And speaking of cowards, the Republican Party is planning a lawsuit to overturn McCain-Feingold. Will it work? It's anybody's guess, but where were they when it was being debated and later signed by the president who ruined their party? Not a word about George Bush - again.

Last night, I heard some right-leaning talking face (sorry, they blend together) telling us what Obama needs to do when he gets into office to stem the financial crisis. It wasn't a partisan thing, he was only referring to what he felt needs to be done regardless of who had been elected. The problem: don't we have a president right now? Let me try to recall his name…. President Nero?

Do you love irony like I do? Because it turns out that McCain's campaign funds are going to be audited, but not Obama's. It's part of the requirement when you elect to take public financing, and it's going to cost McCain millions in audit fees. Meanwhile, they're going to ignore Obama because, as the story goes; he raised so much that it doesn't matter what an audit turns up.

Finally, T. Boone Pickens is shelving his windy plans, (though not his rhetoric) for now because the cost of oil is too low, he says. Thank Sky Guy for lower prices, but they mask the truth - that wind is not currently, nor will it be for a long time, a viable form of electricity on a large scale, and that doesn't even take into account the thousands of miles of eyesores it will create and to which even Ted Kennedy will attest.

Now I gotta go find some new shorts…

We were told in 2006 about the Republican “culture of corruption.” But two years of a democrat controlled congress showed that they too have a corruption problem (case in point, John Murtha). And when it comes to the economy, it was Democrats who “forced” many banks through legislation to make loans to credit candidates who could not possibly pay, essentially bringing on the economic crisis. Ironically, it was republicans who tried to bring about reform and change during this time, while the democratic majority pushed the status quo.

With the danger of not being taken seriously I thought I’d bring up a little parallel from pop-culture here . . . In the last Star Wars movie that came out (Episode III), Darth Vader and the emperor were without a doubt portrayed in a way meant to make them parallel our latest President, George W. Bush. Amazing how liberals can take their wildest and most ridiculous fears and project them on to republicans, when in certain instances it is really democrats who will perpetrate the greatest abuses of power when they’re in charge.

For example, one of the first abuses of power the democrats in congress surely want to institute is the “Fairness Doctrine.” The intention is to shut up any and all opposing ideas coming from the conservatives of talk radio.

If you want to institute the Fairness Doctrine liberals, the American people ought to demand it be applied to the entire media. If CNN, MSNBC and the major networks are going to do their thing, how about putting Rush Limbaugh’s Ditto Cam version of his radio show on for half the time liberals gush on and on with their unfortunate ideas?

If talk radio is gagged, the millions of conservative listeners ought to demand that this insidious blocking of everyone’s right to freedom of speech be executed against the entire media. This is one instance where we should do like the liberals and never stop making noise until we get our way. And with talk radio in the control of liberals will the blogosphere be next?

In reality, I think the economy is a false front used to mask abuses like these and many, many more which are surely coming our way. Why else would the liberal democrats and the main-stream media portray the economic crisis that has occurred in the last few weeks as the Great Depression II? Now that the country is unilaterally ruled by liberal democrats, you know who to blame if the economy slumps further. But not to worry; I'm sure that democrats, with the connivance of the liberal media, can still find a way to blame Bush and the republicans for any and every problem we have.

That last prediction hasn't happened, yet. But look for it in the coming weeks and months ahead.
As for the other two, well…those predictions are now academic. The question of why the election went "left" keeps coming up and most of the conservative talking heads don't have a clue as to the real answer. While they're being conciliatory and comforting themselves with the effrontery of a moderate Obama administration, I offer the following: When will you backroom GOP geniuses figure out that you can’t win elections as long as keep stabbing your base in the back?

Contrary to popular belief, the outcome of this election wasn’t just because of an electrified democrat base; it was a conservative judgment on the GOP. If they (the Republican Party) had taken my advice two years ago, we could've avoided all of this. But no. Instead of going after the true conservative base, they decided to sell us out for the squishy middle. The result has been catastrophic for the “Grand” Ol' Party both in this election and the last. How catastrophic? McCain only won 80% of the conservative vote and roughly the same amount of the Republican vote. In sharp contrast, he lost the moderate and independent vote to Barry by 39 to 60 percent respectively.

If that weren't bad enough, the dems also increased their advantage on the Hill. With the latter loss being somewhat of a question mark in many people's minds, since the democrat controlled Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush Jr. The voters' answer??? I know; send in more liberal democrats. You gotta be kiddin’ me, right? I mean, what in the name of corn on the cob is going on around here?!!!

Some of you are asking, "What about Sarah Palin?" Doesn't she stand for the classical conservative ideals held by old school conservatives. The answer is yes, for the most part. She was much closer to the Right than the party favorites. But it was too little too late. Sadly, Palin ended up a footnote in this election and I’m sure that now what with her being exonerated for the so-called Troopergate, etc., the press will ante up a front page apology for treating her like crap, even as they licked the boots of Comrade Obama. Anyway, with all due respect to her, she was nothing more than a classical conservative concession–one the party was only willing to make after they realized their hopes of capturing the mushy middle evaporated like so many of their campaign promises.

The sad result is that we (the people) will be getting exactly what they (the party machine) so richly deserve. Their rush to sell us out has proven exactly what my good friend Ted West always says: "When you lay down with liberals, you come up smelling like garbage." This is one time where I really do hate to say, “I told you so…” Had they taken my advice and gone after the conservative vote (and meant it), they would've won this election. And now if you don't mind, I think I'll go have a beer…while I still have the money to buy it.

When George W. Bush stands in front of a gigantic American flag or when Barrack Obama stands behind a podium bearing the words “Change” or “Hope” in large letters, we catch ourselves taking all those good feelings we have for the American flag or the idea of change and hope and we unconsciously associate them with the one who stands beside them. In politics they call this transfer and it as truthful as any other illusion. Not only do these images and the ideas they convey transfer to the man or woman associated with them, but any policies the person in question is pushing that week pick up those good vibes as well. So whether you are for Bush’s tax cuts or Obama’s tax relief system, you take what you like or dislike about these men and you associate it with their course of action.

Transfer is not only exploited visually, but linguistically. Take for instance Bush’s tax cuts and Obama’s plan for tax relief. Early on in the Obama campaign there was not a substantive difference between Obama’s tax plan and President Bush’s tax plan. Some would say that there is no difference at all. That being the case, why doesn’t Obama just use the same wording the Bush administration used? Because Obama cannot in anyway associate himself with Bush let alone tell the American public that he wants to use the same method of taxation. To avoid this he doesn’t change the policy; he changes his choice of words.

While Obama mixes up the language, the Bush administration has pulled off just as much. If you look at Bush, you see a man that speaks the language of the common man; you see a guy collecting brush at his ranch in Texas; you see a guy who looks a lot like John Wayne to me. What you do not see is a man from a staggeringly rich family, a former Harvard cheerleader, or a cousin to the queen. You do not see this because you are not supposed to. The method is referred to as “plain folks” and John Stewart uses it every night on his program when he claims that he rides the subway with everyone else. They separate themselves from their large and expensive cars to bring themselves down to our level. We grab onto it hook line and sinker because we want to believe that we are just like this week’s most popular celebrity, politician, etc.

Isn’t it time we learned to look beyond what the majority has accepted as the unvarnished truth? When we observe politicians, we need to do so offensively. That means getting past the image portrayed by savvy politicians and their handlers. We have to search and make the effort to know whom these people really are and are not. If we will make the effort, then perhaps we can fix our broken political machine and bring politics to a new high. We have to let these politicians know that we are smarter than their crafty ad campaigns. We have to let them know we are tired of rooting through ambiguous drivel. We need specific answers to our specific questions and we need them now more than ever.

You see, Obama still believes in giving, and in fact he believes in giving in great amounts. The “change” is that he now believes in “giving” away other peoples’ money. Seriously, do yourself a favor and scrutinize his 2007 tax return. You will find that Barack Obama definitely no longer believes in sharing. In fact, his paltry charitable donations are embarrassing, if not insulting. His donations to his church totaled a whopping 0.06% of his income. So now you have it. The change that Obama speaks of but never defines is this:

“Barack Obama: from generous to disingenuous. Change we should all relieve ourselves on.”

How about this: He has questionable ties to a known unrepentant ex-domestic terrorist; he once called the man who spews more hate than NWA a dear friend; He once exclaimed that the question of life was above his pay grade, yet he has supported legislation on numerous times which allows the murder of the unborn. What Barack Obama was, in effect, saying was this, "Hell, I don't know if it's a human being or not, but if someone wants to kill their unborn child, then I say, "YES WE CAN!" And yes, my libertine friends, even those infants who survive late term abortions are not worthy of life in Barry Obama's eyes, unless, of course, the mother wants that child. Somehow, the desire to preserve life has magical properties capable of bestowing rights of personhood on the unborn. Who knew? Anyway, In the midst of all of this, he says he respects prolifers' views…and to show that respect, he wants to put legislation into effect which will permanently put abortion on the dole and, therefore, make pro-lifers subsidize it with our tax dollars…even more than we do now. That's how much he respects us and our views. But wait; there's more: He, apparently, is a marxist who will stop at nothing to impose Robin Hood economics on the country. That's good news for most of us poor folks. But if you're wealthy, I guess you'll have to move to France or something, 'cause ol' Wacky Baracky is going to give me all your money. It's not his fault; it's just that his generous and loving nature runs deep, deep down into the pockets of other people. The man just loves giving away other people's money. I could go into his dealings with Acorn and Rezco…But I'd rather you just follow the links and read them for yourself. Finally, we have his aunt who has been living in the U.S. illegally for several years, now. In response to this news, the Obama campaign said mum's the word, quietly issuing a "no comment" to the press. Later on, they decided to plead ignorance. Then some smart ass down at the AP found out that "Aunt Obama" had contributed over $200 to Barry's campaign. Barry says they're going to send the contribution back. They must be clairvoyant, since they had no idea she was living in the U.S., but somehow, they know where to send her campaign refund.

And as much as it pains me to say it, he's going to be our next president. He is the one the libs have been waiting for. Conservatives thought Clinton was slick, but he was just an old skillet coated in Pam. Barry, on the other hand, is one hundred percent teflon…Not that cheap crap that flakes off in your eggs after a month's use, either.

Yep, when the O'Train hits 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the only thing sticking to it will be the media types who've waxed and shammied his smooth exterior for the last 12 months.

What’s interesting is, this gentleman stressed how the economy boomed during Democratic leadership. Sadly, he overlooked the fact that the booming economy during the Clinton administration was a farce. The economy appeared to be booming because Bill Clinton wanted every American to be in a home, so he called upon lenders with the demand to make the loans happen, whatever it took, resulting in the mortgage crisis we have today. Bill did not have the forethought to understand that lenders would have to make up for potential future defaults through loans with a variable interest rate. And, lenders didn’t stop there. They aggressively pursued college students, and everyone else for that matter, to extend credit so everyone could live the “American Dream”. No wonder the economy appeared to be booming. Americans were running up debt like never before. Merchants were ecstatic -they profited the most from this frenzy. Now, we’re dealing with the fallout at the hands of a Democratic congress who vowed to filibuster anything President Bush tried to do. This high school mentality has no place in the running of our country, and in the paraphrased words of Sarah Palin, at this point, both parties and their constituents need to stop placing blame and come together to figure out how to fix it.

Now, with regard to the war in Iraq. Anyone who believes that the Bush administration used 9-11 events and the evidence of weapons of mass destruction to go into this country and start a war, my suggestion to that person is to take leave from their job and spend a year in Afghanistan, or Baghdad, right alongside a U.S. soldier every single day of that year. If one can do that, only then would that person have earned the right to make assessments of why we’re really over there fighting -and, to set the record straight, we didn’t start the war. The war began on U.S. soil on September 11th, 2001. Every soldier I have spoken with who has served in this war has stated that we are most certainly fighting the right war for the right reasons. They see first hand why our troops are over there, and anyone diminishing it to a mere fight over greed of oil has no respect for our U.S. Military, and in particular, disrespects my son who is serving in Iraq now.

Whether your Democrat or Republican, I encourage you to do your research and be informed before you go vote, and that does not mean your research consists of watching Katie Couric bashing Republicans and having love-fests with Democrats. That blatant bias is not news reporting. She has reduced her position in the media world to nothing more than a forum to support her own personal agenda, without regard for providing a fair, unbiased view of the real issues out there.

Editor's Note: This piece used with the permission of Gracie Dane. Gracie is a guest contributor for MTW and a regular at SensibleLife.com

On the issues and candidate qualities
In the survey, Obama also holds commanding leads on the issues — especially economic ones. He has a 39-point advantage over McCain in handling health care (59 to 20 percent), a 21-point edge on improving the economy (49 to 28), a 21-point lead on the mortgage and housing crisis (45 to 24), a 17-point edge on dealing with the Wall Street crisis (42 to 25), a 14-point lead on taxes (48 to 34) and a 12-point advantage on energy and the cost of gas (44 to 32).

That last stat on energy and the cost of fuel is especially funny, as fuel prices are currently falling like a brick under the Bush Jr. administration and the main reason all the Kool-Aid drinkers think McCain won't stack up has to do with his Bush Jr. associations. It's also quite humorous that these Major Hoolihan voters think that Obama is more fit than McCain in handling the other issues enumerated in the previous paragraph. I mean, what experience does Obama have in handling ANY crisis? ….uh, well…none. Thank you very much. Meanwhile, McCain was handling stuff like this when Obama was still wearing Pampers. This is just more electorate foolishness.

Continuing onward:

McCain, meanwhile, holds advantages on which candidate would do a better job in catching Osama bin Laden (39 to 19 percent) and handling the situation in Iraq (45 to 40).

McCain also narrowly leads in having strong leadership qualities needed to be president (40 to 36 percent). But Obama has the edge in offering hope and optimism (53 to 23), improving America’s standing in the world (51 to 31) and having the right temperament to be president (50 to 30).

Okay, let's see what's more important: protecting us (and our troops abroad) from terrorists and having strong leadership abilities, or offering hope, optimism, and the right mood? I think the answer is obvious. But then, I'm a conservative mastodon. When I point out obvious things like this (or open my mouth for that matter) liberals demand an interpreter, dwell on the irrelevant, and scream obscenities in my general direction.

One other key advantage for Democrats is the enthusiasm gap. Fifty-two percent of Obama voters in the poll say they’re excited to be voting for the Democratic presidential nominee.

That’s compared with just 26 percent of McCain voters who said that about the GOP nominee, a percentage that’s down eight points since the Republican convention in early September.

Winning the base, but losing the middle
Hart, the Democratic pollster, believes there is one good sign for McCain in the poll: The Arizona senator is holding on to the GOP base. McCain has a sizable advantage over Obama among evangelicals (76 to 20 percent), small town/rural voters (53 to 40), and those living in the South (54 to 40).

And what does this little excursion prove? (A) That most of the voters polled were liberal democrats and (B) that they haven't got a clue what the crux issues are. You see, when liberal media types poll liberal voters, it stands to reason that they (the voters) will find an ultra liberal candidate favorable. After all, the liberal candidate represents what they value. That's in contradistinction to what classical conservatives value, and never the twain shall meet.

As for the crux issues, isn't it obvious there's a problem with the part of the brain governing forethought when voters are more concerned with style, "right temperament," and other non-issues like how pie-in-the-sky the candidate in question makes them feel, than whether or not he can actually provide solid leadership and keep them safe?

Ridiculous! What a bunch of zero amygdala oblongatas. I must've picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.