While most of the attention has been focused on the presidential primary races for both parties, something as crucial, if not more, will happen come November.

A number of Congressional seats will be up for grabs nationwide, which will either swing the balance of power more towards the Democrats, or bring a Republican majority back.

For conservatives, the latter is still better than the former, but in the primaries which have happened and are still to come, the people have been voting as to just how conservative or not these people will be.

I think I'm stating the obvious when I say I don't think it's going to matter if John McCain wins the presidency if he doesn't have a conservative legislature to keep him in line. That would go double for Hillary Clinton and triple for Barack Obama.

The sad thing is, however, with a desire for change and bipartisanship supposedly sweeping the country, more moderates are bound to be carried along the same wave that is bringing us center right and center left kinds of nominees for the presidency.

A president cannot act alone. It was the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to not give one single individual the power to decide the fate of a nation and her people, without quite a few others going along. With 100 Senators and several hundred Representatives in the House, along with nine Supreme Court judges, the founders felt that a king could not arise if the other two were empowered to keep the president in check. Likewise the president with the other two.

Of course, across the expanse of our history, each one of the three branches of our government have made power plays which have effected our nation. Some of them for the better, many for the worse. The fact that it didn't get worse is because of the checks and balances in place.

Where I go with all this is, the president isn't going to solely determine where the nation goes. Depending on what they want to do in office, a president can set the agenda and lead the way, they can make proposals and even suggest particulars of how programs, laws or agencies should look. However, they do not legislate, and it is up to the Congress to determine if they want to follow the president's lead or not.

Since bipartisanship has not been the game for as long as I've been alive, anyway, presidents tend to get things done when they have a likeminded Congress. There are exceptions. The same is true from the other way around--the legislature might lead out but a president might oppose them through the veto.

To keep this country from going down the road of tax and spend to create a universal health care program, or provide any other kinds of benefits, or do any other kind of programs, there will need to be a healthy majority of conservatives in Congress to oppose a Democrat president, and most likely to tone or water down any proposals a McCain White House might produce along the lines of immigration or global warming.

Especially, when, if spurned by conservatives, McCain retains his Senate seat and continues to co-sponsor legislation with the most liberal of Democrats (think Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy).

That might actually be the greatest argument for getting McCain into the White House that conservatives will find--to keep him out of the Senate where he's been doing so much damage the last 10 years.

But I digress...

Since we already know a conservative choice is not going to make it into the White House, and can only hope McCain will govern more conservatively than he legislated, a conservative Congress to back him up with his conservative inclinations and to oppose him with what's not would be essential. The same would follow with Clinton or Obama.

So, as I said, it might be too late for this go around. In two years however, more House and Senate seats will come up, and then even more two years after that.

In four years time, we will more or less know the aftermath of the 2008 general election, and whether it's even possible that any one of these presidential candidates still standing actually can survive more than one term. If they can't, having a conservative Congress which has already foiled greater spending, higher taxes and every other liberal threat to democracy will make it easier for a conservative president to take office.

However, if there aren't enough conservatives in Congress to oppose whatever their left-leaning counterparts and president might conjure up, then it will be tougher to gain any traction, until those polices utterly fail. They will, but some take longer than others. I think we knew long ago the ramifications of Social Security, but neither side has done any serious thing to tackle it head on and stop the beast before not only it is bankrupted, but the length and breadth of the federal government with it.

It is for this main purpose I could not pull very hard for Ron Paul, even though most of his policies line up with my thinking. Kind of a free trade isolationist, if that makes any sense. You don't go policing the entire world, but you do as much as you can to open up markets around the world, while balancing the playing field. Let other nations agree to our terms for once. Get rid of income taxes, go minimalist with the federal government, defend the borders, defend the country, and let the free enterprise system work. Let consumers dictate what products they want. Make companies work to stay in business and make a profit rather than subsidizing some and taxing to death others.

But again, I digress...

Without likeminded individuals in Congress, Paul would be a laughingstock as president, as many people probably already think he is as a candidate. Why? Because people want change, but they don't know what that is. Many are currently following a charismatic, dulcet voiced young Senator from Illinois with little to no practical experience in leading a nation, with policies, just barely being revealed now, that are so far left in their thinking, this nation will take another life altering turn along the lines of the New Deal or the Great Society. Legislation, as I mentioned above, we're still feeling the effects of and have been unable to rid ourselves or our rectify. Does that sound like people actually know what kind of change they want?

So, if you have conservatives in your primaries, vote for them. If they become their party's nominee for the fall, vote for them again. We might not be able to pave the way for a conservative takeover of the White House this go around, but perhaps a conservative legislature can usher in one four years from now.

If not, more damage will be done by a liberal Congress with a president who is either willing or enthusiastically able to sign their works into law.

We need to fight this from whatever angle we can. If Congress leads, a president can follow until another president is voted in who will lead.

While the Democrat presidential candidates had their last debate yesterday, the Republican presidential candidates, those still in the race and a couple who are not, have been making news, but not necessarily in a positive way.

While the flap over the New York Times John McCain article is dying down somewhat, there is speculation that the Times does indeed have more and for whatever reasons is waiting to reveal it.

Meanwhile, coverage of McCain on the campaign trail is waning, because he doesn't have a viable contender. Supposedly, Huckabee is supposed to be doing that, but his coverage is also disappearing despite his reoccurring appearances on television. The debate of who made Huckabee between spoof artist Stephen Colbert and late late night talk show host Conan O'Brien may have been settled, but he was most recently on Saturday Night Live where, in the sketch, he didn't know when it was time to leave. Apparently, he's spending the money which finally started coming in, because as a sparring partner, he hasn't been much of one.

Then there was the interview with Josh Romney, who is contemplating a run for US Congress. He was asked if his father, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would rejoin the race if somehow McCain's campaign crashed and burned over the allegations of sex and corruption with a Washington lobbyist. The younger Romney said it was possible, but unlikely, his father would come back, but then stories emerged everywhere talking about the "possibility" of the elder Romney's return. More responsible journalism, I suppose.

There is a need to keep this exciting and at the forefront, apparently. With the surge working in Iraq, with Iran out of the news for the time being, and no other major threat on the horizon (remember all of the plagues from a year or so go--what's happened to Bird Flu and Mad Cow?) except for global warming, trying to spice up the nearly determined Republican primary and the clarifying Democrat primary would seem to be what some find newsworthy.

Don't know how many other people know this, but I just found out Janet Huckabee's maiden name is McCain. I haven't found anything that suggests that she and Senator McCain are somehow related, but boy, would that explain things. Even when trying to contrast himself with Senator McCain, Huckabee was nothing but congenial. Such couldn't be said with regards to Romney, who seemed to draw the ire of everyone, not just Huckabee.

Things have been downright tame over the last couple of weeks for the Republicans, whereas the Democrats have been all over the map as the Hillary Clinton campaign does everything they can to derail the Barack Obama express. If something doesn't happen to change things, it will be a McCain vs. Obama in the general election.

While conservatives have their differences with McCain or a few fronts, they will be virtually opposite on every issue with Obama. The Democrats don't seem to care about substance or experience. They want someone they can like, who can win based on style. They want change, regardless of what it is.

Coming under Jihad rule would definitely be change. So would higher taxes. So would a liberal Supreme Court, which has been steadily becoming constructionist.

Can a 72-year old straight talker with 20-plus years in the US Senate defeat a 46-year old with charm and grace who has yet to finish his first term in the Senate?

You would think experience and substance would win out over style. What in this election cycle has gone exactly according to plan. The inevitability of McCain apparently was true. The inevitability of Clinton isn't as evident, but she and her husband are attributed with enough underhandedness that she might yet steal the day.