Thursday, February 28, 2008

My Sarkozy, The Hero

by:R.J. Moeller

The school teacher will never be able to replace the priest or the pastor in the teaching of the difference between good and evil.”

-French President Nicholas Sarkozy

And so we learn it has been precisely this sort of “controversial” statement from pro-American, Bush ally, Nicholas Sarkozy, that has regularly landed “old Sarko” in hot water with Europe’s intellectual, journalistic, and political Left. In fact, a consortium of leading French philosophers, professors, teachers and outspoken atheists went so far as to condemn their president’s comments as “false” and “obscene.” Sounds like the teachers’ unions are just as concerned about what’s best for their students on that side of the pond as they are here, huh?

Coincidentally, this also happens to be the very type of rhetoric and line of thinking that won the most conservative candidate in France’s modern history (Sarkozy) a landslide victory last Spring. He easily triumphed over an anti-American, pro-collectivism, Bush-hating Socialist named Ségolène Royal (who happens to be a total babe as well). But to be fair, liberals around the globe are still trying to figure out who it was exactly that voted for Bush twice so we can’t expect them to have discovered the secret to Sarkozy’s successes among previously dis-enfranchised French voters just yet.

Sarkozy’s rise to power flies in the face of the electoral narrative currently being written by sympathetic prObama journalists in the United States. While both Sarkozy and Barack Obama are handsome, articulate, engaging personalities, this is where the similarities end. In France, the liberal press has a problem with Sarko the American: he’s got too many ideas that contradict the secular-progressive worldview of most in the media, and (gasp!) he is actually serious about implementing them. Meanwhile in America, the liberal press has what appears to be an even bigger problem: finding a thesaurus big enough so as to not run out of interchangeable adjectives for “hope” and “change” before November’s election. Obama is to say the least, long on frosting, but short on cake.

In order to conceal the self-indulgent, surface-deep oratory of Senator Barack Obama during his continuing meteoric rise to “front-runner” status, the American press and political experts on CNN and MSNBC are all-too-happy to gush over the “refreshing” and “inspiring” style of Obama. Meanwhile the average American Joe Six-Pack forgets if he’s channel-surged to a presidential debate or American Idol’s newest talent search show for the World's Next Top Most Attractive Marxist?

Sarkozy, at this very same time last year, had much of the same style and excitement of Obama, but took the path less traveled. He ran and won in the true Mecca of nanny-state Socialism (France) on a platform that would be somewhere to the “Right” of even Senator John McCain, let alone Senators Obama or Clinton.

His agenda included: cutting crippling tax rates, cutting federal government spending on entitlements, a re-focusing on French military strength, a renewal of the importance of French Judeo-Christian heritage and religious life in the public square, and the desperate need for immigration reform. He pledged to impede the flood-stage flow of North African and Middle Eastern Muslims who typically run to Western countries to escape the horrors of their Sharia Law dominated homelands…and then promptly demand Sharia Law be implemented in their new host nation.

In order to make this difficult break from social collectivism, Sarkozy implored the French citizens of his beloved nation to deny their liberally-conditioned impulses in order that they may cast off the shackles of cradle-to-grave entitlements. These, he rightly argues, only benefit the oligarchy (top dogs) and entrenched bureaucracy (fat cats) that lord over them.

So in a twist of historical irony Sarkozy was the victorious conservative candidate of real “change” and “hope” just one short year ago. This in a country that had for more than 50 years adopted the same economically crippling, dead-end brand of Socialism presently being peddled by the “Yes We Can!” man from Illinois in the 2008 presidential campaign. Essentially Obama is asking the American people to run headlong and open-armed toward the very same form of socialist government and economy that caused even the lethargic French to decide it was a bad idea.

The only thing more discouraging than the possibility of dead-end Socialism taking over our society is that millions of Americans cheer wildly for it merely because the person espousing it has a nice smile and cool demeanor. Obama also offers many guilt-ridden white voters their supposed chance to make amends for centuries of institutional racism with the casting of one ballot for a black guy who doesn’t look or sound at all like either Jesse Jackson or DMX. Do we really believe in Obama, or merely what he potentially represents?

I say that before we surrender our judgment and reasoning capabilities and vote for Obama's federal government expansionary platform, we should consider some hard economic facts. These are the identical truths that Sarkozy and millions of voters in France chose to realize in 2007: China’s economy (increasingly capitalist driven) grows at a rate of more than 10% a year, India at 8% (capitalist driven), the United States at (captialist driven) 3%, and European countries (Socialist driven) on average around 1%. Here's the deal…the French are trying to be like us, and Obama wants us to be more like Europe. Who else feels like this Kool-Aid we're being served might be spiked with economic cionide?

Alexis de Tocqueville, an intellectual French forefather to Sarkozy’s political and cultural worldview, visited the United States in the 1830's to discover the secrets of its unparalleled economic and social success. He then wrote: “There is a manly and lawful passion for equality which incites men to wish to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.”

For my money, nothing explains better the difference between the intellectual/political Right of conservatism (of which Sarkozy is a modern day prophet) and the intellecutal/political Left of liberalism (of which Obama is undeniably the new high priest). Tocqueville's masterfully written commentary reveals the potentially uncomfortable and difficult truth we must begin to grapple with: conservatism seeks to empower and elevate worthy persons, liberalism seeks to dethrone and punish successful individuals. That's the essence of Right vs. Left, Conservative vs. Liberal, Capitalist vs. Socialist.

The political divide is a divide for a reason. It is at its core a fundamental divergence in worldview, and not simply surface-deep, peripheral disagreements about which political party or campaign headquarters posted the latest photo on the Internet of Obama sporting Muslim garb in Kenya. Just because Bill O'Reilly does a "Body Language" segment on something doesn't mean it has any bearing on who is better suited to run the Free World. (Sorry, Bill.)

President Sarkozy is a hero to me not simply because he’s got charisma and an engaging media personality. I like Sarko because of his unwillingness to flinch in the face of antagonistic secular-progressivism that has infected the collective bloodstream of his country’s politics, culture, and religion (or lack thereof). I admire him because of his “no retreat” mentality in advancing the conservative platform of “change” he ran on. His intent is clearly not just to reform French government, but to revitalize a society that has been suffocating from self-induced malaise. It's the same apathy which invariably follows the implementation of Socialism, nanny-state controls, and whatever it was Jimmy Carter thought he was doing well between 1977-1981. (BTW, to approximate how an Obama presidency would likely turn out I encourage you to read the history of the Carter administration's four years of on-the-job training -- I'll give you a hint: bad) .

In keeping with his vow to holistically reinvigorate not only France’s government, but its national identity, Sarko is re-introducing such antiquated notions as “patriotism” and “the accurate teaching of French history to school children.” He is trying to reattach the sections of France’s cultural and historical patchwork quilt that has for decades been systematically removed by Leftist revisionists (who value their own brand of diversity over truth, and humanistic relativism over the moral standards of theism). An example can be found in his most recent decision to instill in French students an appreciation for the dangers of totalitarianism and the bravery of those courageous and compassionate Frenchmen who came before them.

In a speech last week, Sarkozy announced a revision to the national school curriculum in France. Beginning next Fall, he said, every 5th grade student in the country will be given the assignment to learn the name and story of one specific French child who was a part of the 11,000 Jewish children slaughtered in the Holocaust. Sarkozy went on to stress the indispensable role religion, specifically Christianity, has played in successful democratic societies. His own theory for why such a terrible event as the Holocaust was allowed to happen in France’s backyard was due to the fact that in Europe, “Too many people gave up on their faith in God.”

These sentiments were met with a hail-fire of condemnations from incensed liberals and Muslim "civil rights" groups in France who labeled the plan as "culturally insensitive." Say what?

Because Nicholas Sarkozy has enough political guts, intellectual honesty, and a comprehensive understanding of history to say such things, is exactly why he is the true agent of "change" who offers the French people an attainable “hope” that their beloved nation will once again become a legitimate, vibrant, and productive superpower.

Vive le Sarkozy!

(And then there’s Obama)

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

How do we beat him?


Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley has some thoughts on how best Republicans can confront and defeat the smooth-talking junior Senator from Illinois come November.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Are people too hard on the NY Times?


Answer: no. Conservative columnist and economist Thomas Sowell explains why the New York Times has proven itself un-trustworthy time and again over the past 20 years. It's not hyperbole and it's not "Right wing conspiracy." The editors at the Times have turned the front-page news reporting in to a battering ram to crush those who don't share their same secular-progressive (Democratic) agenda. For more on the Times' disdain for fair and accurate reporting, read here.

Steyn on the state of the Democrat's presidential race


Columnist of the World, Mark Steyn, breaks down the break down of the vaunted Clinton political machine that is close to being knocked out of the race by a man (Senator Obama) whom Steyn labels a, "freshman pap peddler of liberal boilerplate whom no-one had heard of the day before yesterday."

Military experts say "NObama" in 2008


Retired generals and military men are airing their concerns over the fact that Senator Obama is so vastly under-qualified for the position of Commander-in-Chief. This is far-and-away the single most important issue going forward toward the election next November. Do we want, in a time of war, the person with the least experience of any who ran for President to be in charge of the greatest military and fighting force the world has ever known?

Monday, February 25, 2008

They know that they're putting us all at risk


Congressional Democrats, led by the insufferable Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, continue to play politics with National Security and in turn put us all at risk. But remember, it's George Bush and Dick Cheney who have torn this country apart, right?

Russia needs a change


President Medvedev is Vladimir Putin's successor, but is so closely tied to his predecessor that many fear the same strong-arm, KG-like tactics that typified Putin's time in office will continue. Read this fascinating and important article from today's Washington Post to learn more.

GOP fears racial/sexist tension


Senator John McCain is going to be the Republican Party's nominee for President in November, but along the way he will have to either face the first female or African-American candidate in US history. So what does my own timid and spineless Party do? Not attack either Democratic Senator running based on the issues, but conduct polling to see how "sensitive" McCain's campaign rhetoric ought to be going forward.

I thought Oprah was consulting for the Democrats?

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Let the great experiment began!


On a scale from 1 to "Utterly Dis-interested", rate your excitement level in light of the news that Ralph Nader will be running for President of the United States in 2008. At least in 2000 he helped us beat Gore...

Friday, February 22, 2008

Change: To believe in it or not...


European pundits are chiming in their doubts as far as Obama's soaring rhetoric is concerned.

Iran means us no harm....right?


German magazine, Der Spegel, reports that Iran will have the necessary amount of enriched uranium by the end of 2008. I wonder what they'll do with it...

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Who or what is really to blame?


This is the BEST column you'll read all month. Victor David Hanson of National Review calls Senators Obama and Hillary out for their disingenuous rhetoric when it comes to what the root causes of problems in this nation truly are. Enjoy.

Open and ready for bashing


Senator Obama's the hot-ticket item for Dem's these days, but will his ultra-liberal voting record and unwillingness to part with far-Left financial backers hurt his chances in 2008? The Wall Street Journal has some thoughts on the matter.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Military harassed in CA yet again


It feels like a monthly routine for either San Fran or Berkely to harass or kick Army recruiters out of their cities. Thomas Sowell drops the hammer on this unacceptable behavior.

Our confusing election process


A candid discussion regarding the electoral process in choosing a President here in the United States, courtesy Michael Barone in the USA Today.

El Presidente es no mas


Fidel Castro, the man responsible for murdering tens-of-thousands of his own people, has decided that due to health concerns he will step down as Commander-in-Chief of the island nation of Cuba.


I wonder if Michael Moore sent him any flowers?

Monday, February 18, 2008

War on Terror update


PLEASE read this Robert Novak column on what exactly went on with the Democrats recent refusal to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that willingly helped the President and Justice Department track down known and suspected terrorists.

Seriously, what is going on in England?

I realize that he doesn't speak for all Brits, but the head of the Church of England is not only not recanting his absurd comments regarding the potential benefits of allowing Sharia Law to trump English Law for Muslims living in Great Britain, but is defending them. Thankfully we have Dinesh Dsouza to put it all in perspective

Thursday, February 14, 2008

What are these guys thinking?


Dominican MLB players are apparently big fans of "cock-fighting." Sadly, my own favorite Cubs player, Aramis Ramirez, has not only been linked to gambling on the ridiculous "sport", but admits to raising roosters to participate in the contests as well. Wow.

Romney on board


Governor Romney today endorsed John McCain for president. It's the only sensible choice for Mitt, and truthfully, for all Conservatives, Republicans, and rational thinking people everywhere.

The Economist on Obama


The London-based periodical, The Economist, does just about the best job possible of assessing Senator Obama's campaign.

Obama's Socialist Connection


The junior Senator from Illinois has a lot of explaining to do on this one....is what I would say if the vast majority of Americans hadn't already made up their minds that style will most certainly trump substance in 2008.
"Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler. Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat."

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

"Reagan Country" for Young Men

What my generation needs to know about "The Gipper"
by:R.J. Moeller



Ronald Reagan would have turned 97 this last week. With only FDR in hot pursuit, Reagan lapped every other Commander-in-Chief to emerge as the most important American president of the 20th century. The America we know today does not exist without Reagan.

To most on the political Left, such a claim is heresy on par with not owning a copy of An Inconvenient Truth on DVD. For some on the Right, the invocation of Reagan’s name is used unreservedly as a verbal battering ram with which to trample such trifles as “context”, “perspective”, or “illumination of beliefs and plan for success if elected” that can very quickly lose you votes come Caucus/Primary season. I willingly admit conservatives running for office in Congress or the White House have recognized and exploited a simple strategy for winning the support of GOP loyalists, and it boils down to the name of “Reagan”: If you drop it, they will vote. (And we will win…5 of the last 7 presidential elections, that is.)

I personally find Ronald Reagan to be the most fascinating person I’ve ever had the privilege to learn and read about. It may seem naïve or disingenuous for someone who spent a large chunk of the guy’s presidency clad in little more than Scooby-doo underwear in front of the television watching Smurfs and drinking Chocolate Milk from a “sippy” cup to say it, but most certainly “The Gipper” has become a hero and unintentional mentor of mine. As I’ve watched the presidential primary season unfold these past months, and heard countless politicians begin sentences with, “And just like Ronald Reagan would say…” or end them with “…and that’s why Ronald Reagan liked me best,” my blood pressure has matured and boiled to levels far beyond my years.

Reagan-haters on the Left fumble the proverbial snap by trying to ignore or distort the man’s legacy, which simply becomes yet further evidence of liberalism’s alarmingly comfortable relationship with intellectual dishonesty (by omission or academic coercion). Reagan-militants on the Right are wrong for committing the sin of blind allegiance devoid of true understanding and context that liberals and Cubs fans are appropriately berated for.

Out of the overwhelming cloud of insincerity that one cannot help but feel engulfs campaign seasons every four years emerged, from the most unlikely of places, the most accurate appraisal of Ronald Reagan’s career and legacy. Although grossly misapplied, and used for entirely devious reasons, Obama’s recent comments that Reagan and the Republican Party in the 80’s and 90’s were the agents of change and new ideas is precisely the kind of thing our 40th president would have loved to hear.

Not surprisingly, and almost instantly after making those remarks, Obama was bombarded with criticisms from Hillary Clinton’s and John Edwards’ campaigns and the candidates themselves due to the junior Senator from Illinois’ breaking of the cardinal liberal sin “Thou shall not acknowledge a conservative in a positive light.” And for that conservative to end up being the most Democratically-feared Republican since Teddy Roosevelt? Well, you can only imagine.

Both Hillary and Edwards know full well that Obama is as close to embracing a single policy of Ronald Reagan’s as I am to winning American Idol, and that he was only referencing Reagan as a recent example of someone who was able to bring the American people (if not Congress) together, but the 500-pound GOP elephant in the room that even Barack wasn’t ready to wrestle with is this: The reason Reagan left office in 1989 with a 70% approval rating and is remembered by millions as an icon and legendary American reformer isn’t because he was articulate or a certain gender or a certain race; it’s because his ideas, ideals, and policies largely proved themselves to be the right (small “r”) ones.

But Reagan didn’t arrive at his traditional, conservative, free-market principles the way Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi would have you believe all Republicans do. His family was the second poorest to ever produce a future president. He grew up in a small, rural town in western Illinois, the son of an alcoholic father who married a caring, devout Christian woman who taught her son to love “God, family, country”, and in that order. Money was always tight; the ability to escape his lower-class status always in doubt, and secondary education appeared to be little more than a pipe dream.

No one ever envied Reagan’s childhood, including Reagan himself. What is inspiring about the story of his rise to prominence, first as a college graduate, then as a Hollywood actor, and then as a Governor and President, is what he did with the cards dealt him. The fact that a poor boy from Hicktown, USA, the son of a substance abuser (who incessantly moved his family from town to town early in Reagan’s life), even had the chance to succeed was never lost on the future leader of the Free World.

You see, when he spoke about the need to encourage and foster the “American dream” (and the entrepreneurial spirit that fuels it) by lowering taxes and de-regulating the already overbearing federal government, he wasn’t talking in hyperbole or from the perspective of some blue-blood, trust fund, country club New Englander. He took the values taught him by his parents, and experiences learned as a Midwest working-class stiff, with him all the way to Tinsel Town. Instead of embracing the status-quo socialistic liberalism championed by the majority of his thespian peers, Reagan remained humble and grateful for whatever type of economic system could be successful enough so as to yield the kind of discretionary income for its citizens needed to keep a business where people pretend in front of cameras going. This was all before the age of 50, and all as an FDR-Democrat.

As president, Reagan would be forced to deal severely with different labor unions. The hard line he took against the Air Traffic Controllers who were striking during his first term was seen by many journalists and intellectuals as “detached”, “untrained”, and typical Republican mistreatment and disdain for all unions and their practices. Reagan found this amusing in light of the fact that he had been the president of a union, the Screen Actors Guild, for nearly a decade in the 1950’s after his modest acting career had fizzled. By eventually calling the union boss’s bluff, and sending any who would not work home, Reagan was overwhelmingly backed by the American people who recognized in his decision the discerning wisdom of one who’d been at both sides of the negotiating table.

Without a doubt, the most important thing Reagan was right about, as President, was his unwillingness to back down in the face of Soviet aggression coming from Moscow. He knew the majority of Russian people were good people, no different than most Americans, but he also knew that the repressive totalitarianism their leaders had imposed (and were obsessively seeking to impose on any part of the world they could) was “evil” and must be defeated.

When he was sworn in to office, what stood in his way was nothing more than the superior weaponry, military, and will-to-win of the Soviets, as well as the apathetic malaise fostered by a press and academia who assured the Western world that not only would the Soviets never be vanquished, but that in fact it was their communist ways that we in the Free World would be well served to adopt. (You can’t really blame a liberal for answering the call to defend his own ideology’s logical conclusion though, can you?) They called Reagan every name under the sun, and prognosticated the “peace through strength” foreign policy model he had adopted would lead us off the nuclear proliferated cliff.

Ronald Reagan understood history, and did not need an Ivy League degree to ascertain the “self-evident” truism that our American form of representative democracy, our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture, and our free market economy comprise the greatest and most effective system ever implemented on a societal level in human history. He believed, as the Founders did, that freedom was a “natural right” endowed by our Creator. If, he thought, we really think this to be true, how can we sit idly by as fellow members of the human race not only deprive their own people of this right, but seek to ultimately dictate the availability of our own rights? Communism was playing for keeps, and Reagan knew it was time for American democracy to do the same.

When in his first press conference as Commander-in-Chief Reagan said that his strategy for confronting the Soviets would be, “We win; they lose,” everyone scoffed at the painful naivety of the “cowboy” actor attempting to play the role of a serious world leader. Almost exactly one decade later, the Berlin Wall that Reagan demanded be torn down, ended up on the same rubbish heap of history that its ideological constructor, Communist Russia, lay in.

Reagan was a legend for many reasons. His first loves were his God and his family, and his dedication and commitment to those things were what enabled him to cherish his nation so deeply and lead it so effectively. He was a fantastic communicator, a quick-witted politician, and a visionary leader. From small-town America to Hollywood to Pennsylvania Avenue, the guy never lost a sense of who he was or where he had come from. Sure good luck and timing played a significant role in his life and career, but one has to be prepared to utilize the breaks that come along, and Reagan always was.

Ronald Wilson Reagan succeeded where others have failed because he based his policies and practices as a politician on what history, common sense, his heart, and his life experiences had told him; thankfully for America, they all turned out to be right.

Is it McCain, or Bush, that Conservatives are mad at?


Jonah Goldberg writes in today's USA Today that perhaps it would be appropriate for conservatives angry with McCain to re-examine Bush's record (a man we all supported, twice). I respect both men, and while we should never settle for sub-par leaders, it is impossible to elect the "perfect" candidate. Remember that in 2008.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Finally coming around

Many of the Evangelical leaders who originally signed their names to the "Open Letter" to Muslims last Fall are starting to ask that their endorsements be removed. While I find it silly that their names were on it to begin with, I'm impressed that they're willing to concede a mistake.

Must've read "Voice's" take on in earlier this year....

Don't forget us when you're famous, McCain


National Review reminds Senator McCain that if he plans on being our nominee, and more importantly, on winning in November, he's got a lot of "making up" to do with the Republican base: Conservatives!

More than six years later...


The Pentagon has finally announced that six of the terrorists responsible for planning 9/11 have been officially charged. The next step, ideally, is to send these vermin to a military tribunal, but not if Democrats have their way. They want to give these enemy combatants (who are not covered by the Geneva Convention) the same rights as an American citizen and a civilian trial instead.


What sense does this make? They are not citizens, they've ignored the standard rules of combat, and are responsible for the murder of 3,000 of our fellow countrymen. Charge them, try them, and send them on their merry way to a much warmer version of paradise than the one they're expecting.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Clash of the Titans

Former NBA super-star Charles Barkley and conservative radio talk-show host Michael Savage had this exchange in 2003 on CNN. It helps, in my mind, to accentuate the short-sightedness of the liberal media. To debate "Right vs. Left" they picked a guy with a PhD and Masters degree from Cal-Berkley who happens to be a conservative amd an incomprehensible professional athlete who made millions each year to play a kid's game, and in CNN's mind, that is a fair fight? Barkley never stood a chance, so what was the point? If I had been Savage in that situation, what do I have to gain by engaging in what turns out to be a pointless conversation (if you can call it that) with a buffoon like Charles?

My point is, and I really do hope you take the few minutes to watch this entertaining video clip I've linked, the liberal media remains perplexed at the shocking success of talk-radio and the conservative blogs, yet they continue to patronize men like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity who have millions of loyal, faithful, and highly educated listeners. CNN here wanted to set Mr. Savage up with an intellectual light-weight who happens to have a combative and generally entertaining personality in hopes that Savage would sink to the level of baseless accusations and devoid-of-fact-and-context assertions liberal entertainers make on a daily basis.

Why is it, the Left ought to ask themselves, that 30 million people listen to Rush each week, while the same type of ad hominen attack-style radio that the likes of Air America tried go bankrupt every time? Sure entertainment is critically important to any medium in media, but there's gotta be substance at its root, and despite what you may think of Mr. Savage's politics, personality or tone, he's coming from an intellectuals' angle who happens to be entertaining, not the "make dim-witted people clap for me with witless comments" one Sir Charles has in mind.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the segment and my take on it, so leave me a comment and tell me where you agree or where I'm wrong here.

Friday, February 08, 2008

But there's no England now...


The Archbishop of Canterbury is calling for Sharia Law to be used in certain parts of Britain to accomodate Muslim citizens. Wow. How long till weak-willed and spineless clergymen and women here in America start calling for such non-sense? Don't think it can't happen.

The morning after the morning after


So my boy Mitt "The Rom" Romney is no more...and that's sad. (Great nickname though, KG). But our Commander-in-Chief is doing what any good leader does in a time of potential crisis: rally the troops. Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Commitee in D.C., Bush lent his full endorsement to a man (McCain) whom he disagreed with (and eventually defeated) in the 2000 GOP Primaries. If "W" can do it, so can this blogger.

For a re-cap of what went right, and what went wrong, in this year's Primary season, lend your ears (eyes) to one Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post. Old Chuck breaks it down, Fox News All-Star Panel style. (If that reference means nothing to you, then you're probably well-adjusted and normal.)

Monday, February 04, 2008

Not-so-Super Tuesday



Steyn breaks down what is at stake in the Presidential primary season.