The Presidental Election...

As many of you now I consider myself a conservative among very liberal friends. And most people that are close to me know the whole Republican Nomiation process has left me incredibly frustrated. And I now am starting to realize why...

What we had seeking the republican nomiation were 8 career politicans (admittedly the democrat side looked much the same), that comprimised their values in the Senate, or Congress, etc. The one exception in my mind was former Sen. Fred Thompson, however it turns out he doesn't know how to run a campaign. (I suppose in some ways Ron Paul had a differnt message, but I still look at him as a career politican). It seemed the only people that "knew how to run a campagin" are completly devoid of values. They all seemed to feel entitled to the nomination for "paying their dues" or whatever (so did Hillary for that matter, which is why I'm kind of glad the DNC nominated Obama, and a VP that was anyone other than Hillary).

My number one issue has been national security since 2001. No matter what political direction our nation goes, it doesn't mean a damn thing if we can't protect ourselves from those that want all 300 million of us dead. So I'd like to share my thought process with you, even if you disagree with me, I hope to point out that I've thought this out pretty well, and you'd better be prepared, and I'll respect those that disagree for it.

The Dennis Miller "secret binder theory":

Comedian and Nationally syndicated radio host Dennis Miller has a rather optimistic view of this election. As many of you know Miller became a Pres. Bush supporter after the attacks because he places a high value on our security. After supporting former New York City Mayor Rudolph Guilani in the primary, he is now backing Sen. McCain. But noting that foreign policy rarley changes drastically from one administration to the next the belief is that no matter what the candidates say they will have to continue to fight terrorism. The "Binder theroy" (which I believe is more my term than Miller'), is that President Bush has been acting on a lot of information that isn't safe to make public. And when whoever the next president is (even if it's we're leaving 90 days from when I take office or whatever Sen. Obama) they're going to find out the secrets Pres. Bush knows and have a holy s**t moment no wonder we had to do this when we did.

So if you belive this (which I do somewhat), it doesn't really matter who wins. Even if it's Obama (who I don't agree with on anything), not much will probably change concerning Iraq, or the other nations that pose a threat to us. Though it is dangerous to our nation to negoiate uncondionally with nations that would lie to us. Makes us way to vunerable. Still, a part of me would almost want Obama to win just to watch him not pull us out of Iraq, a tacid admission that the left's unfounded cristicisms of President Bush are unfounded lies, and motived only by their insatiable thirst for power.

Off topic point is even though I disagree with McCain on his throwing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld under the bus, and on immigration, I think he's the strongest on the issue of defending our country. But if I believe that our foregin policiy isn't going to change much anyway, maybe I don't have to vote for McCain (as in McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold and his other "maverick" bills that have set free speech back, I have long held the belief that McCain-Feingold did far more damage to the Constitution than anything the left has accused of the Patriot Act). Enter Libertarian nominee (former Republican) Bob Barr...

As far as belief in small goverment, the Libertarian party is absolutly where it's at. I like to think of libertarians as "anarchist's with a fire department." As their bare bones approach to goverment unleashes the resoures every human has. Resources and money travel much better and get used far more efficient than in the goverment. But the only problem with the libertairian party is in my above statement that it doesn't matter which direction our country goes, if we can't defend ourselves. And the Libertarians have missed a tremendous opporutinity to pick off the Guiliani-Miller conserviatives (of which I consider myself), because of their isolationst stances. Still, I really think I was going this direction because I'm tired of supporting a party that offered us that horrible slate of potential nominees, this party put 8 horrible choices on the primary trail. This party that has abandoned the small government principles of conservatism.

Enter Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (yes you knew we were going there)...

First of all, I was very skeptical that whoever McCain picked couldn't change the way I percieve the top of the ticket (especially if it was another RINO, Republican in Name Only, such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty). Now whether I liked it or not, I think the truth is McCain was going to win no matter who he picked. The fact that the further from a teleprompter Obama gets the worse he looks. McCain thinks on his feet far better than Obama and that was going to come up in the debates (much like it did for Bush against Former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry).

But I'll admit much to my suprise Picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has indeed changed the way I perceive this ticket. She's pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling, pro-small government, pro low-taxes, and anti-establishment all conservative positions (or at least anti-establishment should be) on which McCain has hedged, in otherwords, nothing like the 8 losers that were seeking the nomination over the past year.

The biggest thing this signals to me is that McCain is ready to back off his anti-ANWR position. To paraphrase conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh "the only people opposed to ANWR are outside of Alaska," and what picking someone from Alaska and is pro-ANWR does give the ticket a way to signal the electorate that McCain is ready to consider drilling, and Obama isn't.

The other biggest thing is the fact she's willing to take on her own party. a corrupt Republican Party in Alaska, and told the U.S. congress no thanks to funding part of the proposed $300 million "bridge to knowhere" to an island of 50 residents (support by now investigated Republican Senator Ted Stevens). To McCain's credit he did criticize this proposal after the I-35W bridge, citing the money would be better spent on bridges like this that take hundreds of thousands of cars a day.

The next thing about Palin is that she's had a life before politics. And that it what is shamefully absent from our leadership on both sides. All we're getting are kids that grew up under Pres. Clintion, got inspiered to go to college to study political science, and the run for something. Now both parties are infested with disgusting un-principled individuals who's only qualification is that they are armed with the knowledge of how to move a poll 2 points by taking a given position. This isn't leadership, this is a bunch of panderers that have no idea what it is to hold a job. I think this is true of McCain, Obama, and Biden. I believe it is far easier to have real world experiece and become a politican, than it is to start life as a politican and then go into the real world. Either way, I think the world of politicians is completly separate for the world of those that don't get to claim all their fuel on expense reports (though in the interest of full disclosure I get to claim some). Or do our own grocery shopping, or have to pay our own mortgages.

So while I will entertain the fact that Palin lacks the national experience one would look for in a VP pick, I think she deserves far more credit for what she accomplished before her political life than Sens. Obama, Biden, and frankly McCain for that matter. While Obama can talk about change, Palin can talk about accomplishments. She can talk about the fact she stopped the wasteful spending on the bridge to knowhere, she took on the corrput Republican party in Alaska. So I hope the GOP takes notice, that THESE ARE THE TYPES OF CANDIDATES WE WANT, no more Huckabee's, Romney's, or any other sellout GOP Senators.

So now we're down to the fact that's she's a woman. I think this is being way overplayed, she's the second woman in history to be nominated to a major ticket (Former Senator Geraldine Ferraro with Sen. "One-State" Walter Mondale in 1984 being the first). But I think too much is being read into that, this pick is about ANWR, and to a lesser extent appealing to those of us in the conservative base (like me), that there is such a thing as a woman who is pro-life and pro-gun. And I think there are many more pro-life women that the left gives women credit for. I think it's a myth that all women should be pro-choice.

So does this mean I'm ready to get on the McCain-Palin ticket, it just may, as Al Franken's commercials say more to come....

PS (My Facebook friends list is currently at 150, we'll see where it heads after I publish this)

Dusting Off the Blog...

I haven't written anything on my blog for a while. The last thing on there was a short list of things that hit my head over what apparently was quite the head-hitting weekend. So here's some random thoughts....

"Arrested Development" Movie:

Oh I hope this happens so badly. This reminds me that "We may have commit some....light treason." ("George Bluth" played by Jeffrey Tambor) may be the funniest one line ever in a sitcom.

Minnesota Wild Summer Woes:

I hope the clock is ticking on Wild GM Dougie Riseborough, losing Rolston to Free Agency, waiving Mark Parrish, and the impending loss of Marion Gaborik is at best poor judgement, but most likley gross incompetence. I hope the new owner will cut him loose this year. Maybe DR will go to Toronto (he can break something that's already broken).

Vikings:

I know the Vikings are loaded this year and as long as QB Tavaris Jackson hasn't forgotten how to hand the ball off to RB Adrian Peterson, we should be in good shape (the other thing TJ has going for him is he doesn't have to throw to WR Troy Williamson this year). On the surface the vikings look like an 11 or 12 win team, but the dissapoinments of Purple Seasons past has muted what should be unabashed optimism. (Plus the fact the vikes drew a tough schedule with Indy, Jax, and the G-men as opponents this year).

Packers:

Don't tell anyone, but I kind of respect the Packers for sticking to their guns on the Brett Favre thing. I know Favre is awesome, blah blah blah (he had one good year in 2007, look at his 2005 and 06 numbers and you'll be far less impressed), but I'm glad they traded him on their terms and not let Farve bully them into forcing a trade to Minnesota (again look at his 2005 and 06 numbers, I'll take my chances with Tjack).

Still at the same time, if they Packers didn't try a horrible bluff that "Aaron Rogers is our quarterback," when Favre was threating to report to camp, the Packers could easily have Favre right now and saved face (though they would undoubtly lose Rogers with no compensation to free agency next year).

Speaking of that, I wonder how much truth there was to the Vikings' interest in Favre. Or to Tampa's interest for that matter, given how little the Jets ended up giving up for Favre (conditional pick 3rd round or higher). I'm starting to think ESPN made a lot of things up in this story. They may not have the journalistic integrity that they're given credit for. I've been getting my online sports news from foxsports.com latley.

Scrabulous being shut down on facebook:

I guess this diminishes "Weird Al" Yankovic's next parody "Too Busy playing Scrabulous" (from the Eagles latest "Too Busy Being Fabulous").

Al Franken:

The Republicans should thank their lucky stars the DFL failed to put anyone up with integrity or credibility. Don't buy into the SNL Stuart Smalley character. Al Franken is nothing more than a bully that resorts to name-calling with anyone that disagrees with him (what was the title of the book that made him famous). From a Democrat point of view the sad thing is Sen. Coleman was probably beatable this year.

I guess that's all the random thoughts for now.