It's a special day. I have about 10 minutes of it left here. I want to try to get this posted before the calendar is done here in the Pacific Northwest.

I have a couple of things to share. First, even though the official holiday we know, now, as "Thanksgiving" did not become a Federal holiday until the late 1800's, several earlier Presidents tried to get the ball rolling, or did "one-off" Thanksgiving's.

The first was ... George Washington. Hard to get earlier than that, in Presidential history.

Here is the text of his 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks -- for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.


And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington


I am a fan of Rush Limbaugh, if you haven't guessed.

Some little known information about Rush:

First, his name is Rush Limbaugh III.

He is the "black sheep" of the family, sort of. Not because he is a big conservative commentator. Nope, that is the on reason they accepted him, early in the life of the show.

The reason he is the "black sheep" is that he is not a lawyer, like most of the rest of his family. His grandfather, apparently, was a judge of some renown in Missouri. The Federal Government named one of their newest court buildings after him, in Missouri.

It was the "original" Rush that was the family's first BIG conservative. He introduced his grandson to, among other things, the writings of William F. Buckley.

And the following historical account. Here is part of a transcript from Rush's November 23, 2005 show:

From my second bestseller, "See, I Told You So, ""Chapter 6, "Dead White guys, or What the History Books Never Told You: The True Story of Thanksgiving." The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century (that's the 1600s for those of you in Rio Linda, California). The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs.

A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community. After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible.

The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.

But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves.


And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper!

This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.

Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well.

They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.

Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.

That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!


But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.

"The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God," Bradford wrote. "For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice."

Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?

Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?


"This had very good success," wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the "seven years of plenty" and the "Earth brought forth in heaps." (Gen. 41:47)

In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.

Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you're laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school.

So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."
Now, you probably haven't read this. You might have heard me read it to you over the previous years on this program, but I don't think this lesson is still being taught to children -- and if not, why not? I mean, is there a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience than this? Thanksgiving, in other words, is not thanks to the Indians, and it's not thanks to William Bradford. It's not thanks to the merchants of London. Thanksgiving is thanks to God, pure and simple. Go read the first Thanksgiving proclamation from George Washington and you'll get the point. The word "God" is mentioned in that first Thanksgiving proclamation more times... If you read it aloud to an ACLU member, you'll get thrown in jail, but that's what the first Thanksgiving was all about. Get it. I'm telling you, read it. Maybe we can find it and link to it: George Washington's first Thanksgiving Proclamation. Folks, if you haven't read that, you need to read it. It will tell you the true story of Thanksgiving. I'm happy to share it with you each and every year as a tradition on this program.


I hope you and yours had a Happy Thanksgiving.

NO! NO! NO!

It's not what you think!

I have talked, at length, on this blog, about my Grandpa.

I NEVER heard him refer to me as a "grandson", "my daughter's son", "Louise's boy" ... or whatever. When he talked about me, to other people, I was, according to him, "my boy". I don't think he ever called me by my name ... to me. It was always "son".

Make no mistake, there was no incestuous thing going on, and my Dad is my father.

My grandfather had no male children, and I was the first grandchild.

So ...

On the other hand, genetics works!

I know this because I laughed, HARD, about the following ... and I thought of all the stories I have ever heard Grandpa tell ... and some of the ones I told as part of his eulogy.

In the first post of this series, I lined out how I wanted to tackle this subject. A thoughtful analysis of the last Presidential election using the format of an Army After Action Review (AAR). I thought it would be quick and easy. Four separate, relatively short posts following the 4 steps of an AAR.

Then, I started formulating the post that would be the first step in an AAR; "What was supposed to happen?" As I stated in my first post, I was going to use the military format of "Task, Conditions, and Standards." It quickly became apparent that, to do the subject justice, I was going to have to have three separate posts for the first step, alone. So, we will see how long this series ends up being.

Anyway, here we go ...

TASK

To review, anything that the US Army requires a soldier to execute has a corresponding manual. These manuals follow a very uniform style. For instance, the following is an excerpt from the old "Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks", a manual that delineates basic skills in which every soldier has to maintain proficiency. This excerpt is from a First Aid skill:

Task: Evaluate a Casualty (Tactical Combat Casualty Care)

Conditions: You have a casualty who has signs/symptoms of an injury. Your unit may be under fire.

Standards: Evaluate the casualty following the correct sequence. Identify all life-threatening conditions and other serious wounds.

Pretty simple, straightforward stuff. What to do, where it is to be done, and what is the measure of success.

However, this is a task that EVERY soldier, from the dumbest, greenest Private that has graduated from Basic Training to anyone that might end up on a battlefield. (Currently, a 3-star General is our highest ranking officer in Iraq.) As you move to more complex tasks, this section gets more involved.

Which brings us to our originally intended conversation.

This task was:

Elect a government that will act according to our (conservative) viewpoint and ideology.

This is where things get sticky. The above sounds all well, and good. However, given the current environment, that sentence can mean a lot of different things to different people. So much so, that it could be interpreted to be a pretty meaningless statement. That runs counter to the "Task, Conditions, Standards" convention.

S0, let me delineate what I understand to be "conservative ideology".

Let's start with an overarching statement to tie everything together:

Government should be big enough to guarantee freedoms, but not large enough to impinge upon them.

I think a good place to start is with the Declaration of Independence. The most famous portion of which is:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


I like to think of this portion of the Declaration as a kind of "mission statement", to borrow from corporate-speak, for our nation. Who we want to be, in other words. Who we are trying to become. Not that we have arrived, but that is the goal.

Now, pay attention to the fact that I said "nation", and not government.

For instance, in his 1961 inaugural speech, President John F. Kennedy (a Democrat, BTW) said:

And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

JFK talked about "country", in that quote, not government. I said nation, not government. In conservative thought, they are not the exact same thing. (For a first point.) We ... you and I ... all 300 million of us, are the country. The government is a social structure that exists to insure an environment where we can have life, liberty, and be free to pursue our own happiness.

Which brings us to the next, crucial, historical document: the Constitution.

I have made a differentiation between the nation/country, and the government. So, let's look at government. This thing that is supposed to provide all of us an environment where we can pursue the American "mission statement." The Founders were very thoughtful ... and I mean that both ways: 1) kind; 2) full of thought, literally. Before they went into the "nuts and bolts" of how this government they were creating was supposed to work, they gave us another mission statement. This time, it was a mission statement for the government.

In the Constitution, it is called the Preamble.

If you haven't ever, I would suggest that, sometime, you read the Constitution. In general, it is not hard to follow.

Keep in mind, it was written before "legalese" was created in this country.

Anyway, the Preamble, written in 1787, goes like this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For those of you who voted for Obama, let me translate:

For about 12 years now, the former 13 colonies of Britain, in America, have had a form of government that just didn't work. This Constitution you are about to read is the structure of a new government and here is what we want it to do: establish rule of law, provide a safe environment to live, defend us from outside military invasions, PROMOTE economic well being for everybody; and give freedom to us, and our children.

Now, this is a logical place to discuss the ideology of the modern conservative movement.

Modern conservatism, as promoted by William F. Buckley, et al., can be summed up in the Three Pillars of Conservatism:

1) National Security
2) Fiscal Conservatism
3) Social Conservatism

Let's tackle each one of these at a time:

First:

National Security

To me, this should be a "no-brainer", but, given what has come from the Democrat party over the last 7 years, I can only say: "Apparently not."

Very simply, there is no "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", if you live in fear of attack. I don't care if we are talking Pearl Harbor, 9/11, or Timothy McVeigh and the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

People that live in fear are not free.

To return to "modern conservative ideology", if we don't have this, FIRST, then EVERY other function of government is POINTLESS! Government CANNOT achieve any of it's goals, or, even exist, in the long term, unless, it provides for safety from military-style attack for it's citizens.

FISCAL CONSERVATISM

This one is bit more difficult.

It has everything to do with the Right to Private Property. Basically, "What is mine is mine, not yours.", to put it in kindegarten terms.

It is a fundamental refusal of the idea that everything belongs to the government. That we, you and I, all 300 million of us, can have ... stuff ... whether that is real estate, cars, or, even, our paychecks.

Conservative thought acknowledges that it is, individually, our civic responsibility to pay our "fair share" for the government that we need, but no more than that.

That means that there are certain areas that government, no matter how large (federal/national), or how small (city/county/school district), has no business legislating or taxing.

Hold that thought ... I was beginning to go somewhere, but I will save that for the end.

But, for now, you and I work hard to do, pretty much, whatever we want with what we earn. Right?

Government didn't give it to us. We earned it. I don't know about you, but I EARN my pay.

It might be cliche, but here is my view of a job: (from the John Wayne film: McLintock)

George Washington McLintock (GW): I've been punched many a time in my life but never for hirin' anyone.

Devlin Warren: I don't know what to say. Never begged before. Turned my stomach. I suppose I should have been grateful that you gave me the job.

George Washington McLintock: Gave? Boy, you've got it all wrong. I don't give jobs I hire men.

Drago: You intend to give this man a full day's work, don'tcha boy?

Devlin Warren: You mean you're still hirin' me? Well, yes, sir, I certainly deliver a fair day's work.
George Washington McLintock: And for that I'll pay you a fair day's wage. You won't "give" me anything and I won't "give" you anything. We both hold up our heads.



3) Social Conservatism

In some ways this area is both the easiest, and the most difficult to discuss.

The best place to start in this discussion is what, actually, happens when government, especially federal/national government, makes a decision on an issue that relates to "social conservatism". The latest hot topics are gay marriage, and abortion.

Whether we are talking Roe v. Wade, or Proposition 8 from the last election in California (my rebuttal to the idea of "Right Wing Rage" from the media), it doesn't matter.

The government comes up with a "one size fits all" answer, everytime.

Tell me, truthfully, have you ever had any garment that was "one size fits all" that fit you, at all?

The truth is that "one size fits all" answers NEVER work for ANYBODY EVER!. I don't care if it is clothes, or governmental policy ... IT JUST DOESN'T WORK!

WORSE!

It's not who we are, supposedly. It's not what we are supposed to be about, supposedly.

We read it, together, earlier ... Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness ... what makes me "happy", will, in ALL likelihoods, NOT make you happy ... you might enjoy it, but it won't make you HAPPY.

FINALLY

It all comes down to what you think government should do.

For instance, I think that government has no business in what I think of as "charity work".

Specifically, I don't think that government, especially the federal government, should be giving health care to ANYBODY, except the military, and veterans.

However, I have CHOSEN to spend my time, paid vacation, and money to go on medical "missions" trips on my overseas tours. I have spent more hours than I can count dealing with/helping the homeless at my first duty station. (I forgot to mention that a significant number of the homeless and poor of El Paso were in either my house, or those of my friends.)

That was my CHOICE.

Get the point?

I CHOSE to spend MY time, MY money, MY paid vacation on those things.

As opposed to some schmuck on Capitol Hill that voted for a bill to TAKE money from MY paycheck, and give it to someone else. ... no matter what I thought, or wanted.

There are a lot of things that need to be fixed in the world. I know, I have been there. I have lived on, at one point or the other, most of the continents of the world.

I have beat this point to death.

I leave you with the words of the first President I voted for ... Ronald Reagan ... I cast my first vote, ever, to re-elect him to his second term ... and, during his first inaugural adress he said:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

One political commentator has called him "Ronaldus Magnus", for the greatness of his ideas.

28 years after those words were spoken, I find myself in a position where I am hard pressed to find a viable argument with the President or the commentator.

Labels: Abortion, conservative ideology, Pearl Harbor, Presidential election, Proposition 8, Roe v. Wade, Ronald Reagan, Timothy McVeigh, US Constitution, William F. Buckley

I don't know if you remember, but, shortly after JFK's assassination, they started referring to his administration as Camelot. In many ways, he was a better President than he is remembered. The foreign policy/national security issues, and the creation of our space program of his day overshadow the rest of his domestic policy achievements. (Trivia question: name the last Democrat in the White House to deliver on a campaign promise for a tax cut to the middle class. ... Hint: It wasn't Clinton, Carter, or LBJ.)

And now, the press is talking about Obama ushering a new era of "Camelot".

I am reminded of the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", a comedy.

In the first part of the movie, King Arthur goes about the English countryside recruiting new knights. Once he has his crew assembled, he takes them to Camelot. The knights are all elated at seeing their new home, from a distance. Before they can reach the castle, a song and dance number ensues in the castle. At the end of the song, Arthur turns to his knights and says:

"No, on second thought, let's not go to Camelot. ... It is a silly place."


Infer what you wish. I just thought I would share this mental association I had with you all.

The election four days ago was the FIRST time in 32 years that a Democrat running for President has won a majority.

And what kind of majority was that?

Well, according to the people that you will hear comment on the news, they will tell you that Proposition 8 (the No Gay marriage proposal) won by a "slim majority", and they will tell you that Obama won by a landslide.

In truth, Prop 8 passed with voting percentage just under 52%, and Obama won the Presidency with a voting percentage just under 53%. Less than one percentage point difference between the two.

My challenge to the mainstream media is for them to make up their minds. Pick one, either one, I don't really care.

Even better yet, guess who was the last Democrat to win a popular vote majority?

Do you know?

Let's list all the popular vote losers in reverse chronological order: (going back in time)

Kerry
Gore
Clinton
Clinton
Dukakis
Mondale
Carter (vs. Reagan)

So, the last Democrat to win the popular vote in Presidential election would be ...

Carter, in 1976, when he ran against President Ford.

Good times.

Yeah, right.

(By the way, there is some really good stuff in the Ann Coulter article that I referenced in the title to this post.)

If you have been paying attention, you have noticed that for about a week now former members of the McCain campaign have been attacking Governor Palin.

This is reprehensible.

What did Gov. Palin do?

She agreed to be the running mate of a man that she, obviously, disagreed with ideologically. She brought the base of the Republican Party to the McCain campaign.

The base (conservatives), in general, were less than pleased with McCain, and he was not bringing them on board.

The Battleground Poll has been the most consistently correct poll of all the major polls. When the Battleground Poll consistently shows that between 55% and 65% of America identifies itself as "conservative" (57% in the October 29th poll), and you are a Republican candidate, you are not going to win without their support.

Senator McCain shunned the conservatives for 8 years, and fought for the identified moderate and undecided vote. Which, according to the last Battleground Poll, the moderate/undecided vote was less than 10% of the electorate.

The best illustration I can come up with is that I was a delegate to the Thurston County Republican Convention. It was cool. I met several of our state level Republican officials. There was a lot of excitement about the election, and what we could accomplish. The attitude about McCain was tepid. At the point this happened, the Republicans were down to just McCain and Ron Paul. If you had to write a campaign slogan for McCain, given what I saw at the convention, it would have been: "MCain: Not as Bad as Hillary or Obama".

Not exactly exciting stuff.

I, even, heard one person say, "Which of the three Democrats running do you support?" (Meaning Obama, Hilary, and McCain.) Don't forget, 4 years ago this guy was thinking about changing parties, because he thought he had a shot at being Kerry's Vice President.

So, his campaign staffers want to lay McCain's defeat on Governor Palin.

Give me a break! The point in the campaign where it became a "no-brainer" that I would vote for McCain was when he selected the good Governor. I was, seriously, thinking third party.

So, anyway, here is some video that I found that I thought I might share about my second favorite elected conservative in the country:





One of the things the Dems have CONSISTENTLY complained about President Bush is that he does not sound intelligent when he speaks. So, their solution was THIS GUY?!?!?! And the ad left out the clip where he suggests that the Federal government should be handing out breathalyzers to asthmatic childern!

Back to the point of this post.

So, McCain staffers want to point to Governor Palin as the reason they lost?

My answer to that is they might be right.

They hid her away, too often. They saddled her with McCain's moderate/undecided agenda. They didn't let Governor Palin be Governor Palin.

That might be what lost it for McCain.

Don't you forget it, or her.

Give me some lattitude, for a moment. The "funny" is coming.




That's my "Grandpa".

He died in 1999. He wasn't "redneck". He was a "hillbilly", in the truest sense of the word.

When he was a kid, his family believed in self-reliance.

In his house, that meant you could only smoke once you learned how to roll your own cigarettes, and picked your own tobacco ... you could only drink once you could pick up the jug of "moonshine" that was a doorstop in the family shack without spilling any. So, Grandpa started smoking at 6, and drinking at 8. He quit school in the third grade to work on the "family place".

In 1940, Grandpa moved his new wife into the house of her dreams. A four-room house with no plumbing or electricity, but it had a real floor, not dirt.

Grandpa "married up". Grandma had an 8th grade education.

He gave me my first taste of beer. He was the first fatherly figure in my life to show pride in me ... even when I couldn't live up to it. He was the first to attempt to teach me to drive.

He "held court".

He would take me to this country "general store" ... sit around the wood stove with the other local farmers. Most of the time he just sat and listened. ... smiled and nodded. ... wave "Hi" and "Bye", as people came and went. When Grandpa spoke, the entire store would go quiet. Everyone stopped to hear what "Sam" had to say.

When he finished, it was one of two things: 1) they reacted like it was the "wisdom of the ages"; 2) they laughed like they were going to hurt themselves.

He wasn't a "comedian". There were very few one-liners. Those were reserved for kids, like me.

He told stories.

He was a "humorist", I guess.

The best way I can explain it is that Garrison Keillor, on his best day, is a pale shadow of what I saw and heard my Grandpa do.

That's all well, and good.

However.

Both of my grandfathers, and my father lived it, but the first man to say to me: "A Man is only as good as his word." was my Grandpa.

All of this was triggered by the following story.

I have seen this story many times over the last few years. Everytime I read it, I am transported back in time to the point where I am the "kid"; my "Grandpa" is one of my heroes; and I love him.

Here is the story:

I was at the Mall with my 5-year-old grandson last week and we got separated.

He approached a uniformed policeman and said, "I've lost my Grandpa!"

"What's he like?" asked the policeman.

"Beer and women with big boobs," replied my grandson.

I've never been more proud of him.

The bad part, for me, is everytime I hear or read this, I begin to tear up, thinking about my Grandpa.

I miss him.

Hey all,

I was just looking back over the blog. All of my posts since the one on the Olympics (August 22nd) have been pretty intense.

I can be pretty intense, but the truth of the matter is I am one of the "class clowns" in my unit's break area.

Between that, and the fact that I am still working out how I am going to tackle the "Task, Conditions and Standards" post that should follow after yesterday's post, I thought this would be a good time to do something a bit lighter.

To do this, I am going to borrow Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine.

(There should be some cool, time travel visual at this point, but I am on a budget here.)

It's August 2003. I have, recently, arrived in Germany. I was stationed at Warner Barracks, in the German town of Bamberg.

Now, as a soldier, everytime you go to a new post, you have to go through some initial processing. You do things like acquire a place to live, make sure the Army knows where to send your pay, inform the Army's personnel system that you arrived where they sent you, etc.

Part of this is a seemingly barrage of briefings by numerous agencies on post that are designed to scare the young soldiers from doing anything stupid.

Germany is unique, in that, at the end of that "Death by Powerpoint briefings" you go through a 2 week course that is a basic primer on German/European culture, mass transit, phone system, money, language, traffic laws, etc. It's kind of cool.

All-in-all, I spent about a month in Bamberg before I was ever able to go to work at the band there. But, it was a good time.

Anyway, as I am going through this, I am in a group of about 30 or so soldiers. Most of the group are soldiers that are either going to their first duty station, or their second. To me, it feels, after getting to know them, like they have about 5 minutes in the Army, and the maturity level of college freshman.

Except for one guy. He is Staff Sergeant Robinson.

He is the same rank as me. We are about the same age. He has been in the Army about the same amount of time as me. We have been to about the same number of duty stations. About the same number of overseas assignments. Been married about the same amount of time. First time in Germany for both of us. Have similar attitudes about the "kids" we are stuck with. He is something of a "computer geek". He knows some stuff that I don't, and vice versa. He helps me with some problems I am having with my computers, and vice versa.

So, naturally, we become pretty good friends.

About the only thing we DON'T have in common is that I am white, and he is black.

An important point to know, at this point, is that the Army has a wonderful program. Every time you move to a new station, you are assigned a "sponsor". Your sponsor is, supposed to be, a person in your new unit that is similar to you: close to your rank, same marital status, etc. This person's job is to help you do everyting from choose appropriate housing for you and your family; to where to buy gas; whether to shop on the economy for certain items, or buy them at the PX or commissary. You name it.

So, anyway, the next to last day of all this "in-processing" in Germany, I am in the PX looking for ... something. I look over to my right, and there is SSG Robinson. So, I say "Hi!", and ask about his computers (we were in the electronics section). We start to talk, and he introduces his sponsor to me, another noncommissioned officer from his new unit ... who just happens to be black.

I shake his hand.

He jokes, "You guys aren't related, are you?"

Robinson shakes his head, and starts to answer, when I cut him off ...

I look his sponsor in the eye, and say, "Yes." (At which point, Robinson's eyes get as big as dinner plates!)

I hang and shake my head, and say, "We are cousins. But, HIS side of the family won't admit that my side of the family exists."

Robinson's sponsor gets this look of horror on his face, thinking he has just stepped into some big, bad, ugly, family thing that he could not have imagined.

At which point, Robinson begins to smile. (He and I have talked, before, how, given our last names, we get called ALL kind of things: Robertson, Robinson, Roberson, Roberts, Robbins, etc.)

I was able to hold that for about 2 seconds before Robinson and I both bust up laughing, and Robinson follows suit.

His sponsor looked really perplexed for a second. Then, he read the name tags on the front of our uniforms, realized that we did not have the same last name, and joined in the laughter.

I guess, the moral to the story, if there is one, for the most part, the Army is a pretty cool place to be. For the most part, it doesn't matter who or what you are, when you put on that uniform, most of us see "Army green" when we deal with each other. Earned rank and competence means more than color, national origin, gender, or ... whatever.

It was fun playing with that, though.

As for the Mr. Peabody reference, earlier, if you didn't get it, here is a sample of the cartoons that I grew up with:

All Righty Then,

Here we are. I have talked quite a bit, lately. In fact, I have posted more on my blog this month than I have in all of 2008, before November.

For those of us that consider ourselves conservatives ... and, maybe, libertarians, or, if you don't know what you are, politically, but what you have seen isn't right, then you, also, are not happy with what has happened.

The logical question that we have ... and, I fear, most of our fellow citizens will have in the next 4 years is: "Where do we go from here? ... or, more appropriately,: "How do we fix this?"

Now, as you might know, I've been a military man for over 19 years, now. So, I suggest we use some military techniques. I think this approach will be helpful.

These "Where Do We Go From Here?" posts will be, what we call in the Army, an "AAR", or After Action Review.

An "AAR" has, basically, 4 parts:

1) What was supposed to happen?

2) What did happen?

3) What happened right?

4) What can we do better?

The first step, in proper Army fashion, requires some explanation to those of you that are civilians.

Everything that is done in the Army, from the wear of the uniform, to clearing an insurgent cell meeting place, has, in regulation, a "way" to do it. The Army has a standard that boils everything to 3 elements:

1) Task (what is to be accomplished)

2) Conditions (the setting in which you have to accomplish your goal)

3) Standards (the yardstick by which you measure your relative measure of success)

Let us talk about "Standards" for a moment. It is possible to achieve different levels of success, whether you win or lose. In some cases, given a specific task, failing to accomplish a task, you might be in a better situation to be successful.

It is the reverse of the idea behind the concept of the "Pyrrhic Victory", which is tactically, and strategically sound. No matter what the task at hand is there are multiple levels of success.


This last election would appear to be a dismal failure. We (conservatives/libertarians) lost, and, supposedly, lost "Big Time".

If those of us that are conservative ... or, with libertarian, leanings, consider the "Conditions", we DID NOT lose.

Think about that for a bit.

I have some answers to that question.

Tell me yours.

Just to let you know, this blog has some features that aren't being used too often.

1) Each post can be viewed (linked to, emailed ... etc.) as separate web page. Just hit the # at the bottom of the post, and you will see that individual post as a separate web page.

2) After my name, and the time date stamp, you will find the number of comments to that post. Hit that link, and you can turn any post into an individual message board for discussion. I moderate the comments, but, pretty much, as long as you don't spam or get vulgar, I will let your comment stand.

3) The little envelope icon next to the number of comments allows you to email that post to whoever you want.

I don't expect to become the next Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter. But, I know that there are people who check this blog on a fairly regular basis. This blog, for me, is something of a labor of love/compulsion. I don't know that I can articulate things as well as some, but I believe that I can provoke comment and interaction.

Let me tinker with the "bells and whistles" of the site, as well as "throw gasoline on the fire".

I just ask that you be part of the fire.

Okay, for those of you who haven't guessed, I am a fan of Rush Limbaugh. I don't get to listen during the actual show too often. But, I am a member of his website.

For those of you that are kind of downhearted after the election, there are some things to keep in mind:

Despite what you are hearing in the mainstream media, Obama did not win by some kind of overwhelming majority. He, only, received 52% of the vote.

Today, on Rush's site, his web people posted the following graphic. It is a map of the US divided into counties or parishes. These areas are tinted according to who they went for in last week's election. The red is for McCain, and the blue is for Obama.


Shot at 2008-11-12

Now, because of how our population is distributed, and the fact that we elect Presidents by state, as apportioned by population, and not a strict popular vote, or, even, a strict popular vote by state, it appears Obama won some kind of landslide. The truth of the matter is that it was a much closer thing than it immediately appears. Obama did an excellent job of winning in EXACTLY the places he had to win. In four years, if we can take one or two key counties per state that he won in, this time around, then numbers would be reversed ... actually, we would have a real landslide in the electoral college that would dwarf Obama's win this time around.

It can be done, but that is where the true challenge is.

I've been hearing a lot about there being "right wing rage" out there across America, over the lost election.

First:

It is amazing to me how Senator McCain was the left's favorite Republican from the time he lost the 2000 nomination right up until he gained the 2008 nomination. He "reached across the aisle". He was a "maverick", because he SLAMMED his party at every opprotunity. He wrote/sponsored legislation with the most liberal of the Democrats in the Senate. He created and led a group 14 liberal/moderate Republican Senators that joined the Democrats in blocking the judicial nominations of the President (who was of his party). He co-wrote and sponsored a piece of immigration legislation that was so radically left that even most liberal Democrats voted against it, as a matter of political survival.

Then, he won the Republican nomination for President. At this point, the media, and every Democrat that could be quoted in print, or stand in front of a microphone, would tell you how he was the furthest right nutjob on the planet since Adolph Hitler.

However, within 12 hours of the election being decided, those same people were being quoted, or in front a microphone telling us the "old" John McCain was back, and that the Presiden-elect was thinking about selecting him to be a special liason between the White House and the Senate.

Did this really happen?

I don't think so.

I am something of a political junkie.

Desert Storm taught me, as a soldier, that what I see on tonights news can have a PROFOUND effect on my life, tomorrow.

I sat in an apartment in Seoul, Korea, watching the US news channels broadcast the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, and in about a year, I was in the "Sunni Triangle".

So, I have a keen interest in the news.

Back to Senator McCain.

Did he REALLY change, like the news said he did?

If you ACTUALLY listened to what he said during the campaign, then your only answer can be "No".

He was the same milquetoast, moderate that he had alwars been.

Second:

What "right wing rage"?

Are we denouncing the President-elect?

Rush Limbaugh, the one person that is supposed to be the voice of our movement, has spent more time, since the election, laughing than ANY time since I first heard him. (I first heard him in 91 when I was an avowed Democrat!)

I have not seen anything on the news to say that conservatives or Republicans are demonstrating or rioting.

I am not demonstrating or rioting.

I have no rage.

I have seen rage, however.

So, let's see here.

California.

The most radically left State of our 50 States.

The Land of "Fruits and Nuts" is what we are talking about.

They had Proposition 8 on their ballot last week.

Prop 8 was such a "hot potato" that neither their state's legislature or their judiciary would touch the issue. So, given what their state's Constitution allowed, they put it to a popular vote.

Meaning that this is REAL democracy ... as in Pericles, Aristotle ... Greek style ... democracy, NOT the representative suff ... you know a "classic" republic. One person, one vote ... here is a piece of legislation ... loddy-doddy, everybody, let's vote.

If you voted FOR Prop 8, then "marriage" was defined as a man and a woman, no same sex marriages, at all.

If you voted AGAINST Prop 8, then marriage is ... whatever.

The most radically left state of our 50 voted for Prop 8.

The "nutburgers" of our electoral system were not willing to go that far.

After all of that discussion, WHO IS PROTESTING IN THE STREET? WHO IS SHOWING RAGE?





I've blathered on a bit. Okay, more than a bit in this post.

Have I been "angry" or "mean" in their presentation?

The simple fact is, that if there was REAL "right wing rage" in this country, anywhere, the media would have BLASTED it on every TV show, and print media that they could. THEY HAVE NOT. For ONE simple reason, it is not there.

The only rage is on the Left.

Which is sad, because they, overwhelmingly, won.

Being a "sore loser" is one thing.

Being a "sore 'winner'", is an entirely different realm of "poor sportsmanship".

The last time I posted was the night before the election. Senator McCain was a nominee. Governor Palin was the sweetheart of the conservative movement. Vice President-elect Biden was a Senator whose foot was perpetually in his mouth. (He was supposed to bring maturity, especially on foreign policy, to the ticket.)

Here, the Vice President-elect asks a man in a wheelchair to stand up:


Here, the Vice President-elect shows he hasn't mastered Sesame Street-level math:


AND here is a collage of the Vice President-elect being ... himself:


As a sidenote, if any of you were missing former Vice President Quayle (whom Dennis Miller referred to as the "Rosetta Stone of modern comedy), it looks like the next administration will have similar comic releif.

And, then, Senator Obama is now President-elect.

boy. do I feel great.

The first line of Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution states:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

So, in a few short weeks, President-elect Obama will have the responsibility of making life or death decisions about ... me, my friends, and co-workers. That gives me a feeling deep, down inside ... and I wouldn't describe it as "warm and fuzzy".

The President-elect ran on a platform that was a carbon copy of Jimmy Carter's.

Let's look back, through the rose-tinted glasses of remembrance, at the golden years of the Carter Administration, and the wonderful things of that era: double digit interest rates, gasoline rationing, the highest inflation that I remember in my life, the highest unemployment rates I remember in my life, "malaise", the "Misery Index", the Iran Hostage Crisis, and, my personal favorite, "Desert One".

IT GETS BETTER!

His staff is full of Clinton-era retreads!

The first and foremonst of this bunch is Rahm Immanuel. He was a Clinton "West Wing" staff member. He, like the President-elect, is from Chicago. Rahm, as you might not know, was the person that the writers for the TV show West Wing used a model for the character Josh Lyman.

This guy (Immanuel, not the TV character) stood up at a celebration dinner after Clinton was reelected in 1996, with a steak knife in one hand, and recited a list of Clinton "betrayors" ... after each name was recited, he shouted "DEAD!", and stabbed the table with his steak knife. Is it just me, or does this sound more like a scene from a bad gangster movie set in the 20's, than Presidential politics?

Which brings me to how, lately, the media has been up in arms about Rush Limbaugh calling the President-elect, and Rahm Immanuel "thugs".

This is nothing new. Rush has been doing this since mid-August. There is a reason.

During his August 27th broadcast, Rush talked about an article that he had read on the site, Politico.

In the 26 August article by John F. Harris, there is this paragraph (you might have to look a bit, it is near the bottom of the thrid page):

Bill Clinton believes the Democratic nominee, far from practicing a unifying, transformational brand of politics, has the political instincts of “a Chicago thug,” one longtime associate said. Clinton has told people that Obama allowed surrogates to try to suppress Hispanic turnout in the Nevada caucuses, and played “the race card” in reverse against the Clintons in South Carolina and other states.

By calling the President-elect a politcal "Chicago thug", he was just quoting a former President ... former DEMOCRAT President, let me correct myself.

Here is what I find funny.

The accusations being leveled against Rush is that his comments were "racist". As in "racist" against the President-elect. Which, of course, just confirms the stereotupe that all conservatives are "racist, bigotted, homophobes".

The funny thing is that IF there is an American politician who should be offended by this "racist slur" it CAN'T be the President-elect. It HAS to be Bobby Jindal, the conservative Repblican governor of Louisiana.

The word "thug" comes to the English language from Britain's involvement with India! The Thuggee were, basically, a bunch of highway robbers in India during 17th to 19th centuries.

It is a SPECIFIC racial/ethnic slur. IT IS NOT AIMED AT BLACKS/AFRICAN AMERICANS, AT ALL!

Unless, of course, the President elect is, now, claiming Indian descent, to go along with his African, and American/European descent.

Who knows? He might be.

Think back to the number of states that the first President Bush called home.

I am no fan of Barak H. Obama. (I know that he and his campaign would like us to forget his middle name, but that would make him BO.) AND, I will only call him by the name he went by in college if they let me put an apostrophe in his last name ... making him Barry O'Bama. (I have no idea why his campaign has not pushed this. It would tie up the vote of IRA supporters.)

Anyway, enough foolishness.

And for the record, I am a stereotype.

White, lower-middle class, working male of Southern upbringing serving as an enlisted soldier in the US Army. I have a Bachelors Degree from a private, fundamentalist church-sponsored university. While not a fan of NASCAR (Look! They're making a left turn! ... Look! Another left turn!(The entire linked video is funny, but, the "Left turn" part is from about 5 minutes into this bit.)),


I do enjoy motorsports, and have a classic car that I am restoring. I am a member of Rush Limbaugh's website, and my mp3 player is full of his radio shows, and daily updates. The first vote I ever cast was to reelect Ronald Reagan in 1984.

According to the stereotype, I should be a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot.

Let's address that list:


It was my sincere hope that Senator McCain would pick as his running mate, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal. Bobby is the current governor of Louisiana. Given what I have heard about his work in Louisiana, and read in his interviews, he is one of the most exciting ideological conservatives in US politics today. Also, he is the first "non-White" to be elected governor of Louisiana since the end of Reconstruction (1877). Bobby is of Punjabi Indian descent. I look forward to volunteering in his future Presidential campaign.


If you followed NFL football in the 1970's, especially if you consistently cheered against the Cowboys, then I don't need to tell you anything about this man. What you might not remember is that in 2006, Lynn Swann ran for governor of his adopted state of Pennsylvania as a conservative Republican. I was truly sad that he lost, on a number of levels. The only time in my life I have ever had any kind of inkling of an urge to live in Pennsylvania was to allow me to vote for Lynn.


I got over my disappointment over Senator McCain not picking Bobby Jindal, when I learned about Sarah Palin. I found her story inspiring. I know these kind of people. SHOOT! I AM "these kind" of people. Her political ideology, and the action she has taken, as governor, is EXACTLY the kind of person I have looked for on the national scene since ... since ... Reagan. She is "Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington".

Next, let's address the "homophobe" part. Let's just say the stereotype of students at fundamentlist christian universities all being "cookie cutter" people is wrong. Everything that you can find on the campus of any other type of university can be found there ... it's just hidden better. As a music major, I hung out with music majors, art majors, theater majors, etc. ... the same groups that, stereotypically, are on the fringe of respectable society. To think that all of this group, even at my university, was straight would be a mistake. As for the Army, I know the Army has a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. That means just that. I know that there are people that aren't being asked, and they are not telling, either. I know both of the above, because some of them fall in the list I entitle: "close friends".

And, just for giggles, let's address religion.

I grew up in a fundamentalist church. We pride ourselves on being "people of the book".

There is a little talked about passage in the Bible that goes like this:
1 John 3:9-10
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
NIV


I know that sounds kind of rough, at a first glance. However, the easiest way to interpret the passage in context is: a) Not everyone is going to believe what you believe; and b) You should not expect people that do not believe the way you believe to behave the way that you do/are trying to behave. I believe that.

So, according to the strictures of Federal Law, in terms of discrimination, I have addressed: gender/sexual orientation, religion, skin color, race, and national origin. (BTW, I am serve as the primary advisor to my military commander for matters of discrimination in my unit.(This would be discrimination as defined by Federal Law ... the Army IS part of the Federal Government.)) Any questions?

Back to the title of this post.

Let's start by looking at the current Congress, and what the polls, pundits, and conventional wisdom has to say about the outcome of the Congressional elections that will take place tomorrow, as well.

The House of Representatives:
Currently, Democrats outnumber Republicans 235-199. That puts them in a clear majority. This allows them commanding majorities in each of the committees (the place where the bills the entire House votes upon are generated). This, also, gives them the Speaker of the House position. In other words, they control the agenda of the House. What the House will and won't discuss, and vote on.

However, their current majority puts the Democrats 57 Congressman short of the number it takes to override a Presidential veto. So, at this point, even if the House and Senate pass a bill that Republicans disagree with, or, at least, the President does, they can't make it a law anyway.

The polls, pundits, and conventional wisdom are saying that Democrats will pick up those 57 seats in the election tomorrow (all 435 Congressman are up for reelection). If that is true, it doesn't matter who the President is, the only thing that can stop the Democrats in the House of Representatives from doing whatever they want, anytime they want will be The Senate.

The Senate
The Senate has 100 members. Currently, technically, the 2 parties are split at 49 Senators a piece with 2 "Independents" thrown into the mix. Which doesn't sound too bad, until you realize that the "Independents" tend to vote more consistently with the Democrat party line than some of the Democrats do. Making the Senate, in reality, more of 51-49 split. That still doesn't sound too bad on the surface. As you might remember from your civics classes in school, to override a Presidential veto BOTH houses of Congress must vote to override the veto with a 2/3rds majority. However, as with the House of Representatives, the Democrats control the leadership of all the Senate committees. Effectively, they control what will make it to a vote for the whole Senate.

Most polls, pundits, and conventional wisdom says that there is a possibility that the Democrats could pick up the 16 extra seats that they need, but that is by no means a sure thing. On the other hand, those same sources are pretty sure that after all the votes are counted there will be, at least, 60 Democrats in the Senate.

This is a bad thing. You ask: "Why?"

The Senate has some quirky rules.

One of them is the filibuster. Basically, once a Senator gets up to speak, he doesn't have to stop until he wants. Meaning one Senator can bring the workings of the Senate to a dead stop for as long as he/she is able. There are, also, some quirky rules (that I don't know all the ins and outs of) that can make this a "team sport". So, the minority can, in effect, indefinitely delay action on a piece of legislation that it is opposed to, even if they don't have the votes to defeat it. A filibuster, also, keeps any succeeding legislation on the agenda from coming to the floor. I have heard of Senators reading whole works of Shakespeare, cookbooks, etc.

One of the other quirky rules is called cloture. Basically, if 60 Senators all agree, a filibustering Senator can be told to sit down and shut up.

So, if the Democrats can pick up 9 more seats, they will have, theoretically, automatic cloture. Republican Senators will have been effectively been shut up and rendered spectators to the legislative process.

If that happens, the only recourse is for it to be brought before the courts.

The Supreme Court
Currently, no matter what you read/hear/see in the press, we have one of the most balanced Supreme Courts in history. Four justices are conservative/"strict constructionist" (meaning the words in the Constitution mean what they appear to mean, more or less). Three are liberal/"Living Constitution" ("The Constitution means what I 'feel' it should mean"), and the other two are moderate (they kind of swing back and forth ... I think the prevailing wind on any given day is a determining factor, and I am not being metaphorical).

One of the worst kept secrets about Washington is that it appears at least two justices are waiting until after the election to retire. Meaning the new President will be confronted with selecting two justices soon after the Inauguration. The new Senate, then, will have to confirm, with a 2/3rds majority, these new selections.

Before we get any further into that thought line, let's explore some of the products, in history, of a Supreme Court that leaned, heavily, one way or another: The Supreme Court decision that took the question of abortion out of the hands of the people, and their elected representatives, Roe v. Wade, was the product of a liberal Supreme Court. The ban on prayer in schools, with all of it's ridiculous permutations, was the product of a liberal court. The Dred Scott Decision, which concluded that, according to Wikipedia, "people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants — whether or not they were slaves — could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue in court, and that slaves — as chattel or private property — could not be taken away from their owners without due process." was the product of, what was for it's day, an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court. (In my personal defense, at the time, the conservative end of the political spectrum in this country was OWNED by the Democrats, and the Republican party did not exist, yet.)

So, if Obama is President, with a 2/3rds Democrat majority in the Senate, any nominees that he selects for the Supreme Court sail through with, at best, minimal questioning.

So, where does that leave us?

Well, if Obama is elected: a) we will have the most liberal Democrat President of our history; b) as de facto head of the Democrat party, he could, potentially, have a Congress that is owned by his (very liberal) party; c) with the imminent retirement of, at least, 2 Supreme Court Justices (and a Senate that will rubber stamp any selection he might make), we could have one of the most liberal Supreme Courts in the history of our nation.


Do you see what I think is the MOST scary thing about an Obama Presidency, yet?

Let me give you a clue:

The First Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights ... the same Bill of Rights that many of the Founding Fathers REFUSED to consent to this Constitution, unless it was included, says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Read that for a moment. Think back to your American history classes. That amendment is not about "protected sources" for journalists. It is not about an artist's right to put statues of Mary in urinal, and take photos of it.

What is it about?

Discussion.

Thoughtful, heated, ideology-driven, partisan, political discussion. Whether that is in your local barber shop, or on the floor of the Senate ... or between Capitol Hill, and White House. It is the heart of this idea we call the United States of America.

If Obama is elected, from a historical perspective, the three branches of OUR Federal government will be in lockstep, ideologically, as never before!

A viable "loyal opposition" is a good thing. It invites discussion, which provokes thought. That thought can help clarify why the proposal at hand is a good idea, it can lead to improvements to the proposal at hand, or, it can lead to dismissal of the idea at hand, because "we can do better".

In one of my wife's and I favorite movies, The American President, the domestic policy advisor to the President (Lewis) has this exchange with the White House Chief of Staff (AJ):

A. J. MacInerney: The President doesn't answer to you Louis!
Lewis Rothschild: Oh, yes he does A.J. I'm a citizen, this is my President. And in this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders it's our responsibility!

Given the diplomatic, economic, and national security issues that face this country today, we need, as much as ever, careful deliberation before we tackle any of those issues. We don't need 545 people (435 in the House (by default), 100 in the Senate (by default), 9 on the Supreme Court (by default), and 1 in the White House) all thinking the exact same way, and not considering any other options.

If we elect a Democrat-dominated Congress, with Obama as President, then that is what we will get, and one of the primary functions of the three branches of our government will be catastrophically undermined.

The worst part of it all is that we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

May God help us all, tomorrow.