to be buying the election and is only recently 'conservative', a successful multi-term conservative governor who communicates well, but is branded as a liberal because of his compassion for the poor and because he had to raise some taxes to benefit the people of his state, and an anti-war Libertarian who should have run as a Libertarian, but decided he had a better chance running as a Republican.

Additionally, those in the media whom we deemed trustworthy are fully supporting Republican candidates who either hold firmly to liberal positions or who are recent converts to conservatism with no evidence to back up their new positions. One candidate, whose companies own part of a popular "fair and balanced" television station, is being foisted on us by that station. The one candidate who is most conservative is sidelined and ignored in the mainstream media. The most liberal of the Republican candidates, the one who has done the most to denigrate his Republican credentials, is seen as the 'front runner."

The irony in our current scenario is that the current 'front runner' does not adhere to the Republican party platform, led a revolt of Senators against the President, collaborated with the Democrats to limit our free speech and give amnesty to illegal immigrants, and was even courted by Democrats to be a vice presidential candidate. The one pushed by the 'fair and balanced' media outlet promised to be even more liberal than his democratic opponent when he ran as governor, and made gay marriage and legalized abortion (only $50) available during his term as governor.

All of these candidates need the large block of social conservatives to successfully gain the Republican nomination. This block, branded as the "evangelicals" consist of social conservatives who believe in traditional values. Republican candidates try to court this large group of voters and are often successful because of promises made to them - promises that usually do not come to fruition.

This leads me to the point of this rambling article. As a social conservative, I feel disenfranchised by my own political party. The party has certain political platforms that are supposed to define and unify those who agree with them, but the majority of candidates being foisted upon us do not adhere to the platform (probably out of fear of losing elections). This causes the Republican party to appear as if it does not have significant differences from the opposing party, and demonstrates a lack of integrity. As mentioned before, these candidates aggressively court the 'evangelical' vote, only to disappoint those very voters by supporting issues that they consider socially liberal. Could it be that evangelicals are being used by the Republican Party the same way Blacks and Hispanics are used by the Democratic Party? It's something to think about! And maybe it's time to determinedly pursue an alternative to the current two party system, and organize a third party.


Feb. 3, 2008
Quick update: To those on the Ron Paul Information site - I am not LouDobbs!!!
Radiant Times is a humble music teacher in New Mexico.

McCain a Democratic Candidate?

I fully expect massive quantities of vitriol for even considering this topic.

I'm quite concerned that the general population follows media reports in this primary season like lemmings following their leader and hurling themselves over a cliff to their own destruction.

Today's media darling is John McCain. He's taken the forefront in the media's attention, and his poll numbers have gone up proportionally. What this reveals to me is the naiveté and intellectual laziness of a large portion of the Republican populus. McCain's record has been forgotten and all that is heard is what he is saying today. John McCain is one of those senators whom one wonders why they have not switched parties. His positions on domestic issues read like the Democratic playbook.

Can McCain be considered a true conservative? Is he really the candidate to carry the Republican banner? Many say "NO" because of his clearly liberal positions based on his record in the Senate.

McCain had been a fierce opponent of Bush until after the 2004 elections. During that election cycle, McCain had been approached about the possibility of being Kerry's running mate.

Rick Santorum maintains that a McCain presidency would be dangerous for the country. From the article:

“It’s amazing to hear what John McCain is trying to convince the voters he is all about. The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.”

Santorum cited the campaign finance reform bill sponsored by McCain, the McCain-Feingold Act, which limits campaign contributions and has been called by some an “incumbent protection act.”

Santorum called the act “an affront to personal freedom and liberty in this country, and what we’ve seen as a result of this misguided attempt to placate the New York Times and to help his stature within that community … is that special interests have absolutely taken over the political process, and individual candidates, unless you’re a billionaire, and parties have very little voice in the process.

“It’s a shame, but he was obviously out front on that.”

The former Senator also criticized McCain for voting against the Bush Tax cuts — he was one of only two Republicans to do so.

“The reduction in [tax] rates and lowering the rates on capital gains and dividends … did so much to get this economy up and going. [But] we would have had a much bigger tax cut if it were not for John McCain.”

Santorum pointed to McCain’s opposition to conservative positions on drug re-importation, federally funded embryonic stem cell research, immigration, the questioning of terror detainees and other issues, and said he has a “big fear” of a McCain presidency.

He asserted it would create a “huge rift” in the Republican Party, and told Levin’s listeners:

“I think he’s been solid in the war on terror … but on domestic policy, he’s very, very dangerous for Republicans.

“There’s nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives.”

I hope my readers will take time to really examine McCain's record. At this point in the primary season, poll show that either McCain or Huckabee could win against a Democratic Candidate. As my readers know, I support Huckabee's effective and proven leadership.

I guess Fred is done!

Well, stick a fork in him! Fred has done everything but bow out of the presidential race. Are we surprised? Not really, for Fred Thompson has not approached this campaign as anything but a walk on a path in a lovely Southern Plantation - he's not worked for the role of being President. Here is the article about what he said today:

Thompson says he's interested in serving, not running for president

WILLIAM THEOBALD • GANNETT NEWS SERVICE • December 29, 2007

Burlington, Ia. -- Fred Thompson said today he does not much like the modern form of presidential campaigning and that he "will not be devastated" if he doesn't win the election.

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president," Thompson said, but rather he feels called to serve his country.

"I don't know if you have a desire to be president," Burlington attorney Todd Chelf told Thompson during a question-and-answer session raising an issue that has dogged his campaign.

"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson responded. "I'm offering myself up."

Given the volatile state of the world, the actor and former Tennessee senator said he was not "sure it is a good thing if a president has too much fire in his belly."

"I'm only consumed by a few things and politics is not one of them," he said.

Chelf said after the event that it was "almost refreshing to hear that approach."

"I think there is a passion there," he said. "I think its sort of a Southern gentleman passion."

Thompson also had stops scheduled today in Washington, Williamsburg, Montezuma, and Newton.

I have no doubts that Fred is a nice guy with good traditional southern values who got lucky enough to get name recognition from being a TV star. But I also have no doubt that he is not presidential material. Maybe he will get an acting role as a president some day, and he'll do a great job of that!


12-30-07 UPDATE

I'm being bashed by Fred Heads. They've linked me to one of their blog sites (which I won't show here) Whatever! Their candidate, nice guy that he is, is being denigrated by the actions of his followers. I wish Thompson had been more aggressive as a campaigner, for I once was a Thompson supporter and turned away from him because of his 'walk in the park' method of campaigning. I really don't think he has the energy or drive to hold the highest public office in our nation.

Will Conservatives return to Thompson????

Will Conservatives return to Thompson? The author of Land of Da Free
seems to think so. I have my doubts, though.

Fred Thompson has campaigned like a man who assumed the Republican nomination was his. Now he realizes that his nearly arrogant, sloth-like trot onto the Republican campaign field was a mistake and is only now realizing that his campaign is in danger.

I do not fault Fred on the issues. He is reasonably solid as a 'social conservative'. I just don't believe he has governing experience, and I don't believe he would have the physical stamina to tolerate the demands of the Presidency. Sadly, he comes across as Gerald Ford or Bob Dole on barbiturates - lackluster and boring. (no insult intended to these fine men...just imagine them on the barbies) When Republicans tried Dole, a man much like Thompson, WE LOST. BADLY.

Fumbling his way through the political montage, Thompson seems to be a candidate whose ambition has kicked in too late. He doesn't meet with the public, he only talks to a select few, and the press has little access to him. That attitude shows in his dropping poll numbers, and is also one reason why I am supporting Mike Huckabee. Ultimately we have to select the candidate whom we feel will compete best against Obama or Hillary...... and that ain't Thompson.

What more can I say about Fred Thompson???? He's a good actor and should go where we can like him as rising Hollywood star instead of a falling political meteorite.

The Cream Always Rises to the Top

Mike Huckabee continues to rise in Iowa.

It claims to be energized

The Thompson campaign started with much hope and anticipation. Despite Fred Thompson's late entry into the presidential fray, many saw him as a candidate who would uphold a conservative platform for the Republican party. True, he holds a reasonably authentic conservative position, but many potential supporters are disappointed by the lack of energy and ambition shown by the campaign. They have taken a 'wait and see' attitude, thinking Thompson will fail in the primaries.

Here is the article from CQ.com entitled Some House Backers of Thompson are Starting to Lose the Faith

Several House Republicans who endorsed Fred Thompson for president now say that they are frustrated with what they view as an apathetic campaign, and at least one regrets having committed to the former Tennessee senator.

“I think he’s kind of done a belly flop,” said an estranged Thompson backer who indicated he will not pull his public support before the “Super Tuesday” primaries. “We’ll just wait till after Feb. 5 because I think he’s going to get beat.”

The disaffected members of team Thompson say he has failed to put to rest whispers that he is unwilling to campaign hard enough to win the presidency.

“He seems to be perpetuating it instead of defeating it,” another dissatisfied Thompson backer said. “I can’t see me bailing on him, but there’s some frustration.”

Political endorsements mean little in and of themselves. But actively engaged elected officials can use their own networks to help boost a presidential candidate’s chances in their district or state, according to political experts.

“It often times gives entrée to that person’s own fundraising network and to be able to tap into that person’s knowledge of how to win that particular geography,” said Susan A. MacManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

Some of Thompson’s endorsers say they aren’t lifting a finger.

“I’ve kind of pulled back. I’m not not supporting him, but I’m not doing anything,” said a third lawmaker.

What could be even more troubling for Thompson is what that lawmaker said GOP activists outside the capital Beltway are saying: “Now they’re calling me and saying ‘What’s he doing?’ It’s almost like he doesn’t want it.”

Despite the NRLC endorsement (which really should have gone to Huckabee) Fred Thompson is campaigning like a tired old man whose ambition has awakened too late. Potential supporters see this clearly and the poll numbers are showing it.

Thanks a lot, Robertson!

Pat Robertson, I am disappointed in your endorsement of Rudy Guiliani.

I always thought someone should stand for something that did not violate their conscience. Primary elections are about choosing who you believe in.

I guess your loyalties are more flexible than we ever guessed. You have spoken for yourself, but not for the community of evangelical Christians. Make sure that is clear.