As more and more of a deal is made about Barack Obama's middle name (it's Hussein, by the way), it just serves as a distraction from the real issues of the day.

The name Hussein does not gender much love in this country, and with good reason. To say everyone who carries the name is the same as Saddam Hussein is not fair, but Obama's middle name is the least of my worries about him.

His response to it all, however, does make me wonder what he feels about it. My middle name is Anthony. It happens to be my father's first name. If I were to distance myself from it, or demand no one call me by it, in my mind, it would be an affront to my father. If you don't like a name in this country, you can have it legally changed.

All that aside, however, I don't think Obama has the experience, or the right policies, to lead this country. I think he is mostly style and little substance when it comes to politics and policy. I think setting up one government program after another, and pouring more money into existing, failing programs, will only cause more of what he believes needs to change. More poverty, more companies going overseas, more inequality.

There's only so much regulating and freedom you can give up before you are no longer a democracy. We pushed that envelope for most of the 20th century, and are continuing to do it now. Even our Republican presidents have been doing it since Reagan, and even Reagan had his compromises. Perhaps compromises are necessary, but in many ways a compromise only forestalls the inevitable rather than fixing the problem.

And the problem is there's already more government than we have any real need or desire for. There is no reason to continue to grow and feed the beast. It needs to shrink and attend to just the duties afforded it in the US Constitution.

We would become more of a Nanny state under Obama than we already are. There's plenty of wealth still floating around, and there is plenty of poverty--but the involuntary redistribution of wealth is not the answer.

Obama's foreign policy is naive, to say the least. I don't think we need to go to war with everyone, and that included Iraq and it includes Iran, but to say everything can be resolved diplomatically is so far unrealistic that it begs the question: just what kind of a fantasy world is Obama and those who truly believe him living him. In order to have diplomacy, you have to have an opposing party who is interested in earnestly and honestly entering into an agreement. If they are constantly trying to kill you, or destroy life as you know it, there's not much room for negotiation. So far, over the course of hundreds of years, if not thousands, there has been little movement towards modernization, outside the places of Arabian princes, or democracy, other than platitudes with price tags--like oil and arms.

Post 9/11, we can no longer be naive. We cannot let Jihad win the physical war, or the psychological war. Christianity in America can tolerate other religions, even those which are not Christian based, even if they believe they are the only true religion. People can be respected for their difference of opinion, because we recognize we all are sons and daughters of the same God. Radical Islam does not recognize that. Radical Islam is absolutist and does not hesitate to execute the heathen or the infidel.

I don't agree with warmongering, being the mercenaries or the police to the world, but I do believe we should defend ourselves. I do believe we should help others who want our help. We should promote democracy, liberty and freedom. We don't do that by surrendering, or believing we are evil because we don't subscribe to a philosophy which oppresses everyone, particularly women, and shows as about as much regard for human life as they do animals.

No, we shouldn't hate all Muslims. We should oppose that would kill us without a second thought. We should defend ourselves against all forms of tyranny. We should deny anything resembling it to permeate our government, our society, or our common creed.

Having Hussein as a middle name shouldn't disqualify you. There shouldn't be prejudice. Looking at the policies beyond the charm, though, Obama shouldn't be president based on any of it.

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.