Don't Fall For It

While President Bush and Senator McCain change their tune on domestic drilling, conspicuously during an election year, I am recalling what will be considered the "conservative case" for a McCain presidency.

Ever since the Christian voting bloc became synonymous with the Republican Party, the GOP has used the issue of judges to keep them with the party. This is due, of course, to the righteous anger over the legalized killing of the unborn since 1973. The rationale goes something like this: We need to support pro-life presidential candidates because then they can nominate strict-constructionist judges who believe life begins at birth and with a fifth justice the Roe v. Wade atrocity will be confined to the dustbin of history. But this is the old carrot-and-stick approach to keep "values voters" with the Republican Party, many of whom might not otherwise vote Republican.

Expect this trend to continue this election year as the conservative coalition is more fractured than it was four or even eight years ago. When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, a woman with precarious abortion views, the values voters were pounding at the White House doors with torches and pitchforks. The president, realizing that his most indispensable constituency was in revolt, withdrew the nomination and social conservatives got the far more acceptable Sam Alito.

Senator McCain's abortion views themselves are quite murky. The man voted in 1993 to confirm the ACLU-minded Ruth Bader Ginsburg and has since said that he is in no rush to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Some say that since he became the presumptive nominee, Senator McCain has hardened his pro-life position to get the religious vote. That may very well be true and it may very well get Mr. McCain elected. But mark my words: Once he gets in there, President McCain will not lift a finger to halt the slaughter of innocents. First and foremost is the Democratic legislature he will face as president. Democrat majorities will increase this year, the only question is by how much. True, there is an increasing number of pro-life Democrats in Congress, but it is nowhere near enough to off-set the Pelosi wing of the party, essentially making Senator McCain's views on abortion irrelevant. Second, John McCain is beholden to the liberal media and can be guaranteed to buckle when he gets asked tough questions about his Supreme Court nominees. And if they grill him, expect President McCain to then nominate someone more appealing to his cronies in the media. Third, it was not very long ago (1999-2000) that John McCain referred to those Religious Right leaders not as people whose hearts are in the place yet confuse the City of God with the City of Man, but as "agents of intolerance." And just what is the biggest issue for these Religious Right agents of intolerance?

So, Mr. McCain might be making pitches to pro-life voters this year, but it will come to nothing. Even if he (or any devoted pro-life president) nominated a judge dedicated to the sanctity of human life, it will not get anywhere until after Republicans recover from the Bush years and begin to gain majorities in Congress again.

If you plan to vote for Senator John McCain because he might be the one to overturn abortion, consider that a wasted vote.

Timothy J. Russert, Jr. (1950 - 2008), R.I.P.

When one reflects on the liberal media establishment and its bias, the late Tim Russert was one who could be skipped over in the laundry list of liberals and elitists.

A devout Roman Catholic and honest newsman from Buffalo, New York, Mr. Russert was a loyal, but fair liberal. When the knock-offs in both the network media and cable news channels brow-beat candidates or surrogates of one party, they tend to lob softballs to the other. This was a practice lost on Tim Russert. My 2008 candidate of choice, Dr. Ron Paul, faced tough questions on "Meet the Press" when old quotations of his were dug up. The treatment was the same for Vice President Cheney, Senator Kerry, and Senator Clinton. He was a rare Mainstream Media man who could turn off his partisan switch in exchange for an honest and probing interview.

Known for his famous white dry-erase board on election nights, Mr. Russert also began writing on topics that excluded his journalistic endeavours. In 2004 he came out with a splendid autobiography, "Big Russ and Me," a tribute to his still-living father and the environment in which the younger Russert grew up. He was reared with a knowledge of God and the importance of the family, a value instilled in him from Big Russ and one that he passed down himself. Far from the image of a standard liberal, Tim Russert had great reverence for the importance and cohesion of the family.

The lighter side of Tim Russert appeared before the Buffalo Bills played in the fourth and final of their consecutive Super Bowl appearances in January 1994 against the Dallas Cowboys. Before the game, he made a plea (or perhaps a prayer!) on television to God for the Bills to be delivered at least one Super Bowl victory after enduring heartbreak for three straight years. When the Cowboys prevailed over Mr. Russert's hometown team, it was reported that Tom Brokaw approached him and said, "Sorry, God must be a Southern Baptist."

Mr. Russert leaves his wife Maureen and son Luke. Prayers are extended to his family for strength and perseverance in this difficult time. In the words of Thomas Jefferson when he was nominated to replace Benjamin Franklin as American minister to France, "I cannot replace Mr. Franklin. I can only succeed him." Likewise, no one can simply replace Tim Russert, a man of great eloquence and good humor.

Barack Obama and Free Speech

Are candidates' wives off-limits in a political campaign? Well, it depends. Candidates' wives (or husbands, as the case may be) are usually respected so long as they stay in the background, support their spouse, and don't rock the boat. Here, Jackie Kennedy serves as a good model. This typically applies to candidates' children as well.

But what if a spouse starts to sound off on controversial topics and tries to dabble in political musings? It's one thing to stand by the man no matter what but it's something entirely different when the spouse questions the integrity and character of the nation itself.

The blog is of course talking about Mrs. Michelle Obama, who earlier this year announced that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. Keep in mind that this also means Mrs. Obama was not proud of her country until she had a great chance to become First Lady. Let us also not forget that she admonished America because her husband could get shot at the gas station just because of the color of his skin. Never mind that the same is also true for white men, Hispanics, Asians, and anyone else of a discernable nationality, but that is for another time.

Now that Republicans are taking aim at Mrs. Obama, which Mr. Obama has not taken lightly by even issuing a threat: "But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. . . ."

Viciously attacking a candidate's wife is ungentlemanly, to say the least. But a candidate's wife is also a part of the candidate himself. And if that spouse says something harsh, offensive, or controversial, they should be expected to receive criticism and/or questions about it. It's the treatment that Uncouth Ruminations expects of itself. Besides, what about a society where public officials (or their surrogates) can say anything without being subject to any questioning or criticism? The word I believe best describes this is communism.

By no means is this an assault on the First Amendment. Remember, one has the right to say what they want but that does not immunize them from scrutiny. So why are Senator Obama's feathers ruffled over something seemingly so inconsequential? One expects the husband to defend his wife, but Mr. Obama's language sounds threatening and cynics like yours truly could interpret it as the Leftist senator's desire to suppress dissension.

Consider: Barack Obama also infamously stated recently that when he's president people won't be able to drive their SUVs anymore, keep the air conditioner running as much as they'd like, or eat out at fast food places as much as they'd like. Don't take it from me, but I have a difficult time "coming together" with a person who tells me what I can drive and what I can eat.

But Senator Obama's snap over the reaction to his wife's rhetoric is quite revealing. The Candidate of Change appears to have pretty thin skin. That's not a great asset for someone that's supposed to "heal our nation's wounds."

This kind of makes the mind wonder, if the country "changes" under a President Obama, will it be because people will finally decide to stop being selfish and unconditionally love each other? Or will change be imposed on us?

Democrats, the South, and vice presidents

So Jim Webb said something "sympathetic" about the Confederacy. That a descendant of a Confederate officer and a Virginian could dare say anything sympathetic about the Civil War South is not really earth-shattering news. Here's another blockbuster: American blacks admire Martin Luther King, Jr.

What Webb said was that the southern cause was laudable. Re-read that again if you need to. He says it was a laudable cause, not "Slavery was right" or "I want all the southern states to secede again and burn Washington for revenge against Sherman's 'March to the Sea.'" After all, the Confederacy was not just about slavery. Southerns were passionate about what they perceived as an over-reaching and intrusive federal government that they believed was abusing its powers.

But this babbling is not about slavery. Discussion of that abhorrence is for another day. So I ask, why is this issue about the Confederacy such a big deal?

Barack Obama has serious problems in the South, that's why. Well, at least in southern states that don't have a majority of black constituents. The South is important for Obama because Democrats who don't win the South don't win the presidency. When their party lurched to the left and became gun-controlling elitists, they lost the South to the GOP. Democrats are making inroads in the South again, in large part because they are running candidates who are pro-life, protectors of gun rights, and are church-goers. In other words, the Dems swiped the issues that got Republicans elected in the South for the last generation and the old Confederacy is beginning to turn blue again.

So why are both parties dumping on Jim Webb? The Republicans actually have a good reason to be ablaze. When Webb was elected in 2006, it was at the expense of George Allen, another Virginian who said sympathetic things about the Confederacy himself and admitted to having Confederate memorabilia. Hardly grounds for treason but it was enough to sweep out one of the GOP's top political fighters.

As for the Democrats, Webb has credentials that play well in the South. While the senator is pro-choice, he is also a Second Amendment enthusiast and has executive bona fides from his days as Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary. But the Democrats are also invested in racial politics and political corretness that no one can utter a word about the South or the Confederacy that does not label either its participants or descendants as moral reprobates. No one can honestly believe Jim Webb looks at our nation's (Yes, our nation, because at one point there was slavery in all of the states of the Union) "peculiar institution" with loving and reminiscent affection. The Confederate military was populated by farm kids, the college-educated, Christians, and yes, even some moral reprobates fighting to save the institution of slavery.

But now the Democrats are backing themselves into a corner with their nominee. Jim Webb probably won't be able to be VP because of this "racial baggage" and "Civil Rights quandry" and on top of that, Ohio Democratic governor Ted Strickland said in so many words that he would definitely not accept the VP nomination. And on top of that, Obama's chief in charge of finding that elusive VP, Jim Johnson, resigned under pressure due to some dubious ties to financial corporations, just another in a long line of contacts and friends who show Obama's poor judgment. The closer he gets to the general election, more people who could be his vice president keep falling from the pack for one reason or another.

It's 3am and a phone rings. "Hello? Hillary? I need someone to run as vice president with me."

The Veepstakes

Now that the presidential campaign has officially begun, the obvious question of who our Democratic and Republican nominees will choose as their right-hand man (or woman) will dominate the headlines and pundits.

Today, lets take a look at some of the Obama options. As it seems like Hillary Clinton will finally concede the Democratic race to Obama, the question arises as to whether Barack Obama will select her for VP. The Clintons' and their cohorts will campaign hard for her to get the #2 slot but none of the smart money is on this bet. As we all know from this campaign and earlier ones, the Clintons' are a set. Buy one, get one free. Before the primaries began, there was some (albeit idle) concern about whether Bill Clinton would be essentially a co-president if his wife won. Now if Hillary Clinton ends up as vice-president, so does Bill. After the Cheney years the vice presidency has new powers and Bill, as surrogate vice president, would not hesitate to dip into them. The vice-presidency has virtually no constitutional powers so on paper this really should not be a dilemma. Remember, pseudo-despots like the Clintons' are not governed by paper, they are governed by ego and the lust for power. Circumventing the Constitution was never a major concern for Bill when he was in the Oval Office, so why would it concern him as co-vice-president? So, a President Obama would also have to contend with the power struggle. While he's president, there would be two others who simultaneously thought they were the president. If Obama has any political smarts then he will not name Hillary his VP. Unless he wants to end up in the testicle lockbox.

There are murmurings that our potentially second black president might pick John Edwards, Bill Richardson, former Georgia senator Sam Nunn, Virginia senator Jim Webb, or current Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius. Edwards has that arm-candy VP appeal that worked so well for John Kerry and more importantly he knows how to smile and look good.

Bill Richardson might prove himself worthy having had more federal government experience (Secretary of Energy for 3 years and 14 years in the House) and more executive experience (5 years as New Mexico's governor) than Obama would have after 8 years.

Sam Nunn is a former Georgia senator who was known as a somewhat conservative Demorat. Obama may want to snag this guy because he's also in consideration for McCain, as Jonah Goldberg at National Reivew Online suggested. Picking a southern man would also help Obama paint himself as the uniter so many people are still hypnotized into believing. It's not coincidence that the only two Democratic presidents post-JFK were southern boys. Contrary to popular belief, Obama is not a compromiser and could not be expected to name a Republican for his ticket. In this area, Sam Nunn could be the closest Obama can come.

Or maybe Jim Webb. Webb is a former marine, former Republican with time in the Defense Department and Secretary of the Navy for President Reagan. Webb is from a red state, Virginia, and a gun-owner who can appeal to the Reagan Democrats that McCain desperately needs. And a Republican who can't win Virginia is as good as dead. He is also a fighter, someone who might complement Obama well who all too often has appeared weak.

Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius has appeal, if for no other reason, because she is a woman. But Obama would be smart to pass on her and any other woman this election year in spite of all the charges of sexism that have been issued. He will certainly be pressured to pick a woman because of the sexism charges, especially after liberal icon Geraldine Ferraro was thrown overboard for essentially telling the truth about Obama's most indispensable quality. But, picking a woman could also backfire as a shallow move, unless it's Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton. After all, Hillary was supposed to be the first woman president. If (God forbid) something happened to President Obama, and another woman became the first woman president, expect a full-out revolt from the Clinton wing of the party. The Hillary feminists already feel that Obama stole the nomination from her because people wanted to vote for a black man more than they wanted to vote for a white woman. If another woman sneaks into the presidency before Hillary, cover your head and anything else valuable because there will be a civil war.

So, expect Obama to pick someone older and wiser and who brings little baggage with them. Joe Lieberman would have been a good selection if he wasn't already McCain's BFF. It will likely be someone, like Sam Nunn or Jim Webb, or someone who has been around and has more government experience than Obama, which, of course isn't asking for too much. Nunn or Webb are smart people who would be good choices for Obama. Then again, Obama hasn't shown too much wisdom in picking his friends, why might his VP be any different?

A Day of Remembrance

As another non-monumental (not being a 20th, 40th, or 60th anniversary) D-Day comes and goes, there should be relatively little surprise that the day went generally unnoticed. It dominates the headlines when it's a big year like the 60th anniversary but not the 64th. Maybe next year.

The day does, however, seem a little different this year. With recent books, notably Pat Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War" and Nicholson Baker's "Human Smoke," there is an air of revisionism regarding the Second World War, America's Holy War. These books have already received a wave of criticism and even hatred for daring to question some of the justifications and actions of the Allied nations during the "Good War." New interpretations of past events are good for history and great for historical discussions. Chewing over a supposedly closed case, World War II, is good for the mind, but more importantly it keeps us from deifying the mortal men who participated in the events.

The D-Day invasion was the most daring amphibious assault in military history. Opening up a second front in the great European war guaranteed the eventual defeat of Hitler. Calais, France was the most narrow point of the English Channel and the obvious place for a landing. Normandy was selected instead, increasing the element of surprise. While not an overwhelming and completely one-sided victory, it was successful enough for the Allies to gain a foothold on Western Europe. 11 months later, Hitler was dead and the war in Europe was over.

I make this appeal on this D-Day anniversary because I fear that many people still confuse criticism of the leaders of nations involved with animosity toward the troops themselves. That millions of young men fought heroically for their respective countries is really beyond dispute. They were millions who demonstrated bravery and courage many of us cannot imagine. And those who honorably served deserve respect everyday, not only on D-Day, Pearl Harbor Day, or Memorial Day.

I write this day because the day itself is far too politicized, even when it is barely recognized.

Elitist liberals from John Kerry to Barack Obama criticize our country's Republican leadership and condescend the troops themselves. Republicans and self-described conservatives insist the leadership is beyond question and that criticism of the administration is tantamount to treason. Meanwhile, both groups don flag lapel pins and "Support the Troops" paraphernalia, which are themselves acts of condescension. Republicans regularly use the troops as a shield against criticism while they fund a war that bankrupts the country. Democrats condescend and disparage the military coming and going. Republicans invoke patriotism against war critics and behave in a way that suggests that enthusiasm for the war in Iraq corresponds with loyalty to the state. Not even all soldiers agree on the war. Some support it and others don't. But all honorable soldiers do the calling of a soldier: their duty.

So, I say that today we should be thankful for the service rendered by our troops, those who have answered the call. But don't politicize it, Left or Right. Deriding the military from the Left is just as disgraceful as the Right when they use the troops as their litmus test for patriotism. D-Day was the beginning of the liberation of Western Europe and a turning point of the bloodiest war in history. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Why did it happen?

While rage continues to spew out of the mouths of Republicans, former White House Press Secretary and author of “What Happened” Scott McClellan makes his rounds on the Mainstream Media circuit.

These events ask some biting questions: Why did McClellan write this book now? Why did he stay in the Bush administration so long if he had serious misgivings about the war in Iraq, Katrina, and other matters? And why haven’t any of these flame-throwing Republicans on Fox News, talk radio, and the blogosphere attempted to refute what McClellan had to say about Iraq?

There could be a number of explanations for the above questions. While Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, and a slew of others call McClellan everything from a sell-out to a traitor, this writer cannot help but notice no one can say anything back about the claim that propaganda was used to justify the Iraq invasion. To avoid beating a dead horse, I shall refrain from dumping on the president over Katrina, a bureaucratic nightmare that preceded him.

If McClellan’s time in the White House was a confusing one for him, then his 3-year tenure may be excused since he may not have had a completely formed opinion of the events around him. For quite a while I had my own reservations about our involvement in Iraq before I officially considered myself “antiwar.” What McClellan is espousing now is something that more strongly resembles conservative opinions on war: don’t wage war unless it’s necessary. And Iraq was undoubtedly a war of choice.

If this is the way for Mr. McClellan to clear his conscience for something he now mourns, then we should feel grateful for his relieved disposition. If this war is a mistake, as I believe it is, then anyone who feels the same way ought to say so. And as more sources indicate that the Bush administration cherry-picked information to suit their war aims, then more people need to begin opening up to the possibility that the White House version of events is not always the unvarnished truth as the case of McClellan demonstrates.

That nobody can contradict McClellan’s claims speaks loudly. Instead of proving that McClellan is lying, talk radio and other superfluous gasbags repeatedly call the former press secretary a traitor who belongs in the pantheon of Judas, Benedict Arnold, and Catiline. It also leads me to believe that “conservatives” are nothing more than Republican Party cheerleaders and hit men. Many of these people don’t seem to be mad that McClellan should have resigned, but that he has departed from the party and from its titular head, President Bush. They don’t seem to be mad because they think McClellan is lying, but for breaking with their Republican president and for possibly even telling the truth.

Scott McClellan is really a bit player in all of this. He was a barely relevant press secretary who wrote a book about his experiences in Washington while people can still remember his name. Perhaps these so-called conservatives can get back to what being conservative means. After all, the Republicans are merely a political party, but conservatism represents a set of principles and a reliance on the collective wisdom of our ancestors. This writer is more interested in the truth and loyalty to one’s principles than competing to see if he can be the most loyal constituent of my party. Through careful reading and a body of research that expanded past talk radio and Fox News Channel, I came to a belief in the necessity of the Just War theory and the importance of a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Perhaps that is what happened to Mac.

Nothing but the war

It is obvious that I have been harping on interventionism and the war quite a bit lately and I had resolved to cool it for awhile to concentrate on some other issues. That is, until I read Pat Buchanan's column for today, May 30, but more importantly, it was the comments which set me off: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26753.

I have resisted to jump on this mantra that the Republican Party and conservative movement have been shaved down to nothing but enthusiasm for our involvement in Iraq. I wanted to think that conservatives out there still cared about things like taxes, the size of the government, and restricting illegal immigration.

What I have found, if the user comments suggest anything, is that Republicans do not care any longer about anything besides the war, and a discredited war and rationale at that.

I believe that George W. Bush has become an idol not only to himself but to the people who still support him. What else can explain such a devoted following? I myself once supported this war, even if only mildly, but I have since changed my mind. As Barry Goldwater is quoted as saying, Don't I reserve the right to be smarter than I used to be?

These Bush diehards strongly resemble Clinton apologists who defended their man no matter what embarrassing thing he had just been convicted of. How could Bush have known what would happen in Iraq? He did what he thought was best! How can you criticize our president when we are at war? just to name a few. But how is this any different from people who defended Clinton because "he only lied about a personal matter"? Besides, President Bush is 61 years old and a big boy now. Let him defend himself.

Additionally, Bush and democratism have become religions unto themselves. The chief article of faith is no longer the sinner's justification by the saving grace of Jesus Christ on account of one's faith, but on how enthusiastic they support pre-emptive war which discards the centuries old theory of Just War: http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm and http://www.justwartheory.com/. How sad is it, then, that so many Christians have abandoned their faith in Christ for faith in the supposedly infallible President Bush.

There will be voices out there, "But we conservatives disagree with Bush -- on things like illegal immigration and government spending." Fair point, Bush can jeopardize the national security of the nation because he has blatantly refused to defend our borders but he is lauded because he wages war 6000 miles away and against a country that did not attack us. Waging an offensive war and refusing to defend the nation's borders are both recantations of conservative doctrine.

"History will vindicate Bush. He'll be viewed like Harry Truman is now," many are resorting to parroting. The only reason Bush defenders are left to this is because that is their last hope. Bush has proven himself incompetent in the present and his only hope for vindication is that the future will look beyond his shortcomings. Bush has thrown in all of his chips on Iraq which must somehow stabilize itself to show that Bush was not a foolish man for invading a country that did not attack us. If Iraq remains in anarchy or ends up becoming a province of Iran, the whole enterprise will officially have been a failure.

So why has Republican Party fidelity been reduced to support for the war? Bush has abandoned all other conservative principles which people tepidly criticize, but not an aggressive war. Again, why? I am not entirely sure, but I do know this: the Republican Party once stood for prudence in military affairs and could be counted on to protect the nation. Not under Bush.

I resent the casting out of principled conservatives over one issue. It happened to Pat Buchanan in years past and it happened more recently to Ron Paul. If membership in the GOP and conservative movement means unwavering support for war and nothing else, count me out. Conservatives have a historic principle of non-interventionism and the avoidance of "pre-emptive" or aggressive wars.

As that otherwise superfluous gasbag Nietzsche said, "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."

How's that for appeasement?

While news of Bush's alleged jab at Obama over "appeasement" seems to be simmering down, I thought to finally open up my college dictionary. What it tells me is that appeasement means "the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace."

The fuss a week ago was that Obama has announced that he would openly engage Iran at the negotiating table. As disastrous as I believe an Obama presidency would be, this actually concerns me the least. Obama wishing to talk to Ahmadinejad, the mullahs, or anyone else for that matter is really pretty small potatoes. As my dictionary tells me, talking to a potential adversary is not the same thing as making an actual peace offering.

The argument that always comes up is that the Allies appeased Hitler at Munich in 1938 by handing the Sudetenland, a German-speaking region of Czechoslovakia, over to Hitler and that is the main reason that World War II erupted. In short, it was not merely talking to Nazi Germany. As long as would-be President Obama doesn't hand over a Shiite province of Iraq over to Iran, he would not be appeasing. As Pat Buchanan http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=993 cleverly put it, Bush has once again made a hash of history (for anyone without a dictionary "hash" in this context means "mess").

All of the noise made about appeasement is just that. In fact, all this noise testifies to the so-called resolve of this administration regarding national security. Proof: we're already talking to North Korea who probably already has a genuine nuclear weapon. So why is talking to Iran appeasement when talking to North Korea isn't?

While it took me some time to finally question the wisdom of the Bush administration's foreign policy (late 2004/early 2005), I have been even more reluctant to consider conspiracy theories. No, I don't believe the U.S. government was complicit in any way with 9/11 but I do believe this administration has been duplicitious and selective in who they perceive as our enemies. It has been an arrogant foreign policy with no regard for history or responsibility. Bush came in with a humble foreign policy (no nation building) but he's leaving with the most arrogant one that spits in the face of our Founders.

So, we are led to believe that talking is appeasement and reckless while bull-headedness and aggression is reasonable and prudent. One important historical note: we coexisted with a heavily-nuclear armed Soviet Union but the possibility of an Iran with a single weapon is unacceptable. So, we are told, pre-emptive war is the answer.

Preventive war is committing suicide out of fear of death, as Bismarck said.

A Wasted Vote?

The primary season is finally almost over and now some real decisions will soon be made. Who will Obama pick for his VP? Who will McCain pick? When will Hillary finally quit? But the most perplexing question is, Who does a conscientious conservative vote for in this election?

Last week Bay Buchanan appeared on Fox News’s “Hannity and Colmes” and she included her own very deep reservations about John McCain. To paraphrase, she said she goes to bed at night wondering how she can honestly vote for McCain. Judges, she says, McCain will nominate good, conservative, constitutional judges. But she wakes up the next morning, opens the paper and discovers 10 new reasons not to vote for him. Well put.

Many self-proclaimed conservatives, Sean Hannity not the least of them, have been naming off the reasons for conservatives to still vote for McCain: He’s not Obama, he’s promised to cut taxes, he’s promised to nominate conservative judges, he’s promised to secure the border, he’s committed to winning the war in Iraq. Of course, these are all campaign promises. Nothing in McCain’s record, besides his unwavering support for our disastrous venture in Iraq, suggests that he will do any of those things.

After recently hearing Congressman Ron Paul speak in my hometown, I began to think again about the possibility of voting for a third party candidate. I had not actively thought about the option for some time. I had gotten so used to the fact that McCain was the “presumptive nominee.” I don’t expect Dr. Paul to leave the Republican Party again for the Libertarians. If funds were any indication of their nominee, Bob Barr should walk away with the prize. Pastor Chuck Baldwin recently won the nomination of the Constitutional Party and he looks like a promising candidate of secure principles.

I realize that there are many people, perhaps more than we suspect, who sympathize with some of our third parties. But people are not particularly interested in voting for them. They are very rarely included in presidential debates and are the recipients of a virtual media black-out. Some consider voting for a third party candidate as a wasted vote. Why should I cast my vote for one of them? They have no chance at winning, some say.

With reasoning like that, I might think 2008 would be a great year for third party turn-out. What worse candidates could we possibly have this year? My own father put it well recently, “There are 300 million people in this country and these are the best 3?” While I expect my old man to pull the lever for the Old Man, I am not content to just vote for someone who might be the winner. With these 3, soon to be 2, there will be no winners. In my very unpolished opinion, casting a vote for any of these remaining candidates is a wasted vote.

Don’t like the Iraq War? McCain won’t end U.S. presence anytime soon and neither will Hillary if she miraculously wrestles the nomination away. Obama suggests that he might bring the troops home but I am not betting on it. Don’t like the idea of national health care? Obama promises it and McCain says he opposes it but if a Democratic congress sends the legislation to his desk, don’t expect McCain to grab his veto pen. Like the Supreme Court justices that Bush nominated? None of these jokers were excited about them despite what McCain says now.

So who does a conscientious conservative vote for in this election? Well, not McCain, that's for sure. As said earlier, Chuck Baldwin has received the Constitutional Party nomination and the Libertarians convene May 22-26. We'll see where the chips fall, but is it a wasted vote on a third party candidate?
A vote for one of the major two parties is a wasted vote.