The countdown to the April 22 Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is nearly over. The showdown in the Keystone state is especially important for both candidates for vastly different reasons. For Hillary Clinton, it is another “big” state that she needs to capture to solidify her claims that Obama cannot win the general election in November. For Barack Obama, it is one of the few remaining states that he desperately needs to win to convince the super delegates that he is the candidate to support.

The Pennsylvania contest has become interesting based on the voter registration numbers. For the first time in more than a generation, the Democratic registration rolls have swelled to a greater number than that of the Republicans in historically conservative Bucks County and other Republican strongholds. The Democratic party points to their candidates and their cross party appeal. The aspect that the Democratic leadership is neglecting to take into account is the prospect of Republicans switching parties to either prolong the Democratic infighting or to throw their support behind a candidate that they believe is easier to beat in November. Talk radio superstar, Rush Limbaugh, calls it “Operation Chaos”. The effect of this strategy was seen in Ohio and Texas, where Hillary collected her first primary wins in several states.

Whether or not you believe that the chaos strategy has had any effect, you must admit that the news stories since Ohio and Texas have brought out information that may not have been told until late summer. From Obama’s ties to Tony Rezco, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayres. The Ayres connection has become of interest of late, especially since more details of their connection has become known. Ayres was a member of the radical group Weather Underground. He was arrested but never convicted for more than 25 bombings during the 1960’s. He has since made comments stating that he was saddened that the bombings had not accomplished more. Clinton has made her own headlines with her amateurish claims of sniper attacks during her trips as First Lady.

Obama has begun to show some strain under the political microscope of a Presidential campaign. Last week he made some comments at a fundraiser that caused quite a stir. He said that voters in small towns in Pennsylvania cling to religion and their guns because they have no other hope. It was just another indication that the man that claims to be the candidate for the average voter, is completely out of touch with the rest of America. Obama attempts to portray an image of humble upbringing, but his education at the esteemed Punahou Academy, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School are rarely seen on the resume of an average Joe. I have no problem with someone who can afford to go to prestigious institutions, but don’t try to mislead the public into thinking you have been where they are.

This week the Congress held committee briefings with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The briefings were the first since last September, when the General and Ambassador first reported of the successes of the troop surge. This briefing contained more good news from Iraq. The two men reported that the violence in Iraq has subsided substantially over the past several months, but that the successes of our brave men and women are tenuous and reversible. The report was updated with relevant facts from the ground in Iraq, but it was essentially the same report as in September. The overlying meaning in this report as well as the one from September is that we should continue to allow our troops to secure the country while the Iraqi’s forces are trained and take over the security of their own country. 

Here are the links to General Petraeus September report, and to his April report.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still warned in the days leading up to the briefings, that the General had better be truthful. Does Ms. Pelosi believe that the commander of our military in Iraq would lie under oath? Several other Democrats on the committees did nothing more than play to the cameras and make speeches about how they didn’t believe that we could win. Senator Carl Levin, after finally realizing the correct titles of the men he was addressing, launched into his diatribe about how the surge had failed because of recent attacks in Basra and Baghdad. He discounts all of the General’s experience and knowledge to say that we should set a timetable for withdrawal and promptly turn over control to the Iraqi security forces. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid equates the recommendation of Petraeus and Crocker to halt troop withdrawals for a 45 day cooling off period to taking one step forward and two steps back. I am unaware of Mr. Reid’s extensive qualifications on military operations and strategy, but he surely must be hiding a Congressional Medal of Honor in his desk to claim to know more that the two distinguished gentleman who appeared before Congress.

All three candidates for the presidency had the opportunity to question Petraeus and Crocker on Capitol Hill this week. In my opinion, McCain showed his experience and knowledge with his questioning. Clinton appeared to still be searching to find the right angle to spin this into a much-needed political gain for herself. Obama showed his vulnerabilities on foreign policy and military affairs.

This election season is shaping up to be a contest between a political “moderate” and a liberal. I realize that the Democrats are far from deciding their nominee, but there really isn’t any substantive difference on policy between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Senator McCain, the unofficial Republican nominee, is the moderate in the race.

John McCain has built his political career around creating ulcers within the digestive tracts throughout the conservative ranks. He has enjoyed glowing media coverage, which has helped to solidify his “maverick” status in Washington. The important question of this election for Republicans is whether or not conservatives will show up to vote for McCain. Through all of the media hype about conservatives failing to line up behind him, I have come to realize that there is some misconceptions about what conservative believe and what we stand for.

I would like to give a brief overview of what I believe a conservative believes. I am a Christian, husband, father, American, conservative, and lastly a Republican. Those titles help define my beliefs. As a Christian I believe in the sanctity of innocent human life. Therefore, I am pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception and that life should be protected. I believe that little baby is a human life. If you ask any woman who is happily pregnant, she will not refer to the life growing inside of her as a fetus. To her it is her child, a baby. For me, my stand on abortion comes more from my Christian faith, and less so from my conservative viewpoint.

As a conservative, I believe that the government takes way too much money from our wallets in taxes. I don’t fall into the class envy trap that so many politicians are pushing these days. The political rhetoric on taxes has become a rich versus the rest of us rant. The “evil” rich are making too much money and not paying enough in taxes. What percentage of their income should the “evil” rich pay in taxes? Is 30% enough? What about 50%? Why not return to the days of more than 70%? Sadly many in our country would rather complain that the rich are too rich, than to actually sit down and figure out how they themselves might be able to make a better life for themselves. The class envy crowd love to point out that billionaire Warren Buffet has complained that his secretary, who makes $60,000 a year, pays more in income taxes than he does. I can’t help but ask 2 questions. Why doesn’t Mr. Buffet pay his secretary more so that she may be able find the tax loopholes that he exploits? If he truly believes that he should pay more in taxes, then why doesn’t he write a check to the Treasury Department? They will be more than happy to accept his money.

I also believe that the government has grown beyond a reasonable size. It has become the mentality of the general population that the government should take care of us from cradle to grave. This may not be a very popular idea right now, but the government should not be in the business of forgiving mortgages. The housing crisis, while painful, is completely necessary to correct a market that was completely out of control. If the politicians follow through on freezing foreclosures and forgiving mortgages, the housing market will take much longer to get back on its feet. It may make for great headlines, but is terrible economic policy. Once they start meddling with mortgages of those who are in danger of foreclosure, how long before they come and forgive my debt? Why should I be punished for proper financial planning?

I believe that the government has no role in meting out healthcare, or any of the other myriads of programs and services that the politicians propose. Senator Clinton is the godmother of universal healthcare but yet her campaign deemed it necessary to not pay the healthcare premiums for her campaign staff. Is this part of the Clinton healthcare plan? I thought “free” healthcare was a human right. I simply cannot understand how any thinking individual could want the federal government to take over our healthcare. They spend billions each year on our children’s education, but yet in most major cities less than half of those children graduate from high school. The same government who ran the Katrina response is going to run our healthcare system. How am I supposed to believe that they will be more efficient and provide higher quality care than the private sector?

I believe in a strong military that is ready to take on any and all threats, but also to see those conflicts through to the end. If we pack up and leave before there is a lasting peace in Iraq, it will just be a few short years before we find ourselves back over there again. Does anyone remember the debate leading up to the initial invasion for Desert Storm? Many opponents claimed that if the elder Bush had finished the job in the early 90’s, that we wouldn’t be in this mess. Isn’t amazing how those same people are now demanding that we leave Iraq before the peace has been achieved?

I have been called a Nazi, Hitler, fascist, moron, child polluter, member of the Reich wing, neocon, and numerous other names for espousing my beliefs. As if I will suddenly change my view on an issue because I was called a name. I believe that conservatives and liberals share some of the same objectives when it comes to caring for the poor and needy. Both groups agree that they need help, but where we differ is the means of providing that help. Conservatives believe that the private sector is the best way to meet their needs. Liberals generally believe that the government is the sole source to help. 

In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, “Surprise, surprise, surprise”; Senator Hillary Clinton is caught in a lie. The surprise is not that she was lying about the details of her trip to Bosnia as First Lady in 1996, but the fact that the news media actually exposed it. Although they did sit on the story for nearly 4 months before “discovering” that they had video of her trip that directly contradicted the presidential hopeful’s claims. Clinton claimed that she was prepared for the unexpected decisions that a president must make because of her experience as First Lady. Over the course of the past few months, she has used her trip to Bosnia to attempt to prove that point.

Her version of the events of the Bosnia visit was that the plane that she and her daughter Chelsea were flying on had to “corkscrew in to land” because of sniper fire. Once on the ground they had to run with their heads down to escape the sniper fire. The news footage shows a starkly differently story. It shows Clinton being greeted by an 8 year old girl on the tarmac, strolling over to a vehicle and then finally entering the vehicle to be driven away. The military is also discrediting Clinton’s claims, taking issue that they would ever endanger a First Lady, and especially the child of a President, by flying them into a dangerous situation.

Hillary has admitted that she “misspoke” about the incident and that she remembers being warned of sniper attacks in the area. How does one go from a sniper warning to running for cover with their daughter? Was she confusing the trip with another one where she did have to run and duck? If so, which trip is she speaking of? I believe that she expected that the news media would not bring the truth to light. After all, she has been telling the story for months with no one calling her bluff. During her husband’s tenure in the oval office, the media regaled us with “journalistic” pieces on the merits of lying. The Clinton campaign is realizing that the media love affair with everything Clinton is over. 

Maryland’s Governor Martin O’Malley had no sooner received the phone call from former Governor Robert Ehrlich in November of 2006, when he began his quest to raise the tax burden on the residents of the Old Line State. His rationale for the increases was the “looming” structural deficits. He claimed that even though the state had $1.4 billion in surpluses, we would soon be running a deficit. His initial number was $400 million, his estimate finally landed at $1.7 billion. As he was inaugurated into the state house in Annapolis, the work began to come up with the nearly $1.5 billion in higher taxes.

The Democratic controlled House and Senate held special sessions to pass a nearly 10% increase of the tax burden on to the backs of Maryland citizens. They raised the cigarette tax, the vehicle titling tax, the corporate income tax, and the state sales tax. To add insult to the pain of all of the new taxes, Lt. Governor Anthony Brown alluded to the need for even more tax increases late last fall. He claimed that with the thousands of new residents that will be moving to Maryland as part of the Base Realignment And Closure plan, the state will need to spend billions on job training for the new residents. I can’t really fault O’Malley and Brown, or even the legislature for their perverse desire to constantly raise taxes. After all, they are tried and true liberal democrats, and that is what they know how to do. The concept of cutting expenditures never crosses their minds. To a liberal politician, money is power. 

One other note of contention with our Governor, is that while raising the taxes of every single resident of Maryland, he deemed it necessary to raise the salaries of his staff. The raises amount to increases of salary by as much 37.5% while the legislature is considering halting raises for state employees. Some in the Senate tried to require the General Assembly’s approval for any additional pay raises for the Governor’s staff, but that measure was defeated. Even after all of the increases in taxes, the state will still have a budget deficit of $300 million next year. It is becoming all too clear that the phrase “tax and spend liberal” rings true here in Maryland.

Could Hillary Clinton’s week get any worse? She started the week realizing that her perceived momentum swing of winning primaries had swung back in the direction of Barack Obama. Obama picked up a win over the weekend in the Wyoming caucuses. He later added Mississippi to his long list of states won. Of course Senator Clinton is banking on a big win in Pennsylvania on April 23 to lend credence to her notion that Obama can’t win the big states. At this point in the race for the nomination, it is highly unlikely that either candidate will win the required pledged delegates to claim the nomination. Obama will clearly have the lead in the delegate count and the popular vote by the convention convenes in Denver, but the Clintons are not about to let that simple fact stop them from their quest to regain presidential power.

The tight race has begun to turn vicious. This week, former Vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro made the assertion that Obama would not even be a viable candidate in this race if he were a white man. The obvious response from the Obama campaign was to cry racism. Hillary Clinton denounced the remarks made by one of her high profile supporters, and Ferraro eventually left the campaign. She is still all over the news networks claiming that the Obama campaign is making too much of her comments. She has pointed out that when she was nominated to be Vice President in 1984, the same claims were made about her and her gender; which she acknowledged was true. The Obama supporters point out that she made similar claims against the Reverend Jesse Jackson during the 1984 campaign. 

Another headline that the Clinton camp wishes would go away is the story of Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer resigned in disgrace this week, after the news broke about his connection with a high priced prostitution ring. Spitzer was caught on tape setting up payment, transportation, and the appointment for an “encounter” with a “lady of the evening”. Spitzer is a supporter of Clinton’s and a super delegate. This is not the first headache that he has caused for Hillary. Earlier in the campaign, his proposal to grant legal driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants caused Clinton to stumble several times to give a definitive answer on where she stood on the idea. After taking every side of the issue, sometime within the same statement, she eventually stated her opposition for the idea. Spitzer’s proposal was shelved for future consideration.

Another bit of news emerged recently that does not bode well for either candidate. A Pew Research poll was released showing that a growing majority of Americans believe that we are wining the war in Iraq. They also showed that less Americans know how many troops have died during the war than knew just a few short months ago. They showed that since August, which is about the time that the news of the success of the surge started emerging, the news media has been covering less and less of the war. Both candidates had staked their claim to bringing home the troops immediately upon entering office. Now that the war is going well, and public opinion has shifted, what side of the issue will they take? It is harder for them to deny their positions when we have ready access to everything they have ever said. 

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.