Did you catch last night's interview of Mitt Romney by Sean Hannity on the Fox News channel?

Amiable, forgiving, congenial, gracious and wise as ever, Mitt looked tanned and rested. Anyone who might think he holds a grudge or any animosity towards John McCain or his other rivals would be dead wrong. Romney gave McCain several plugs last night, even when the questions weren't specifically aimed for such an answer.

Personally, the only guy I could see who you would want more in your corner than a guy who will brush off the rough and tumble of politics like Romney, is someone like him, who has more money. Frankly, I don't know who that is.

Hannity asked him about his own aspirations to run again, and Romney did not say, oh sure, I'll do it again. It sort of sounded like, though he didn't say it, that eight years from now would be too late for him. Interesting, too, since most of us isn't giving the next president, even McCain, more than four years. Romney isn't power hungry. He wasn't in it because he's the best thing to happen since slice bread. He's smart, he's competent, he's pragmatic, and he knows it. Such people are willing to recognize they might not be the answer eight years from now. For them, their time is now.

Then, too, the thought of gearing up for another grueling campaign might not be so appealing. Remember, since 1999, when he took over the 2002 Winter Olympics, he's been basically in the spotlight. That's nearly nine years of public life. Most of what he did before that was working behind the scenes.

That's why the possibility of him being asked to balance the ticket with McCain as the vice-presidential nominee is quite appealing. Michael Medved likes the idea, and so does Fred Barnes. I've known Romney would have no problem accepting the invitation. He doesn't hold grudges, and he's worked in team settings before where he wasn't always the head guy. He'll take the lead in his department or jurisdiction, even if he can't make all of the decisions. And a go-getter like Romney would be good for McCain, who wants to be a maverick and a conviction guy, rather than a number crunching guy. It would also give him an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is and bring on the consummate manager.

While some presidents have turned their vice presidents loose to do real work, most are too egotistical to do so. Many times, VPs are there to balance and add appeal to the ticket, more than they are the personal choice of the presidential nominee. So, while we could only dream that Romney would be turned loose to oversee a department by department review of the federal government, resulting in major consolidations or eliminations of said departments, there's just as good a chance it wouldn't happen because McCain wouldn't be that passionate about it.

But, it would make a Romney presidential run in 2012 or 2016 more of reality than it would be otherwise. Vice Presidents have much more clout, much more of the political machine behind them, particularly if they're viewed as competent. Without having to fight another bruising primary against others, Romney could focus on a national campaign much earlier and be rested and prepared to take on whoever the liberals next rising star might be.

However, I don't hold out the same hope as others, who just make the case for Romney even if they don't believe it will happen, simply because I think McCain is more about giving the spoils to those who are loyal to him, the ones who have been there from the start, than he is like Romney, who, beholden to none, would bring in no-names or lesser knowns, not because he owed them, but because they could do the job.

So, we can all dream about McCain-Romney. I can hope against hope that I'm wrong. But if it doesn't go to someone McCain likes, someone who McCain trusts implicitly, I'll be very, very surprised.

Far be it from me to agree with Geraldine Ferraro...

Sure, her statement regarding Barack Obama and his apparent threat to the coronation of Hillary Clinton is politically incorrect. And yes, they can be taken as racist.

However, if he were white, would he truly be treated as the threat to Clinton that he is? The answer, in my mind, is no. I think it is because he is black, and all that brings with it, not just any political desire on the part of Democrats to elect a black president. Why. Well, would Obama have the same eloquence that he has if here were white? Remember, there is a certain Martin Luther King, Jr. kind of lilt to his voice. There is a black preacher kind of magnetism to his delivery. I can't think of any white people I know, including a former Baptist preacher like Mike Huckabee, who can speechify like Obama can.

He's even better than Bill Clinton, who has been called the first black president, despite the fact he's as white as you get.

I think Obama is where he is because of his background, his upbringing, natural abilities, and his ethnicity. He is driven by convictions, passions, philosophies and beliefs that, quite frankly, don't exist in such abundant quantities among whites. It's definitely a cultural thing.

And there is a definite phenomenon going on among black voters. Many blacks were skeptical to begin with about a black man's chances to become president, especially a half-black man who, because of it, raised questions of whether or not he was black enough to suit African-Americans. Well, lately, blacks have been going to the polls in droves to vote for him. This because some earlier predominantly white primary states voted for Obama, giving him a wider appeal beyond ethnicity. Lately, though, since race was injected into the campaign, a polarization has been taking effect, and blacks have been voting overwhelming for Obama, while even more recently, whites have been voting for Hillary Clinton.

This is creating a divide, something which is good for Republicans and ultimately conservatives, but something which could do more damage to the country than just the Democrats. People who feel disenfranchised are likely to sit out, rebel, or seek other alternatives than they are to pursue the agenda of their enemy. And, by and large, many blacks consider Republicans, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, to be the party of hatred and inequality.

Rush Limbaugh made a good point on his show today. Obama is the product of affirmative action. While that exists, there will always be an asterisk, warranted or not, sticking off the name of blacks. It won't be there in print, but it will be in the minds of others. Without affirmative action, without this liberal desire to raise up those based on ethnicity or gender rather than merit or integrity, there would be no question about anyone who may be black, Hispanic, Asian or any other minority. They would have their positions and their jobs based on their abilities, period. The same would be said about anyone who is female.

So, while Ferraro could have found another way to say what she said--and what I've heard of the comment, it's been blown up via analysis and interpretation--her party is more to blame for Obama's rise and current front runner status than anyone else. It's ironic, too, since her comment could so aptly be summed up with an old adage--it is a lot like the pot calling the kettle black.

Undoubtedly there will be someone who will think that Eliot Spitzer, by resigning this morning, did the admirable thing.

In the final analysis, it might not matter that he did the right thing for the wrong reasons.

When you have nowhere to go, no way to win, such choices, even for the power hungry elite, become easy.

Had this been "just" an issue of him having sexual trysts with high paid call girls, there may have been an opportunity for a Clinton II. But this case to date, isn't just about infidelity or breaking the law with a prostitute. It involves other possible violations of the law, with fraud, inappropriate use of public funds, and possible mob ties.

Add on top of the fact that Spitzer was a no-holds barred prosecutor, who supposedly felt the law and justice trumped any possible mercy and leniency, then you have a story that is as ironic as it is tragic.

Sanctimonious, self-righteous people end up creating such a high standard for others, that not even they themselves can keep up with it. We're just too imperfect. Yes, some are less perfect than others--many of us make mistakes without trying to hurt anyone else. Others seem to take everyone else with them.

Since many have already commented on Spitzer, and what his wife and children must be going through, and have tried to figure out why he would do such things when the only possible outcome was to get caught, I won't add any of my own comments. To believe you couldn't possibly be caught when your life is more under a microscope than the several million citizens you govern... Arrogance, stupidity, call it what you will. It is, as the saying goes, what it is.

However, the larger question looming here is, will his fall and resignation matter? Will it cause other officials in high places to pause and take stock of their own situations? Will it reduce the numbers of the Foleys, and the Craigs and whoever else who has yet to fall from the woodwork?

Probably not.

It takes ego to put yourself in the limelight like politicians and celebrities do. It takes believing you are the best this country has to offer. It takes believing in yourself when others don't, or don't know who you are. It's not a road for the faint of heart. More than that, the family has to be tough, too.

I wish it weren't that way. I wish politics were more about substance and issues than personalities and sound bites. Unfortunately, most of us don't take time to sit down and look long and hard at all the issues confronting us. We're too busy being busy.

So, while the new governor of New York may be less corrupt, that doesn't mean wholesale changes in the government of New York is going to take place. It doesn't mean that the liberal beliefs or agendas that Spitzer espoused are going to be rejected or repudiated. The philosophies which put New York where it is, a pillar of liberalism, isn't going to change.

As tragic as this may be for Spitzer's wife and family, it will also be a relief. He has been caught after several trysts and several years of it, perhaps. The Spitzer family, at some point, will be able to retreat from the limelight and decisions, hopefully correct ones, will have an opportunity to be made.

In the meantime, like corruption will continue in New York, in Washington, and elsewhere because the Spitzers of America continue to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it. Too often, these are the folks with the drive to make it into government, because they're willing to sell their souls and do anything to get elected.

Not everyone, mind you. I hold out hope that there are still plenty of good, honest, hard working people who believe in this country and are more concerned about her and their families than they are about their next point of pleasure.

Still, it's time we realize that this is more the norm than the exception, and that the only way we're going to ever fix it, ever have accountability, is to send those who are decent and competent, not the loudest, or the most glib, or the most appealing.

We need to read up on our Old Testaments, folks.

Israel was given land by God. It didn't matter that other people were living there at the time. Israel, led by God, conquered and purged the land of anyone who was not of the covenant people. The success or failure in doing so was directly proportional to their obedience. If they failed to wipe out everything, they were punished. They were plagued with wars for most of the time they occupied the land. Only for a short period of time relative to their history did they possess all of the land they had been given without the concern of invading armies or their own internal conflicts.

A lot of that continues today. Palestinians can lay claim to it all they want. They can point to their ancient ancestors as possessing the land long before Joshua marched Israel across the River Jordan into the promise land. They can even say they were allowed to be there after the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were divided, then conquered, and the people carried away into Assyria and Babylon.

That doesn't mean that God wants them to possess a land He personally gave to another: Israel.

The modern State of Israel has existed since 1948. That means the current conflict has been going on for nearly 60 years, but the war is milennia old.

The fight has largely been Israel's alone. Depending on their righteousness, God either prospered them with wealth and peace, or left them to battle against their enemies, with varying degrees of success, based on their level of wickedness. However, even then, He did not forget them, and he did use others, in the case of Cyrus of Persia, to preserve them and eventually return them to their homeland. Israel, however, would remain under the rule of others for centuries.

Now, however, another promise land exists. Ours. A Christian nation. As such, we owe our origins ultimately to the Holy Land, where Christ walked, taught and atoned. We should be well aware of the promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Israel, for after Christ, they are our own. We should be mindful of Israel and we should seek to protect her.

No people should be eradicated from the Earth. Yet, that is what a lot of the Muslim world would have, or stand by and watch happen, if the United States and other allies were to suddenly turn away. Israel's survival is dependent on her own obedience and keeping the law, but we are bound by faith and love of liberty to watch over them. If anyone doubts they would be swallowed up by the other nations in the region in a blink of an eye should we withdraw our help should refer back to that time 60 years ago when British claims to the Holy Land ended and the land of Israel, particularly Jerusalem, was marched upon by Muslim forces.

Israel has a right to arm and protect herself. As a Christian nation, we have a responsibility to watch over her, as part of God's overall strategy of preserving one of His covenant people.

There are few things which tick me off more than unelected judges making rulings, intentional or not, which take away the rights of citizens.

That is apparently what has taken place in California where the Second District Court of Appeals ruled that, at least in California, parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children.

I am hoping against hope that this applies to the California Constitution only and has no bearing on the US Constitution.

Regardless, any constitution which would limit what kind of education a child or adult can receive will only perpetuate the existence of failing public schools. If there are no cost-effective alternatives--and private schools are not for everyone for a variety of reasons--then there is less incentive on the part of public schools (even less than there currently is) to do much of anything to try to innovate or improve.

I don't take a whole lot of things personally, but I do have a soft place in my heart for those parents who see a lack in public schooling and attempt to fill it.

I homeschooled my two sons for two years--during middle school. I did it because I questioned the type of education they were receiving, I wanted to stem the frequency of them being ill, and because the kind of social behavior or interaction they were going to have was not up to par with our family's personal expectations.

In the state where I live, unless the law has changed, you just have to let the local ESD know you intend to homeschool your children. That can mess with the state testing which is done at certain grade levels throughout their public school life, but other than that, there are few requirements. Of course elementary and middle school merely prepare students to graduate from high school, so things may have been different had the homeschooling taken place during their high school years, but I don't know that for sure.

Government should not be involved in how parents determine to educate their children. I agree that if they are going to go to a public school, then they want a certified teacher. I would go a step further, too, and wish for only good teachers, who know what they're teaching and what they're talking about, who leave their own personal opinions at home unless it's a part of an open dialogue where other views are also expressed, but I know that's not the function or purpose of public schools anymore.

That's not an entirely fair assessment. There are teachers out there which are not caught up in the liberal thinking of self-esteem and socialization comes first. And it is not entirely the fault of the school or the public education system that so many parents have abdicated their responsibilities of the nurturing, instructing and protecting of their children to the state.

However, those of us who still care deeply about our children and where they're going in life should not be stopped by a constitution, a court, or anyone else, from providing our children with an education of our choice. We all know as adults there is plenty that we learn in school which will never be applied in real life. The basics of reading, writing and arithmetic are essential--other things are not, and only cause stress or an overblown sense of accomplishment.

Personally, I think high school should truly be more about vocational training--the essentials should have been learned way before that and high school should be preparing students for some level in the work force. College has that responsibility, supposedly, but because of its structure and prohibitive costs learning is more stifled there than it is anywhere else. Most kids will not attend college, and those who do, will spend no more than two years of it trying to attain some kind of associates degree.

As it is, many of the companies which we feel are the wave of the future--the technologically based companies--need to train their workforce specifically to their way of doing things, even after they've come out of college, because no one is training them the way they need to be trained.

I have benefited from my own ongoing educational effort. It is not structured, I do it as I see fit, and I do it without paying anyone, for the most part.

It's called reading. If not books, then articles, and a lot of it can be found on the internet. You can find all kinds of things--more up to date, more recent, and more thorough a representation of the subject than what you will have time for in public school.

Government has a way, and courts in particular, of thinking they know what's best for you. They ignore the fact they would not exist if it weren't for the people in the first place. They produce no product, they do little to grow the economy on their own. They do their job best when they stay out of the way and rule according to what's best for individuals and making their own way as opposed to telling them what to do.

The question should never be what rights we have to education or anything else under the constitution. Constitutions are documents which  are too limit the width and breadth and influence of government, determine what worthy things, by common consent, the government will do for the people, not where it will interfere.

We, the people, do have a responsibility. We have a responsibility, if we have children, to raise them and provide for them. We really cannot abdicate authority or responsibility to the state, simply because we don't feel we have the time or the finances or whatever to do it ourselves. Those kinds of considerations are moot. They should have been considered long before a child is conceived, let alone born. I'm not responsible for raising your children, and you shouldn't be responsible for mine. If you like, I will help out, but only to the degree you permit it. That's how the village concept should work. It shouldn't be nanny knows best. It should be likeminded individuals raising their children and setting good examples and acting as reinforcement for others.

So, this homeschooling flap isn't just about formal education. It goes to the very core of beliefs and values and the reasons for which this country was founded: personal liberty and freedom. Courts should not be allowed to make such rulings. The constitution should have no power to determine what a citizen can or cannot do, only limit the powers of government. If Californians do not stand up for their rights, endowed by their Creator, then apparently it will be taken away.

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.

So, the Republicans have a nominee that conservatives don't trust and Democrats are still fighting over the two they love the most.

Wasn't it just a little over two months ago that we were wondering if, and kind of hoping, that the Republicans would have a brokered convention? What a civics lesson it would be! Fast forward to present day, it's the first week of March, and the Republicans have their nominee--probably the fastest nomination ever thanks to an accelerated schedule.

And the Democrats. The lovefest continues. And it's likely to continue for a long time, considering how weeks now seem like months and months seem like years. The next primary in Pennsylvania doesn't happen until April or something, and then you have some that don't vote until May.

Neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have enough delegates to reach the magic number any sooner than May, probably.

So, in the meantime, the media attention continues on Clinton and Obama--and given the kind of coverage they've been getting, by the media or form each other, all kinds of things could come out between now and there being a definitive nominee.

And, there's always a chance it will go to the convention. And even if it doesn't, it's bound to be interesting there because both of them are going to have a bunch of delegates that won't just be handed over lightly.

Plus there's the superdelegates, the possible seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates, which may or may not mean a second ballot in those two states and who's going to pay for a revote?

It takes a lot of energy just to go out and vote once. What's it going to take to get people out to another one?

Meanwhile, John McCain can lie low and avoid a lot of bad press. The argument can be made that he probably should have some press, any press, so that people don't forget him, but then, both Clinton and Obama have to invoke his name in order to make them look like they're fighting him, rather than each other, so he's not going to totally disappear from the public eye.

Besides, since he is the nominee, he could be doing some behind the scenes work now, to come up with a running mate and maybe a more concrete economic policy and maybe find someway to placate us rascally conservatives.

So, buckle up and enjoy the ride.

No, I'm not going to start and end with the fact we've had the coldest winter or most snow in decades in various parts of the world.

I'm going to go where no human secularist would ever go.

That's right: God

I believe He will have more say in what happens to Earth than all of us combined.

Should we be actively polluting? No. Should we be good stewards of the earth. Yes. Should we use things in moderation and avoid excesses? Of course.

For just as many claims that humans are responsible for global warming, there are studies where the facts point towards the sun. There is just as much evidence we might be in a cooling period as there is saying we're in an ongoing warming period.

In other words, real scientists are in disagreement. The argument isn't over.

As it is, it's moot. If the relatively small amount of carbon dioxide we produce is truly enough to push everything out of whack, then we would have to reduce all of it in order to bring it back into whack--and no one is proposing we get rid of all our carbon dioxide emissions.

I've seen the video where the guy comes to the inescapable conclusion that we should go ahead and spend money on saving the planet, human-induced global warming or not, because of the fact that the other options are just too horrible to contemplate.

So, I wonder if India and China got the memo and what their plans are, considering they both have a few times more the people than we do. Who's going to make them reverse course on burgeoning economies while we essentially lay waste to ours? All in the name of being responsible?

Again, I don't think we should lay waste to entire forests for the sake of profit, and I don't think we should use up all our resources. I think there should be alternative forms of energy developed. Energy consumption isn't going to solve our entire dependency on foreign oil, nor would it solve a global warming threat, because we still rely on plastic derivatives and rubber products too much--all of which are petroleum based products. What's going to be the plastic substitute? Hardened air?

God has plans for the planet, and our polluting and our wars will pale in comparison. We should be good stewards for our own sakes, not because the planet will die if we don't. God won't let that happen. As I said, He has his own plans. Our job is to know the plan and follow it. Not get hyped up and freaked out about something we're not causing and couldn't control, anyway.

Unless someone out there has a way of combating weather systems and climate changes. Maybe they can put it to good use, then, the next time a blizzard paralyzes the northeast or the midwest, or a hurricane pummels Florida and the Gulf Coast.

Otherwise, I think we should be considering how we stop funding global jihad with any of our oil money going to the Middle East--even Saudi Arabia--and we come up with cheaper ways to produce more energy so we can out compete in the global economy.

Look.

If John McCain didn't seem to take such great delight in combating conservative members of his own party, there probably wouldn't be much of an issue with him.

In reality, with the exception of a few close encounters of the liberal kind, McCain has been largely conservative. He's definitely there on defense and foreign policy, and he has been there on abortion, though he favors stem cell research. He's as about as conservative as it gets with earmarks and pork barrel speeding, despite the two no votes against Bush tax cuts. If he had used his current line about no spending cuts in the bills to justify the no votes then, instead of the class warfare rhetoric of his esteemed left-leaning colleagues, there wouldn't be an issue there, either.

Maybe it's just that I don't know very many 70-year-olds, but the ones I do know are not very vain. They're on the other side of life, where climbing corporate ladders or scoring points, or proving themselves right isn't really their goal. So, why is it that whenever anyone talks about McCain, his poking a finger in the eye of conservatism is always associated with looking good before his liberal peers?

Doesn't sound much like a battle-tested, prisoner of war to me.

Especially one from the Vietnam era. In general, we've treated our veterans better before and after that war. Thanks to some of those liberal friends of his, who stirred the anti-war sentiment at home and then grew up to be the establishment they railed against, the soldiers, ever the pawns, never the deciders, were reviled and castigated.

While many are not happy with our fighting men and women being in Iraq, the hysteria surrounding the soldiers and their roles has not been the same as it was during the Vietnam War. There, the liberals won out, much to the shame and degradation of a country, and a generation. Make love not war might have been a more benign slogan, maybe even a more powerful one, for everyone, had it not been held up by the jeering, sneering fanatics of spoiled, smug children.

You'd think McCain wouldn't forget that. Or at least, not to the extent that he would turn his back on any supporter, anyone who would remember him as sacrificing for his country. The liberals aren't particularly known for that, despite having their own prominent veterans of that war. Yet, McCain has done so, angrily, with open hostility.

One might shake their head at McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman, and one might question just what he was thinking in co-sponsoring them, but it's the blatant disregard at times for the conservative cause that makes it sting so. He is one of us and so he should be one of us. There's nothing wrong with speaking your mind. There's nothing wrong with correcting us when we're wrong. But we're not wrong on the essence of campaign finance reform, immigration or global warming. He could stick to his guns by spending more time and energy on government waste and earmarks, rather than helping the left out with some of their pet causes.

So, fighting his own instead of his enemies is one thing.

That leads to his judgment. Fighting your friends, especially when they're right, is just plain stupid. Sponsoring bills that show a disconnect from the will of the American people, or at the very least, a misunderstanding of just how deep conservative principles should go, shows a lack of judgment. He might get the war right, but what about other things? Despite the fact that fighting terrorism is the defining issue of our time, there's plenty of other things that can tank in the process, if proper judgment is not being used.

So, for me, it's less about the bills and the fact they represent liberal thinking than it is the "I know better than you because I got this gut feeling and you better follow or else," mentality.

That sounds like George W. Bush to me.

Last time I checked, he wasn't being as highly regarded as Ronald Reagan, not even among conservatives.

So, we can argue all you want about what's going to be better for the country, a complete left turn with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, or a less angled lean leftward, but either way, you're heading left.

The argument that allowing Obama or Clinton to get elected, so that the Democrats get blamed for whatever happens is appealing, as long as it is enough to finally convince enough fence sitters and naysayers that conservatism is the way to go, while not irreparably damaging the country. If the country goes down the tubes in the meantime, conservatives will only have themselves to blame.

Death by slow boil, like the frog, doesn't seem as appealing. There's no catalyzing event, no rallying around the standard bearer. If nothing goes particular wrong as the left turn takes place, then change of any kind becomes the enemy.

Besides, many people, including those of our own movement, are at a loss as to what conservatism is, since there have been too many flavors of it resembling liberalism. Compassionate conservatism means more spending and more government waste on programs and policies that people, in their own homes and communities should be taking care of. Personal responsibility has been replaced by the Nanny state.

It is definitely possible to be compassionate and be conservative. You don't apply it on the federal government level, though, and I'm not really all that crazy with it on the state level, either.

So, don't tell me to accept John McCain as he is. Don't tell me his brand of conservatism is good enough. Good enough is Ronald Reagan. Best is someone else yet to come, but unless McCain presides differently than he legislates, it won't be him. And frankly, that would be more damaging for the cause of conservatism than four years of Obama or Hillary.

The fact of the matter is, any president is unlikely to ruin the country so much that it can't be redeemed. There are too many checks and balances in place. However, enough liberal governing might be enough to wake up the lukewarm conservatives, or those who think they can rely on just one or two of the conservative coalition. It takes all three to have a winning combination, in an election, and in a president.

So, if conservatives are going to get over anything, it's going to be over their primary conservative concern, to vote for the candidate who is the best conservative overall, not for the one who they identify with the most.

I was never keen on voting for someone who reminded me of a fellow employee. I want someone who's smarter than me, who knows how to make decisions, not belly ache and then invite me to drink his problems away.

I also don't want a bully who thinks he knows better. That's been done, from both sides of the aisle.

If some other action hero had taken his place in the interim, I probably wouldn't be looking forward to a movie with a IV associated with it.

How, though, can you compare to the Indiana Jones body of work when it comes to real action, adventure and battles between good and evil?

Indy is a flawed character, but he's not an anti-hero by any means. His desire for fortune and glory is part of a rough exterior he'd like to project, but in reality, he's more about justice and doing the right thing. His father instilled in him, despite Indy's academic background and a grounding in buried history and treasure, a sense of right. Raider's of the Lost Ark was just as much about thwarting the plans of Nazi Germany with regards to the Israelite artifact as it was in being the first one in well over two thousand years to discover its whereabouts and preserve it in a museum for the world to see.

In the second movie, The Temple of Doom, the quest diverted toward ending the re-emergent power of an ancient religion and restoring the health of a village. In the third, The Last Crusade, the Nazi's got another black eye, and the Holy Grail was lost to mankind forever, because it was the right thing to do.

These movies hearken back to an earlier time, the age of the serial, and while most of us under 60 will have a hard time relating to such fare, we understand good movie making when we see it, and we don't like our heroes so dark we can't recognize them from the villains.

The stunts in the Indiana Jones movies were real. Special effects were brought in when it was impossible to do things in reality. Hopefully, that will be the case here. I hate to admit this, but CGI just isn't the same. I like CGI, but they just haven't been able to fully recreate life. Dinosaurs, perhaps, but humans and furry animals still need work. When they dominate the screen, it doesn't work as well as when the live action is taking place. The mind refuses to be tricked.

The trailer looks good and hopefully that means the rest of the film will be, too. Or it will have been a long wait for nothing.

The post today by Townhall's Matt Lewis commenting on a post by Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic online regarding war being a long term foe of conservatism is dead on.

Anything that requires funding of such magnitude, regardless of what it is, will result in larger government and more spending. Defense happens to be more of a conservative concern than it is liberal, and so conservatives tend to let it go because of the consequences for not paying any attention to it, or for cutting back.

If any part of the Reagan coalition--fiscal, defense and social--should be feeling on the outs lately it is the first. While the social conservatives might be the most vilified, or even be the most vocal, they have, in George W. Bush, the best president for social causes in decades. Because of 9/11, the defense conservatives have also had their way. Meanwhile, spending has increased, the Bush tax cuts will soon expire, and there is no end in sight with runaway government.

Social and defense conservatives shouldn't push agendas that take the fiscal part of it offline. If they do, then their own agendas will not long survive, and the backlash, which we're seeing, can be severe.

Truth to tell, I have always been uneasy about a war of preemption. This kind of warfare has no end, and it causes issues with any government, even friendly, and even our own. Are we going to call martial law in the US as a part of a crackdown of terrorist cells that might exist in this country? Our freedoms relating to air travel and other things have been eroding--when you can't take a bottle of shampoo on board a plane that is more than a couple of ounces for fear that it will be used to blow up the plane, there is a serious issue.

Terrorism should be thwarted, and it should be stamped out, but not at the expense of what makes this country great. And civil dissent, the ability to present an opposing view, even a radical opposing view, is allowed under our Constitution.

Blowing up people and buildings is a crime. Plotting with the intent to execute such a plan is a crime. Putting people in jail or executing them before they do either is not allowed. That gets into Orwellian territory with Thought Police, or a more recent take, the Minority Report. Since we don't have infallible mind readers running around, solving crimes before they've happened, anything akin to it would ultimately fail, and when that happens, a backlash ensues and the pendulum swings to the other end of the spectrum where it's impossible to prosecute anyone or anything, including a war.

There are plenty of people out there, organizations, governments, that would love to see America fall. I believe we are partially to blame for that, but not to the extent that some would claim. The deep seeded hatred for all things Western that exists in the minds of the most radical Jihadists would not entirely go away if we were to just disappear from Iraq or other Muslim strongholds. However, lousy intelligence at best, or being lied to at worse, as a basis for going to war when the truth--whatever it be--is the least possible political option, doesn't give us the high ground to work from, either.

Iraq, is a mistake we will have to live with. It will cost us billions, if not trillions of dollars by the time it is said and done, and I'm still waiting for the upside. I am among those who believe we shouldn't have gone in the first place. However, now that we're there, we better see it through to a stable Iraq and better hope against hope that it makes a difference in a region which is use to war, oppression and domination by outside forces, and yet has survived for millenia pretty much as is.

I like the idea of speak softly and carry a big stick. The threat of retaliation, of total annihilation, is effective, and certainly less costly and destructive than actually carrying it out. It also makes us look less of a bully, regardless of the provocation. We may be fully warranted in our reactions, but because we are the most powerful country on earth, our actions will always be measured against our own standards, not by the standards of which the rest of the world holds, or measures themselves.

And when we claim this and that to be our guiding principles, and then we don't adhere to them, regardless of the justification, that is how we are viewed. Not only by those around us, but soon, by ourselves.

Most of us don't understand how invading a country a world away protects our own interests, because the fight is not here, or closer to us. We could understand the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, even if that wasn't the mainland. We could understand a strong showing of force to those who instigated or harbored the terrorist organizations responsible for 9/11. What we couldn't understand was toppling a regime, albeit a murderous dictator, when Al-Qaeda was not present, and weapons of mass destruction were not verifiable.

So now we have a mess we're obligated to clean up. Not just to keep Al-Qaeda from festering their now, not just out of obligation to the Iraqi people and their lives we're responsible for upheaving, but because we're the United States of America, a people of laws, a people of higher standards, and because we believe in making right whatever wrongs we've caused and because we believe in finishing what we started.

I certainly hope we think several times more about going to war with Iran than we did with Iraq. I also hope we won't be frozen with indecision if and when war is the option we must take. Rogue states with nuclear weapons capability is a threat the rest of the world, not just us, should not take lightly. Those European countries who did not learn their lesson through the bombing and occupation of Nazi Germany, who would prefer to coddle or turn a blind eye, thinking it will be well with them in the end, that they will somehow be spared the destruction and suffering of those who oppose the rogue regimes, will find that their neutrality will not save them and that those they underestimated will make hard taskmasters, and the freedoms they didn't manage to give away on their own through their socialism will be utterly and completely removed from them.

In my mind, though, there is still a difference between a posture of defense, and a policy of preemption. I think the former is provided for in the constitution, and may require mobilization of troops and assets on occasion. All of it should be strategic. None of it should be done lightly or on a whim, or done without a clear understanding of the consequences, the cost and the risks of not only failure, but escalation. Does our provocation make things better, or only make things worse. Do we bring an end to hostilities, or only fuel them.

With out all three legs of conservatism, the coalition does not exist. Without fiscal restraint governing what we do with our social and foreign policies, we lurch into liberalism. To be liberal is not only to think a few know better than the masses on how to run their lives, it is to think that the masses should fund the programs that benefit the few. We have been way to liberal with our federal spending of late, and that includes the war. And it will cost us. Not just in terms of dollars, not just in terms of elections, but the way our own countrymen perceive the cause of conservatism. The latter may be the highest price of all, because it signals the end of our democracy, with no one to blame but ourselves.

Those of us Americans who remember a time without the modern income tax are a dying breed. Enacted through the 16th Amendment in 1913, the income tax has become a fixture and a central point of revenue collection of the federal government. States have obviously adopted this way of financing their governments, as well.

In looking at the full history of the income tax in this country, there is at least one parallel--war. The first income tax was levied during the War of 1812, after the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress and the US Constitution. It was later repealed, but appeared again in 1862, during the Civil War. It resurfaced again in 1894 and 1895 but disappeared both times (no major involvement of the United States in a war). Just over a hundred years after it's first major implementation, the income tax was reintroduced to stay. World War I followed shortly thereafter.

Not always has income tax been levied for the express purpose of financing a war, but in some cases it definitely has. In 1943, tax withholdings of wages was instituted, causing the number of people who paid taxes to soar to 60 million. It has not looked back since.

I bring this all up because we are yet again in the middle of tax season. I read once that 70% (of tax filers, I assume) receive a tax refund of some kind. In other words, through deductions, people are able to show they've paid more income tax than what they owe, so they get a portion, all or more of the taxes removed from their paychecks back.

To me, preparing an income tax return has always been a royal waste of time. Keeping track of every last deductible item to reduce my taxable income just so I can get back money which was mine and really should have never gone to the US government in the first place. They don't pay me interest on the money withheld while it's sitting in their coffers, yet they'll charge me interest and penalties if I don't have my wages withheld during the course of the year and then pay it the following year when my taxes are done, or they'll charge me if I end up owing more and arrange to pay it over time.

I've tried to imagine a world without income tax, and it's hard. Keeping track of all income and expenses in my business revolves around taxes. Sure, it's a sound business practice to know what's coming in and what's going out, but for those of us who aren't a part of the stock market or the Fortune 500, the only entities which are going to care about how much we earned during the course of the year, other than ourselves, are our federal and state governments.

Who knows if the fair tax is the answer. I like the idea of a consumption tax if it's capped, if can go down, and if all other taxes are eliminated. I think it has great potential for greater revenue and greater prosperity. What's the likelihood of it coming into being any time soon, or will it go the way of the flat tax and every other simplified tax plan? Meanwhile, the IRS rolls on, and so does the tax code, to 60,000 pages strong, easily the largest book on one subject in existence.

We can send people to the moon, clone sheep, cure all matters of diseases, hurtle particle waves across an expanse and create digital replicas of life but we can't simplify the tax code? We can't make it so April 15 doesn't exist because sufficient tax has been taken out from our paychecks.

The more I think about it, the more I'd love to experience a world with only a sales tax. Not only would it be simpler come tax time, it would be simpler the rest of the year, when I have to keep track of my expenses so I can justify my deductions. I've been audited once. It is not a fun thing, and it can take months to undo something. Fortunately, in my circumstances, everything came out fine in the end. For several months, though, it didn't look like it would.

Those of us who are essentially using the US government as a place to save money, interest free, so they can spend it in mid-April (if they don't just turn around and use it to pay bills, which they would have done anyway), need to realize there are better uses of their money. That $3,000 or whatever it is could have been sitting in an interest bearing account, an investment, part of a down payment on a property or a car. It costs money for the US government to collect it, and it costs the US government money to return it. You can all be happy that you're getting a refund, but why give it, or as much of it, to the US government in the first place?

I say let's get the fair tax implemented, and then get it going in every state in the Union. And instead of 23% for just the federal resale tax, force the federal government to gradually but markedly reduce itself back to what the Founders intended, and do the same thing with State government, so that a combined sales tax would shrink below 20%, maybe below 15%.

Otherwise, the federal government is just going to keep growing, if we the people don't stop it.

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.