Stop the Presses! Palin's "Phenomenon" is Doomed!

Interesting think piece over at the CBSNews website. (H/T: Drudge.) Written by Jon Friedman of MarketWatch, it states that the Palin "phenomenon" is "doomed." Although, how one interprets "doomed" may say a lot about how this will eventually unfold.

Friedman's primary objective seems to be by way of warning: those who find MSM coverage of Sarah Palin to be an unexpected boon to McCain's campaign are soon to be disappointed. The MSM will, he states, soon get bored with Palin and move on to other (perhaps more vapid) celebs on which to squander their overrated journalistic skills. (Okay, there may be some embellishment on my part. Suffice it to say he feels Palin will soon find the Coverage Carpet to be pulled out from under her.)

Using a device of extreme self-deprecation, Friedman states the obvious:

This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down. (Look out, Michael Phelps. Your time is coming, too.)

If I were Phelps, I'd start looking for ways to parlay bad press into endorsements, and quick.

Still, Friedman doesn't say anything we didn't already know. Of course the press builds up their subjects beyond all logical expectations. It's what they do. They have no story if they can't milk some sort of prime-time drama from them. So, far from letting us in on one of the MSM's "dirty little secrets," Friedman basically just 'fesses up to something we convicted them of decades ago.

What I find interesting in his story, however, is his analysis of Palin's treatment by Charles Gibson of ABC. All it takes, really, is one read-through of the actual interview — you know, the parts they left out as well as the parts they actually deigned to show us — to see just how "fairly" Gibson and ABC treated Palin. Here's the transcript (via Newsbusters). Read the whole thing, and see how fairness is defined by Gibson and his handlers.

Another interesting thing to consider. How about those "tough" questions Obama himself faced when interviewed by Mr. Gibson? More "fairness" at play? You decide (these are samples):

Questions for Obama (running, you may recall, for President):
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?

Questions for Palin (Vice Presidential candidate):
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you're seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren't you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
  -the Bush Doctrine
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Obvious paraphrases, but capturing the essence of the interrogation, I think.

Yet Friedman treats Gibson as if he were some sort of journalistic senior statesman.

Gibson, as dignified a newsperson as America has now, treated Palin fairly and didn't resort to hectoring her with "gotcha" questions, either.
[snip]
Gibson treated her with the respect befitting a vice presidential candidate.

Respect? He treated her as if she were some unlearned backwoods whipper-snapper, while he played the long-suffering school-master pondering whether to administer a few lashes with a switch. Heavy sighs. Peering over the rims of his "dignified" glasses. It may not have been hectoring, but it was clearly not respectful.

Friedman's bias is further demonstrated by his own lack of knowledge regarding Gibson's one (and only) attempted "zinger" throughout the interview. (Okay, he attempted others, but this is the only one that most people seem to think he nailed, but which, for obvious reasons, he did not.)

Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate.

But the "analysts" are wrong, in this case. Just purely wrong. Gibson himself showed an amazing ignorance of American foreign policy by stating his belief in a single "Bush Doctrine," as if it had the same parameters and measurable attributes of a Monroe Doctrine, or a Truman Doctrine. But it doesn't have, nor has it ever had a single iteration that you could point to and call "the" Bush Doctrine. It doesn't exist. For all of Gibson's cynical and snide insinuations that Palin, of all people, ought to have known what it is, she just as clearly showed her own mastery of Bush's foreign policy statements and her superior knowledge (superior to Gibson's, at any rate) that the Bush Doctrine is just a figment of Gibson's own imagination. Until they edited it out of the final presentation, that is.

Beyond all of the above, I really think Palin's "phenomenon" has longer legs (sorry!) than Friedman thinks. It is not an easy or insignificant thing to galvanize the conservative base of the GOP, and Palin's selection as Vice President has done exactly that. Furthermore, as evidenced by the sheer (and admittedly unscientific) numbers of female callers into talk radio of late, Palin has also touched a nerve with those who wonder just why the Democrats are so determined to tear down this woman, rather than debate her on the issues alone. So far they've just danced around the issues, yet tried with all their might to show Palin in anything but a flattering light as an American.

So I guess this means that the Democratic ticket (Barack "the Great Pretender" Obama, and Joe "Plagiarism is My Middle Name" Biden) is now fair game.

"Hunting" season ought to be interesting this fall.

Incalculable Good

The sun has gone down, and my bloggy holiday has come to an end. (Had a wonderful time with the fam, I must say. Perhaps I'll blog that over at my other home.) But with the end of the holiday comes the return to highly opinionated bloviation.

From Power Line comes word of this post from the LATimes blogs. The title reads:

Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin's decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions

Hallelujah.

That, dear reader(s?), is worth the price of the Ticket. Read the whole thing. Our good Canuck quack evidently assumes that all Down babies are — in true Obamian fashion — a burden to their parents and society at large. (Remember Obama's meme of "babies as punishment?") Dr. Andre Lalonde laments:

Lalonde says his primary concern is that women have the....

...choice of abortion and that greater public awareness of women making choices like Palin to complete a pregnancy and give birth to their genetically-abnormal baby could be detrimental and confusing to the women and their families.

"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," Lalonde tells the Globe and Mail.

Read: however will we make money destroying life?

Thus it has ever been with the pro-abortionists. If Sarah Palin's inclusion on the Republican ticket does nothing more than give more women pause before making such a life-altering and always horrendous decision, it will have been well worth it.

One might even call her invaluable.

Marking the Day

The seventh anniversary of September 11, 2001. I remember sitting in my cubicle at work, desperately trying to find coverage of the terrible events of that day on the internet. I remember the numbness as the towers collapsed. I remember the cold fury as planes were hijacked to become terrorist tools. I remember deep sorrow at the lives lost because of the violent selfishness of "religious" zealots.

Life presses forward, and I will mark this day by taking my precious family to a local aquarium for a homeschool field trip. I will be thanking my Heavenly Father along the way for living in a day, age, and society where such things are possible in the middle of a work week. And I will remember to send up prayers on behalf of those who continue to fight so that we won't have another 9/11 to deal with on American soil.

If nothing else, this is a bloggy holiday. Hug your family. Pray for someone. Ignore the election for a day.

God bless you.

Is Corruption an Issue?

Should it be?

Hugh Hewitt, in observing Obama's over-reaction to everyone else's reaction to his "pig with lipstick" remarks, makes this statement:

But mostly it [Obama's seeming reversal of fortune] isn't about Obama losing support, but about McCain-Palin gaining support as millions of Americans sense a genuine commitment on the part of the GOP ticket to reversing Washington's culture of corruption --both Congress's corruption and MSM's.

Now, on its face this appears to be just more Republican hyperbole, especially coming from one of the primary voices of today's conservative movement. In other words, just what you'd expect from someone like Hugh.

However, my own observations actually match up pretty well with Hugh in this case. (Yes, it happens that, on occasion, I disagree with Hugh. For months he tried to sell McCain solely on the basis of his stance on Iraq and the war on terror. I wasn't buying it.) When Palin was first announced for the VP slot on the ticket, one of the first stories that floated to the surface was her reputation for going after corruption, even in her own party. Assuming most or all of those stories to be factual, this would indeed be worrisome to many elected public servants, Democrat and Republican alike.

Even if we were willing to set aside Obama's relationship with radicals like Ayers (which we're not, by the way), his very identification with the notorious Chicago Democratic Machine makes Obama damaged goods. A community organizer with nearly no resources that hails from Podunk, Iowa would hold more implied honor than any number of organizers with deep-pocketed influence peddlers that hail from Chicago today.

You can call it a perception problem if you like, but it's a potentially flammable one. Particularly if Palin continues to impress voters the way she has since her announcement. For Democrats in this election the stain of the Daley "boss" days of the 60's and 70's has not been completely obliterated, but has instead done a mafia-like makeover in order to appear more respectable to the modern eye.

Democrats may have bought into the "reform," but Republicans aren't convinced.

Thus the idea of having an anti-corruptocrat in the Executive branch is cause for true hope and, yes, hope for change. It is not, as the Democrats insist, a continuation of Bush policies. Bush never went after the Washington machine like we all hoped he would. He was only ever successful in bucking Congressional direction when our national security was on the line. In the meantime, the size of government actually has grown under Bush, and no attempt has ever been made to weed out the incompetence that affects pretty much every department in his cabinet.

If McCain has his A game on when he enters the White House, the first thing he'll do is task Sarah Palin with doing exactly what Bush failed to do; go after the stupidity inherent in a huge federal bureaucracy. I don't see Obama doing anything of the sort: McCain prosecutes the interests of national security at home and abroad, and Palin goes after the corruptocrats in government.

That, my friends, is something this conservative hopes for.

The World Has an Opinion. Who Knew?

Story from the Australian Broadcasting Company regarding a recent poll of 22 (23 if you count the US) countries and whom they'd like to see in the White House next year.

Yeah. Big surprise.

Two problems with this poll:

1. The polling was done during the months of July and August. Presumably this is pre-Palin data we're talking about. I'd be very interested in (though no less swayed by) data with Palin in the mix. I wonder how the stuffed-shirt Euro-establishment sees a conservative woman affecting this race. The Brits already seem to regard her more or less as window dressing, based on what I've seen in their Fleet Street fish-wrappers thus far.

2. Like I care what the rest of the world thinks about our candidates. Aside from the mild curiosity I just mentioned, why should we care for one minute what world opinion is with respect to our political process? Lest we fear too much that world opinion holds any real sway here, let's remind ourselves just how welcome US opinion of foreign processes is these days. Last I heard, even the G8 were telling Bush to mind his own doggoned business, and I can't imagine Obama being much more than just another celebrity anywhere outside of Washington, D.C. They'd fawn over him when he makes his appearances before kings and ministers, then pat him on his head and send him back across the pond to get him out of the way. A world power-player he would not be. The first time he goes to the United Nations to ask "Mother, may I?" (Obama would characterize such a visit as having a "frank" dialogue with the Security Council, of course) would forever brand him as weak, and he would find powers such as Russia and China (not to mention the entire Middle East) testing his limits to the uttermost.

I find the list of nations who were polled to be fascinating:

A total of 23,531 people in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone in July and August 2008 for the poll.

Of the nations polled, I find China and Russia to be particularly telling. If they truly want an Obama presidency, what does that say about the person with whom they'd rather deal? Several socialist or near-socialist nations in this mix, not to mention countries with heavy Muslim populations that would be highly unlikely to support anyone who wishes to pursue the fight with terrorists on (or near) their turf. Not even Australia is as staunchly conservative as it once was, so no surprise here.

Here's the money quote, though:

"Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents," GlobeScan chairman Doug Miller said.

"Given how negative America's international image is at present, it is quite striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the Bush administration's relations with the world."

Striking, perhaps, but not in the least surprising. And a negative international image is just par for the course. Even with Clinton's pandering to foreign leaders, our international image wasn't all that hot during his presidency, either. Fact is, the world has always seen us more or less as uncultured cowboys, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

But, hey, thanks for your feedback, folks. Keep those comments coming. We'll just keep filing them in our nice round file cabinet next to the shredder.

It's Not an Ideology; It's a Point of View

I've not been a fan of celebrity gossip/news magazines for many years now. I used to get a copy of People every once in awhile when I was younger. You know... whenever the current news cycle was getting dry (which was apparently a frequent thing twenty years ago). As I got older, though, I found my taste for celebrity voyeurism waning. I began to care less about which celebs were divorcing, dating, or openly gay. What I cared about was how to protect my children from the political aspirations of actors who had talent (arguably), moxie (definitely), but not a lot of actual smarts (decidedly). Hark! Rob Reiner wants to force my kids to go to pre-school. Quelle surprise. Gee, [insert celebrity name here] thinks animals are more important than unborn children. How inspiring.

I think over the years I picked up exactly one issue of US Weekly of my own volition. I was probably bored and curious about whatever their then-current salacious cover story might be. Any other issues I perused were probably bought by a magazine-junkie relative or in hair-cutting salons. I would never in a million years consider US to be anything resembling a legitimate news organization. Especially having been subjected to a culture in Southern California that has pretty much worshipped at the altar of celebrity for my entire life.

Thus you may imagine my inability to keep my guffaws to myself when I heard Bradley Jacobs, senior editor with US Weekly, defend his magazine as a news magazine in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly:

KELLY: No, you don't. You don't, Bradley. That's not in there. Do you mention an official — you mentioned so-called "trooper-gate" talking about — and I'm quoting from your article, an official who refused - She's under investigation for dismissing an official who refused to fire her sister's state trooper ex-husband. Do you point out that the allegations that that trooper she allegedly wanted fired tasered his own stepson who was only 10 and made death threats against Sarah Palin's father. Do you mention that in the article?

JACOBS: We didn't have time to get into everything that you have mentioned. This story was breaking over the weekend. Everyone was talking about it, and Us magazine has a very distinctive voice and we cover the news.

While his excuse may have held more weight twenty years ago, in this day of instantaneous (and frequently incorrect) fact-gathering one would think a more conservative approach to such stories might be advisable. Certainly they wouldn't want to find themselves in the unenviable position of having reported something as being "possibly true," only to find before the magazine was even published that most of those allegations were patently false. That's the sort of thing that used to shut down reporters' (and not a few editors') careers back in the day.

Unfortunately, these days a magazine like US is likely hailed as a heroic anti-establishment crusader by the Daily Kos-induced madness of the political left. Hey, it could have been true, and that's good enough for us! The rest of Jacobs' interview consisted of his whining about how "measured and even-keeled" the story was, assuming that Kelly had never read it. She had, drat the luck.

KELLY: I've read the story. What are the lies?

JACOBS: Actually, the lies that we point out are some of the liberal bloggers who were speculating that the daughter was actually - had given birth, that there was a cover-up there. We're one of the few magazines that actually did call to task those liberal bloggers for the news stories over the weekend.

The problem with Jacobs' assertion, however, is that the article apparently nowhere actually mentions these lying liberals according to Michelle Malkin (who graciously — and bravely — read the article so we don't have to):

But the article makes zero mention of any of those liberal slime bloggers. Instead, here is how the magazine played up those rumors. Look at the big, red “Where’s the Bump?” headline. The caption reads: “In an earlier pregnancy (left), Palin had a visible bump. In a 2008 photo (right), used online to call Palin’s pregnangy into question, she is six months pregnant with her fifth baby.” [Photo included in Michelle's post]

Compare and Contrast

US Weekly's transparent attempt to smear Sarah Palin and her family does nothing to allay the accusations of liberal bias in the press today. MSNBC is having their own problems with this perception, and much of it comes from a deeply held sense of denial in which the chiefs of this and other news organizations live. Take, for example, this statement by MSNBC chief Phil Griffin:

Mr. Griffin, MSNBC’s president, denies that it has an ideology. “I think ideology means we think one way, and we don’t,” he said. Rather than label MSNBC’s prime time as left-leaning, he says it has passion and point of view.

Okay, let's help Mr. Griffin out here; if you have a "point of view," you have an ideology. Passion is undeniable, and we'll grant that point. But he loses the argument on point of view versus ideology. The two are, if not synonymous, deeply intertwined.

MSNBC's problems right now are it's admittedly incendiary cornerstones: Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Olbermann is arguably MSNBC's most successful host. (Side note: at just over one million viewers — roughly half of Fox's highest rated show — he's just negotiated a four-year, four million dollar extension of his contract. At just over $1.00 per viewer, the man is clearly over-priced.) Yet both have been "yanked" from anchoring the upcoming debate season and election night in favor of the somewhat less controversial David Gregory. This qualifies as a major slap-in-the-face for Olbermann and Matthews, neither of whom have made any bones about their deep-rooted hatred for conservative America. Here again, MSNBC lies, if only to themselves:

In January, Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews, the host of “Hardball,” began co-anchoring primary night coverage, drawing an audience that enjoyed the pair’s “SportsCenter”-style show. While some critics argued that the assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly anchor on election night — something that has never happened — MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.

Or maybe he doesn't.

In writing about this latest liberal fiasco, Hugh Hewitt made this closing statement:

You cannot fix what you don't know is broken.

I'd have to disagree with that, Hugh. You cannot fix what you refuse to acknowledge is broken.

There is a difference.

UPDATE: A French student, I ain't. I'd said "q'uel" surprise initially. Snarkocist Commenter Mark N. set me straight. (Yeah, yeah, I know... takes one to know one.) I learned a form of Spanish unique to the Maya Quiché of Guatemala. Won't find that in any textbook. ;-)

Neo-Civil Discourse

I've lamented before about the state of the modern socio-political discussion.

Michelle Malkin posted her syndicated column today. It's titled "The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse." She makes the well-documented assertion that each stage — infantilization, sexualization, demonization, and dehumanization — has been utilized with alarming acceleration by the unhinged elements of the Democratic party adherents. These people are clearly out to get Palin's scalp, and nothing less will satisfy them. The phrase "kill Palin, and kill her quick" has already been suggested, and one wonders just how literally the left is willing to go to accomplish that directive.

I found Malkin's article interesting for another reason. It documents the use of means by which totalitarian regimes throughout history have often degraded and humiliated their citizens in order to attain and maintain control over them. Hitler used demonization, for instance, to astonishing degrees of success. He so inflamed the wrath of Germans and their sympathizers against the Jews that the next step — dehumanization — was completed without so much as a battle fought. They seemingly just rounded them up and tossed them all into concentration camps, there to endure abuses and deprivations that have never been seen at Gitmo.

But there is a fundamental problem with decrying such behaviors and trying to pin them exclusively to one side or the other. It simply can't be done. There is no exclusivity in this arena because both sides, Democrats and Republicans alike, are frequently guilty.

To use one of Michelle's examples, Bill Maher once infamously called Laura Bush "Hitler's dog." Other examples abound, including Whoopi Goldberg's profane comparisons of George Bush with female anatomy. In each case, no attempt at civility is even hinted at. The intended victims have incurred the wrath of the speakers, and they must pay.

Yet Michelle herself is often no less guilty of demonization when writing about her political opponents and targets. Let's face it: writing an entire tome about the "unhinged" left (a phrase I myself have used, including the second paragraph of this post) is demonizing, whatever else you may choose to call it.

But these tactics are inherent in modern politics. You can't avoid them, and no single candidate in the last 100 years or more has ever dared try. Politicians who do not employ one or more of Malkin's "stages" do not attain office in this country. Not anymore. Especially when confronted with an electorate that has become so saturated with the "entertainment value" of denigrating one's opponent to the point of abject humiliation and destruction.

We have long since, as a nation, put behind us the ability to judge a candidate solely on their stated positions. One wonders whether Lincoln would ever have reached the White House were he put under the modern microscopes of armchair internet investigators, rabid talk-show hosts, cable network talking heads, and a decidedly arrogant and biased press. The man certainly had his human faults and foibles, and it's highly unlikely that even the Douglas-Lincoln debates would have amounted to much more than a 30-second sound bite because the "moderator" would have insisted on lobbing inane question after inane question at them.

So here's my challenge to the electorate-at-large: Let's take the next several weeks and quit trying to find out whether Palin was at some point in her life a closet Nazi pole-dancer, or whether Joe Biden is having inappropriate relations with his hair dresser. Let's instead listen to what they actually say and make our judgements solely on that basis. No other distractions, please, so we can listen and actually process what we're hearing. I believe we'll all be able to come out of that experience with a much greater appreciation for whether or not our preferred candidates are truly worthy of the job.

I, for one, will be listening intently to Gov. Palin this evening. I really need to hear what she says, and I hope she doesn't waste too much time on all the nonsense to which the scandal-mongers have subjected her this week. I've only heard her talk about energy so far, and I liked what I heard. I will tune into the debates later to see how the candidates measure up to each other. It should be very enlightening.

At least, it will so long as the white noise goes away.

A Fun Election! Finally!

If you have any sympathy at all for McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, you have to admit that this team has made the election fun this year!

In my previous post, I wondered just what, exactly, the overall reaction to Palin would be. What has happened has in fact gone beyond my wildest dreams. The Obama Idiocrats are falling over themselves to dismiss Palin as anything but a viable candidate for the Number Two spot on the Republican ticket.

Some of the "accusations" rendered thus far:

• Palin was not the mother of baby Trig, who was born with Down's Syndrome. Daughter Bristol was the alleged mother and "Grandma" Sarah is taking the heat.
Status: Not true. Plenty of photographic support for a very pregnant Gov. Palin just prior to Trig's birth. That's her baby.

• Evangelical Christian candidate for vice president has a daughter who is pregnant out of wedlock. How can she possibly expect other evangelicals to support her?
Status: Check your scandal-meters, folks. Will there be those who won't support Palin because of this issue? Probably. Will their lack of support make much of a difference? I doubt it. This is, first, foremost, and forever a family issue. Their family. Not mine or anyone else's. They are handling it. The fact that they are handling it in a way with which I happen to sympathize just cements my own support for the Governor.

• Sarah Palin is "good looking."
Status: While not so much an "accusation," the fact that it comes from Joe Biden and appears to be the only redeeming quality he can find in her makes it significant. Plagiarized any speeches lately, Joe?

• Palin's "Trooper-gate" Problem.
Status: Well and fully fisked. Another non-issue.

• Yeah, but didn't Palin just hire a private lawyer to help with the "Trooper-gate" problem?
Status: Oh, please. With Democrats and the liberal press dogging your every step, wouldn't you get a lawyer? We've already established that the woman is no idiot.

This is one case where the harder they push, the more tightly we will tend to circle the wagons. None of these allegations has been particularly disturbing on their surface. Even less so as we dig deeper into them. A pregnant daughter? Well, so what? Doesn't that say more about the liberal policies foisted upon us by hippies and others over the preceeding decades? The very fact that Bristol has a) chosen to keep the baby and b) decided to marry the father speak volumes about how she was raised. Not for me to judge the situation, but I surely can (and do) support them.

Apparently the hard-core feminists of the country are all a-dither over Palin. Consider her a "sell out" it seems. This would be because, although a highly successful career woman, she also chooses to be as much of a "traditional" wife and mother as she can. And she succeeds at both. This is anathemic to the ERA-spawned Steinems of the nation who still don't (and never will) get it. A woman's noblest calling is that of mother, and those who succeed (even aspiring to, as Palin does) are beyond the pale of their collective understanding.

Obama himself seeks to diminish the accomplishments of the Alaskan Governor. Seems to have forgotten (or perhaps is jealous of) the fact that she is, in fact, a governor. Something he himself has never been. Rather than compare his "massive" campaign credentials to her itty-bitty mayoral post, why not compare them instead to her creds as a governor over-seeing a $13 billion annual budget for a state that directly abuts Russia? Because he comes off as much less impressive if he does so. Do us all a favor, Barack; keep ignoring her accomplishments as governor. We'll fill in the blanks for you.

Thus the histrionics of the Democratic party continue, and their designated target is a woman who could probably arm-wrestle any one of them into eternal shame. And thanks to the internet and new media, we have a front-row seat for the Greatest Show on Earth. Palin has so far acquitted herself nicely in the center ring of the national arena. Can we vote for someone like that?

Why, yes. Yes, we can.

McCain-Palin 2008

A lot of buzz surrounding McCain's announcement of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate yesterday. I've been holding back on this appointment for two very simple reasons:

1. I know next to nothing about her.

2. I wanted to see what kind of reaction overall she gets, and just how hard the MSM intends to attack her.

Conclusion: I'm in.

This very well may mollify enough of us cold-hearted right-wingers to vote for McCain, and he could just pull this thing off in November. Palin, based on her CNBC interview a few days before she got the nod, has the goods. In fact, if this interview helped McCain make his decision, he may be smarter than I've been giving him credit for. Her energy smarts alone will be a huge boon to this ticket.

Is she relatively inexperienced? Depends, I guess, on how one defines "experience." Has she been a product of a generally corrupt Chicago political machine? No. Can't make that claim. Has she been mentored by radical leftist activists and politicians over the last twenty or so years? Not that, either. She was, however, mayor of a town for several years, and has actually run a state for the last two years. That alone gives her a level of practical "executive" experience that Obama has never had (and, heaven willing, never will).

And here we must bring up the attacks that the liberals are already unleashing. First, from the de facto liberal press comes a report of sexist slander of the type that conservatives are generally guilty of by association. No idea if this actually happened as there's no feed that I can find with this incident on it. However, leftists are already looking for scandalous material with which to smear Gov. Palin, so I'm certain we haven't heard the last of that.

The Obama campaign quickly jumped in with its usual mixed messages. It's telling that their initial gut-level reaction is to try and dismiss Gov. Palin as a political nobody whose only claim to fame is running a puny state for a mere couple of years. Then they took a couple of cleansing deep breaths, apparently, and crafted a far more politically correct response to feed the news outlets, who of course lapped it up like cats with a bowl of cream.

So the Obama attack machine is now in high gear. Flopping Aces is tracking down the facts in the case of an Alaskan state trooper who is apparently quite deranged, and Palin's handling of the situation. Truth to tell, after wading through these stories I kinda wish we'd had Palin down here in Orange County helping to deal with former Sheriff Mike "Kingfish" Carona and his corruption scandal. Might have saved some time and headache.

In politics, apparently, the harder they attack you, the more worried they must be. Looks like the Dems are plenty worried. McCain must have chosen well.

At least I hope he has.

Don't Even Go There, McCain

This report from FoxNews.com is telling in many respects. It informs us that McCain — allegedly, anyway — has given up on his foolish notion of choosing a pro-choice running mate. Specifically Tom Ridge. Many of us cold-hearted conservatives are somewhat less than convinced. In fact, should McCain nominate anyone other than Romney or (I guess I could swallow hard and accept this) Pawlenty, he's going to have a major revolt on his hands. Mutiny is not out of the question, even at this late stage. Write-in votes are still my hip-pocket position, and I will resort thither if McCain keeps mavericking his way out of conservative graces.

Among the quotes in this otherwise unremarkable report is found this nugget:

“At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party will be comfortable with whatever decision John makes,” Ridge said.

This tells you everything you need to know about the modern Republican party. We are ultimately seen by party leaders as nothing more than dumb sheep in three-piece suits who will buck up and support whomever the current standard-bearer tells us to support.

Drawing from my boundless capacity for understatement, may I just say, "not so fast, cowboy."

At the risk of Hugh Hewitt actually taking notice of this blog (there's always a .0032985% probability) and getting my virtual wrist slapped, I am willing to take the GOP to task over this and many other issues. For a deplorably long time now we have found our voices being discounted, scoffed at, or even extinguished over our insistence at holding to our core principles. If this is the direction of the GOP, I need a new party. (Democrats need not apply: I still have my principles.)

McCain has exactly one chance to get this right. If he hems and haws his way to defeat in November we'll never have to deal with him again in a presidential election. At age 76 four years from now, he will be unelectable. If by some miracle he survives this November, we have to be ready to throw him under the bus in four years if he shows no signs of repenting for his very un-GOP-like positions.

For now, I hope the old guard of the GOP are reading the tea leaves. The conventions are upon us, and the battle royal will be enjoined. If McCain refuses to rally his troops, he'll have no one to blame but himself.

By the way, John, expecting (as Ridge does) that Republican voters will be "comfortable" with whomever you select (or whatever position you take) does NOT, for the record, equal "rallying the troops."

Lest there be any question.

Wild Blue Wonder

About the only thing that can be said about this report is that the Air Force and Secretary of Defense may finally get what they were jonesing for all along.

At least this time they were more openly biased and deceitful about it. That oughta save time with audits of their so-called "competitive" bidding process.

McCain will be so insufferableproud.

John Edwards Channels...

For those of us old enough to remember, Gary Hart was the quintessential political savant. He'd made an excellent run in the 1988 presidential race and was even considered a front-runner for a time. Then came the revelations of his "affair" (never proven, but never disproved, either) with Donna Rice. To his credit, Hart stuck by his story and was never really shaken from it. He has since moved quietly into the political background; still contributing to Democratic favorite-son causes (energy in particular), but also mentioned as a possible cabinet appointee if Obama wins in November. Perhaps not an actual Secretariat, but still a position of no small influence.

By contrast, Edwards has already jumped through the "I didn't do it!" hoops. Now he finds himself having to 'fess up and it galls him. Yes, he says, he had an affair. No, he's not the father of the baby. The affair began when Elizabeth was in remission, but she did not know of his recent visit to Beverly Hills.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Everything about Edwards reeks of irrelevance in the political arena. His message was trite and his execution to plan was weak. Coupled with the historic matchup of both a strong woman and a strong African American in this campaign, Edwards had no toe-hold on any sizeable voting bloc.

Can't really say he's channeled Gary Hart, given the facts in evidence. He's actually a bit closer to Elliot Spitzer.

I am hopeful that Edwards will take the hit and bow quietly out of American politics. Unfortunately, history teaches us that men of Edwards' caliber never learn this important lesson. They desperately seek to be relevant whether we perceive them to be so or not. So I suspect that Edwards will brush this whole affair off, speak his mea culpas sincerely enough to be forgiven by an extremely liberal press, then fade into the Gary Hart world of background politics.

I guess the comfort here is that (perhaps I should not presume, but I'm hopelessly romantic about such things) this should be the last time we see this man run for President. We have our hands full enough at the moment.

So, it would appear, does he.

Let's Play the Race Card

I think I have an idea of how we can turn racism to our mutual advantage. Work with me here:

Racism is Obama's only hope in this election. If he can somehow convince enough people that all Republicans are inherently racist, he stands a shot at actually winning the election. It's clear he'd never make it on policy alone, so his campaign has to play the race card. They thus enable the "victim" status that becomes so critical in the liberal mindset and catapults them into the voting booth.

It never seems to faze the race-carders that Republicans come in all shapes, sizes, colors, orientations, and what have you. Republicans are always guilty by association and that's just the way it works in this country today. And Democrats always lay claim to absolute moral authority where race issues are concerned. Republicans, it seems, are the only people in the United States who are not allowed to be victims. This was especially true when Clinton was in the Oval Office.

[Discussion question: Who was running the country while Clinton was having his little trysts? Was there a "knock-three-times-wait-30-seconds" rule? What happens in case of a nuclear attack? Just wondering.]

Anyway, I believe we can create a socially acceptable form of racism that I, for one, would be proud to be associated with. It involves the creation of a new special interest group in this country, and, hey, if you follow our history back a few years you know there's always room for one more special interest group.

Let's make politicians a race unto themselves.

Seriously. We can even put it on those welfare forms where they're not technically allowed to ask what race you are but always do so politicians can show how much support (read: money) they're giving to minorities. Right under "Caucasian," "Amerasian," "African American," or "Native American" we can now put "Politician."

This opens up a whole vista of opportunities for politicians to pursue their favorite hot-button issues (as victims), while allowing us the luxury of being racist because we all (those of us with functioning brain stems, anyway) hate politicians.

True story: When Mrs. Woody was pregnant we had decided we really didn't want to know the babies' genders before they were born. We were in the "let's be pleasantly surprised" camp. We picked out names for boys AND girls both times. The girls even cooperated with us in utero. They both modestly withheld their genders when under the gaze of the sonogram. One of them even crossed her legs just to make sure. One technician told us, pointing to some obscure pixelated image on the screen, "See that? I'm gonna say 75% certain that's a boy." Hah. Anyway, the point of this story is that whenever people asked me what we wanted, a boy or a girl, I always answered, truthfully, that I didn't care. So long as it wasn't a politician.

So that's my proposal. Once we declare "politician" to be a race, I will freely admit to being a racist, with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto. Obama then wouldn't be lying when he calls me one.

It's worth a shot.

Because This Electon Wasn't Weird Enough, That's Why

This election has certainly had its ups and downs.

I think it is completely defined by the deeply insightful and profound analysis proffered by newly anointed political commentator Paris Hilton. (Extreme content caution if you choose to watch the video. Think Carl's Jr. commercials.) Her astute description of McCain as "white-haired dude" is probably the best her generation has to offer right now. Althouse thinks it was a pro-McCain message. Certainly he chose to play it up that way. "Sounds like she agrees with our 'all of the above' approach," was his rejoinder.

McCain has given conservatives a new definition of pain. If we can survive his approach to border security, we can handle just about anything. See-dubya (blogging for Michelle Malkin) follows the story of the most recent incursion into US territory by the Mexican army. He strongly suggests building some sort of "barrier thingie" as quickly as possible, which is something that McCain can only claim lip-service to supporting.

Obama, meanwhile, gives us pause. How many seasoned politicians do you know will tell a seven-year old that the nation is a mess? As a parent of (former) seven-year olds, I can tell you that this would not have been my approach to the question, politics be damned. My seven-year olds were impressionable enough to have gotten many nights' worth of nightmares had I answered the question the way Obama did. But an Obama without a teleprompter is like a fortune cookie without the paper inside; all air, no substance.

But none of the above is the reason for my headline. No, this election just got weirder with the introduction of (I can't believe I'm typing this) Obama and McCain paper dolls. Yes, it's true. Dover Publications has them available for $7.99 each. They are the work of Tom Tierney, whom Mrs. Woody informs me is quite a well-known figure in the paper doll business.

The likenesses of both Obama and McCain are those of the insipid male models who used to grace Sears catalogs throughout the 80's and spilled over into most other retail outlets. I'm guessing they both come with multiple empty suits. You expect to see the both of them on a page touting "evening wear" for the "deal-making man."

(Not that Woody can brag here... I was once photographed in similar outfits in our local fish-wrapper in the early 90's. That's because I was a featured soloist for our local Chorale's holiday concert and we had agreed to do a fashion shoot for the Life section of the paper. Let me be frank: Woody is no fashion model. And I was nowhere near as, um, portly as I am today.)

Anyway, the thought of my girls even wanting to own paper doll versions of either (or both!) candidates just sends me to my knees, choking with laughter:

"Okay, Mr. Obama, you get to be the fairy princess who controls the whole kingdom of Obamatopia! Pretend you're waiting for your chamberlain to bring you your speech before you go talk to the peasants!"

"And, Mr. McCain, you can be the evil Dark Knight who wants to invade Obamatopia and has an old horse that can't run very fast, and your battle-axe is rusty so you hafta trade it for a wand made out of flowers and you try to find Obamatopia but it's enchanted and that's why you're lost!"

Hey, my kids always use exclamation points when they play. Don't yours?

Anyway, if you have $8 to kill, go ahead and buy a paper doll. Here's an even better idea: buy the set of two. Then you can stage your own mock debates on YouTube using the paper dolls. (Some restrictions may apply.)

They're bound to be better than the real ones later this fall.

Finally! A Poll I Can Dispute!

Reuters reports on a New York Times/CBS News poll released today showing that Americans are "sharply divided by race." The numbers:

In the survey, 83 percent of blacks had a favorable opinion of Obama, compared with 31 percent of white voters.

Which of course means that we in the other 69 percent of the white populace must be bigots. It's apparently the only explanation.

According to NYT/CBS, anyway.

Taken at face value, those numbers certainly seem to be polarizing. Gee, 83 percent of blacks like Obama. Only 31 percent of whites. But let's see why, exactly, the other 69 percent aren't falling all over themselves to paint Obama in glowing terms.

Let's start with his stance on the war in Iraq. The man wants to end it. Fine, I have no problem with that. I'd like it to end as well. Where we differ is in his projecting to the entire world that he will begin troop withdrawals "immediately" ("within days of taking office" I believe he said) and has committed to an actual timetable. While that looks like great news on the Ending Violence front, it's actually just a neat little statement that if Al Qaeda digs a deep enough hole to hide in for the next 24 months or so, they can emerge triumphantly and pick right up where they left off. I find this kind of broadcasting to be incredibly irresponsible and that, by itself, is reason enough for me to have an "unfavorable" opinion of Mr. Obama. Trying to make his anti-surge sentiments suddenly disappear from his web site does not, by the way, help.

I've mentioned his lack of experience. Several years of local state politics and three as a junior senator do NOT automatically qualify a man to serve as President of the United States. His insistence on relying upon extreme leftist policies (not to mention the extremists that helped shape his political philosophies over the decades) means that he won't even try to find a centrist position on any of the domestic issues that are important to me. The man does not have my back, and I expect he never will based on his many teleprompted speeches and rallies. One more notch in the "unfavorable" column, I'm afraid.

Although he has spoken recently about extending the stimulus package (Bush prefers a "wait and see" approach), he hasn't really shown any interest in pursuing policies that would truly stimulate the economy and allow us to wean ourselves off of foreign oil in a controlled manner. Instead we can look forward to either continuing high prices in energy costs, or efforts to nationalize our oil companies under an Obama administration. Big mistake. Still "unfavorable."

There are other issues of course. His likelihood of choosing liberal members of the Supreme Court is a serious concern. We need justices who will stick to constitutional limits rather than bench legislation. Just look at the train wreck that is the California Supreme Court. We just don't need that at a federal level.

Somewhere at the bottom of this list is the word "race." It is undeniable that the man is black (even if only partly so). But the color of his skin is not troublesome. It is instead his allegiance to the same party that brings us the biggest race-baiting demagogues this country has ever seen: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Two of the most cynical, dangerous men we will ever know. Even then, the color of their skin is not truly the issue. Any fool can foam at the mouth over racial issues as we've seen in an Obama colleague-cum-political-roadkill by the name of Michael Pfleger. So is it Obama's color that I find reprehensible? No. Just his philosophies and his denial of the culture of victimhood that has intensified since the days of Martin Luther King, Jr.

So there in a nutshell is why I am not included in those 31 percent who have a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama.

I can't speak for everyone else. But, really, do I have to?

Tasteless AND Offensive

I've been looking at this cover of "The New Yorker" all flamin' day. It's typical political porn: this is the kind of stuff that campaigns dream will come their way so they have someone to demonize and take the heat off whatever legitimate criticisms may be coming their way. While McCain tries to point out Obama's obvious lack of terrorism smarts (huge) and distance himself from Obama's position on immigration reform (not do-able, I'm afraid), this kind of pointed political satire just feeds an already frenzied bottom-dwelling class of voter. Reaction from the left, particularly Obama's campaign, is swift:

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

"But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," he said in a statement.

Well, yes and no. Do I find it "tasteless and offensive?" Sure. It's an obvious hit piece; designed to evoke an emotional response from both sides of the political spectrum. Do I think it reflects badly on Obama?

Nope. Not even close.

Look, if tasteless and offensive were ever considered true political barometers, Clinton the First would never have made it to the Oval Office in the first place. We knew he was a womanizing shark before he ever took office. Tasteless and offensive in a single package. What a deal!

Also, if tasteless and offensive were truly worthy of contempt, then people like Ted Rall would have been arrested and waterboarded years ago.

It doesn't really help that McCain's campaign jumped on the bandwagon, either:

"We completely agree with the Obama campaign that it is tasteless and offensive," spokesman Tucker Bounds said.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Is that as original as the campaign machine gets? If this is really that important, let's go after "The New Yorker" and take them down. (Rhetorically, of course. The press, for reasons that are still unclear, appear to be even more sacred than a black politician trying to reach the highest political office in the nation.)

But of course they won't. Enough, I guess, to state that it was "tasteless and offensive" and then hope to heaven the furor dies down before the MSM hits their stride.

As a conservative — no, scratch that... — as a right-wing conservative, what I find truly offensive about the artwork is that it's supposed to be an over-the-top representation of how we right-wingers truly feel about Obama and his missus.

Hogwash.

Yes, of course there are those pond-scum in the Republican camp who froth at the mouth over Obama's alleged Muslim allegiances (unproven), his America-hating wife (slight overreaction), and his political naivete (dead on).

So if this cover is meant to portray them, fine. I'm on board with that. But to project this attitude on the rest of us who try to take a far more reasonable assessment of this upstart is truly insulting.

I will state here that there are remarkable aspects of Obama's campaign from a historical perspective. He is black, and is considered the first such candidate to have more than a decent chance of winning the election in November. Historically this is proof that we as a nation have risen above our blood-soaked past and catapulted a man who would have been a slave 160 years ago into the national spotlight. It might be said that this is a true vindication of Lincoln's proclamation.

He is also evidence of the American dream. His story is one of success from many different angles, even if one doesn't completely agree with what constitutes "success."

But there my admiration for the man ends. Politically he still represents positions that I find completely untenable as a would-be President of the United States. His desire to broadcast to our enemies that if they hunker down for just a few more months they will be left to their own devices is truly alarming. His naivete with respect to international politics is also a hugely negative point to consider. And, just because he's a dyed-in-the-wool (LATE NIGHT POSTING ALERT: "dyed" in the wool, NOT "died" in the wool. I'm not trying to send any subliminal messages here!) liberal, his positions on such things as same-sex marriage and the judicial are anaethma. (I can't really complain as much about his immigration policies simply because McCain isn't all that different. I sigh a lot when I think about this one.)

Thus I find it to be a slap in my face that this "New Yorker" cover is meant to represent me. I don't accept that perception. As a satirical piece I think it bombed completely. No one (except, perhaps, the Kos sycophants) seems to be laughing, if indeed they were really meant to.

Speaking of laughing, Drudge also points to this piece which wonders why no one is allowed to laugh at Obama. Because this is such a "historical" candidacy, I suppose, folks are handling Obama with the proverbial kid gloves:

When [Jon] Stewart on "The Daily Show" recently tried to joke about Obama changing his position on campaign financing, for instance, he met with such obvious resistance from the audience, he said, "You know, you're allowed to laugh at him." Stewart said in a telephone interview on Monday, "People have a tendency to react as far as their ideology allows them."

The man is black, which means, apparently, hands off. I'm guessing this is the bottom line, even though the article doesn't come right out and say that. So we have to check our senses of humor at the door whenever Obama enters the room. McCain, being white and old, is fair game.

Well, I, too, am white and (getting) old. So come and get me, "New Yorker." I'll have my lawyer look into age discrimination as hate speech. Why not try a cover about that?

Parental Rights Amendment

Mrs. Woody sent me an item that's making the email rounds. It's a proposed constitutional amendment "relating to parental rights." It was introduced into the House on June 26, and contains the following intriguing language:

`Article --

`Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

`Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

`Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.'.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan introduced it, and Section 1 is spot-on. You'll not get any disagreement from any homeschooling parent that this has always been one of our most fundamental rights. Truth is, the very fact that we need to make this a constitutional amendment at all is a very telling indictment of just how ludicrous our interfering governments — federal and local — have become.

Section 2, however, bothers me. Rather than leave it where it was in Section 1, the lawyers just couldn't resist keeping that little loophole in there. So long as the feds or the states fail to demonstrate that their interests are of the "highest order," then no problem. But how on earth do they define "highest order?" I know how I define it, and I hardly think I'm on the same wavelength as a bunch of legal parasites in expensive clothing.

I can pretty much guarantee that, were this amendment to actually be ratified (and it has a loooooooong way to go before that happens) the Democrats of California would expend every effort to demonstrate exactly how the "problem" of homeschooling is an issue of the "highest order." You could probably measure how long it would take them to file the first court challenges with a stop-watch. I would prefer (silly me) to have that section redacted completely. Or, failing that, some language that speaks to only allowing the government to intervene where clear and demonstrable danger to the children exists. Even this language would be frought with potential misinterpretation, so a much smarter person than I am would have to craft that section.

It really is a nice gesture, but I won't be holding my breath. It's only just been introduced. It has to fight its way through both a Pelosi House and a Reid Senate before it can even be sent to the various states for consideration. If history is any teacher, this thing will die in committee long before it makes it to our state legislatures.

John McCain and Alien-nation

(Warning: Way Too Late at Night Hyperbole Alert)

There are things about this election that really irk me, and primary among them is that we Republicans have been saddled with a candidate who has gone out of his way to alienate Republican voters.

Mrs. Woody has already deflected a couple of phone calls from Republican money grubbers in the past few weeks. I think she knows that there are few things that raise my blood pressure faster than people asking for money who clearly have not earned that right. If Mr. McCain really, truly "needs" my money as badly as he says he does (or his sycophantic telemarketers say they do, at any rate), then he needs to quit torquing us off.

Any Republican telemarketer that happens to have the bad fortune to get me on the phone had better hope the campaign will cover the costs of a good ear doctor. He's gonna get an earfull.

"You want my money, eh?"

"Yes, Mr. Woody, we need to be able to outspend Obama so that we can..."

"Hold it right there, Junior. Is your candidate still chummy with the Open Borders special interests?"

"Well, sir, I wouldn't really classify it that way..."

"No, I'm sure you wouldn't. Does he still believe that 'Global Warming' is our fault and therefore we should front the costs of 'fixing it?'"

"Sir, you can't deny that Global Warming is a problem..."

"I would never do that, but I have yet to see incontrovertible proof that it's my fault. Does McCain still claim to be a conservative even though he clearly has no patience with conservative voters?"

"John McCain is proud of his conservative recor..."

"Yes, I know. Good luck with your fundraising. You're gonna need it."

See, unlike John McCain, I still see open borders as a problem. In fact, were I a senior Republican senator from Arizona, and I knew that Mexican nationals had crossed the border into my home state to perform home invasion robberies and commit murder in the process, I think I'd be a bit more concerned with building the dam'd fence.

I also think that with our economy in the toilet (if not the actual U-bend), I might be more helpful in opening up the prospects of drilling for something that we badly need while we wait interminably for the infrastructure to support greener alternatives. Seems McCain wasn't even interested enough to attend the vote on that one.

Thanks, John, for alienating conservative voters and simultaneously creating an alien nation. I'm sure glad you, at least, can sleep soundly at night. Me... I might just have to thank the Supreme Court and go buy me a gun. Maybe then I'll sleep a bit better.

Okay, So Race is Off the Table

Fair is fair, Mr. Obama. You fear that Republicans will use race to attack you during the campaign. I can certainly understand where race would be a hugely distracting issue among such things as border security, global terrorism, global warming, and other such trivia. So let me set your mind at ease, sir:

I am perfectly happy with avoiding any and all reference to your ancestry.

However, since you seem to assume that I, as a Republican, would stoop to such tactics merely because my tan isn't anywhere near as great as yours, this smacks of being some sort of negotiation. And, of course, in any good negotiation there has to be some sort of consideration on both sides.

So here's the deal. I won't mention your race in this blog. However, I presume this to mean that all other aspects of your campaign are on the table. This includes your record, your inexperience, your previous statements on hot-key issues, your current statements on those same issues, your wife's statements that she makes on your behalf and which are truly part of the national debate whether you and she like it or not, and your continual efforts to smear all Republicans with one broad brush. This will include your statements on why you didn't feel that rule of law was sufficient qualification for a Supreme Court Justice, along with your previously stated intent to rely on public funding for your campaign which seems now to have become rather an inconvenient position for you. We also get to adjudicate your worthiness to hold office by studying the characters who make up a large part of your life experience; you know, pastors, advisors and such.

If you agree to these terms, Mr. Obama, then I welcome your desire to keep race out of this campaign. Good luck with that.

The Spirit is Willing, but the Budget is Weak

Much ado now over rapidly rising oil prices and, by extension, gas prices. A brief rundown of Drudge headlines yesterday and today focuses on oil having reached a record $139 on Friday, with $150 per barrel not far off (July 4??). Ford is already in reaction mode and and will lower production on trucks and SUVs while focusing on models with higher fuel economies. GMC has come up with what it terms a "hybrid" version of its humongous Yukon. That takes it up to a whopping 20-22 estimated MPG (from, probably, 6 or 7?). Well, I have news for GMC: our wonderful minivan that we purchased last year specifically so we could accommodate our family vacations in style gets 20-22 MPG on the open highway, and it still cost me nearly $70 to fill the tank on the return trip. That was two weekends ago when I was scandalized to find prices of $4.39 per gallon on the I-5 corridor at Lebec. Already that seems like the good ol' days compared to what my local Shell is going for as of today: $4.49 for the cheap stuff.

All this by way of saying that I need to have some serious discussions with my bosses about making the telecommute option more the norm than the exception.

In that respect, I've been "going green" for several months now. It started with Mrs. Woody's illness last summer and has more or less continued into this year. I've been rationalizing staying home due to hideous project deadlines that suffer whenever I take 45 minutes out of my morning to drive the 22 miles into the office. So, that, coupled with early morning meetings every few days means that I prefer to work from my couch.

It comes to this: with gas prices where they stand and are projected to go in the immediate future, I need to be seriously considering alternative forms of transportation.

I jokingly informed Mrs. Woody one day that I would consider getting a Vespa like my father before me. A noble experiment, that. He got the thing while I was in Guatemala and Mom sent me pictures of the results of that experiment. Dad was already recovering from gall bladder surgery that summer (back before they started doing those arthroscopically) and had about six inches of incision that simply refused to heal over. Add to that a spill that Dad had taken on the Vespa with the resulting abrasions, and Dad suddenly looked like the poster boy for a hospital cadaver study program. Mrs. Woody knows this story well, and has seen the photos. She unjokingly nixed the idea. I really don't blame her. I'm no more likely to be riding a Vespa any time soon than I am to be visiting the Space Station.

The heck of it is, there's hope on the distant horizon. Many folks are going in for the hybrids. My boss is among them. He had ordered his back several months ago and has been driving it for a few months now. He told us last week that with gas prices where they were a week ago (the good ol' days!) he is now paying about as much per week for gas as he had been last year (during the Revolution!) when driving his pickup to work every day. At some point he's bound to be in a loss position even with the hybrid now that gas prices are flirting with the $5.00 level. In the meantime, my own gas "champ" (our ageing Saturn) is driveway-bound because I haven't had time to take it in for servicing.

Besides the hybrids, Honda has announced its hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Should start leasing here in Southern Cal this summer. The trick there is fuel availability. We'd have to live in Irvine to even qualify for this initial release. I'm also unsure what the fuel pricing/economy is at this point, not to mention overall availability of fueling stations. RINO-in-Chief Schwarzenegger is nowhere near to delivering on his "hydrogen corridor" and seems unlikely to arrive there before he leaves the Governor's mansion in 2010. We have a few stations dotting the landscape here and there, but the nearest one to me is not in a terribly convenient place. Economy, economy, economy. (Same as "location, location, location" in real estate terms.)

For my invisible money, the vehicles to watch are the electrics. Battery technology has improved now to the point that one company (which I found via Dave Barry, of all people) boasts of a vehicle design that would drive 2,500 miles using what they call "hot-swap" technology. It's patented! (It would have to be.) This model, which is inflatable, won't be in production until 2010 at the earliest. (Could it be that they're waiting for Schwarzenegger to leave office, too?)

One that I've been watching for a few years now is the Tango. Developed by Commuter Cars Corp., this is a car that has been well thought out and executed. The problem, again, is production. In their case they make no bones about the fact that it essentially boils down to investment money. It's a classic Catch-22; investors don't want to put out the money required for production (the company claims it needs tens of millions for start-up) unless they see some market interest. The market won't rise to the bait unless they know they can get one for production prices. Leaving deposits with a company that may go out business while holding your cash (even in a trust, which is CCC's solution) doesn't sit well with too many people, especially in today's economy. This is a car I would buy in a heart-beat if it ever came to within spitting distance of my personal budget. It's that good.

Europe, meanwhile, is making it's Smart Car available stateside finally. Apparently they're not so upset with our capitalistic vices that they mind taking our capitalistic money. All to the good, I guess, except that the darn things still run on petrol and petrol is becoming increasingly expensive. The downside here is driving around in a car that got pretty thoroughly roughed up in a Tom Hanks movie. Also, 2008 EPA ratings of 34-41 MPG are on par with most hybrids that look more like normal cars today.

I really want to get an electric for my commuting, but I fear that production models are far enough away that it may not happen before I retire. This is a pity, because this is definitely one commuter who wouldn't mind going green.

When I absolutely have to commute, that is.

In Parody One Finds Great Truth

This needs to be required reading for all GOP Congresscritters. It was so funny that I got thoroughly depressed. Can you guess why?

The blasted GOP is calling and begging for money again.

- sigh -

When you've earned it, boys... when you've earned it.

Another Day, Another Primary

Although well documented over at the OC Flash Report (Fleischman may look smarmy, but he's undeniably bright), I need to outline my own reasons why this primary was a farce from the beginning.

It was a crap shoot over a year ago when Schwarzenegger signed the legislation that moved California's presidential primary up to February 5th. While the headlines were breathless ("With Earlier Primary, Calif. Reshapes Race"), the analysis underneath spoke of a potential result that had all the glamour and excitement of a mine field. Indeed, rather than "reshaping" the race this year, all California did in the long run was exhaust its voters.

That's not how you want to run your politics.

Thus we arrive at the normal June primary election in this state with a hugely underwhelming voter turnout after having acheived record-breaking numbers in February. Even for me, and in spite of having written an admittedly lackluster "Curmudgeon's Guide" once again, this election caught me pretty much by complete surprise. Or perhaps I was just so politically spent that I didn't really register the numerous campaign placards posted on all street corners this year. I certainly saw them when I was driving home from the polling place earlier this afternoon. Oh, well. C'est le guerre.

The polling place should have tipped me off. When I arrived at about 2:30(ish), the place was deserted. I literally had the run of the booths. The polling workers were so happy to see me that I could have sworn that they were kind of deliberately dragging out the process of getting me signed in, just so they could say they were occasionally busy today. On later reflection, although incredibly convenient for me, it was pathetic in the extreme.

Truthfully, though, I can't lay all of the blame at Schwarzenegger's feet, much as I may want to. There are other elements at play, and they have to do with the "larger picture," the one whose results we're most interested in this November.

For months now, we've been subjected to one of the most rancorous races just to capture the nomination that the Democrats have ever run. I may only vaguely remember the Sixties, but once Johnson dropped out in '68 I still don't remember a race that was anywhere near as contentious as the one between Clinton II and the Religion of Obama (whatever that may be). Citizens, fueled partly by an enabling internet, along with their own absolute "moral authority" as whatever victims they choose to portray, have yelled themselves hoarse (virtually) in proclaiming the merits of their candidates of choice.

Meanwhile, those of us at the other end of the political spectrum are left to contemplate whether we live with what we've been given, or whether we dare try to write in our own candidate this November purely out of principle.

I'd do it, but the only thing stopping me (and I do mean the ONLY thing) is the dread of having Obama in the driver's seat and dictating our foreign policy, especially in the Fertile Crescent. At a point in time where the surge is producing demonstrable benefits in that region, an Obama win in November will nearly instantly erase whatever gains we've made and thoroughly negate the sacrifices made by numerous U. S. heroes throughout this conflict. No matter what the argument, I just can't justify in my own mind and heart allowing that to happen.

(Please understand: this same dread extended to Hillary as well. We've just finally reached the point where Obama seems to be the Anointed One of the Party, so we may as well accept that and move on. So to speak.)

So now I face the unenviable task of choking down my distaste of John McCain and voting for him this November. I am absolutely certain that I will regret this decision on several fronts. I have no delusions that he will not buy into the Global Warming hysteria. He already has. I do not look to this man to stand up to (rather than with) the Open Borders special interests. I have known many conservatives, and this man is no conservative. He's far too chummy with the far-left side of the aisle. But he's all we've got.

If I look listless this November, just push me into the booth and remind me what my duties are. That should rouse me long enough to push the buttons, then fall back into my politically-induced stupor once again.

It's June 3 - Do You Know Where Your Vote Is?

Uncle Woody just wants to take this opportunity to remind you young voters to get out there and vote today. Of course, Uncle Woody is more interested in you Republican voters, as we seem to have a bad habit of avoiding elections where nothing is really in danger of changing. I mean, we didn't do too badly in February when we really, really wanted Romney to kick McCain's borders, but in this primary we have no incumbents here in Orange County, for example, who seem to be in imminent danger of defeat. That's when we Republicans get lazy. So go vote today.

You Democrats can vote, too, for all the good it'll do you. You still have "Peyton Place Meets Falcon Crest" to deal with. Good luck with that.

What Hath the Rules Wrought?

Most of the buzz now regarding the Democratic race concerns the seating (or not) of the delegates from Florida and Michigan at the convention. There is much following of the fallout now over at blogs like WaPo's "The Fix" where they are watching developments closely. Likewise the Republicans are keeping a sharp eye on what's going on, as are the conservative banner-wavers at Townhall.com such as Hugh Hewitt. Not surprisingly, there is fallout from a source that DNC officials seem willing to ignore for the time being: the voters themselves.

One such voter (presumably, anyway) by the name of Robert Tell writes to the Detroit Free Press:

This is not a partisan issue of support for either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton. It is an outrage that the silly rules artificially imposed by the Democratic National Committee should trump the honest attempt of millions of voters to express their political choice.

This of course doesn't help Howard Dean who must now navigate through this very thorny issue without completely invalidating the entire primary process. Good luck with that.

In the meantime, there is the very real prospect of voter revolt which could still affect the general election in November. Push your voters hard enough and they'll begin to push back.

Assuming Obama gets the party's nod at the convention, it would be a shame (really, I'm saying all of this with a very straight face) to invalidate the will of two complete states just because their state leadership wanted to have their say earlier than party rules allowed. As Mr. Tell said, the "artificially imposed" rules of the DNC have in essence wiped out two state primaries. Way to go.

I'm pretty sure the DNC had no idea that this race would become so pivotal, nor that the votes of two large-ish states would be become so contentious a topic. However, when you make rules that even potentially invalidate the voices of people you may need desperately in the general election, you essentially reap what you sow.

I suppose one could lay blame for this fiasco squarely at the feet of the respective state leaders in Michigan and Florida who insisted on holding their primary elections earlier than party rules allowed and created this political stalemate. However, their own decisions have been influenced by the larger "need" (a perception I still don't agree with) to have states be more "influential" by having their primaries earlier. California was just as guilty of this hysteria and created a situation where we now need three elections to handle the work previously accommodated by two. What a waste of money, among other things. There's also the accelerated pace of the campaign itself. We were inundated with so much information in such a compressed space of time that we weren't allowed to properly formulate our impressions of any given candidate. I believe Romney would have been in a better position to capture more votes were he still looking forward to a June California primary, rather than trying to criss-cross the nation as he was forced to do back in February on "Super Tuesday."

Thus it is that in this election, Republicans are pretty much left with a candidate who has not captured the hearts of the conservative base, while Democrats must sit through several weeks more of a true carnival sideshow. If this is what the general election may look like this November, both parties may need to run their state and national leadership out of town on one very large rail. We need a much cleaner, slower campaign in 2012.

National No Effect Whatsoever Registry

So we registered our phone number with the so-called National Do Not Call Registry. I, like many Americans, feel that telemarketers are one of those substrates of humanity that are probably most directly responsible for gangs, drugs, oppressive tax codes, global warming, and Michael Moore. Hence they serve absolutely no productive purpose whatsoever, and I have banished them from my phone.

Except...

Turns out that there are a couple of loopholes, and certain callers have taken full advantage of them.

Since signing the Registry late last year, Mrs. Woody and I have been perplexed by continuing annoyances in the form of "credit protection." If you have a credit card, you've gotten these calls. It's always a recording.

Hello, we're calling you about your credit accounts. There's no problems...

They always say that. "There's no problems." Which leaves us with the Big But.

We always end the call immediately after that phrase so that the entire conversation goes like this:

Me: Hello?

Unknown Number: "Hello, we're calling you about your credit accounts. There's no problems..."

Me: [CLICK]

That's because we've gotten enough of these calls to know that the next paragraph in their script will offer us "credit protection" in the event one or both of us loses our life and the credit company finds itself in very real danger of not receiving any more money from us. Oh, and maybe they can help our survivors while they're at it. How helpful.

Anyway, we'd just about gotten trained to know that whenever our Caller ID flashes "UNKNOWN," we're probably going to get one of those calls. Mrs. Woody had just gotten to the point where the [CLICK] came even sooner than what I depicted above. Then they changed tactics.

This morning we got a call from a "DAVID SMITH" calling from the 904 area code. I always do a quick brain scan to see if an area code resonates. I work for an international corporation, and I get calls from all over the country (although not generally on my home phone) which means that I can identify a fairly hefty number of codes. Ah, 435. Overlay for Utah. Whoops, 314. St. Louis. 410, that's my daughter. And so forth. 904 didn't register. (Florida, it turns out.) Neither did "DAVID SMITH." Nor, I must say, did the caller sound anything like "DAVID SMITH," unless "DAVID SMITH" has been taking copious amounts of "FEMALE HORMONES."

Hello, we're calling about your...

You know the rest.

So it disturbs me that the credit protection racketeers have taken this battle up a notch. Now they're taking individual business numbers and assigning them names in order to defeat our Caller ID defense. I suspect "DAVID SMITH" is a concocted name. It's too generic. I might know a David Smith, after all. Sounds familiar. Maybe he was that gent in Irvine (now what was Irvine's area code again...? Can't remember!) that owed me some information for Church. No, that can't be it... I know that name from somewhere. Better answer it.

GOTCHA.

So, thanks for next-to-nuthin', FTC. The Mongols have breached the Great Wall and are bearing down on us once again.

Read 'Em and Weep

[WARNING: Long-winded diatribe follows. Proceed at your own risk.]

If you're a registered Republican right now, you're probably wondering whether your party leaders have merely taken momentary leave of their collective senses, or have gone whole-hog certifiable.

I'm afraid it's worse than that.

Behold, the "American Families Agenda."

On its surface — which is, I'm certain, all the deeper the GOP wants us to dig — it sounds wonderful. The Republican party has always been about the family; protecting its "values," defending it from all intruders, keeping it safe from enemies both foreign and domestic. Hurrah for the American family, without whom we wouldn't have anyone left to deceive have enough taxes to spend on meaningless tripe be any better than [insert favorite third-world scapegoat here].

Upon reading it, however, anyone with a functioning brain stem immediately recognizes the complete lack of any substance, the failure to give more than passing mention to many party-base hot buttons, and the utter arrogance of a party leadership who is completely out of touch with the voters who put their pathetic carcasses in office in the first place. In other words, they sound like Democratic leaders.

Even their latest catch-phrase "Change You Deserve" sounds like it was lifted right off the Democratic playbook. It's in their website's URL, for corn's sake: http://www.gop.gov/web/guest/changeyoudeserve

And therein lies the rub. The change we crave is not in the traditional values of the Republican party. Those we support, and have supported for decades. It is our elected representatives who have long since forgotten what exactly it is they were supposed to represent when they took our votes and parlayed them into lucrative retirement benefits in the House or Senate. Those we need to change.

Gone are the days when a Ronald Reagan would take a copy of the tax code into Congress, thump it down on the podium, and demand they write one that works for all Americans. We don't hear that kind of rhetoric anymore, and I miss it. We no longer hear about reducing the size of the federal government. We no longer hear about making tough choices on such issues as social security, border security, and the welfare state.

Why is that, we wonder? What happened to create a Republican congressional leadership that has somehow lost its backbone? Why are they so afraid to be labelled "conservatives?" One can only guess. I blame global warming.

In the meantime, we have this "agenda" out there that will do absolutely none of what it "promises." Reading through the agenda, one finds at the end of each explanatory paragraph the words "We must:" followed by a short list of To Do's that are apparently supposed to impress us that Our Congress is Working for Us. It is, for lack of a more descriptive (and still family-friendly) phrase, entirely underwhelming. (I must also note that whenever Congress uses the phrase "we must," they really mean "the American taxpayers must." But you probably already knew that.)

Consider just one example of this classic piece of American political boondogglery:

Solution #1: Assuring More Time & Money For America’s Families
One of the biggest struggles families face is how to balance work and family. Caring for a sick child or elderly parent can make the traditional 40-hour work week a challenge. What parents need more than anything is more flexibility and time with their family. Moreover, the government must reduce the burden on America’s family-owned small businesses so they can grow and compete in the global economy. Across the board, it is costing families more and more just to put food on the table or drive to work. In many cases, it costs them more per month to fill their gas tank than it does to make their car payment. We must:

• Lower gas prices and energy costs
• Provide for a family-friendly work week
• Grow our small businesses

Isn't that stirring? Wow. I don't know who wrote that, but it sure sounds like a committee.

Let's start with "balancing work and family." Like I need a Congressperson to tell me how to do that. When was the last time you got the impression that a Congressperson — any Congressperson — had any clue how to balance anything, including their own checkbook? Balancing work and family? Senator Boondoggle? Right.

I don't know about Congress, but I do alright with the "traditional 40-hour work week." I currently put in far more than 40 hours, as it happens, and still find time to spend with my family. I've even been able to work in an emergency or two just to keep myself limber. In fact, except for those few times when they feel a pathological need to fillibuster, I'd like to know when the last time was that Congress put in an honest 40-hour work week. And let's not even get started on how much time off they get during the year. All this for a larger salary than I happen to make nowadays, and with better guaranteed benefits than I'll ever see, especially in my future retirement. Now, if they're ready to guarantee that we get exactly the same flexibility in our work schedules as they have, complete with powers to subpoena whatever cretin Scapegoat-of-the-Week we like, then I'll buy into their little agenda.

Here's another corker: They want to "reduce the burden on America's family-owned small businesses." Most unfortunately, in the New Republican World Order, this means more government regulation, not less. Later in the hit-list they specifically name "Allow workers to take their benefits with them when they change jobs" as one of their "We must:s." Sounds like more regulation to me.

The "We must:" list that follows this first paragraph is also highly amusing. Lower gas and energy costs? Laughable. They have no power over either the supply or the demand, and the oil companies are already regulated to the corporate hilt. Anyone see gas prices dropping? Anyone? Me, neither. Provide for a "family friendly" work week? Now what kind of sense does that make? Whom, precisely, does this help? I already telecommute far more in my career than ever before. In fact, since Mrs. Woody took ill last summer, I've telecommuted more than I've spent working in my office. Was that any doing of the government? It was not. It was a company taking a hard look at the realities of life and realizing that they were gonna bleed to death when people began jumping ship to work for companies that already had "family friendly" work policies. That's like Gore taking credit for inventing the internet. He may have overseen policies to make it easier for people to get hooked up, but the market made that possible. Not Mr. Gore.

Finally there's "growing our small businesses." Right. Just like they've done for the last twenty five years that I've been working in the aerospace industry. I can't tell you how many small businesses started up, tanked up on government incentives, floated for a few years, then bombed out, never to be seen again. The government is incapable of growing anything but our federal debt. Debt they have perfected. They can't handle anything else. They're too dysfunctional.

So, to those Congressional staffers who may end up here on the Woundup reading this tripe, don't take it too hard. Your bosses are just trying to do their jobs, after all.

It's not your fault that they have no idea what their jobs are.

A Little Cheese with the Whine - UPDATED

So a sitting president of the country addresses our allies in Israel and makes the following factual statement:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Which, of course, touched off paroxysms of powder-keg politicking on the part of certain candidates and other prominent Democrats.

Obama, who appears to have one whopper of a guilty conscience, immediately assumed the remarks were targeted at him personally, even though the President said no such thing. Clinton, seemingly happy to indulge Obama's guilt complex, fanned the flames further. "I may disagree with the little snoot, "she was heard to say, "but that was out of line, even for Bush." Or words to that effect. Paragon of Virtue Joe Biden weighed in with his alliterative "bulls**t!" just so no one would forget his own countless failed bids for the office he envies Mr. Bush. Pelosi claimed the President's remarks were "beneath the dignity" of the office. That would be devastating, were she one who brought such dignity to her own office at the same time.

So, reading through the words myself, and having watched the video, I can only wonder where and when the President actually accused Mr. Obama specifically (or any Democrat, for that matter) in his remarks. Perhaps I missed that part. I believe he meant those remarks for anyone (hello Robert Gates?) who believes that talking with people like Ahmadinejad accomplishes anything.

I also find it humorous that the Democrats, most of whom have been comparing Bush with Hitler for years now, suddenly get upset to believe themselves accused of being "appeasers." How dare the President suggest that, simply because they want to talk to Ahmadinejad, this makes them somehow guilty of pandering to terrorists?

Could it be partly because the rest of us — those without the bully pulpit that Obama, Clinton, Pelosi and even Bush utilize nowadays — find it incredible that the Democrats want us to backpedal our merry ways out of Iraq so that terrorists will sleep better at night? You mean that kind of appeasement?

Or is it the fact that no one but Democrats are allowed to use the Nazi metaphor? Could this whole thing be simply a petty jealousy?

I tire of leading Democrats' continual whining about what victims they all are. If they're so exhausted by our refusal to take them seriously, they can always move en masse to the Bay area. They'll take any victim seriously, so long as they don't wear a uniform and dare to defend the country.

UPDATE: So I'm sitting in a motel breakfast room this morning (Mrs. Woody and I celebrating our anniversary this weekend!), and I hear this on CNN (Cathedral of Our Lady of Perpetual Victimhood):

President Bush, in remarks obviously directed at Democratic candidate, Barack Obama...

Whine, whine, whine...

Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters (California June 3 Edition) - UPDATED

UPDATE: Latest General Election edition is up here.

[As the primary looms (tomorrow!), I realize that many of you have come here searching for either a Christian or conservative voters guide. You found this instead. My deepest and most sincere apologies. We should probably fire the idiots who came up with the initiatives and/or candidates we have to select from in this election, but we are California Republicans, and we are inherently lazy.]

Uncle Woody isn't sure what to tell you young conservative voters about this coming primary election. It's only a few short weeks away, yet Uncle Woody can't help but feel that this one won't add any value to our process this time around. Uncle Woody thinks we all got so burned out in the February presidential primary that we've nearly forgotten we still had a regular primary election coming up.

"Didn't we just do this?" Uncle Woody can hear you say. Yes, we did, and it garnered us the only Republican candidate who not only won't go out of his way to protect our borders, he very well may help to erase them. But I digress. The point is, you're here because you were looking for a conservative voter guide, and Uncle Woody's is seemingly the only one you could find.

Buena suerte, as we say here in Mexifornia.

Anyway, here's Uncle Woody's curmudgeonly take on the California June 3 Primary. We begin, as always, with the ballot initiatives.

Oddly enough, Uncle Woody was more interested this time around in the initiatives that didn't qualify for inclusion on the ballot. I presume this means they fell short of the required signatures, although a couple of them were "withdrawn." We do NOT have an opportunity to vote for those poor farm animals who are raised primarily so we can eat them later. We also do not get to vote on whether to eliminate "domestic partner benefits." Uncle Woody is pretty sure that Berkeley alone would have registered enough dead voters to make certain that this particular initiative would have dropped like a stone. There was also one that dealt with "coerced sterilization of animals or humans." I had no idea we had a coerced human sterilization problem in California. This may explain Schwarzenegger.

Anyway, only two initiatives qualified in time for this election. Although they share traits in common, they have different purposes and results:

Proposition 98 - Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 99 - Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment.

Uncle Woody smells several rats here. This is obviously in reaction to land-grab headlines of a few years ago that had folks very much up in arms. No problem; Uncle Woody can understand the desire to protect one's property and assets. If Uncle Woody HAD any property or assets, he would definitely want to protect them.

As always, however, one needs to have a far better sense of legal maneuvering to fully understand these initiatives. One bellwether I tend to watch are the Howard Jarvis folks. Jarvis was responsible for Proposition 13 lo these many years ago that limited the state's ability to raise property taxes beyond what Jarvis felt were "reasonable" limits. Whether or not you appreciated Jarvis' stance (Uncle Woody benefitted tremendously from those limitations in his earlier life), he was definitely looking out for taxpayers' interests.

He is, of course, dead.

Still, that doesn't stop other taxpayer protectionists from using his name, and they all have a bunch of legal letters after their names. They all say pretty much the same thing: Proposition 99 is evil, and Proposition 98 is the guy in the white hat riding in to save the day.

Besides all that, Schwarzenegger doesn't like Prop 98 which, by itself, is pretty much all the motivation I need to vote for it. Prop 99 is full of more loopholes than my Grandma's afghan and I wouldn't trust it as far as I could wad it up and throw it.

Proposition 98 = Yes
Proposition 99 = No

There aren't any local ballot initiatives in the part of Orange County where Hacienda Woody is located. This is all to the good as Uncle Woody blew a few fuses trying to muddle through the state ballots.

As for candidates, as always Uncle Woody urges you young conservatives to vote your consciences. Neither of our U. S. Senators is up for re-election this year, so I can't poke fun at California's continuing inability to front a GOP candidate that anyone can take seriously. I suppose there's little chance of getting Mitt Romney to relocate here so he can qualify for one of those seats in a couple of years. Still, hopefully someone will float to the surface that a) is well enough known that folks won't ignore them, and b) will actually be a threat to the Lib Sisters.

In other words, look for pigs to perform activities contrary to established laws of physics before that happens.