When You Look At What He Said...

Some quick hits about President Obama's speech from Factcheck.org:

President Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress was stuffed with signals about the new direction his budget will take and meant-to-be reassuring words about the economy. But it was also peppered with exaggerations and factual misstatements.

* He said "we import more oil today than ever before." That's untrue. Imports peaked in 2005 and are substantially lower today.

* He claimed his mortgage aid plan would help "responsible" buyers but not those who borrowed beyond their means. But even prominent defenders of the program including Fed Chairman Bernanke and FDIC chief Bair concede foolish borrowers will be aided, too.

* He said the high cost of health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds." That's at least double the true figure.

* He flubbed two facts about American history. The U.S. did not invent the automobile, and the transcontinental railroad was not completed until years after the Civil War, not during it.

* He claimed that his stimulus plan "prevented the layoffs" of 57 police officers in Minneapolis. In fact, it's far more complicated than that, and other factors are also helping to save police jobs.

Follow the link at the top, check the details.

I Miss Swagger

Let's face it, yes some corporate executives did pad their pockets and were more interested in their own bottom line than the bottom line of their company, but definitely not all. Did anyone here Obama's address where he painted all corporate CEOs with the same brush of how they supposedly took taxpayer money to host lavish parties and increase their personal wealth? Personally, I would like to see proof of that, I want to see where CEOs said "Oh look, government money! I'll reinstate my mind-boggling raise and then use what is left of this money to throw a big party!" President Obama, shame on you... you should know better. And shame on those blowhards in Congress who for the most part have NEVER produced anything but bills taking people to task for making money. Hey, with all this "share the pain" talk from the party on the left, where is the salary reduction and perk reduction for you pompous Caesars? Why aren't you "sharing the pain" with the rest of us? Even more so, where are the entrepreneurs telling the truth to these government officials?

Note to Obama and the Democrat Congress: Please stop talking about helping the middle class. None of you have any idea what it means to be middle class and you have no idea how to really help. Why don't you take a real job and just see what it means to be a middle-class American?

How Much Does It Take To Buy The Presidency?

And here people worried about Ross Perot back in 1992. You can read the full story here.

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama, who rewrote the book on presidential fundraising, amassed more than $745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain.

In his latest finance report, Obama reported raising $104 million in more than five weeks immediately before and after Election Day. It was his second biggest fundraising period and a fitting coda to a successful presidential bid that shattered fundraising records.

In the end, Obama still had $30 million left over.

Overall, Obama exceeded the combined finances of the two major parties' nominees four years ago. George W. Bush and John Kerry pulled in a total of $653 million in the 2004 primary and general election campaigns, including federal public financing money.


Of course, this was the man who repeatedly said that if his rival took federal funds so would he. First promise he broke... and no wonder.

Where Rush Is Wrong

I generally like Rush Limbaugh. Call it two Missourians sticking together but after 17 years of his show I still enjoy listening to him from time to time and on many issues we are in agreement. One recent area of disagreement (and a key on regarding the identity and future of the Republican Party) is his reaction to those who are saying the Republican Party needs to move forward in several areas. An example of his reaction to people like David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley can be found here. But as often as he is right, here I think the great MahaRushie is wrong. What helped bring this to light was a short interview on the DVD Mr. Conservative from another conservative thinker, George Will. The question put out was whether or not Barry Goldwater became more liberal as he became older. Liberals like Al Franken were giddy in saying he had but George Will put a more thoughtful idea forward. He said that issues like gays in the military were not key in the years of Goldwater's era. What Goldwater did was take his well-thought ideals of what it meant to be a conservative and applied them to these new issues and came down on the side of literal interpretation of the Constitution and freedom to live one's life with minimal interference by the government (the bedrocks of Conservatism) and said "Nothing prevents it, so let 'em do it". Conservatism doesn't mean intellectual stagnation just as the attempts by Brooks et al does not mean giving up core conservative values nor jettison the image of Ronald Reagan. The idea, which Rush seems to miss, is that we have to take our basic values and apply them to a whole new world of issues that Reagan, God bless him, never had to face as key issues. Society has moved to new issues, in part because Conservatism won several of its fights in the '80 and '90, so we have to take the idea of what it means to be a conservative and apply them to the issues of the day. We cannot just look back at Goldwater and Reagan and sigh wistfully for the old days, we have to take the tools they gave us and move onward to build a conservative ideology worthy of the 21st century.

Heck, He Gets My Vote Then!

I'm sorry... this has to be the most simple-minded person ever to be on television. I am getting so sick of politics... between McCain not able to run a campaign to the Obama worshipers I can't stand it any more. Regardless of who wins I get screwed and the real problem is I don't think either candidate is proficient enough to get me to like it.

Obama Is Just Another Politician

I am still amazed at the people who seem to view Senator Obama as the second coming of the Messiah (though at the Democratic National Convention he looked more like Apollo with that silly backdrop). With all the financial mess going on what does Obama do? He distorts McCain's record and McCain's words on the matter. Since he has little to no record of his own to tout he twists what McCain says to try to make himself look better and play off the fears of the masses. On a recent speech (the one thing that Obama has proven capable of doing) in New Mexico he says of McCain:

He has consistently opposed the sorts of common-sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis. When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal — and I quote — 'I'm always for less regulation.'

What McCain actually said was:

I'm always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis — that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight... I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated, not just a moratorium.

Compare the two... Obama comes off like a typical, old-time, slandering, word-twisting politician (which he is). Now McCain's people aren't really any better when it comes to Obama's words or record (what there is of it), but McCain's isn't setting himself up like Obama. When it comes to the two, Obama was the one who set himself up to the higher standard... and he is the one who falls hardest into the mud.

Speaking in Florida, Obama the fearmonger also said that the drop the market experienced recently would have affected the retirement benefits of today's retirees. Absolute nonsense. The private account plan suggested by President Bush and backed by McCain would not have applied to anyone born before 1950 which, if my math is right, wouldn't even touch those taking early retirement at age 62 this year! Let's ignore the fact that the entire thing is voluntary, Obama is just flat out lying about its impact to the good folks in Florida.

Again, this does not sound like a new type of politician. I'm almost as old as Obama and it sounds like the same type of crap I hear every four years so I am curious just why Obama thinks he is different.

Taking My Father's Advice

When it comes to politics I tend to think like my father... that lawyers should not be allowed into politics. I find it interesting that the top of the Democrat ticket has two lawyers and the top of the Republican ticket has no lawyers. Hmmmm...

Mayor Versus Community Organizer

So much has been made about Governor Palin's jib at Obama's experience that I thought I would take a few moments to address it. Just for the record, she said the following in her acceptance speech:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

I have a few questions about the left's reaction to the statement:

First, what is wrong with it? As a mayor you do have stated, defined responsibilities in your city charter. You have a constituency that put you there, people have real needs that they expect you as the figurehead of local government to do something about their problems, keep the city safe, etc. What about a community organizer? Obama doesn't really tell us much about it other than the fact that he was one. What he does tell us is the following:

Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama--and hundreds of other organizers--did not transform the South Side or restore lost industries. But it did change the young man who became the junior senator from Illinois in 2004, and it provides clues to his worldview as he bids for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I can't say we didn't make mistakes, that I knew what I was doing," Obama recalled three years ago to a boisterous convention of the still-active DCP. "Sometimes I called a meeting, and nobody showed up. Sometimes preachers said, 'Why should I listen to you?' Sometimes we tried to hold politicians accountable, and they didn't show up. I couldn't tell whether I got more out of it than this neighborhood."

This quote can be found in an Obama-friendly article from The Nation. Not much else seems to be found out about his community organizer works other than the fact that Obama comes from the Saul Alinksky school of community and labor organization. If you have read his "Rules For Radicals" book and have any knowledge of how community organizers often (though admittedly not always) worked you wouldn't find much to quibble with over Giuliani's statement either.

Being a community organizer is nothing to be ashamed of and rallying people to a common cause and purpose can be a great thing to accomplish in one's life, but I still don't understand why people were upset at Palin's comparison.

Second, the Democrats seems to say that McCain's call for people to community service as a contradiction to what they heard from Palin and Giuliani. Well, if you are honest and look at the list of things McCain said about becoming involved in your community (be a teacher, a fireman, a minister, a nurse or doctor, etc) there are differences. Just stop and think about what a community organizer does and what the duties (often defined and measured) of those jobs are. They are not gender specific, they are not race specific, they are not politically inclined, they are hired often for defined skill sets, they have to meet goals and requirements (usually). How does that compare with the activities of a "community organizer"? And let us not overlook the fact that Palin herself can be considered a "community organizer" as she was head of the local PTA. I haven't heard much of that time from her, but I wonder if her activities as a "community organizer" were more successful that Obama's self-admitted mixed record was, which leads me to my next question...

Third, OK, so she was the mayor of a small town and he was a "community organizer". I don't really care so much as to what they did but more interested in who was effective at doing their job. Obama's own words in the Nation article seem to indicate mixed results at best and we don't have any firm details on what he accomplished. Even the New York Times (in a mixed review of Palin's Mayoral tenure) stated:

In Wasilla, Ms. Palin is widely praised for following through on campaign promises by cutting property taxes while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department... She is largely viewed as having had her hometown’s best interests at heart when she pursued big projects or an overhaul of city taxes. By the time she ran for re-election in 1999 — again facing Mr. Stein — things had smoothed out. She was returned to office by a large margin, 826 votes to 255.

Granted there were headaches, many of them caused by the fact that she ran against the "old boys'" network and some of the due to her heartfelt conservatism and even a few I would question, but overall she seemed to accomplish what she set out to do and the overall view of her in her town seems to be quite positive.

So again I don't understand the problem, but even Obama seems to take this as a thorn in his side. In a recent interview with Anderson Cooper Obama still seems to consider her only experience as that of a mayor:

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.

What is missing in this response is that Cooper asked about her experience as Governor of Alaska and mayor of Wasilla. I find it rather interesting that Obama ignores her being governor. He mentions bills he sponsored for New Orleans post-Katrina but if you search the actual record you find two he sponsored, four he co-sponsored with about a 50% success rate of passing. Not the greatest of accomplishments but he can be credited with trying, but for someone who claims the ability to work in a bipartisan manner this is not the greatest track record. He seems to be trying to compare every facet of his political career with that of Palin's time as mayor. What was his budget and staff during his "community organizer" years since that is the latest comparison with the second on the GOP ticket?

Honestly, I think Obama and Biden need to tread very carefully here. Palin may not have a fat resume but she does have some very strong positive accomplishments. Also Obama is so focused on Palin that he is leaving himself open to McCain. As former President Bill Clinton asked... suppose you have two candidates, one whom you only agree with half the time but they can deliver on those things and one you agree with all the time but you don't think they can deliver on any of them... whom would you vote for? But of course, he wasn't talking about this :-)

McCain Ad Foreshadows My Next Post

Sorry, been busy the last couple of days with work, homework, and taking my next wine certification exam so nothing remotely original at this point, but this ad gives you a thumbnail sketch of what I will be writing about in the next couple of posts.

Excellent Summary Of The Story Thus Far

I think Ed Rollins did a fantastic job with this commentary on the tickets of the two main political parties. Enjoy.

McCain's Pick

Last night I had a premonition... McCain was going to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate. After watching Obama's speech I kept going over the short list of possible VP candidates and why * I * wouldn't pick them (Romney, somewhat negative against McCain in the primaries and has the wealth issue that voters seem to be against; Huckabee, no, no, no preachers and honestly a bit of a rube; Giuliani, main issue is defense and that is McCain's forte; Ridge, too pro-choice and would alienate "God's Own Party", etc, etc, etc). Then I got to Palin. Young woman, mother (married her high school sweetheart), solidly pro-life, strong conservative credentials, solid blue-collar credentials, former sports journalist, administrator with a background of reform. Only real negatives: some will see her as a "pander pick" and she is a first term governor (before that was a mayor for two terms). The question to me was can she be presented in such a way as to blunt these criticism (which the McCain campaign has leveled in one form or another at Obama)? I think it is possible but they have to be careful.

Yes, she is a woman (and an attractive one at that) but I don't think McCain will be hurt by that as much as some have stated. This isn't Geraldine Ferraro again. Palin is tough with a strong (if limited but longer than Obama's) track record of reform. She seems to be a principled conservative rather than a politically expedient one. My one big issue with her (but will play well with the "God's Own Party" crowd) is on gay rights but right now I think there are bigger fish to fry and I am willing to step back on this at the moment.

The Democrats seem to be salivating at the "experience" issue. Before they do, let's be honest... all three (McCain, Palin, and Biden) have more experience than Obama and of the four only Palin has ever run anything (and from all accounts somewhat successfully at that). Her apparent weakness seems to be foreign policy (as is Obama's) but McCain is at the top of the ticket and it will be his advisors that will be helping shape foreign policy not hers. What she brings to the table that neither Obama nor Biden has is the fact that she has been a governor and a reform-minded governor at that. She has had to deal directly with budgets, hiring and firing people, and being the only target when people are not happy (at least in the Senate you aren't the only pig... you've got 99 other porkers there with you). In fact, again if you're an honest political geek and look at accomplishments and not rhetoric, you will see that when it comes to reform and bucking political establishments that the McCain/Palin ticket is the real reform-oriented ticket.

So is she bullet-proof? No, but in politics no one is (not even the "anointed one"). Do I think she can do the job? Yes, at least as well as the man at the top of the Democrat ticket.

McCain/Palin 2008!

Open Plea to John McCain

PLEASE, OH PLEASE, OH PLEASE Senator McCain pick someone with some administrative skills for your running mate. The thoughts of an all legislative race fills me with terrible dread. Pick someone who has actually lead and done something creative and meaningful with their time on this planet. Obama blew his choice, please do not make the same mistake.

XOXOXO

Michael

Obama's "Dick Cheney" Pick

If you can, think back to the 2000 election cycle when it was time for the Republican nominee-elect, George Bush, to select a running mate. The minute the choice was announced, the clearly anti-Bush media started saying that Cheney added gravitas to the supposedly weak top of the ticket. Given that whether or not you like him (and you know that I am no fan of Dubbya) Bush was running as a relatively successful governor of a very large state (he was well into his second term after having won with 69% of the vote) while Obama has been in charge of... nothing. So if Bush needed gravitas it is easy to see that Obama needs it in abundance. But whereas Cheney has done something outside of government, what is the Democrat's ticket heavyweight record? Ummmm... nothing really. He was admitted to the bar in 1968 and elected to the New Castle County, County Council in 1970 and after serving a whole two years ran for the Senate at the seasoned age of 29. He won and has been in the Senate since. THIS is the guy who is supposed to mollify the ticket's elitist image and to be the blue-collar face to the American people? And as for added gravitas, the one thing Biden brings to the table is weight, the weight of 35 years of Senate votes and two horribly failed Presidential runs in his own right. So Cheney brought "gravitas" to the ticket... what does Biden bring?

Age and perceived experience (even though being a Senator lends very little to any type of administrative experience which is the branch of government covering the Presidency), maybe a run for the AARP vote to offset McCain's advantage? If nothing else it provides a wonderful contrast showing the weakness of the top of the ticket.

Wonderful quotes about Obama that the McCain campaign can tie into those of Hillary Clinton... so let me take a moment to thank both of them. Just think of the money you saved the Republicans for writing the ads for us.

He's Catholic and it is well known that Obama is extremely weak among Catholic voters, so maybe a plus but I don't think so.

Deliver Delaware to Obama. Um, don't think that is a problem for "The One".

Poise and eloquence in getting the message out? Well, perhaps if he plagiarize someone else's writings (see is 1988 campaign for the top of the ticket), but remember this is the guy who called Obama "clean" and said you can't go into a 7-Eleven without an Indian accent.

Attack-dog capabilities, the one job he may be qualified for.

The problem the Democrats face are now two-fold... Obama is a young lightweight, Biden appears to be bit of an old lightweight who in a 35 year track has accomplished few major legislative wins.

We now have three Senators at the top of the two tickets... I'm even more curious now to see who McCain picks. In many ways I am starting to pull for Romney (bit of a shock for me) because SOMEONE has to have experience in running something. Obama blew his chance, will McCain do the same?

Russia and Prophecy

My background (and current status) in the Christian realm is that of "dispensationalist". As such, I take a pretty danged literal interpretation of Biblical prophecy (as well as following a literal, but not wooden, heurmeneutics). One of the more interesting areas has been that of the prophetic books of the Bible, particularly the final war against Israel as announced in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 (read here). For several years Gog and Magog have been associated with Russian but after the brave stance of Ronald Reagan (pardon me while I stand) helping bring about the "end" of the Soviet Union people started to poo-poo this idea. What a difference a generation makes (given that a Biblical generation is about 20 years this is pretty much right). Now Russia is again rich, arrogant, and on the move. Witness the attacks against the former Soviet state of Georgia. It is no secret that Vladamir Putin thinks that the dissolution of the old Soviet Union was the worst thing to have happen and if you look closely it is possible to see the beginning of the reunification of the USSR of old. Europe is ineffective to trying to stem the tide and if Georgia falls is even more at the mercy of Russia as its main conduit of petroleum would come back completely under Russian control. If you are a Christian I ask you to pray for the people of both Russian and Georgia. Pray for the leaders of Georgia as they make a stand as one of the few democracies who sides with the United States. If you are not, I ask you to do a search on past statements of Putin and see if you can discern what his intentions might be.

Is this thing on?

What is it with public figures and microphones? They think the things are off, the figures make jackass statements, then get all apologetic when they are caught. Latest case, Jesse Jackson saying just before going on air that he thinks Obama talks down to black people and (apparently) he wants to cut Obama's n*ts off. OK, if those are his honest thoughts (motivated by jealousy perhaps) so be it. What is funny is how once he finds out the remarks were captured he "apologized" (you can listen to the rambling mess here). If you go there listen closely to statements like "If I have offended" and "live mic". First off, sounds a bit like his statements were meant to be taken as they were given and if it bothers you Jesse is sorry and second what he is most sorry about is that he said them into an open microphone. Jesse also loses points in the common sense game for saying them on a Fox set. I mean, how stupid can one get?

It's sad that our so-called leaders apologize when they get caught. Hey boys and girls (I would say "men and women" but that would be elevating them too much), you know how to keep out of trouble like this? DON'T say things in private that you wouldn't say in public.

New McCain Ad - Awesome

Don't hope for a better life, vote for one. This really struck me. I keep hearing "change" and "hope" from the Obama people but still have no clear idea on what he will do differently than any typical liberal. So far for an economic plan all I hear is "spend money on more programs". Now some prudent spending may be necessary, but there is really very little that I hear that will stimulate the economy to create new jobs. In truth the only "change" I hear is that government must be bigger, must have more control of the lives of the citizens. That isn't they type of change I want.

Dobson, Obama and "The Speech"

Funny how today we hear James Dobson, a man with whom on many issues I agree, attack Senator Obama on a speech he made two years ago at the liberal Christian conference Call to Renewal. In reading the text of this speech I bristled at the comments Dobson made about Senator Obama and his exegetical prowess. Now don't get me wrong, if the Senator and I were to sit down and "talk Bible" I would probably disagree with him on quite a bit, but with regards to this speech there wasn't much I had trouble with.

Obama makes some good points (which obviously are those I agree with *snicker*). In fact, most of what I disagree with is not so much his interpretation but rather his typical liberal way of thinking. I agree with much of what Obama says on the role of personal religion in politics, that the word personal means "private, individual". If you are going to thrust religion into the political spotlight and in a democratic-republic try to declare one of them as "the truth" then Obama is right to ask which one are we going to pick? In truth, if we are going to go with denominational lines, we should embrace some type of Catholicism as that is where the plurality resides. Going protestant causes a lot of headaches, for though non-Catholic Christians are the majority, Episcopal beliefs differ somewhat from Southern Baptist, UCC is in places radically different from Presbyterian. So who do you hold up the as "the standard"? And then there is the messy issue of the existence of agnostics and atheists. I had this discussion with a fellow conservative at work today when I declared I didn't want to know all of the details of a person's personal faith. I kinda like my Christianity minimal but deep and strong, not shallow and public (kinda like prayer, I prefer to pray in my closet rather than on the street corner wearing bells and covered with ashes). And as for Dobson taking Obama to task over his mixing Old Testament with New Testament, while I agree with him as a good Dispensationaist he should know there is a small sect within Christianity that wants us to go back to Old Testament laws even though we are "no longer under Law but Grace" (I would hope that if he considers himself as a spokesman for Christianity Dr. Dobson has heard of these Theonomists, a scary lot).

Now where do I think Obama went off track? Let me put your gray cells to work. Consider this:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

First off, it sounds good, but Senator Obama seems to ignore the fact that most conservatives who engage in public debate do try to "translate their concerns into universal... values... amenable to reason". The problem is he disagrees (or seems to) with many of the stronger philosophical arguments against abortion on demand (among other things, but most arguments against abortion do not introduce god into the discussion). Most liberals do this and think they are the rational ones when what they often do is take a knee-jerk reaction to anything that could have some tie back to religion (and seem to turn secularism into its own type of "religion"). In the following example he does it again. Notice how nothing is said of the individual as a possible causative agent in the situation, instead they are always at the whim of external forces around them:

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man

Why are the problems of the uninsured and the unemployed rooted in societal indifference? I hate when people talk about slippery slopes but honestly here I think we are one one... if the roots are societal then what are our options? What must change to kill this weed in the human garden? Like almost everything in his campaign, Senator Obama doesn't tell us, doesn't seem to want to do more than point fingers and if I take this last quote of his along with other things he has said what I see is that he thinks a Socialist/Marxist society would be of the greatest benefit. In this Obama seems to have missed some portions of Scripture too... about the worker deserving his wages (in context of getting what he is given for his work) and the example (and rule) given in 2 Thessalonians 3:9-11 ("... If a man will not work he shall not eat"). No one is owed anything in this life. At some point we have to take some responsibility for what we do. Perhaps the Right take this too far, but if he was honest in his speech Senator Obama should have admitted that the Left tend to veer off track in the own direction just the same.

Beginning Of The End For Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

OK, it's time to grow up and get rid of that incredibly stupid Clinton legacy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). Just how many ways could Bill Clinton say "smoked but.. didn't inhale"? That is what DADT reminds me of... you can be gay, but you can't tell anyone or "act like it" (whatever that means). How so very Catholic of him. But now we may have a glimmer of hope. This week the 9th Circuit became the first court to review the military policy of DADT since the landmark case of Lawrence v Texas. Under Lawrence, the 9th Circuit said Wednesday, "Don't Ask" must be subjected to something more stringent than the rational basis test. The upshot is that the 9th Circuit's ruling makes it far more difficult to discharge someone simply because of their sexual orientation. They now have to make a specific case for discharging that person under consideration and that no other options are possible for that particular person. If it stands, this means being gay is not enough to disqualify you from active military service. You can read the entire ruling here.

Proof That Republicans Have Been Infected

Front page of the 06-May-2008 San Diego Union Tribune in an article titled States join call for gas tax relief we have this quote for Florida's Republican Governor Charles Crist:

It's about trying to serve the people and trying to understand and have caring, compassionate hearts for what they're dealing with at the kitchen table... I'm supposed to respond to the people and try to make them happy

Ugh. Just like Democrats Gov. Crist's remarks separate him from others in his state ("the people", "they", "them"). Then to add even more evidence of their leftward march he states that he is "supposed to... try to make them happy". Sad. Very sad. It was my understanding that we as citizens have the right to pursue happiness ala the Declaration of Independence, but for someone, especially an elected official, to feel like they have to make people happy? As any good therapist knows, others cannot make you happy, only you can make you happy. Until we get out this entitlement type of mindset we will never honestly address the ills of our society.

Iron Man A Conservative?

Well, at least Robert Downey, Jr. In an interview with the New York Times Downey makes the following self-outing:

"I have a really interesting political point of view, and it’s not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here, but you can’t go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. You can’t. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics every since."

Another little tid-bit... when Downey was trying to get back into films but uninsurable, it was Mel Gibson who put up the money to insure him so that film companies wouldn't be scared off. Now Mel has his own issues, but it's an interesting little piece of news that somehow didn't quite make it into the major press markets (shoot, look how far down the interview RDJ's "confession" was buried).

Hmmm... will Stark Enterprises make a bid for Halliburton?