Has the tide of momentum officially turned in favor of Senator Hillary Clinton, or was “Super Tuesday, The Sequel” an aberration? Since the 5^th of February when Senator Obama won the caucus in Alaska, he had won 12 straight states, before Clinton was able to win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Obama still enjoys a comfortable delegate lead, but if Clinton has swung the pendulum back in her favor, it will be impossible for Clinton or Obama to make it to the convention with enough delegates to claim the nomination.

With a primary race this close, and the likelihood of not having a clear nominee heading into the convention, the rumors of Clinton and Obama being on the same ticket. Anything is possible in the current state of politics, but I don’t believe that will ever happen. 

First of all, I don’t believe that Hillary Clinton will ever agree to be a Vice Presidential candidate. Her entire drive has been towards the Oval Office, she will not take the chance of being tied politically to a president that she has no control over. If Obama is elected with her as Vice President, and events turn for the worse, she could be tied to the administration that caused the problems. She will not take that chance.

With the race tightening and more than a month until the contest in Pennsylvania, the political attacks and rhetoric will be ratcheted up to a fever pitch. The attacks started before Texas with the ad of a phone ringing at 3 in the morning. The message was that Obama was not ready to make the hard decisions that inevitably a President must make. An Obama aide resigned this week after her comments in The Scotsman made headlines here in the U.S.. She called Senator Clinton a monster and stated that Clinton would stoop to the lowest levels to try to win the nomination. Will either candidate want to associate with each other after this campaign turns really nasty?

The next few weeks will be extremely entertaining. The trial of Tony Rezko will bring an entirely new dimension of scrutiny to the Obama campaign. Tony Rezko has been an Obama friend for 17 years and a political fundraiser for him. He is on trial for corruption for taking city money to rehab apartment buildings and then not fulfilling his obligations. Obama will face increasing questions about his relationship with Rezko and his role in some of Rezko’s deals. This trial represents a ripe opportunity for the Clinton campaign to exploit politically. Of course Clinton has to tread lightly, with her ties to Norman Hsu, Whitewater, Travel office firings, Rose Law firm billing records, and the many other scandals of the 1990’s. 

On a final note, the super delegates will be even more important than ever by the time the convention convenes. They will potentially decide who the Democratic nominee will be. Florida and Michigan may also come into play. You may recall that the delegates from those 2 states will not be seated at the convention. The Democratic National Committee decided that their delegates will not count due to the states moving their primary elections forward. Senator Clinton won both of those states and has already started to suggest that the voice of the people should not be silenced. This has been the most entertaining election season of my life, and has the potential to become the nastiest of a generation.

The National Journal recently released their ratings of members of Congress. They rated Senator Clinton as the 16^th most liberal senator, while Senator Obama was rated as the most liberal senator in the United States Senate. The trends show that over the past 3 years, from his first year in the senate until 2007 when he was trying to win the support of the Democratic base support, his voting record shifted dramatically to the left. His rating went from a middle of the road 16^th, to number one in 3 short years. Senator Clinton on the other hand started out as a middle of the road liberal and rose to number 8 in the ratings in 2003 and then dropped back in the pack again. It appears that Senator Clinton has been positioning herself as more of a moderate to win broader appeal for a general election, while Senator Obama has positioned himself as a staunch liberal to win the primary election. The question to be posed is this, if the candidates will sell their voting souls for a political victory, what will they do once they are elected? 

How do we really know where they stand on any issue? If we can’t look at their voting records as an indication of what they believe, then what can we look into to educate ourselves? Should we listen to what they say on the political trail? As politicians, they will say anything in order to get elected. After all, former President Clinton promised to cut taxes in his first term and to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. The first President Bush made his infamous promise during the 1988 campaign, “Read my lips, no new taxes”. Politicians make careers out of promising everything to everybody, and then blaming the opposition for blocking their fruition of their promises. 

The talented politicians are able to remain popular even after they fail to live up to a large percentage of their promises. President Clinton still remains very popular, even though he did not follow through on many of his promises. His supporters point to the “evil” Newt Gingrich for Clinton’s failings. President Reagan is revered by the conservative base of the Republican party, but he did sign an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants and was unable to control the congressional spending. Clinton is loved, in part, because of his never-ending fight with Gingrich and the Republicans. Reagan is loved because of his strong support for the military and his cutting of the tax rate from over 75% down to 28%.

I know your anger, I know your dreams, I’ve been everything you want to be.

That one line from the 80’s rock band, Living Colour, seems to sum up the following of the Barack Obama campaign. Obama has surprised virtually every political expert, by his meteoric rise in popularity and the polls. This election season was supposed to be the coronation of Hillary Clinton, but no one took the charisma of Barack Obama into account. He has enjoyed rock star fame, which has catapulted him past Clinton in the delegate count. When was the last time you have heard of women fainting at a political speech? That type of reaction is normally reserved for rock concerts. Obama’s “cult of personality” has drawn crowds of 20,000 or more just to hear him speak. The peculiar aspect of his followers is that many can’t seem to name anything that he has accomplished in his brief legislative career. Nor are they able to definitively name any of his positions.

Susan Sarandon, the award winning actress and political activist, recently appeared on the Tavis Smiley show. Tavis asked her whom she was supporting for President now that John Edwards had dropped out of the race. Sarandon answered Barack Obama because he has convinced people that he stood for hope and change. She went on to say that she looked forward to finding out where he stood. One would be safe to surmise that a political activist of Ms. Sarandon’s credentials would be able to say what positions on the issues her candidate of choice takes. 

The Democratic nomination has transformed into a personality contest and Obama has started to run away with the nomination. Hillary Clinton for all of her political power and prowess has been unable to match Barack’s charisma and likable personality. Electrifying speeches laced with words like hope and change marks his campaign speeches and rallies. The missing component of his political speech is any trace of specifics on where he stands. A simple perusal of his campaign’s website will shed some light onto his positions, but a closer look reveals that Obama and Clinton are basically the same candidate. The only difference is the likeability factor. 

Both candidates have co-opted some of John Edwards’ ideas, for example Edwards socialist plan of taking back $55 billion from corporate subsidies and pass it along to the workers. Both candidates are pushing their version of socialist healthcare, tax hikes for the “rich”, enormous socialist job creation program, and government intrusion into the foreclosure “crisis”. There has not been a candidate for President that has been this overtly liberal in the past 40 years. 

The race to the political party’s nominations has turned into an entertaining affair. On the Republican side, Senator John McCain has steadily climbed in the polls and the delegate count since early January. He now leads the delegate count by a wide margin over former Governor Mike Huckabee. McCain also received another boost this week with former opponent and Governor Mitt Romney. Romney, as you may recall, suspended his campaign after a poor showing on Super Tuesday. At the time, he made no explicit endorsement for any other candidates. That changed on Thursday, when he officially endorsed Senator McCain, and asked that his delegates vote for the senator at the Republican Convention this summer.

McCain has not had an easy ride to the nomination. Conservatives, myself included, have derided McCain for his positions on illegal immigration, his opposition to the tax cuts of Bush’s first term, his forming of the “gang of 14”, and his cosponsoring of the dreadful McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. He has made comments recently that seem to suggest that he has changed his mind on illegal immigration; and he asserts that his opposition to the tax cuts was based on there was no accompanying spending cuts. On those 2 points I will give him the benefit of doubt, but on the other points I still take issue. 

The “gang of 14” was comprised of 14 senators, equally from both parties, that would cross party lines on judicial nominees. It was in response to the stalemate in the Senate over the President’s judicial nominees. I wanted to see the Republicans in the Senate stand up and fight for the nominees, forcing the Democrats to actually attempt a real filibuster. Instead, we had the “gang of 14” which caved into the Democrats wishes and prevented many great judges from ever getting a real chance.

The McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill was sold as a means to get the money out of politics. Does anyone see the money that was taken out of politics? Don’t we see just as much money if not more money being spent in the election season?   The biggest result of the reform bill has been to make it harder for the incumbent politicians to be unseated from their thrones of power. How else do you explain a measure in the bill that does not allow any advertisements against a candidate within 30 days of an election? Take that along with the shifting of the money around, incumbents have been even more difficult to send them back to the private sector.

With all of that being said, Senator McCain is head and shoulders above either one of the candidates from the left side of the political spectrum. Senator Obama holds a slight delegate lead over Senator Clinton. He was the big winner on Super Tuesday and has continued to roll since then. Senator Clinton’s campaign appears to be in trouble, but they maintain that they will win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in a few weeks. They believe that they will win those states and will turn the tide of momentum back in their favor. I believe Giuliani thought that would happen in Florida for his campaign; and Thompson bet his campaign on South Carolina. Giuliani and Thompson are both back in retirement.

One, usually minor, aspect of the Democratic nomination is the role of super delegates. A super delegate is a party official or elected official within the Democratic party. They are also counted towards the nomination. There is a behind the scenes campaign for these crucial votes that could turn the entire nomination on it’s head. There are approximately 800 super delegates that could put a candidate that has won a slight majority of delegates on the losing side at the Democratic National Convention. Super delegates pledge their support throughout the primary season, but they are not bound to their pledge, they are after all politicians. They can switch their support at any time to another candidate. At the moment, Hillary has a lead of about 80 super delegates over Barack. Can you imagine the hysteria that will ensue if Obama goes into the convention with more delegates won than Hillary, but Hillary ends up with the nomination because of the super delegate count?

One other interesting note of concern is the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Those delegates will not be counted in the final tally for the nomination, because of their primaries being moved forward. The DNC has said that they will not count the delegates. At the time of the decision, the Clinton campaign agreed with the decision, but now that she is trailing, will they start to call for those delegates to be counted? Clinton won both Michigan and Florida and she just may need those delegates to win the nomination. I believe that if it is still a close race by the time the summer rolls around, the Clintons will begin to talk about how it is unfair to the people of Michigan and Florida to not have their voice heard. The Reverend Al Sharpton has already promised to demonstrate outside of the DNC offices if they allow Florida and Michigan delegates to be counted. The Clintons are not accustomed to losing and they will do everything under the sun to try to regain their power. The question is, if they succeed, will there be a Democratic party left when the dust finally settles from this nomination process?

On Sunday night, the professional sports world was rocked by the improbable Super Bowl victory of the New York Giants over the heavily favored New England Patriots.  On Tuesday night, the political world saw a few improbable Super Tuesday victories with Senator Barack Obama winning more delegates than Senator Hillary Clinton, and former Governor Mike Huckabee rising out of the ashes of the campaign season and winning several states causing former Governor Mitt Romney to fall farther behind Senator John McCain. 

Huckabee has been an afterthought for the past several weeks since his big win in Iowa.  After Iowa, it has been all about McCain and Romney, with both sides claiming to be the true conservative.  McCain and Romney then proceeded to split the next 7 state primaries with McCain gaining the edge by claiming Florida at the end of January.  Before Tuesday, Huckabee was well behind in the delegate count.  Now he still trails Romney and McCain, but his deficit has closed considerably behind Romney.  He now trails the former Massachusetts Governor by less than 100 delegates.  McCain still leads all Republican candidates by more than 400 delegates. 

Last week, I wrote that I believed that McCain would squeak out of Super Tuesday as a clear winner over Romney.  I must admit that I never expected Mike Huckabee to be the main reason that McCain emerged with a commanding lead in the delegate count.  McCain needs just 484 more delegates to reach 1191 to claim the Republican nomination for President.  I believe the resurgence of Huckabee in the south has all but given the nomination to McCain.  I believe that the majority of those voting for Huckabee would have gone for Romney if Mike were not in the race.  I don’t believe that Romney would have emerged as the leader on Tuesday, but it would be a lot closer than it currently is.  As a result of his seemingly insurmountable delegate deficit, Romney decided today to bring an end to his campaign. 

There are just a few short days left until “Super Tuesday”, when more than 20 states hold their presidential primaries.  The political experts informed us last fall that the race for the nominations was all but over.  Senator Hillary Clinton was predicted to have virtually eliminated all of the other Democratic contenders before February 5, and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was expected to roll through the early primaries and have the nomination wrapped up by the time the ballots are counted on “Super Tuesday”.  What a difference 5 short months make in the world of politics.  Giuliani dropped out of the race earlier this week after a disappointing third place finish in Florida.  Clinton has spent the past 5 months desperately trying to fend off the campaign of Senator Barack Obama. 

Obama has defied the laws of political nature and won both Iowa and South Carolina.  He also picked up the endorsements of Democratic political royalty, the Kennedys.  Even a reported phone call from former President Bill Clinton could not dissuade Senator Teddy Kennedy from throwing support behind the charismatic senator from Illinois.  Many believed that Hillary would easily win the nomination without more than a mention of any opposition.  Someone forgot to mention that small detail to the Obama campaign.

Giuliani wagered his entire campaign on winning Florida.  He spent the majority of his time and money in the Sunshine State, believing that if he could win Florida it would propel him through “Super Tuesday” and onto the nomination.  What he did not count on was that the preceding primaries would launch the campaigns of Romney and McCain through Florida on their way to next week.  Giuliani made his graceful exit and immediately flew to California to endorse Senator John McCain with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  McCain was short of money and considered to be a non-factor in the primaries.  Once again the experts were shown to be completely off the mark.

As we head into the carnival on February 5, we can be sure that the rhetoric from all sides will be turned up to a deafening roar.  Each campaign is seeking to distance themselves from the embarrassing past, highlight their perceived achievements, and point out the many flaws, real or fabricated, of their opponents.  There are a few websites that I recommend you check out to see whether or not the claims of the candidates are in fact truthful.  PolitiFact is a website that shows specific comments by candidates or their campaigns and indicates whether or not they are factual or fabricated.  FactCheck.org is another resource to determine if any of the political rhetoric bears any resemblance to the truth.

In January of 1973, the abortion debate became a centerpiece in American political campaigns for many years to come.  The landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade has sparked more debate and controversy than any other political issue over the ensuing 35 years.  The Court in it’s decision not only gave women the “right to choose”, but also declared themselves part of the legislative branch of government by making laws and superseding the rights and powers of the individual states.  January 22 marked the 35-year anniversary of the decision and activists from both sides of the debate held events to remember that historic decision.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute released a study showing that the abortion rates are starting to decline.  In 2005, there were 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States.  That is down from the high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990.  The 2005 numbers show that the abortion rate is the lowest since 1974.  While the numbers are encouraging, there were still 1.2 million babies killed in 2005.  I believe part of the reason for the decline is the advancements in ultrasound technology.  You simply cannot see a live picture of an in utero baby at 6 weeks and hear their heartbeat and not believe that is a living child.  If you talk to an expecting mother, she will never call the child growing inside of her, a fetus.  That is an innocuous term used to describe an unwanted baby, so as not to cause undue emotional stress about the fate in store for the child.

I have heard the arguments about it is a woman’s right to choose, after all it is her life, her choice, her body.  It is truly a sad world that we live in that we can justify ending an innocent human life because of convenience, or career interests, or worse yet, a mistake.  Doesn’t the child deserve a chance to live?  To be loved? 

The government needs to leave their laws off of my body.  If that is the case, then why are most of the political candidates discussing Universal Health Care, in which all of us are required to obtain healthcare?  Isn’t that making laws concerning our bodies?  Why are there laws against illegal drugs?

The earth simply can’t sustain the population explosion that would occur if abortion were outlawed.  Using that logic, shouldn’t we then start euthanizing Alzheimer’s patients, or anyone who reaches an age of 85?  After all, they have lived their lives and are generally not working or contributing to society any longer.

What about those babies that have a high risk of being born with Down’s Syndrome or other developmental problems?  Again, I have to ask, don’t they deserve to live and be loved?  The latest Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow, would not be alive today if his parents had listened to the doctors.  Tim’s parents were missionaries in the Philippines when Pam Tebow became pregnant.  During her pregnancy she became ill from amoebic dysentery, which caused her to slip into a coma.  The doctors were able to treat her dysentery with some very strong medication that would cause irreversible damage to her unborn son.  They advised that she have an abortion.  The Tebows cited their Christian faith as a reason to not kill their son and prayed that Tim would be all right.  20 years later, Tim became the first sophomore in NCAA history to win the top prize for college football players.  I realize that not every high-risk pregnancy ends with such a happy ending, but who are we to decide which baby lives and which baby dies?

What about cases of rape or incest?  Is the child guilty of the details of their conception?  There are thousands of parents waiting to adopt children in our country.  They don’t care how or why the baby was conceived.  They long to be able to share their lives and their love with a child. 

After 35 years of abortion on demand, haven’t we learned that the killing of unborn children is wrong?  Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe Vs. Wade, has changed her mind and gone on record to say that her story was false and made up to overturn the existing abortion laws.  She originally claimed that she was raped in order to file the suit.  She now admits that her boyfriend of the time was the father of her baby, whom she gave up for adoption after she was born.  McCorvey is now a pro-life activist, seeking to change the minds of over 1 million women each year who choose to end the lives of their unborn children.

Check out this amazing story of a 21 week in utero baby

In 1998, Toni Morrison, a Nobel prize winning writer, declared President Bill Clinton “the first Black President”.  The Congressional Black Caucus followed suit in October of 2001, by honoring the former President at their annual awards dinner.  Clinton told CNS News that, "I think it's a function of the work I have done, not just as president, but my whole public life to try to bridge the racial divide and the fact that even when I was a little boy I had friends who were African-American”.  I am beginning to wonder if the Congressional Black Caucus and Ms. Morrison wish they could take back the honorarium that they bestowed upon the 42^nd President.   I have always found it interesting that Bill Clinton could be considered “the first Black President” when he is proud to admit that well-known segregationist James William Fulbright was his political mentor.  Fulbright was a staunch supporter of racial segregation. 

Now that the first Black President’s wife is vying to become the first woman President, her campaign has started playing a familiar tune, albeit with a surprising twist.  Senator Barack Obama, the first African-American with a legitimate chance at winning his party’s nomination, has been the recipient of numerous racial attacks and innuendos from those associated with Hillary’s campaign.  Senator Clinton made reference to the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. fight for civil rights needing a President to achieve his dream.  BET founder Bob Johnson alluded to Obama’s drug use during an introduction for Hillary.  When Johnson was pressed to clarify his words, he went further to compare Obama to Sidney Poitier’s character in Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner; an obvious ploy to allege that Obama has sold out.  The former President apparently felt left out of the game of personal attacks, he called the Obama campaign a fairy tale. 

When Senator Clinton appeared on the Sunday morning news show “Meet The Press”, she explained away her campaign’s remarks by accusing the Obama campaign of not only distorting her words, but also of playing the race card.  I am amazed at the audacity of the Clintons.  They bring up race and personal attacks, and then proceed to turn the tables and accuse their political opponents of the very same thing, all the while pleading innocence.  It is a very risky political maneuver, especially with the South Carolina primary looming in the near future.  If Hillary does go one to win the nomination, she also runs the risk of African-Americans of either voting for her opponent, or staying home on election day.  I believe it would be a fitting end to the Clinton’s political career.  After all, they have taken the “Black vote” for granted for years by playing lip service to the African-American community.

Two score and seven years ago, John F. Kennedy delivered his famously quoted inaugural address.  His speech contained one of the most historic and memorable phrases in American history.  “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  In the four decades since Kennedy spoke those words, the country has indeed gone through many changes, both political and economically.  Do Kennedy’s words possess any relevance today?  From the rhetoric coming from the majority of presidential candidates, the political parties don’t believe they do

Senator Barack Obama is promising a host of new programs that in essence is nothing more than new entitlement programs in fancy packaging.  From healthcare to civil rights to immigration, the senator promises to provide new services to the people.  Obama is not alone with his promises.  Senator Clinton, the godmother of universal healthcare, is also promising healthcare for all, as well as programs for illegal immigration.  Former Senator Edwards has built his campaign on the battle between the classes.  These are hardly the plans and rhetoric of Kennedy proportions.

Before my liberal friends begin to completely spin out of control, allow me to point out that the Democrats are not alone with their entitlement campaigns.  Former Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are both talking about different versions of government controlled healthcare.  Senator John McCain was a leading proponent of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  I thought that Republicans were supportive of a smaller and less intrusive government.

The politicians are not the sole owners of the blame on this issue.  The vast majority of American people have developed an entitlement mentality, a mentality that guides them to expecting the government to give them something for “free”.  They expect the government to provide healthcare, corporate bailouts for their companies, exemption from defaulting on their mortgages, and providing services for illegal immigrants to name but a few.  I can almost understand that thinking from younger voters, because they have been raised to think the government’s sole responsibility is to dole out “freebies”.  What I find unbelievable is the voters that were empowered by listening to Kennedy when he actually delivered his inaugural speech, but now are screaming for their fair share of the government pie.  I know the argument well, the argument that says that we live in different times now than when Kennedy was President.  I agree, we do live in different times, but the message is still relevant today.  We scream and cry about the deficit and the debt, but when it comes to actually cutting programs and spending, the screeching grows louder.  Everyone else’s special interest or program is wasteful spending, but my government supplied handout is important.

This mindset has grown and evolved over the nearly 50 years since 1961, so it will not change overnight.  It will take at least a generation to transform the entitlement mentality into a mindset of what can we do to help our neighbors and country.  I believe there are problems with healthcare and many other issues at stake during this campaign season, but I don’t believe that the government is the solution.  Look back over the past 47 years.  How many problems have been solved by government intervention?  For the most part, government is the problem and not the solution.

After months and months of campaigning, we finally have a moment of peace and quiet, but only a fleeting moment as we wait for the results of the Iowa caucuses.  The poll results have been all over the map.  One poll says that Hillary will win, with Obama and Edwards following closely behind.  Another says that Hillary will come in third behind Edwards and Obama.  The Republican side is just as unpredictable.  Some say Huckabee will win, while others say Romney is the man.  Others say that McCain and Thompson are surging to the front. 

It has been more than 40 years since neither party is running an incumbent President or Vice President.  The political parties have given us a wide array of candidates to choose from, with none of the politicians distinguishing themselves from the rest of the pack.  Just a few short months ago, the pundits told us that the primaries were already decided with Giuliani and Clinton being declared the winners.  Now it is 2008, and we see that Clinton’s lead has evaporated to the point that some polls show her trailing both Edwards and Obama.  Giuliani’s lead is gone to the point where he hasn’t focused on the Iowa caucuses. 

In the run-up to the first test for the candidates, some “experts” questioned whether or not the Iowa caucuses really matter anymore.  The same “experts” posited that if Hillary came in second or third, it would actually be seen as a win because of the uphill battle she has had to fight.  I simply don’t understand what battle she has had to fight.  She held a commanding lead in every poll since before she even declared her candidacy.  Their logic does have a ring of familiarity.  Former President Bill Clinton came in fourth place in Iowa, only to see him come in second in New Hampshire.  He was seen as the “Comeback Kid” and went on to win the nomination.  Hillary’s campaign is being run by the same people that propelled her husband to the Oval Office, I have to wonder how much of this is coincidence or political maneuvering.

As the results come in we will see all of the candidates rationalizing the outcome to their advantage.  If Hillary does come in second, it will still be declared a victory and she will move on to New Hampshire a little more determined.  If she ends up in third place, Obama and Edwards are in for the fight of their lives.  The gloves will come off, and the Clinton War Machine will get in gear to roll over anyone in their path.  She believes it her birthright to be the next President and will do anything that she deems necessary to achieve that goal.  If Edwards comes in third behind Clinton and Obama, I believe we will start to see the last days of his campaign.  Obama is in this for the long haul, no matter where he ends up in the polls.

As 2007 comes to a close, we look back over the preceding 12 months to see some heartbreaking stories, some that lifted our spirits, and then there were some that showed that in politics, one year is pretty much the same as any other year.  January started with plenty of promises from politicians about the impending change in Congress.  It is now ending with very little changed about how things are done in Washington.  Let’s look back over the year at just a few of the events that made history.

Undoubtedly, one of the biggest stories of the year took place on April 16 in the college town of Blacksburg, Va.  Cho Seug-Hui became infamous throughout history for his killing spree on the campus of Virginia Tech that claimed the lives of 33 students and staff.  As with any tragedy, there were scores of “experts” that appeared to assign blame to everyone from the gun that Cho used, to President Bush.  After all, Bush is to blame for everything.  Noticeably missing from their blame game was Cho himself.

Iraq again claimed many of the headlines and the debates on Capitol Hill.  In January, Bush pledged to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq.  Immediately the Democrats and some Republicans started to calling for an all out surrender and defeat of our troops.  They popular refrain was that we had already lost and the troop surge would be a disaster.  The Democrats promised to block the troop surge, but when it when it came time to follow through on their promise, we found that their promises were just more empty rhetoric.  The President stood firm on the troop surge and as the year comes to a close, even the staunchest opponents have started to admit the surge has had a very positive effect on the violence in Iraq.

Former Vice President Al Gore continued his crusade against the United States.  I apologize, I meant to say global warming.  He organized and delivered worldwide concerts to raise awareness about the global warming issue.  The concerts proved to be a ratings disaster for television, and released untold amounts of carbon.  The ultimate goal was to increase awareness about global warming to decrease the amount of carbon that we produce.  The organizers purchased carbon credits to “offset” the carbon that was produced to put on the concert.  Carbon credits are the rich environmentalists way of appeasing their consciences for living how they want, but still preaching that the rest of us should go “green”.  Gore was rewarded for his efforts with the Nobel peace prize.

Rush hour traffic in Minneapolis became a nightmare for the commuters on the I35 bridge in early August when the bridge collapsed and fell into the Mississippi River below.  13 people died in the collapse that brought attention to the thousands of bridges across our country.  The I35 bridge had been recently inspected and had been deemed safe but deficient.  The ongoing investigation is hoping to reveal the cause of the bridge failure.  We could probably save a great deal of time and money and just blame Bush for the collapse.  After all, there were many who believed he was responsible at the time.

In regard to sports, it was a year of black eyes for baseball and for Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick.  Vick was charged with dog fighting and gambling related offenses.  He agreed to a plea bargain in which he will serve 23 months in prison.  Former senator George Mitchell release his much anticipated steroids report on baseball.  Several high profile names appeared on the list including Roger Clemens, Andy Petite, and of course Barry Bonds.  Some of the players that were named, admitted to using steroids, but only before Major League Baseball had instituted a no steroids policy.  Baseball to its credit is trying to clean up it’s act now, but for many it is too little, too late.  They were forced into the policy only after Jose Canseco released his “tell-all” book brought the steroid issue to the forefront.  The NFL dealt with their steroid problems years ago.  I guess if Commissioner Bud Selig needs an easy scapegoat, he could always blame Bush.  It seems to be very popular right now.

In January of 2007, the control of Congress was handed over to the Democratic party leadership under the mantra of “A New Direction”.  After 11 months of control, the 110^th Congress has one of the lowest approval ratings in history.  The Democrats used the negative numbers in their campaigns last year to help retake control of both houses of Congress.  Just before the November elections last year the Republican controlled Congress had a similarly low approval, but after a year of Democrat control, the voting public appears to have the same level of disdain for the way that the Democrats have handled their power.  Both political parties are in some serious trouble when it comes to the public’s confidence in their ability to lead. 

When the Republicans were in control, they displayed no desire to control their own drunken sailor spending habits, effectively deal with the illegal immigration problems, or to police their congressional colleagues relationships with lobbyists.  The Democratic leadership took over and promised to lead the Congress in a new direction.  That direction holds a striking resemblance to the Congress they promised to change.  They have done nothing to rein in the out of control spending.  Under the leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform was brought to the floor and soundly defeated (thank God for that defeat).  The lobbying rules have changed to some extent, but they left enough loopholes to allow themselves to still receive their perks. 

The Democrats were elected to change directions in Congress, but also in the war in Iraq.  After numerous threats to withdraw all funding for the troops, and incessant caterwauling of Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, et al of defeat, the Congress has not succeeded in their stated goal of bringing the troops home immediately.  In fact, the troop levels have risen to accommodate the “surge” and we have seen astounding success.  Even Murtha, who has been decrying our efforts for more than a year, has been heard acknowledging that the surge is working.  The Democratic party is in dangerous territory politically.  If the military effort continues to go well, they are seen as the doomsayers in the face of victory.  If the war goes badly, then they are seen as the gleeful recipients of war casualty numbers.  The Democratic party is beholden to the anti-war establishment, who expects nothing less than a complete withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.  With the failure to cause any change in war strategy, the Democrats need to appease the anti-war supporters.  The question is, what will they be able to accomplish on that front without appearing to be anti-troop?

The Republicans lost their power in large part to their ties to lobbying scandals and their inability to control spending.  After a year in the minority, they have shown very little improvement on the spending issue.  Most Republicans seem just as eager as the Democratic counterparts to spend as if there was no tomorrow.  They rush to attach earmarks to legislation to send more of our money to their pet projects.  Most Republican voters consider themselves to be for a smaller, less intrusive government.  The Republican party of late has done nothing to slow the growth of government, or even shrink the size.  They have given the taxpayers a tax cut, which has helped, but they did nothing to ensure that the tax cuts would be permanent.  The tax cuts are due to expire in a few years and there will be no one to blame but the Republicans who did not act while they had control.

The Democratic candidates for president participated in their final debate before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.  One by one the candidates echoed each other in the need to raise taxes and to having no desire to balance the budget.  The Republican candidates were on hand yesterday to debate the issues.  Their common theme was their desire to cut taxes and to cut federal spending.  Last week I covered the candidate’s positions on illegal immigration.  This week as we discuss the issue of taxes and spending, the deep divide between the two parties becomes even clearer.  From the left side of the political spectrum we are promised higher taxes and no promises on controlling spending.  From the right we hear promises of lower taxes and spending cuts.

The majority of the Democratic candidates spoke of raising taxes on the “wealthiest” of Americans and on “big” corporations.  Only New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson mentioned his desire to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and to eliminate Congress’ earmark addiction.  The Democrats promise to raise taxes on the rich and corporations make for great headlines for those susceptible to class envy, but reality will be a much different story.  The simple truth is that for every dollar that a president or Congress taxes a corporation, the same corporation will raise the price of their product or service.  In simple non-intellectual terms, a tax hike on a corporation is a tax hike on all those who buy that corporation’s products.  The idea of raising taxes on the rich is not a new one.  It is the same tired campaign rhetoric that has been used for at least the past 35 years.  If Bill Gates receives a tax hike, while you still pay the same amount, how has your life improved?  Do you have any extra money in your pocket?  Or do you just feel better that Gates is paying more now?

The Republicans preached against the overspending of the government.  I do find it ironic that many of the candidates have been in Congress who has control of the federal purse strings.  Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney specified several areas of the federal budget that could be cut.  He highlighted 342 economic development programs with oversight by different departments.  His point was that we do not really need 342 economic development programs.  Obviously all 342 programs are not working, but in government failure means more money.  Government programs are like taxes.  Once they are created and on the books, they are never cut from the federal budget.

It has been 6 months since the furor over the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill hit the headlines.  During the ensuing months, Congress has tried to pass various forms of immigration reform, with each version going down to a devastating defeat.  Now we are less than a month away from the Iowa caucuses where the voter of Iowa will begin the process of deciding who will represent the major political parties in next November’s Presidential election.  I believe that it is fitting to look at the immigration record of the candidates from both parties.

On the Democratic side of the political spectrum we have Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, Governor Bill Richardson, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, and former Senator Mike Gravel.  These candidates have all received horrible assessments from the non-partisan group Americans for Better Immigration.  Clinton, Edwards, and Biden all received a D rating.  Obama, Dodd, and Kucinich received a lower rating of D-.  Governor Richardson fared the worst of the entire field of candidates with an abysmal score of F-.  I have included the links to each candidates score card and the explanations of how the grades are derived.

On the Republican side of the contest we have former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Governor Mitt Romney, former Governor Mike Huckabee, Representative Duncan Hunter, Senator John McCain, Representative Tom Tancredo, former Senator Fred Thompson, Representative Ron Paul, and former Ambassador Alan Keyes.  This list of candidates as a whole received much better grades from Americans for Better Immigration.  Tancredo and Hunter both received outstanding grades with an A+.  Romney was rated as good and Paul was given a B.  Thompson scored a mediocre C.  Giuliani and Huckabee both were rated as bad with McCain earning a D.

Since the campaign season has started to heat up with the polls seemingly changing by the hour who is leading in a particular state, most of the candidates seem to either back away from a previously held position or take both sides of the issue in the same speech.  Clinton contradicted herself in the debate last month by favoring and opposing the idea of giving illegal immigrants legal driver’s licenses.  Romney has made news by firing a landscaping company who worked on his property for employing illegal immigrants.  Giuliani and Romney have traded attacks over the sanctuary status of Rudy’s New York City and Mitt’s state of Massachusetts.  Huckabee has been busy answering questions over his support for giving illegal immigrant children in state tuition in Arkansas.  McCain has backed off from his rabid support of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform. 

Representatives Hunter and Tancredo have been steadfast in their quest to stem the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders.  Senator Obama was equally as steadfast in his support for the driver’s license issue in the debates last month.  Governor Richardson has the worst record on illegal immigration of all of the candidates.  He has a nearly perfect record in the wrong direction.  Senator Edwards has been vigilant in his support of illegal immigration.  Representative Paul has been very consistent on the issue with very few exceptions. 

The expedited campaign season has become quite entertaining, especially when the topic turns to Senator Hillary Clinton.  Senator Clinton has, for at least the past 7 years, been positioning herself as the media favorite for the presidency.  Well, at least CNN’s top pick for the White House in 2008. 

Take a short trip down memory lane to the October 30 debate hosted by Tim Russert.  Russert posited a simple question of Senator Clinton.  His question asked where Clinton stood on the proposal of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer to enable illegal immigrants to legally obtain New York state driver’s licenses.  The Senator had a difficult time explaining her stance.  So much difficulty that her debate opponents seized the opportunity to point out her hypocrisy of taking both sides of the issue in her brief but confusing answer.  Her campaign’s response was to attack Russert for engaging in personal attack questioning.  Over the ensuing days she took positions on both sides and even on top of the driver’s licenses issue.  Too her credit, she eventually took a definitive stance against issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.  Her campaign then put out a warning to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.  Wolf would be wise to refrain from the personal attacks that Tim Russert had launched against the presumptive Democratic nominee.  On November 15, CNN televised the debate hosted by Wolf Blitzer.  When the hot button issue of driver’s licenses came up, and Clinton’s answer was a simple “No”, there was no follow up questioning her new position.

On November 28, the Republicans held their Youtube debate, which was again broadcast by CNN, but hosted by Anderson Cooper.  The format was simple, “independent” voters were to record themselves asking the candidates questions and then submit the video to Youtube for CNN to hand select the questions.  Retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr submitted his question and then was contacted by CNN to attend the debate.  Kerr’s question was aired and then Cooper turned to Kerr to ask if he was satisfied that his question was answered.  Kerr said he was not and then asked follow up questions.  The scandal is that the retired Brigadier General is a member of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  CNN claims not to have known Kerr was affiliated with any campaign.  There was a press release 6 months ago stating Kerr’s affiliation with Clinton.  Kerr has been a guest on CNN in years past as an advocate for gay rights.  How can a news network fail to check on the credentials of an “independent” voter that they requested he attend the debate?  By the way, several other “independent” voters whose questions were hand selected for last night’s debate, have been found to be not so independent.

Senator Clinton has made some wild claims over the past several months.  She has claimed that because she spent 8 years in the White House as first lady, that she is best qualified to be President because she has been there before.  That seems a bit odd to me.  My wife is an artist, so by default I should be an artist as well because I have lived with her for 6 years.  Surely I must be able to recreate the works of the Masters.  Does Mrs. Clinton believe that the wife of cardiologist is qualified to perform open heart surgery?  I am sure she will assert that she was deeply involved in the operations of the country during her husband’s presidency.  She claims to have engineered the failed health care reform plan in her husband’s first term.  When Obama pointed out that she failed and now she wants to go back and try the same thing again, the former President came out and claimed that Hillary was not really all that involved in the failed health care reform plan. 

Hillary Clinton has been on every side of every issue since she started her campaign in 2000.  She is clearly Pro-abortion, but depending on which crowd she is talking to, she can switch to a candidate that is working towards the day when no abortions are performed.  She has been fiercely supportive of the war on terror, but as soon as the wind changes direction, she transforms into a staunch anti-war critic.  She was a huge supporter of NAFTA, which was signed by her husband, but recently she flipped to opposing NAFTA.  One thing has remained clear throughout Clinton’s desperate run for the White House, she will always lick her finger and stick it into the air to see which way the wind is blowing before taking a stand on anything.