If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be quickly deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

Just in case you did not know what was offending Muslims this week; it is this photo of a dog. Yipes! And police sent out letters of apologies to the offended Muslims. This is not a joke.

Early on in Obama's ministry, there has been this persistent rumor that he is a Muslim. His website, "stop the smears" (or whatever it is) simply states the rumor and says, "Nope, it isn't true." There is actually some evidence behind this rumor, which the website does not address (don't misunderstand me; I don't personally believe that Obama is a Muslim; but I think that he has much more in common with Muslims than he does with Christians).

Obama needs to buy his two little girls a dog (personally, I would go with a little black lab puppy), and then get down on the ground with the puppy and play with it, and say, "Good puppy" and let it lick him in the face. This would simultaneously remove all doubt that he is a Muslim (dogs are unclean to Muslims) and present another one of these ads where Obama is the all-American guy and family man (his newest image).

I wish I could take credit for this brilliant idea, but I think I heard it on talk radio this past week. Unfortunately, Obama will not do this. Obama seems to be more aware than any other presidential candidate in the past of how big a part symbolism plays in his campaign. He does not really mind being thought of as a Muslim (by Muslims), and he would never buy a dog for his girls to remove all doubt. His strong denial of being a Muslim will not lose the anti-Muslim vote (however small this contingent is), and not buying dog will retain the Muslim vote.

Barack Obama has almost no experience to prepare him to become the most powerful man in the world. He is running for an executive position over the the greatest nation in the world, and he has never run his own business, he has held no executive office of any sort (he has not even been a mayor of a small city), he has no military experience, and his experience in the US Senate has been primarily running for the office of president. In fact, he lacks so much in experience, that I am completely amazed that he is the Democratic candidate. Even Hillary Clinton's non-experience is greater than Obama's no-experience.

So it comes down to, Obama's character and judgment. Does he typically make good decisions and is he a man of good character? To me, the idea that this is enough in the eyes of the American people, is mind-boggling. There are probably millions of men and women out there who have good judgment and character, yet this does not qualify them alone to be president of the United States.

Character is possessing the qualities of honesty, courage, and/or integrity. Good judgment: Obama, before he could cast a vote, opposed the Iraq war--this "decision" is cited as Obama's good judgment, and I have heard this cited easily hundreds of times, by Obama and by his supporters, and it is almost taken on its face as being true.

Let's deal with Obama's judgment for a moment. We do not know yet at this time if going into Iraq was a good or a bad idea; history will determine that. If we have an ally in the Middle East in Iraq for 20 or more years, going into Iraq and deposing Sadam Hussein, and then establishing a stable, elected government is going to be seen as a great thing. Also, given the mission just described, this will be seen as one of the most successful war campaigns ever executed, based upon the number of military deaths/year (which is very close to the number of US military deaths by accident in peacetime). But, although we can certain argue about Iraq and the wisdom of going there, we might, 50 years from now, come to a general agreement about this. So, for Obama to tout his grand judgment in this area in itself reveals a certain ineptitude or, at best, opportunism.

It is important to point out that Obama's assessment of going into Iraq does not vary one whit from that of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright (the pastor he claims to have never heard). This is a story I have been meaning to do, but I wanted to further investigate a document I found on the Internet which gives Wright's position on Iraq (which document is circa 2002-2003).

In any case, Obama is claiming superior judgment for giving an opinion (not a vote), which opinion may be wrong or right, but which opinion is probably more popular at this point in time, and which opinion was very popular in Obama’s mostly liberal district when he made his opinion known publically (meaning, this was not some courageous position taken in the face of adversity). He has said, "I spoke out against what I called 'a rash war' in Iraq."

Let's look at Obama's judgment, with respect to the Iraq War: Senator Obama opposed the surge strategy and predicted wrongly that it would fail. Even now, on his website, he boasts: "The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war." He is wrong about the reduced violence, he is wrong about the there being no political progress and he is wrong about Iraq being a civil war. Look for this to be removed from his website.

Obama also said this about the surge: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Excellent judgment? No, he was absolutely wrong. That is what we call poor judgment.

He has voted to deny funds to our men and women fighting in Iraq. Senator Obama has pledged to remove all combat troops from Iraq regardless of the conditions on the ground, regardless of the consequences for America’s security, and in disregard of the best advice of our military commanders (although he has given several different answers to this question). He has even guaranteed that we would pull troops out, but, if there was subsequent Al quaeda activity in Iraq, that he would send troops back in to quell it. His website reads: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." This is, btw, after refusing to take a pledge to remove all combat troops by the end of his first term in office (48 months) during a debate (Clinton and Edwards also refused to take this pledge).

With regards to his judgment for that region of the world, Obama's site reads: "Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Pakistan. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction."

Pakistan appears to be on the brink of falling into a civil war. Iran has a leader who thinks that whether or not the holocaust occurred is a matter for a reasonable debate (and has hosted such a debate, although it is not clear if anyone who supports the historicity of the holocaust was invited). I have no clue as to how "tough diplomacy" can really reach a despot who is that far removed from reality in the first place or what tough diplomacy can do in a country broken into several factions, which country is probably housing Osama Bin Laden.

So, let's look at Obama's character. Obama is a progressive, who believes in the federal government. On at least 5 occasions, Obama promised to avail himself of public financing. It has become clear that, even in these financial hard times, that Obama can raise money like no other politician. So, because money is more important to him than his word, Obama has changed his mind on public financing—this time around.

When exchanging media barbs with McCain, Obama said, "And that is a debate that I am willing to have with John McCain, anytime, anywhere." (not an exact quote). So McCain challenges Obama to several debates (10 town meetings). Suddenly, this is no longer a debate that Obama is willing to have anytime, anywhere.

Character should mean that, we ought to be able to trust Obama; we should be able to take him at his word. If he changes his mind on a position, it should not be based upon a self-serving purpose, but upon what is best for our country.

Obama recently put out an advertisement presenting himself as one of the great welfare reformers. However, he made statements in opposition to Clinton’s welfare reforms, and had to implement this reforms because of a federal mandate. So, because he had to enact welfare reform, he dishonestly presents himself as a welfare reformer. That is dishonest and shows a lack of character.

What else has he said? In January 2007, Obama Said That Congress Needed To Make Sure That Troops In Iraq Had “All The Resources Necessary To Come Home Safely And To Execute The Missions That Have Been Laid Out For Them.” Obama: “I know nobody in Congress, Republican or Democrat, who is going to in any way strand troops who are presently in Iraq. We’ve got to make sure that they have all the resources necessary to come home safely and to execute the missions that have been laid out for them.” Then what did Obama do? He voted against $94.4 billion dollars in critical funding for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (HR 2206 5/24/07).

Obama has not shown good judgment and he reveals that he is of dubious character at best. And, these are his best attributes.

Barack Obama has never owned his own business. He has never been the head of a business. He has never had to make a payroll. He has had to live within a budget of sorts. In the years 2000 through 2004, he made approximately $240,000 each year. In 2005, he made over 1.6 million dollars and nearly a million in 2006. So, in that regard, he has had to live within a budget.

He has proposed 188 spending proposals, and funding for 111 of them he estimates to cost $300 billion a year. First of all, by a governmental rule of thumb, whatever a proposed program is determined to cost, that will double if not quadruple in price. You do recall that all the Democrats proposed government health care which would cost less than that available on the so-called free market. When was the last time, that a governmental program cost less than its private equivalent (look at are school programs, where an inferior education can be found in the public sector for about twice the price of the private sector)?

If we just take Obama's numbers, and not realistically inflate them, there would be a 10% increase over the 1009 budget, an increase which is unheard of.

We spent a total of $294 billion dollars last year on imported oil. He wants to increase the federal budget by more than that. This increase is larger than any other one-year federal spending increase. His proposed tax increase on those making $250,000 or more a year would cover less than 1/5th of the cost of his proposals.

Under the Democratic plan of pay-as-you-go, Obama is going to have to come up with an additional 1.2 trillion dollars over the next 5 years. The government does not produce any goods, it has nothing to sell, and has no way of increasing its income except by taxing us more.

The money will have to come from somewhere, and don't think because you only make $50,000 a year that it will not affect you. There is a limit as to how much you can soak the rich for.

Under one extimation of tax increases, those who make $62,000 a year will pay an additional $5300 a year (a 61% increase); those who make $365,000 a year will pay a 132% increase, their tax bill increasing by $93,500. On top of this, the Bush tax cuts will expire, which means a $2300 tax increase for 43 million families, $2200 increase for seniors and a $4100 increase for small businesses.

If you want to see what you will get for all of this, just go to Obama's website and look under issues, and you will see program after program after program which will fix everything that is bad in the United States and in the world as well (some of this money will go to cure world poverty--I guess Obama never read that "obscure" passage in the Bible where Jesus said, "The poor you will have with you always").

Let's contrast this with John McCain. McCain has never introduced a single earmark. McCain understands that tax money is ours, that we work hard for it, and that government ought not to just throw it away on hundreds and hundreds of federal programs, many of which are organized to do the same thing (the government is filled with duplicate and triplicate organizations). McCain is not introducing 188 new programs, but will work to eliminate many of the existing programs which we already have in place, which programs are a waste of our money. McCain understands the the economy and jobs are a function of a free economy. For the government to provide a $50,000 a year job for a bureaucrat, it has to tax $60,000-$100,000 from private citizens who work for this money. The bureaucrat generally produces nothing; too often, the bureaucrat generates tons of paperwork, which will have to be filled out by those in the private sector, and then given to an army of other bureaucrats to read and then file away.

We need to grow up as a people. There is no free lunch. For government to provide a $3 free lunch, they will tax a productive member of society $6 or more. About 99% of the time, this free lunch is given to person who has other means to eat. Government is not our savior. Government is not a god. Government will not solve poverty, war, inequity or an unfair existance. Government needs to protect its citizens from outside attacks; and government should treat money that it takes from us reverently. The greatness of America is not in its politicians; the greatness of American does not lie in billions upon billions of dollars wasted on more federal programs. The greatness of America is in the people of America, who work hard, are intelligent and are innovative; and the greatness of America is in our freedom. People can achieve greatness under freedom and under pressure. No one becomes great by taking a government handout. Government robs people of their initiative and their dignity by paying them to do a half-assed government job or to sit on their couches and do nothing.

Bigger government and more government means less freedom and less innovation. The more money that government takes our of your pocket, the less freedom you have. Our founding fathers correctly understood government to be a necessary evil; they did not see government as the solution to all of our problems.

Neither candidate is perfect; but, no matter how you slice it, there is a clear choice this year.

I have two acquaintances who are both intelligent as well as being college-educated and they support Barack Obama’s candidacy. That is fine; I can accept that someone can be intelligent and go to college and still support Obama. After all, most of our colleges are liberal machines designed to spit out good little liberals.

However, one of these guys supported Ron Paul. Now, among Ron Paul’s most important positions are (1) a strict adherence to the constitution, where the constitution is not to be treated as a living document to be stretched in order accommodate this or that position; and (2) limited, limited federal government. To his credit, Ron Paul, if allowed to by Congress, would probably slash the federal budget by 50% or more. This person who did support Ron Paul now supports Obama, who is the polar opposite of Ron Paul on these issues. John McCain, to his credit, is fiscally conservative and he believes that, if there is to be any change made to the constitution, that it should come about in a constitutionally approved manner, not by reinterpreting this grand document of ours. I have no clue how a Ron Paul supporter could then, in the alternative, support Obama over McCain.

This second friend personally described himself to me as an independent and as a libertarian. Now, libertarians want as little government as possible, and they want strict adherence to the constitution. Ron Paul, for all intents and purposes, is closer to libertarians than he is to Republicans. So, how is it possible for a self-described libertarian to support Obama, whose approach to government is exactly the opposite: more and more government, more and more taxes, results in things being better. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed to libertarian philosophy. Yet, this same person who supports Obama describes Obama as akin to Robert Kennedy (RFK, not the environmental idiot out there).

I would love to have this explained to me, because I do not have a clue. I could see both persons voting for McCain, holding their respective noses, as suggested by McCain’s mom; but I cannot understand why either would vote for Obama.

Obama has very little experience in the realm of big (and little) business. He knows that there are CEO's out there who make a lot more money than he does, and he sees that is his revenue (well, the government's revenue) in order to fix America.

Because of his limited experience, Obama does not fully appreciate the risk that people take when establishing a business. He does not appreciate the federal and state forms and interference, and how taxes can make the difference between a business being successful or a business going by the wayside. This is not a part of his background, so he does not appreciate what private enterprise is all about.

Every single day in America, people risk their life savings on this or that commercial enterprise, often working 80 hours a week, struggling to make a payroll, struggling to keep their head above water, in order to build up a business, large or small. Obama sees their income as a source of revenue for the government. The more successful they are, the more of a cut Obama wants to take. He needs this money for his army of community organizers which he expects the government to hire.

By the way, as further proof of how limited Obama's vision is by his background, remember that he has arbitrarily set up around $250,000 a year as the point at which one is making too much money and needs to give much of it to the government? For much of 2000-2004, and in the years prior, this was right around the average salary of the Obama's (his books kicked him up quite a notch after this as well as Michelle's job). So he saw the money that he and Michelle made as being about the right cut off point (which was mostly right at 250 grand and less for most of their adult lives).

His giving to charity comports well with this. While make about 250 grand and below, the Obama's give very little to charity. When they made the jump into the million dollar a year, then they began to give a lot higher percentage to charity.

Look at his background and look at his proposals. Obama reveals a limited vision based upon his own background.

A president takes with him into the office all of his previous experiences as well as his political philosophy. Obama has been involved in politics and as a community organizer for most of his very short life. He has not been in the military and he has not owned a business. His vision for our country is to build up and army of community organizers, paid for by federal taxes (our money) to run around and do that things that he did. This may entail registering people to vote, making certain that they know all of their rights, privileges and benefits which they can receive (and driving them to get these benefits if necessary), and being involved in various projects throughout the communities, making the communities better (in their own eyes).

Obama has very limited experience and a very limited background, so it should not be odd that he sees the future of America, in part, as building an army of federally salaried Obama's making everything better. He wants to turn what he has done into a paid position, and he wants to pay them well. That is important, because of how much it will cost them in gas to drive to the communities that they will fix up.

In case you doubt me, this is from Obama’s own website, and it is his grandiose vision of how he is going to increase public service:

I am sure that we all agree that not enough young people can read and that it would be wonderful if we could do something about that.

Bill Clinton, with the best of intentions passed legislation to increase the reading skills of our youth. George Bush, with the best of intentions, got the “No Child Left Behind Act” passed. We pour billions upon billions of dollars into the Department of Education, and this increases substantially every single year. What do we have to show for it? Huge numbers of high school students who are barely literate. We have huge drop out rates, most of which can be directly associated with lacking reading and math skills. With the amount of money which we pour into education, and into gobs of federally funded programs for education, we are getting very little return on our money.

Those of you who pay property taxes, know that your tax bill has gone up substantially over the past 10 years. For decades, the federal government is developing more and more programs and spending more and more money on programs which are not working. The K–12 school system in the United States has become one gigantic sink hole into which we are being convinced to pour more and more money, despite the fact that we are getting less and less results. There is no governmental system which is more broken, and the approach of shoveling more money into this black hole of ignorance is insane, no matter who suggests it.

I used to be an educator, so I am all for education. I enjoyed teaching and I enjoyed seeing lights go on in the heads of my students. But I also observed, over nearly 30 years, the more that the state and federal government got involved in our schools, the worse our schools performed.

Money will not solve our education crisis; and federal money will make it worse. No matter what either of our candidates says about education, cut through the rhetoric, and if the solution is more money and more federal involvement, we already know that is a failed approach.

Look, it is this simple: if parents without a degree can teach children better than public schools; and if private schools with half the funding can out-perform public schools, then more money funneled to public schools and to federal programs is not the solution. If home-schooling and private schools do a better job of educating our young people than public schools, then the key to the solution here is making greater and greater use of home-schooling and private education; these are institutions which need to be expanded and supported, not discouraged. The key is not pouring more and more money into public education.

An issue which needs to be associated with one side or the other is school choice. Parents and children need to be able to make decisions about the child’s education. There needs to be competition out there for tax dollars. Our present K–12 education is a failing federal monopoly. We need a change.

College tuition is not a difficult thing to figure out. If a college prices itself out of the market, no one goes to that college anymore. It is like any other business. There are tuition and fees and once they get too high, students can no longer afford to go there. This will NEVER happen. Every college and university has a budget, and much of thier money comes from student fees and tuition. They are going to get as much money as they can from students. If enrollment drops off, then tuition is frozen, the budget is reworked, and the college waits for enrollment to increase, so it can increase its fees.

When students are provided money through some outside source--e.g., a government grant or a government-insured loan--that gives them a certain amount of money to work with, and every college and university is aware of these funding sources that their students have. Every time government puts another dollar toward student fees, the university raises tuition costs. Ideally, the college wants to have a maximum number of students attending, with enough who are excluded, to make their college seem like a big deal. There are several mathematical models used to achieve the ideal tuition, to let in the right number of students, given their funding sources. More funding sources means the school can require a high tuition.

If tomorrow, government cut all loans and grants by 50%, the result would not necessarily mean fewer students going to college. Perhaps in the first year or so, that would be a result; but, tuition and student enrollment would reach an equilibrium, and colleges would be right back to its ideal student population.

It is called supply and demand. It is called equilibrium pricing. It is another example of government waste. We hear about college education; we believe it to be a good thing, so many of us are willing to throw money in that direction. Government promising more and more scholarship money sounds good, but, the actual results of more government money is, a higher tuition.

Here is a girl crying with respect to financial aid and college. Obama is going to make it all better.

The Supreme Court incorrectly ruled that those kept in Club Gitmo ought to be treated like Americans apparently with American rights in civil courts, suggesting that the level of proof to keep them in prison might be the same as that applied to common criminals. In other words, there are courts that these people could go to in order to appeal their incarceration who would love to set them free. There are a huge number of partisans who would love to see Bush fail in any way possible. Letting out enemy combatants would increase the likelihood that they will return to Iraq or Afghanistan and reek havok against our troops--for some Americans, this is a good thing, because it can be spun into (1) another reason to pull out of Iraq and (2) another reason to claim Bush has failed. And, be aware, these are men picked up on a battlefield in the midst of battle..so there will be little evidence against them.

There is a solution which was proposed by one of the commentators on FoxNews (was it Dick Morris?): Bush will have to classify these guys as POW's (they are not so classified), which puts them under the Geneva Convention, which could be seen to trump that recent Supreme Court decision (maybe).

There are 3 problems here: Bush may not want to honor them with such a designation; they do not wear uniforms; they do not represent a particular country. The Geneva Convention precedes this type of warfare, so, all of these past few decades, we had no guidelines as to how to deal with such people. Clinton treated them as criminals when inside the United States, but was okay with such men being killed outside of the United States as a part of a mililtary operation. Bush, since he did not treat the 9/11 attack as a criminal matter and went on the offensive with military action. Since our military took prisoners in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we had a new type of enemy, not properly covered by the Geneva Convention and not fitting into the classification of a criminal.

Bush and Congress did hammer out some way to classify these enemy combatants, as well as some protocol, but the Supreme Court, in a power play, overruled them.

This was a grave mistake made by the Supreme Court and they should have allowed Bush and Congress to set up a third classification of these sorts of enemies, as well as a third protocol.

In a column written by Wesley Clark, 3 times he speaks of McCain being the 3^rd Bush term. I am not quite sure that he communicated this well enough. This is the Democratic talking point, to be repeated again and again and again. When a party requires a slogan to be repeated over and over again, that should be a clue that there is no substance there.

Wesley Clark also gave an interview and it is important that you note the precise verbiage used by Wesley Clark. He may have made this seem as if he were just talking off the cuff, but this was a carefully scripted criticism and a carefully scripted response to the obvious follow up question.

The retired general Wesley Clark said McCain had not "held executive responsibility" and had not commanded troops in wartime (notice: McCain has not commanded troops in wartime). McCain, of course, has had executive military experience, leading the largest squadron in the US Navy.

Now, quite obviously, McCain's experience in Vietnam, where he was a prisoner of war for five years is not executive experience. It does reveal his great character, and his refusal to be returned to the United States because of the status of his father showed great courage. Clark has carefully parsed his words and observations, to make it sound as though McCain has no qualifications to be president. When it comes to executive experience, courage, conviction and character, Obamais not anywhere near McCain. Obama has NO executive experience whatsoever. He has nothing in his past to indicate that Obama has courage, conviction or character. None.

What Clark is looking for is a place on the Obama cabinet and possible as VP. Several people have ruled him out as a possible VP candidate, but don't rule him out so quickly. He will appear to some in the center and on the right because he is a military man (and if he runs, you will hear about his military background much more often than you will hear about McCain's. The left will like him because he cuts down McCain.

Clark also said of McCain, "He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall" as a wartime commander. Obviously, Obama can claim nothing here over McCain, as he has not served in the military and has shown abominable ignorance about the militray (for instance, treating Memorial Day as if it were just another Veteran's Day).

When the interviewer, Bob Schieffer, noted to Clark that McCain had been shot down over Hanoi, Clark replied, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." This is a particularly odious thing to say. Clark say, "riding in a fighter plane" as if McCain were some kind of a passenger. McCain was flying that plane, as he had flown several planes before, with several successful missions of dropping bombs as a part of his experience.

Do you see how carefully this quote is crafted? McCain hasn't ordered anyone to drop bombs; but Clark does not mention that McCain dropped bombs. McCain did not pilot bombing missions, he "flew along" like some passenger who went along for the ride. McCain doesn't have executive experience in wartime (although he was in command in his plane). Clark parses his words just right, so that he does not outright lie about McCain; he just misrepresents McCain's actual background and intentionally gives a false impression.

Now, also notice that Clark stops every few minutes and says, "Now, I respect McCain's service."

When Schieffer then asked what executive responsibility Obama had held—the Democrat's résumé includes work as a community organizer in Chicago and eight years in the Illinois legislature—Clark said that Obama was running on the strength of his character and good judgment. In other words, Obama has nothing of the qualifications that McCain has. The parsing of this to say that, Obama is not running on the basis of experience, but on the basis of character and judgment is ridiculous.

A potential president brings his character, his judgment and his experience to the table as a complete package as a presidential candidate. As a package deal, Obama offers very little.

First it was, the war in Iraq is lost; we need to pull out. Then it was, our soldiers are caught in the middle of a civil war and they are targets; we need to pull out. Then it was, there is no military solution; the surge cannot work; we need to pull out. And, there is no political progress being made in Iraq; we need to pull out.

So, what is Obama going to say after he goes to Iraq? 6 years ago, Iraq was a dictatorship with thousands of people dying every single month for not going along with the whims of Saddam Hussein. Now, Iraq is a moderately peaceful democracy, with infrastructure going up, with schools and markets active, with a fledgling yet growing economy; and 15 of the 18 Congressional benchmarks have been met (did you see that on the front page of your newspaper? Probably not).

What can Obama say? He cannot admit that he has been wrong about everything he has said so far concerning Iraq. Will he have the nerve to claim credit for victory by threatening to pull our troops out, as so many Democrats have done? Does he have even the slightest clue as to the strategic importance of having bases in Iraq, which is right next door to Iran?

My guess is, he will say, “Our troops have done a great work in Iraq, achieving almost the impossible. I make a promise to you and to them that I will bring them back, safely and carefully, as I have promised you all along. Then we can get our eyes back on the real threat in Afghanistan and the economic mess here in the United States.” I suspect that what he says will be carefully scripted, and that he will not appear at an open news conference (he rarely does that anyway); and he might do one or two interviews with Obama supporters (NBC, CNN and/or the NY Times). He will get 2 or 3 moderately difficult questions, “Do you think you misread the situation in Iraq?” or “Was John McCain and George Bush right about Iraq?” His response will be a carefully crafted statement, delivered as if off-the-cuff, and he will have ready answers for one or two follow-up questions.

This is the link to the ridiculous story that there is a 50-50 chance that ALL of the ice in the North Pole will melt this summer. People who make foolish predictions like this should be willing to put money on it.

Google “global warming Greenland” and you will come across dozens of stories about how fast Greenland is melting and how this is one of the great signs of (run for your lives) global warming. Some of these links will warn us that we have passed the point of no return. Many of these stories warn about what may happen in the future.

Point in fact, the ice between Greenland and Canada is at its highest levels in 15 years.

The key to the news that you read is simply this: if there is ice melting or it there is a very, very hot day somewhere (or a unusually warm climate in this area or that), it is reported as more evidence of global warming. If ice is increasing somewhere, if the temperatures are usually low in a particular area, than this is passed off as, normal climate variation.

Your weatherman cannot tell you what tomorrow’s weather will be, despite the fact that he probably has at least 4 years of a meteorological education. But, if that guy tells you, that global warming is on the horizon for the next 20, 50 or 100 years, people buy into it.

The Brits have a cap and trade system, and the taxes on their gasoline means a fill up can cost as much as $150. Many of them are beginning to realize that the only ones benefitting from cap and trade are favored companies and the government.

If the government proposes a new way to take money out of your pocket and put it into the hands of the government, then beware that maybe this is not going to solve anything other than to give the government more money.

It is a liberal approach to send more money to the government, to form more bureaucracies, and to fund more studies and projects. This is their solution to almost everything. Schools are failing? They need more money, we need to increase government oversight, we need to educate people more and we ought to study it further. The exact same solution is proposed by liberals to fix global warming (even though we are well beyond the tipping point, as that apparently happened years ago).

And here are thousands of links to scientific papers and scientific works which dispute global warming alarmism:

On this one page are pages and pages of names of scientists who do not buy into global warming alarmism. It is a lie that there is scientific consensus about global warming. That in of itself should tell you there is something wrong with global warming alarmism. Scientists do not need to exaggerate, lie or to strong-arm you in order to support their position. Whenever they do, that should tell you something is wrong with their position.

Look, most conservative like clean air and clean water, and approve of efficient programs which bring about measurable results without crippling industry. We are better off today than we were 50 years ago with respect to pollution.

When will liberals come to the realization that there is nothing to global warming alarmism; and, just as important, when will they be able to admit to this?

This concerns me now, since even Bush and McCain are talking about global warming, as if this is a man-made problem which we need to solve.

Rush just inked a salary deal for $400 million dollars for the next 8 years, making his yearly salary to be better than that of the salaries of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer combined. There is a reason that a lot of people, including myself, listen to Rush, and it is not just for an affirmation of conservative concepts. He is highly enjoyable, funny, interesting and challenging. Conservatives, liberals and moderates listen to him.

NY Times does a story on Rush, and I admit, I was howling as soon as Bo Snerdley was mentioned (paragraph 3).

SNERDLEY: This is Bo Snerdley, the Official Barack Criticizer for the EIB Network -- medically certified with highly concentrated levels of slave blood, certified to criticize -- and I have a statement. Mr. Obama, since your rise on the political stage, you and your handlers have crafted an image that depicts you as a unique politician, one that can bridge the divides of our nation with your exuberant charisma, your fresh face, and your unifying outlook. You, we were told, would transcend the old politics and usher in a new era. The blood sport political games of the Beltway would give way to a new politic where dreams come true and hope prevails. You would be that line, sir, in the sand from the old of bitter division, to the new America, with liberty and justice for all. "Yes, you can. Yes, we can." Instead, we've seen nothing new. Your policy offerings, vague as they are, reflect standard tax, spend, tax 'em more Democrat policies -- and your brand of politics, sir, is a swarmy, cutthroat, and sleazy as any Democrat who has ever run. The attack by your minion, Wesley Clark, on the war record of John McCain is just the latest.

RUSH: You forgot to say "diabolical." I told you to say "diabolical" in there. Call him diabolical.

SNERDLEY: Thank you. You, sir, have sent your minion, Wesley Clark, out with a scorched-earth policy, to take no prisoners, not even a genuine war hero, a genuine prisoner of war. Sir, you lead an anti-war party that hates American victory in our present war and still shows no respect for our soldiers of past wars. You don't represent change. You don't represent hope. You're not new. Sir, you are just another liberal Democrat. And now, a translation for our EIB brothers and sisters in the 'hood. "'Rack! Dig this, bro. You know up 'til now we've been kind of laying in the cut on you, you know, letting a whole lot of stuff go, but check this out. Yo, you are tripping on what. Come on, money. You gonna send out that old fool, Wesley Clark, to slice and dice McCain? McCain was fighting in Nam, yo homey. What were you doing? You were out chilling with the shorties, playing ball, you know, smoking a little herb. John was in prison camp, yo, being Abu Ghraibed by the Vietcong, man. And now you send out the ain't-never-won-nothing, wannabe president whack-ass general to diss him? What's up with that, man? This is ill! You ain't representing, yo. You could talk all that patriotic stuff you want to, yo, but man you diss guys have been there, man, that did the fight? This is the kind of thing the Clintons used to run, man. What's up with chu? Clinton was supposed to be the first black president. What are you trying to be, man, the first black Clinton? What's up with that? Word, man. You need to let it up, man. Call your dogs back in and refresh up, yo, because this is not how you win the game. If those punk ass Republicans had any kind of juice, yo, they would fry you on this, you know what I'm saying? You, bro, are ill. This is whack!" And that concludes our statement.

RUSH: What kind of position did I put the fairness freakos in now? You mean the people that are advocating for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?

RUSH: The Fairness Doctrine as defined by finances. I hadn't looked at it that way. I have had some people e-mail me today, Arthur. "You know, Rush, this is going to make you a bigger target, and this is just going to make the Fairness Doctrine advocates even more intent on shutting you down."

RUSH: (laughing) Arthur, I like you. You just cut to the chase out there. You know, the Fairness Doctrine, this comes up and we talk about this every now and then. Now, Obama, I have to tell you, I've got the story in the stack. It's from a couple of days ago. Obama says, or somebody in his campaign said, "We don't care about the Fairness Doctrine. We got bigger fish to fry than that. We have no intention of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine." Obama doesn't have to say it because Nancy Pelosi has; a number of other Democrats have. But the Fairness Doctrine, they may try, folks, but, look: they're not going to just be able to succeed with this overnight if they try it. They're going to have all kinds of opposition and the kind of opposition that they fear most, and that's going to be from you, the American people.

The American people are not going to put up with it. There's too high a level, degree of sophistication now, understanding what would happen if the Fairness Doctrine were implemented and reinstated. The broadcast community, yes, it's regulated by the FCC. But when I started my national radio show 1988, there were 125 radio stations doing talk. Today, some 20 years later, it's over 1200. Now, that means that the talk format has withstood all the other downturns, formatically, in radio. You know, certain music formats are having trouble. A lot of formats are having trouble. Talk radio is not. The industry is just not going to sit around and let the Democrats make it worthless without a fight. It's going to take much more than the snap of a finger or the waving of a magic wand to bring this about. I have no doubt the Democrats want to do it. I have no doubt that Nancy Pelosi wants to try it. They are typical in that way. They don't want to put up with people that they disagree with. They don't want to put up with criticism. They don't want to engage it. They just want to silence it. What do you think political correctness is? Political correctness is nothing more than using intimidating tactics to make people shut up and not say things that liberals don't want to hear, pure and simple.

CALLER: My son, who I love more than life itself, is as far left as I am right. He's a believer in global warming. But the one thing we have in common is we both enjoy a fine cigar. But my question is, what if the global warming people are correct, and we do nothing?

RUSH: Well, two things about this. Depending on how far back you want to go, if you go to RushLimbaugh.com to our Essential Stack of Stuff, you will find numerous stories on global warming where the advocates say, "It's already too late that. We've passed the point of no return! There's nothing that we can do." My answer to you, Ed, is, I don't think we could cause it; and if we can't cause it, we can't fix it. When all of this industrialization started and people began to buy automobiles and electricity and electrically powered items, utensils, and gadgets and so forth, did anybody warn us back then that this might lead to the climate getting warmer, that we were going to perhaps bring about significant, catastrophic climate change?

Nobody did this. This first came up in 1984 shortly after five years of a global freeze attempt that was headlined in both the Newsweek magazine and TIME Magazine. "The coming ice age," they said. This is a purely political movement. It is ideological. Ask yourself why people on the left and right disagree. Because it's understood that liberals are pushing this. It is the latest platform to expand what they believe in: Big Government, higher taxes, less mobility, less freedom, blaming America. This issue has it all, and it has it all in a way that is brilliant in this sense 'cause the damage isn't supposed to happen for 30 years or so. The catastrophe is not supposed to happen for 30 years, so they get to own an issue for 30-years. Now they're really wrong about that because if we did everything that they say, the earth would get dirtier.

Pollution would not be cleaned up. We wouldn't have the energy or the power or the technology to do it. Lives would be lived in a much dirtier fashion. There would be far more pollution. Sanitation wouldn't be nearly as good. It would be like in the 1800s, the late 1800s when your average city had horse manure in the streets. If they successfully ban the use of fossil fuels, all it would do is create a much larger mess. We already clean up our messes. We have already expanded the ability and the technologies to clean up pollution far better than any other major industrialized country in the world. If we sat around and did nothing? I can't tell you what's going to happen with the climate, neither can anybody else. Their models are flawed. If we did nothing, what's going to happen? We can't tell.

CALLER: Why can't there be a compromise (garbled) in carbon emissions, and do something? I believe it's cyclical, but my son believes it's -- it's -- it's happening.

RUSH: See, I don't want to compromise with communists. I don't want to compromise with socialists. I don't want to compromise with people who are going to blame one country for this, while we are supposed to compromise and be concerned about our "carbon footprint." The ChiComs have basically told the world to go to hell when it comes to that, that they've got an economy to grow, that they've got people to feed, that they have people to move around. What kind of compromise? Carbon footprint? Do you realize CO2 is not even a pollutant? It's a necessary element --

RUSH: -- for life to take place on the planet. The complexity of the climate is such that there's no way to measure why things happen climatically. All of this is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. A lot of people ask, "What if we do nothing?" I would suggest to you that for the last 20 years we've actually been doing a lot. We've been engaging in carbon offsets, and people have been trying to conserve. There are a lot of Priuses and hybrids out there. You know, some people are actually unplugging their appliances, and some people are not using their air conditioners. There are a lot of guilty people out there who think they're to blame. For 10 or 15 years they've been following the recipe. I ask you, have you yet heard one environmentalist wacko say, "Good job! We're making progress!"

You don't hear that. What you hear is, "My God, it's getting worse! My God, we don't have any time! Ten years and it's over. The oceans are going to die." They have some of the most crazy claims. They say, "Terrorism will increase with global warming!" They have all these scare tactics. The people in the UK, in a recently released poll, say they are fed up with all the tax increases and the restrictions in driving and other lifestyle areas that they have made in order to reduce carbon footprints, because they've been at it a lot longer than we have, and they now say they're fed up with it because they understand that all this is is a ruse to raise taxes.

Because while they have been following orders and driving their little bubble cars and reducing their carbon footprints and paying the increased taxes, the advocates of manmade global warming continue to berate them and continue to whine and moan and sound apocalyptic, and so the people at the UK are saying, "Wait a minute. We've been doing a lot here, and you're not going to give us any credit?" They figured out it's not about ending global warming. It's about expanding government. It's about raising taxes. It's about making people feel as guilty as they can with prosperity. It is about making people think they are to blame for taking action with the way they've lived to destroy the planet, and therefore they have sinned. Because global warming is a religion, and the wages of sin are new taxes and more control by bureaucrats over people's lives. It is a hideous, hideous, deceitful policy that is designed to do only one thing, and that is not affect the climate of the planet because we don't have that power. It's plain and simple. So why compromise with them?

CALLER: The one thing I keep thinking about is, I'm a downside energy manager and manufacturing engineer, and I'm a total believer in cause and effect, and maybe possibly -- possibly; I'm not saying we are, because I believe that this is cyclical -- we might be causing some problems. That's my comment.

RUSH: And you think we might be causing some problems. What problems are we maybe causing?

CALLER: Well, nothing just happens. There's always a cause. The emissions that we are...

RUSH: Some people think 10,000, some think 4.5 billion. The Earth's been around a lot longer than we have been around, and it's been around a lot longer than we have been around living our lifestyles. Our lifestyles really only got to this degree in the fifties, and there was a boom. Now, you could go back to the invention of the telephone and the lightbulb and the trains and so forth, but you don't have go back very far, and you will find evidence of the world much warmer than it is today when there was nothing but rank poverty all over the planet; there was nothing industrialized at all. The idea that we can destroy something as complex as the climate of this planet, is intellectually absurd. Where do we get this vanity? Have you ever...? I was in Miami a couple weeks ago, and this happens no matter where I am. I was sitting in a hotel, and had a hotel room high up, and there was a nice balcony.

I got home from an event, and it was about two o'clock in the morning, and I'm looking at the skyline and the city of Miami, and I'm looking at all the lights on, and I'm watching all the jets taking off from Miami International, and I'm watching all the cars on the highway, and I start thinking about all these people who want to shut down all those lights and ground all those airplanes and put all those cars away in garages. It's never going to happen. Light at night is necessary for security. It's never going to stop. The idea that flying airplanes out of any city is destroying the climate, is laughable to me. It is utterly laughable. If this were true, we would be able, in the dread of winter, take temporary steps to warm it up in our own yards. Punch out a bunch of carbon and really affect the atmosphere. Enclose it. Except we already do that. We do that with heat. We do it either with natural gas or heating oil. To say that adapting to the extremes of climate is going to kill the climate? We don't have a clue. We are so vain.

Rush: Just yesterday -- this is not anything that hasn't happened before but it just continued to happen. Just yesterday, we learned that owners of land will not be able to develop it in Montana because of a grouse, a grouse population. The ultimate aim is to get the grouse put on the endangered species list so the owners of that property can't do diddly-squat with it. There's oil underneath that land, and there's an opportunity for developers to make residential areas out of it or what have you. So there are people active in this country, doing everything they can to destroy the country's ability to grow, to remain prosperous, and to remain a superpower. Here's another example. This is from Investor's Business Daily: "A state judge has blocked construction of a power plant on grounds that its emissions permit does not set a cap on carbon dioxide." So global warming, the hoax of manmade global warming, has won another round.

"Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore of the Fulton County, Ga., Superior Court," this is Atlanta, for those of you in Rio Linda, "invalidated on Tuesday a government permit issued in 2007 for construction of a coal-fired plant in the southwestern part of the state. She based her decision on last year's US Supreme Court ruling that forced the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, even though it is harmless to humans and animals and is necessary to plant life." The Supreme Court had no business taking the case; they did. Their ruling, obnoxious. So this is how the left intends, with unelected people who have lifetime appointments who institute personal policy preferences on the basis of their liberal beliefs, to stop a coal-fired power plant. We need more energy.

If we're going to grow, if your kids are going to have the opportunities that we had -- and every parent wants their kid to do better than they did. If you want a country that is constantly growing and proud of itself and remains exceptional in as many ways as possible, you're going to have to fight these people who want to establish an America in a permanent state of decline. These are the naysayers, the doomsayers, the doom-and-gloomers. This is how they look at life themselves; they want everybody else to be miserable with them, because in the midst of that misery you might vote for people otherwise because you're so mad, you want a change.

RUSH: Now, McCain has finally had it with Wesley Clark. He was taking questions aboard his Straight Talk Express, the airplane. Did you see what McCain did? He went out and bought a 737, or chartered one or leased one, and painted it with McCain logos and stuff all over it. And he's decorated the inside of the 737 to replicate his Straight Talk bus, his Straight Talk Express bus. He had people on the airplane the other day, and he said it was time for Obama to cut General Wesley Clark loose. That's right.

"'I think it's up to Sen. Obama now to not only repudiate him, but to cut him loose,' McCain said to a small group of reporters somewhere between Indianapolis, Ind., and Cartagena, Colombia. On board the plane, McCain was asked if Obama, who did not reject Clark's comments Monday, had done enough to repudiate the general." He didn't take the bait. 'That's up to others to decide. I'm not going to worry about the comments that General Clark made.'" Now, let me find this. Here it is. Go to audio sound bite number nine. Yeah, let's go nine, ten, 11, 12 looks like it here. Here is McCain on the Straight Talk Express airplane, and this is what he said.s

MCCAIN: (airplane noise) I think it's up to Senator Obama to not only repudiate him, but to cut him loose.

RUSH: Now, it's interesting. You couldn't hear what he said? Well, then McCain needs to get a quieter airplane so our sound bites will work. Here's what he said. "I think it's up to Senator Obama to not only repudiate him, but to cut him loose." That's what he said. You couldn't hear that? I could hear that, how could you not hear it? I'm deaf! I am deaf and I heard it. This is really strange. So this morning on DNCTV, cohost Mika Brzezinski was interviewing Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass. Now, do you know what Linda Douglass is? Linda Douglass is a Drive-By reporterette. Linda Douglass has worked everywhere. She's worked at CBS. She has worked at ABC. She used to be on the roundtable now and then with This Week with Brinkley and then This Week with Stephanopoulos.

She's been at various magazines, and she's done some time at CNN, and it wasn't long ago that Linda Douglass said, "You know what? You know what? It's time that I really went to work trying to implement the things I believe. I want to go to the campaign." Really? Linda, when did you not do that? Are you trying to tell all of us that when you were in the Drive-By Media you were not trying to influence and implement your beliefs? So she finally, I guess, got sick and tired of the lack of influence, even though she tried to exhibit it. She got out of the way. She joined the Obama campaign, and now she's a spokesman. So the Drive-Bys call another Drive-By for an opinion or a statement from Obama, and Mika Brzezinski said to Linda Douglass, "Wes Clark. McCain is saying Barack Obama ought to cut him loose. Is your candidate going to do that?"

DOUGLASS: The question is what does cutting him loose mean? I mean, he's not a member of the campaign. He doesn't have any official role in the campaign. Senator Obama said that he rejected, uh, what he said about, uh, John McCain. There's not much more that Senator Obama can do about, you know, General Clark, who's certainly expressed his own opinion on cable several times over and over again, but he's not part of the campaign. I don't know quite how you cut loose somebody who's not really part of the campaign.

RUSH: Come on. How stupid do you think we are? You mean to tell me, Linda Douglass, that if Obama were really distressed about what Clark said -- which he's trying to make everybody believe that he is. The Drive-Bys are already running cover for this operation, claiming that he's already rebuked Clark, which he hasn't. You mean to tell me that if Obama really detested this and called Clark and said, "Hey, look, man. I know you're not part of the campaign but this isn't helping. You gotta dial it back," that Clark would say, "Screw you, Obama! I'm going to go out there and say what I want to say." "No, you can't, General, because you say that stuff, you're hurting me. You don't say that stuff about McCain. You can say it about other people. Don't say it about him," and you think Clark would actually argue with Obama about it? The idea that Clark's an independent contractor and a surrogate is another one of these myths that float around and are attached to the Obama campaign. And here's Linda Douglass -- Drive-By Media extraordinaire, now spokesman for Obama -- insulting everybody's intelligence. "Well, well, what's there to cut loose? I mean, he's not attached. We can't make him stop." It happens all the time. Yesterday in Zanesville, Ohio, Senator Obama held a press conference. An unidentified reporter asked, "I wonder what you think about General Clark's comments both Sunday and today and even further, I'm wondering if you can say if you really think those kinds of comments are much different from the Swift Boat-types of questions Senator Kerry faced about his Vietnam experience."

OBAMA: I don't think that, uh, General Clark, you know, had the same intent as the Swift Boat ads that we saw four years ago. I reject that analogy. But what I've also said, repeatedly, is that Senator McCain deserves the utmost honor and respect for his service to our country.

RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is a big nonfactor statement. "In the first place, I don't think General Clark had the same intent as the Swift Boat ads?" The Swift Boat ads were the truth. They are trying to now equate somebody being "Swiftboated" to being unfairly lied about; attacked, if you will; and of course the Drive-Bys are eager to help promote that myth and that revision of a definition. But then he goes on to say, "Look, I've also said repeatedly, Senator McCain deserves the utmost honor and respect for his service to our country." Fine. You have somebody out there speaking for you who's saying just the opposite, and you don't want him to shut down. So Obama gets it both ways. Obama gets to have it both ways. He gets to stand on the pedestal. He has the angelic, heavenly light flowing from the mountaintops; the countenance, making him look like he is surrounded by a halo.

He gets to say all the right things, while his thugs head out there and do all of the dirty work. And who are these thugs? They are the standard-issue, regular, predictable Democrat Party hacks from previous administrations. Now, one of two things is going on here. Either Obama is an empty suit intellectually and doesn't quite know how to deal with this, or this whole thing is an orchestrated plan to have all these things said by people other than Obama. Remember. Remember, my friends. What did Obama do? What was it? Late last week, Obama went out there, and he said, "You wait. The Republicans are going to use race against me. They're going to start attacking me, and they're going to do racial things, and they're going to attack my preacher. They're going to attack my wife." Meanwhile, who has been attacked? McCain, who has not attacked Obama on anything, much less race! McCain. And so preemptive strike: Claim you're gonna get hit while your thugs out there do the hitting. It sounds to me like an orchestrated plan.

RUSH: Yesterday in Zanesville, Ohio, we have Obama echoing McCain, echoing Clinton, saying Clark's comments don't keep Ohioans up at night, unidentified reporter: "Do you not feel that General Clark owes McCain an apology? And then secondly I'm just being curious, why have you not spoken to him? Have you tried to reach him?"

OBAMA: We're here to talk about how we can make sure that kids in Zanesville and -- and across Ohio get the support that they need in communities that are impoverished and start to rebuild. The fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like General Clark said something that was inartful about Senator McCain I don't think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night.

RUSH: Very, very, very smooth, very clever. So let's throw some money at communities that are drowning in money, and let's make sure we continue to throw money at education systems that are drowning in money, so much that we know money is not the answer here, and let's just say what Clark said was inartful. See, I knew he hasn't called Clark to tell him to shut up, and he's not going to. There's another point about all this, though. You know, this campaign is irritating to me in a whole lot of ways. I can't tell you how irritating it is. This campaign is not getting the substance of anything that needs to be addressed in this country, it really isn't. But then, above and beyond that, it seems like every day or every week, one of these two candidates is asking for somebody to be repudiated or denounced or renounced. Come on, guys. This is the major leagues. This is as big as it gets in the politics business. To run around and act like a bunch of little namby-pamby college kids that just got out of conflict resolution class is demeaning; it's demeaning to both of you; it's demeaning to the race.

I know why Obama is doing it. You can't talk about anything. You can't talk about his wife. You can't talk about his mother. You can't talk about his middle name. You can't call him a liberal. You can't talk about his financiers. You can't talk about his preacher. You can't talk about his terrorist buddy that blew up the Pentagon. You can't talk about his big ears. You can't talk about anything, and he's doing that specifically because he's an empty suit. He wants his image of Messiah to continue to be what is noted about him, and it will be easy because, as our Official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley, said the other day, the Republicans are so afraid in this campaign that they won't even call nighttime dark, much less getting into any substantive criticism of Obama, other than, (doing McCain impression) "I think it's time they cut him loose, I would renounce, if it was me, I'd renounce." This is just like a couple of kids. Here is a conference call yesterday with reporters. Former prisoner of war Orson Swindle said this during the conference call.

SWINDLE: We all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record and his last command I think were somewhat less than stellar. The point being, General Clark ought to be ashamed of himself accident talking about a fellow serviceman.

RUSH: He's not ashamed of himself. He's doing this on purpose for a reason. He's a political hack and he's playing hardball and they're out there trying to win and they're trying to take away from McCain the number-one attraction that he has, and that is his character and dignity and heroic war service that has contributed to this status. They know exactly what they're doing, and then they tell McCain, he needs to renounce some of his supporters that say oddball things. In fact, there's a story here in Politico.com from last night, and the headline: "McCain Game Plan Worries Insiders." When I saw that headline, I said, "Well, I will be fascinated about this." "Four months have passed since John McCain effectively captured the party nomination, and the insiders are getting restless. Top GOP officials, frustrated by what they view as inconsistent messaging, sluggish fundraising and an organization that is too slow to take shape, are growing increasingly uneasy about the direction of the McCain presidential campaign." Whoa. The insiders? The insiders are worried? Now? How long did it take 'em to catch us and get up to speed? This is laughable. The insiders are getting restless? The insiders got exactly what they wanted! The insiders have a candidate who's going to go out and appeal to Democrats and independents. That is exactly what they wanted!

Why are they upset? What do they expect? What did they expect? "While the practice of second-guessing presidential campaign decisions is a quadrennial routine, interviews with 16 Republican strategists and state party chairmen -- few of whom would agree to talk on the record -- reveal a striking level of discord and mounting criticism about the McCain operation. 'It's not just message or not having just one single meta-theme to compete with Obama,' said a veteran Republican strategist with close ties to McCain's top advisers. 'It's not just fundraising, which is mediocre. And it's not even just organization, which is [just] starting or nonexistent in many states.' 'McCain's campaign seems not to have a game plan. I don't see a consistent message,' said Ed Rollins, a veteran of Republican presidential campaigns. 'As someone who has run campaigns, this campaign is not running smoothly. But none of this matters if they get their act together.'" It's not running smoothly. Why is it not running smoothly? These insiders should pay a little more attention to what those of us who really care about winning these elections might have to say.

Let me put this in perspective for you. Some of you are going to get mad at me here, but it's early and if you want to explain why the insiders are mad and why there's no game plan here, why there's no organization, here you go. We know that Obama thinks of himself as a messiah. We know that he thinks that the power and the force of his personality will carry the day. The dirty little secret is that McCain has a little of that in him, too. He thinks not of himself as a messiah but just his existence, just his presence on the scene is enough. There doesn't have to be a whole lot of organization. In fact, we've discussed on this program before, you think McCain's going to have any GOP coattails? Does he seem interested in running around and helping House candidates either raise money, Senate candidates raise money, get reelected? There are some people who think that McCain has it in for the Republican Party and has had it in for the Republican Party since 2000. That would be tough to prove and tough to quantify.

But if you don't have a message, and if you don't think you need a message, and if you don't have organization, if you don't think you need organization, then it's gotta tell you something. It has to tell us something, and that is it isn't unnecessary, "we don't think we need all that because we have the power of persona, we have the power of our own record, we have the power of my lifetime of public service. That's what will launch me." So you've got two massive egos in check here. One of the things that McCain did is farm out all these state party operations to freelancers. There is no national hub organizing all these states, and of course the states said, "What do we do?" Because there's no leadership or guidance, there's no memos, nobody is suggesting do this or do that. So everybody's on their own on the Republican side.

Quick phone call. Who would you suggest first, Snerdley? Bob in Philadelphia. Bob, I'm glad you called. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Yesterday, I was trying to get through all day, it seemed a bit strange, paraphrase, Obama's -- when he discounted what he said. McCain went through torment for five years. Now, torment to me is when I can't find my car keys. Being a great Democratic liberal like he is, he refuses to use the word torture. Unless of course you're wearing panties on your head, and you're an Iraqi, now that's torture to them, but for what McCain went through, it's torment. I can't believe that no one else picked up on that.

RUSH: I'll have to check the transcript. I don't remember specifically -- I'm not denying it -- I just don't remember specifically Obama using the word "torment." Don't take this personally. But I do know that if he did use it, it's not a surprise. That whole patriotism speech, do you know what the template for that speech was, the race speech in Philadelphia, where Obama essentially threw the preacher under the bus and his white grandmother under the bus. I still maintain, anybody that has to schedule a speech during the Fourth of July week to explain their own patriotism must have some question about whether or not people believe they are patriotic. I think they've got some focus group data, some polling data that shows that a whole bunch of Americans think the Democrat Party has a different definition of patriotism than most Americans. There's a poll, almost 25% of the American people in a poll suggest there's a whole big difference in the way Democrats define patriotism and the way average Americans do. So there's no question Obama had to go out and do that.

In the process of doing his own definition of patriotism, to, of course, match his life and behavior, believe me, there is a concerted effort here to destroy this whole prisoner of war, honor, integrity, service, sacrifice aspect of McCain's resume. That's the purpose. So if he did, in fact, refer to what McCain went through as torment, that was just trying to downplay what it was. Do you think they're not coordinating, if Obama actually said torment, a couple days after Wesley Clark says, "hey, riding a jet," riding, not flying it, "riding a jet and getting shot down and being a prisoner of war, that doesn't qualify you for anything." So that's what they're trying to do because they know Obama is small, compared to McCain, terms of life achievements, accomplishment, character, they got nothing. And, as the case with liberal Democrats, they succeed, or they operate, not by building themselves up, rather by hiding themselves and trying to destroy the character and reputations, credibility of their opponents, wherever they might be.

CALLER: Well listen, I was on hold to talk to you back in 2000 because I was a supporter of John McCain, found him to be an honorable man, shook his hand, I'm a Navy veteran, and here we are again, huh?

RUSH: You were mad at me then back in 2000? You had to be mad at me back in 2000.

CALLER: Oh, I couldn't wait to talk to you about it, but, you know, some of the things you said proved out.

CALLER: Well, I agree. I've been listening to you since I believe about '89, maybe '90. I was in Sacramento right when you left.

CALLER: Yeah, just about, and this is a big moment. I've gotten through a couple of times, but I'd like to thank you for standing behind him this time. I think we've got the right man. I'd sure like to see him running with Newt, though.

RUSH: Well, that isn't going to happen. But I am hearing that the front-runner now for the veep is Mitt Romney.

RUSH: Tell me what it is you like about McCain. You liked him in 2000, what do you like about him now?

CALLER: Here's a man that, you know, he had a chance to go home early, he showed his bravery in combat, while he's being tortured. I don't agree with everything he's done politically, but --

CALLER: -- I think what he wants to do is reach across the line. If there was one thing I wish he would do, I wish somebody would stand up for term limits for Congress.

RUSH: (laughing) Fat chance. What do you admire about somebody stepping across the aisle?

CALLER: Well, I'm very conservative. But I think I'm also like John McCain, I'm a great enjoyer of the outdoors. Now I think we should drill in ANWR. I think we're capable of doing that. But I think there are some ideas that come from the left that are their weight.

RUSH: Wait a second. You think conservation is an exclusively liberal idea and policy?

CALLER: No, not at all, but I think back, I'm 51 years old, and I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire in Cleveland, and, you know, I think industry needed to be reined in but I think what we've done now -- and I find it amazing that the left has any credibility with labor because they are the ones that shut the factories down. But something had to be done, and as the pendulum swings, sometimes it swings too far in each direction, but I'm always open for new ideas.

RUSH: Let me tell you something. I'm listening to you with a great deal of patience and a great deal of restraint. We are at a crucial juncture in this country. As the left is currently constituted, there's not one step across the aisle worth taking. The biggest problem that we face is that too many on our side have a convoluted impression of the success inherent in crossing the aisle, as you have just expressed. There are some on our side, mostly in the media, who want to tout the advantages of a Big Government run by conservatives, that they cancel each other out. There's no such thing as a Big Government run by conservatives that stays big and is big on purpose and grows. That's not what conservatism is. The idea of crossing the line, let them cross the line. How come they never cross the line? Why is it always up to us? How come when we start criticizing things in the world, why do we always start criticizing ourselves first? There's yet another poll out from the McLaughlin Group. I think that's the group, the actual name of the company, but they're famous, they're out there doing a lot of polls, and they've come up with another conclusion: Republicans must rebrand conservatism or find a new kind of conservatism.

There isn't a new kind. There's only one. Conservatism doesn't need revisions. Conservatism is founded in individual liberty and freedom. As such, it will never go out of style. When we start crossing the aisle with these people -- and by that, I mean accepting their version of things -- if we're compromising principle in the process, then we are harming ourselves and we're harming the country. If it's worth crossing the aisle with them, why don't we just all become Democrats if that's the answer? I would prefer to have somebody sit around and say to people on the left, "Oh, you want to get that done, come join us, 'cause here's how we're going to do it. Here's how we're going to fix education; here's how we're going to deal with being had; here's how we're going to deal with whatever problem is on the board; here's how we're going to deal with the war on terror. Here's how we're going to deal with bloated budgets. If you're interested in fixing these problems, join us on our side of the aisle. But we're not going to accept your premise, cross the aisle, work with you, so that we can have a little bit of influence on the policies around the edges."

I'm tired of crossing the aisle. I'm tired of hearing about what a great thing it is. I'm worn out with hearing that as the definition of open-mindedness and so forth. Let's go back to the Great Society, 1964. This is 2008. So what are we talking, 44 years. We have a 44-year domestic history of failure after failure after failure of the left's prescriptions for things that need fixing or that need to be addressed, 44 years of failure. Nothing, in anybody's common sense, should recommend that we go back and do it again or continue to try it on the premise that we just haven't spent enough money. We don't even have to just stop in this country. We can go to any country in world history that has been run as a socialist or totalitarian country, and we can see, it doesn't work. If you define work as having a population with individual freedom and liberty, free to be entrepreneurs, economic opportunity, growth and prosperity, peace, free of crime, threat, this sort of thing, you don't find that in any totalitarian, socialist, or communist regime. It's never worked. Not for individuals. It works for the people in power.

So this business of crossing the aisle and have that be some sort of resume enhancement, until we get a handle on this and start getting a little confident and telling them it's time for them to cross the aisle, "But, Rush, but, Rush, we're in the minority." No, we haven't been, just for the last two years. We have the White House, and we had a majority in the House of Representatives, we were going back and forth with the Senate because Trent Lott was giving away Senate seats to Tom Daschle in order to share power to walk across the aisle so they would love us, so they would think that we're not mean-spirited and all that stuff, they would think that we're fair. Look where it got us. It got us Harry Reid, who is one of the meanest, most extreme partisans Washington has ever seen, unapologetic about it, and he's not going to cross any aisle, not on a matter of policy. He'll cross the aisle when the end result is he gets what he wants. They're not going to sacrifice what they want, why should we? What's so fabulous about that? "Well, Rush, what you don't understand is it shows that we can be big people, that we understand a thing larger than ourselves." That's not what it shows. It shows that we don't have confidence in what we believe. It also shows we have people who are more interested in winning elections doing whatever they have to do rather than actually winning elections on the basis of advancing a movement, which gives you a mandate, which, by the way, at the same time, inspires the American people.

Which political party would you rather be part of right now, would you rather be part of a party that has to get up every day and tell people how rotten the country is, how rotten their future is and how they're to blame for it? You've earned too much money, you've been driving your cars that are too big, you've been wasting electricity, you've been voting Republican, whatever. This is a party that has to blame you for everything wrong in this country, and then you, when they come to power, are going to get blamed even more, and you're going to pay the price. There is nothing inspiring about the American left. There is nothing inspiring about today's Democrat Party. It is just the opposite. They depress. They can turn people to medication. Their portrayal of the country, their portrayal of the US military, their portrayal of our place in the world is one of shame and guilt and rage. How in the world does a movement like that get any votes at all? Substantial enough votes, number of votes to win? It happens when the other side doesn't do the exact opposite and start being optimistic, talking about American exceptionalism, telling the American people they're not to blame, they are the reason the country works, that they are the backbone of this country, and more is going to be needed of them, and we need people engaging in commerce, educating themselves, following their dreams, following their passions.

What our job is to do is to get out of your way when you do it. We're not going to have a bunch of regulations in your way; we're not going to punish you when you succeed. The Democrats and the leftists in this country are just the opposite. Now, I realize there are a lot of people in this country who exist on class envy, and you don't have to improve their lives to make them temporarily happy. All you have to do is tell 'em somebody else is getting creamed, tell 'em somebody else is getting hurt, somebody else is suffering, you know, put a little schadenfreude on them, tell 'em somebody else's taxes are going up, tell 'em they're not going to be able to drive their big cars anymore, what have you. And people who will have no resulting benefit to them still go, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, you make it even," because there are people in the country who want to tear the top down to so-call equalize people. That's what the left does. The left never seeks to promote equality by boosting those at the bottom. It's always about tearing down those at the top. There are fewer of them. It's a much better bet, shotgun approach to try to poison the minds of a bunch of middle class and lower class, lower middle-class people than it is the opposite because there's a lot of them. But it can be countered, and it's been shown how it can be countered.

Conservatism, articulated properly and with passion, love for the country, American exceptionalism will attract a crowd. But when it's not articulated by elected leaders or people seeking office, then it's dormant. And then furthermore, when people in the conservatism movement, because they can't find elected leaders to articulate it start saying, "Well, okay, let's redefine conservatism, and let's now say that conservatism has gotta find a way to attach itself to things like the New Deal. Conservatism has to find a way to attach itself to entitlements so that the working class knows that we like 'em and we're not against 'em." It's going to delay the eventual rebirth and salvation of the country, just going to delay it. I'm telling you here and now, crossing the aisle and working with the left is not going to make this country better, it's not going to improve, and it isn't going to do much for you.

Many environmentalists and liberals like $4/gallon gas, but it is a hard-sell to those who have to pay for it. On the one hand, we have dozens of liberal talking heads saying, “We cannot drill our way out of this” we need to have a reason to like $4/gallon gas. Time Magazine comes to the rescue. By the way, this is not a joke. They’re serious.

Excellent article on Wesley Clark and how most people are missing the point of his remarks:

Conservative Review
Issue #32	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	July 6, 2008