While watching a documentary about Hugo Chavez on PBS tonight, I felt the eerie sensation of déjà vu. Chavez was thrown in jail in 1992 for trying to overthrow the government in favor of a Socialist government. He was informed that in order to have Socialist success in a democratic country like Venezuela, he would have use means other than military – in other words, he would have to use the power of the media, celebrity, and persuasion. He ascended to power through television success, by passionately drawing citizens to his Socialist vision of solutions for “the people,” “the masses.” The throngs of his red-shirted devotees march in the streets, chanting like mind-numbed robots, like slaves - worshippers of their Messiah. The wear red shirts every day, just as Chavez does. Since becoming President in 1998, all of the problems that Chavez vowed to fix have been magnified – crime, poverty, distress, poor healthcare. And despite the fact that Chavez’s government controls the economy and every major industry, misery spreads like wildfire as entrepreneurship is tamped down and wealth is confiscated.

Does any of this sound familiar? It does to a female blogger named Marielmesser. As a Venezuelan transplant to the US, she immediately recognized the striking and frightening resemblances between Obama and Chavez, which she lists as “inconsistencies, lies, populism, increase taxes or the perceived wealthy, and hatred of “whites” (as expressed by his wife Michelle).” I myself think of the millions of Americans who have bought - hook, line, and sinker - this Obama media mirage – no substance, merely promises, populism, race baiting, class warfare, platitudes. I think of the millions who are going to overrun Washington DC for his inauguration, with their “YES WE DID!” t-shirts, signs, and chants. I almost sympathize with this messiah who insists that he cannot attend church due to the hoards of followers and media who will swarm him and fellow parishioners. (Why would a messiah need to go to church anyway?)

Our underground conservative movement will be keeping sharp eyes on every move of Obama and formulating our resurgence for future elections. But we have a triply high mountain to climb – we are combating not only Obama, but also the media and millions of the American version of Chavez’s “red-shirts”.

As I observe the contrived struggle between the Democrat Congress and the CEOs of the Big 3 and the UAW, I shake my head in puzzlement as to why forced unionization still seems to make sense to so many people. Few in the mainstream media are discussing the incestuous relationship between the UAW and the Democrat Party, who are falling all over themselves to find a way to give this $25 billion to save the unions, all the while trying to appear to NOT be in the back pocket of this group who funneled over $1.3 million to Democrats in the 2008 election cycle. I watched part of the hearings the other day and was cheering “Bob Corker for President in 2012!!” when the Republican Senator from Tennessee asked the following piercing and forthright questions to the 3 CEOs and Ron Gettelfinger.

CORKER:
Yes, Mr. Nardelli had a representative in our office earlier today that was sharing that, even when they’re operating, even when they’re not making cars, when there’s not a demand for cars, in their plants, they have to operate at 80 percent regardless. And I’d like for you to acknowledge whether that’s true or not. And then I’d like to ask you, Mr. Gettelfinger, why that would be the case.
NARDELLI:
Senator, I’m not sure when you say operate at 80 percent, if you’re suggesting that we have to…
CORKER:
I understand you have agreements in place. Mr. Jim Press was in my office earlier today and explaining that — that, in fact, even when your plants are not needed, they have to operate. And there — there have to be some issues that still cause you to lose money unnecessarily.
NARDELLI:
Maybe what he was referring to, Senator, is that there is a contractual obligation that, when we have to idle a facility, that we do have to continue to pay wages at about 95 percent. I think Ron could be more specific than that.
CORKER:
That seems kind of problematic to me — I mean just on the surface. And it seems to me that you’re asking us for $25 billion to support a clause that in no other business in this country would be tolerated.
And I understand the good job Mr. Gettelfinger is doing on behalf of the employees that are not working but still being paid, but I find it very difficult that you’d be in here asking us for $25 billion, which we know is just the beginning, when you have an agreement in place like that that causes you to have to pay 95 percent of the workers that are not working.:
Yes, Mr. Nardelli had a representative in our office earlier today that was sharing that, even when they’re operating, even when they’re not making cars, when there’s not a demand for cars, in their plants, they have to operate at 80 percent regardless. And I’d like for you to acknowledge whether that’s true or not. And then I’d like to ask you, Mr. Gettelfinger, why that would be the case.
NARDELLI:
Senator, I’m not sure when you say operate at 80 percent, if you’re suggesting that we have to…
CORKER:
I understand you have agreements in place. Mr. Jim Press was in my office earlier today and explaining that — that, in fact, even when your plants are not needed, they have to operate. And there — there have to be some issues that still cause you to lose money unnecessarily.
NARDELLI:
Maybe what he was referring to, Senator, is that there is a contractual obligation that, when we have to idle a facility, that we do have to continue to pay wages at about 95 percent. I think Ron could be more specific than that.
CORKER:
That seems kind of problematic to me — I mean just on the surface. And it seems to me that you’re asking us for $25 billion to support a clause that in no other business in this country would be tolerated.
And I understand the good job Mr. Gettelfinger is doing on behalf of the employees that are not working but still being paid, but I find it very difficult that you’d be in here asking us for $25 billion, which we know is just the beginning, when you have an agreement in place like that that causes you to have to pay 95 percent of the workers that are not working.

Are you yelling “Bob Corker in 2012!” now, too?

Another general point about Michigan. Michigan is not a right-to-work state; in other words, it is a forced-unionization state. Companies opening new plants or factories are NOT opening them in the 28 forced unionization states. They are making a beeline to states like South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, and the 19 other states that are productive and successful. Have you noticed that the increasing number of governors that are crawling to Washington on hands and knees begging for bailouts of their own states are heads of forced unionization states? California, Michigan, Pennsylvania. You certainly don’t see Texas, Florida, Kansas, Tennessee, or Georgia governors with their hands out. There is a simple reason and it is completely wrapped in the issue of unionization.

I am not naïve enough to think that it will ever happen, but I dream about the day that the electorate in the forced unionization states would have the ability to change via the voting booth their states’ status in this regard and have the chance to make their states, companies, and citizens magnets for job creation, prosperity, freedom, and economic growth. Until then, people will have to vote with their feet, uprooting their families and moving to states where they are free to work where they please, associate with whom they please, and donate to the politicians and causes in which they believe. The impending demise of the secret union ballot will only increase economic bleeding – nay, hemorraghing – until loud voices of reason bring this danger to the forefront of the political discussion.

According to a frightening website  that literally sent a shiver up my spine, Senator Obama has a 100% pro-choice rating based on his legislative voting record. As a pro-life activist and well-informed voter, I was certainly aware of his pro-abortion record, but I am afraid that a large cross-section of the electorate was not and still is not. This website (the “rh” in the website refers to reproductive health) detailed more specific aspects of Barack Obama’s pro-abortion stance, and drills it down even to emergency contraception (supports it for women over age 18), parental consent (opposes it), and federal funding of crisis pregnancy centers.

Barack Obama opposes federal funding of crisis pregnancy centers. Why? As a politician who rabidly supports abortions being performed in military hospitals, being paid for by the federal government, being performed on third-trimester babies by delivering them feet first and stabbing them in the skull, why would I be surprised that he opposes supporting crisis pregnancy centers? Obama claims that he wants to reduce the number of abortions in America, but by cutting off funding to centers which can help women with emotional support, material support and pre-natal care, and adoption services, he may as well drive them to the abortion clinic and perform the abortion himself. So much for wanting to prevent abortions and encourage family values and adoptions.

Barack Obama opposes EVERY legal restriction on abortion. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
He opposes giving women the CHOICE to keep the child alive through counseling, assistance. He even supports allowing a child who has survived an abortion to die on the table by denying the child medical care and legal protection under the law. Forget “pro-choice” – that is flatly “pro-abortion”. No – that is infanticide.

I don’t care what hopes you have for Obama to change the economy, to save the stock market, to save your job, to save the auto industry – if you can’t count on him to step in to save the life of a child who has survived attempted murder, what good is the rest of it?
To paraphrase a minister interviewed on CNN pre-election, economies come and go, but God’s view on His creation never changes.

As Obama takes a page from Abraham Lincoln and mulls which token Republican to insert in his Cabinet, he has few Senatorial choices based on the criteria I believe he should consider. Some of the tactics will hurt our Republican cause even more but are realistic strategies that Obama is most likely pondering when narrowing down candidates.

1. This person should be a Republican in the sunset of his/her career, who would not need to seek a new government position at the end of Obama’s four year (God willing) administration. If said Senator comes from a very red state, he might not be able to re-gain a seat as a Republican in the Senate after serving an Obama administration, especially if conservatives are as dead-set against Obama in 2012 as in 2008.

2. This person should be a very conservative Republican to shock the systems of those of us who are rolling our eyes at and scoffing at the notion of a bi-partisan Obama cabinet. Choosing an Olympia Snowe or Chuck Hagel would certainly not be impressive or startling.

3. This person should NOT be John McCain. Please do not put your bootheel on our throats while we are down. We’ve been beaten down enough and can’t take any more after what we endured in this election. Selecting McCain would be insult piled on top of injury.

4. This person, to most effectively wound our Republican caucus, should be a well-respected and commanding vote-mover in the Senate. Snatching such a person would have the added benefit for Obama of not only marshalling the gravitas and persuasive power of that person for himself, but also depriving the Senate Republicans of a mover and shaker when it comes to key votes so that state’s Governor must replace him with a less experienced person.

5. This person should be from an on-fire red state that Obama did not win in 2008 so that when he is up for re-election, he has a better chance of switching another red state to blue by virtue of demonstrating that if a conservative Republican Senator can work in concert with a Democrat president, then surely there should be no hesitation in voting for a Democrat as supposedly bi-partisan as Obama.

6. This person ought to be chosen for a typically conservative-issue Cabinet spot. For instance, selecting a true hawk for Secretary of Defense would truly demonstrate bi-partisanship, instead of choosing a weak, linguine-spined, fence-straddling RINO who will be a yes-man to Obama instead of challenging him and his intellectual honesty.

I most certainly do not offer these thoughts as an assist to Barack Obama, but as the opposition, we should be one step ahead!

To paraphrase a Rush Limbaugh axiom, when one tries to give the other side everything it wants in the hope that they will one day reciprocate, it backfires EVERY TIME. This has proven true as long as time immemorial when Republicans have tried to “play nice” with Democrats, only to end up eating dirt with knives in our backs while the Democrats huddle together and laugh themselves silly that Republicans were such suckers. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman…and I sure didn't see Democrats flocking to Sen. McCain in this election.

I believe the same Limbaugh principle holds true when examining the relationship between the Big Three automakers and the UAW. For decades, Ford, Chrysler, and GM have bent over backwards while simultaneously succumbing to a stranglehold by the unions. Talk about a painful position! The pickle the American automakers find themselves in presently is not a sudden, unforeseen emergency…this has been a long time coming and no objective, thinking person should be surprised. Precisely the reason why a taxpayer bailout is unwarranted.

Well-known, long-standing bad business models and weak negotiating are not sufficient reasons to demand a quick fix from John and Jane Public. Even though I initially oscillated back and forth on the merits of the TARP program, I ended up calling my Senators and Congressman in support of it. I have since changed my mind, seeing that credit markets have barely thawed and that Hank Paulson was flying by the seat of his pants on the economic CPR plan. I do believe that our entire financial market system IS too big to fail, but that market forces are the only solution that will heal the deep wounds long-term. The feds can inject as much money as they like, but I do not believe it will save the patient. I believe precisely the same thing when it comes to “fixing” the auto industry.

Bankruptcy filings, re-organization, de-unionization, moving the businesses to “right-to-work” states or changing the labor laws in the state of Michigan, and job training programs are the only steps that will make the Big Three competitive with foreign car companies like Toyota, BMW, Hyundai, and others. These profitable car companies have large factories in right-to-work states, are thereby not unionized, and pay their workers an average of $48/hour compared with $73.20/hour with unionized workers at the Big Three. How on earth can the union leadership claim, as Ron Gettelfinger did on November 15, that essentially the unions have sacrificed enough already? Clearly they would rather lose their jobs than take a paycut. I would rather get a smaller paycheck than get no paycheck at all, especially if the organization to which I belong has brought this upon itself.

Finally, the claim that filing for bankruptcy would put millions out of work is bunk. How many airlines have declared bankruptcy but are still flying people all over the world at this very moment? Bankruptcy would simply force these failed companies with rotten business models and policies to come to grips with reality and re-tool. This creates a frightening precedent for every other industry that has its hands in the Democrats’ back pocket and is preparing to put their left hand out while stabbing the country in the back with the other. The unions’ staunch support of Democrats may finally pay off, but at a grave cost to the entire nation.

Quick! Can you name the present RNC Chairman? I’d bet my house that you had no idea that Mike Duncan heads up our political party. Nor would I be surprised. I understand that the role of the RNC Chairman is to strategize, support, and fundraise, but should the head of our party be so unknown? So invisible? So out-of-touch? This is precisely the time when we need a conservative cheerleader, an innovative visionary, a friendly “face” of the party.

We have a certain reputation: Grumpy Old Men. Grand OLD Party. Harrumph. That is NOT how we should be perceived, but unfortunately, we have earned it. There is nothing wrong with being an older white male like Mike Duncan, Newt Gingrich, or any number of other prominent Republicans. However, when those are the only folks who earn national positions, it gives the appearance that our party does not value the insight, participation, or leadership of other groups which make up the patchwork quilt of both our party and our country as a whole. This is not something we can turn around in the next election cycle, but there are a few tangible steps we can take to make inroads into the broader American electorate.

I do believe, sadly, that in the black community, for instance, conservatives have felt that the mountain is so insurmountable that we should not even bother taking the first step. Many believe that first step is to support the grassroots effort to elect Michael Steele as the RNC Chairman. I’m afraid that our political opponents will tar this as affirmative action, as tit-for-tat to compete with a black President-elect, but it would be anything but those things. This would give a loud and powerful voice to the members of our movement who have felt outnumbered and unwelcome despite the fact that they hold many of the same values as the movement does. Polls demonstrate clearly that many in the black community support traditional marriage, pro-life stance, school choice and vouchers, strong involvement of religious groups in solving community problems, and lower taxes. Although it was the Republicans who pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1968, blacks are a monolithic Democrat voting block and those who stray to the Republican party are labeled with ugly and divisive terms like “Uncle Tom” (Colin Powell). Michael Steele has the ability to reach out his hand with a warm welcome to those in the black community who share our beliefs.

One other strategy that will, over time, swing the young vote in our candidates’ favor is much more integral and grasssroots involvement on college campuses and with young professionals. Groups such as College Republicans, Young Republicans, and social networking groups on meetup.com, facebook.com, and myspace.com could make small chunks of money from the RNC go far in recruiting and educating young people. Younger voters believe we are the party of their parents and grandparents, of the wealthy, of the elite and out-of-touch. We could take a page from the Obama campaign, who used technology to reach college-age Americans and twentysomethings, and who will continue to reach his 3 million campaign contributors through text-messaging and other means.

I learned today that Obama will be posting his weekly radio address on YouTube in addition to playing it on the radio. Brilliant! Obvious! Why do we not embrace these changes? After all, fewer young people listen to the radio, but we are all on YouTube. Why could we not have thought of these basic updates to our message and communication means? In order to persuade younger voters that we are not geezers or Neanderthals out of touch with their world and concerns is to be where they are and to communicate with them the way their friends do.
These are basic changes, changes that will put us on the road to modernizing our party - reaching out to people who misjudge us, but really through no fault of their own. We need to take responsibility for our failings and work for the election of Michael Steele, who can help us to course-correct.

As an American Catholic, I was sickened and shocked to learn that Barack Obama received the lion’s share of the Catholic vote in this election; however, some of my surprise evaporated when I saw that the Bishops waited until AFTER Obama won to issue their most forceful denunciation of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Obama openly and clearly stated his intention during the campaign to make signing the legislation his first act as President. While the Catholic Church has always taught that the protection of innocent life should be the overriding concern when a Catholic goes into the voting booth, perhaps the Bishops took for granted that Catholics would adhere to that teaching, especially after voting in large numbers for President Bush in 2004 (52% versus 46% in 2000). Of course, the electorate is comprised of plenty of cafeteria Catholics, who pick and choose the teachings and issues that are the most palatable, appetizing, and easy to swallow. Don't misunderstand - I certainly am not your picture-perfect Catholic but there have to be lines that are not crossed. Those Catholics mistakenly believed that the war, their 401(k), and “change” took precedence over the horror of legalizing the barbaric act of delivering infants feet first, sticking scissors into the base of the skull, and sucking the child’s brains out. I would apologize for being so graphic and hitting my readers over the head, but I’m not sorry. Catholics ought to understand that for which they voted when casting a vote for Barack Obama. They voted for:

-striking down all restrictions

-allowing federal finding for abortion

-partial-birth abortion

-restricting counseling women in crisis pregnancy toward other life-preserving options

-forcing Catholic hospitals to murder unborn children or shut down (they will shut down before they betray their consciences). 

It was not until November 11 that the Bishops declared that they will FIGHT Obama on the issue of abortion. Perhaps this fight should have started about nine months ago, when it might have actually made a difference. Unfortunately, I believe the Bishops and all other like-minded Americans who abhor the massacre of unborn children will never be able to sway Obama’s firm stance that the abortion industry should be completely unregulated. The electorate should have been the target group to persuade. An ironic note about regulation, upon which I will expound in further writings:  for a party who decries the supposed deregulation in the housing market, the financial market, Wall Street, and every other industry they are itching to get their paws on, the sacred abortion industry should be left to manage itself behind a veil of “privacy” and secrecy? Although it may be a futile effort, we still are obligated to ascertain that this legislation never reaches the White House, where it would inevitably be signed. And we must call upon the only One who can truly change the hearts of our misguided lawmakers.

 I miss Hillary. Sincerely, I do. There is a song that plays in the background of a local Independence Blue Cross Insurance commercial, and the jingle perpetually loops in my head: “I wish that I knew what I know now.” When the primaries first began what seems like two centuries ago, I was sure that hearing Hillary’s screeching and nagging voice and contrived laugh for four years would surely be the death of me.  Not to mention that I disagree with her 95% of the time (only 5% less than I disagree with Barack Obama), so the danger of her policies goes without saying. But compared with our current President-Elect, I’d take Hillary back in a blue minute. If Hillary would have beat John McCain, I don’t think I would have been as physically ill as I was on Election Day. Here’s why.

Hillary called out Barack Obama on his thin resume. 

"There are differences between our records and our accomplishments. I have to confess, I was somewhat amused, the other night, when, on one of the TV shows, one of Senator Obama's supporters was asked to name one accomplishment of Senator Obama, and he couldn't."

Hillary agreed with Republicans that Obama’s openness to meeting with the dictators from Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela with no pre-conditions is dangerous and I do not believe she would have been linguine-spined when dealing with these rogue players.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Hillary sounded like a conservative when it came to handling Iran should they attack Israel.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

And finally, we will constantly have to remind the Democrats of Hillary’s new definition of patriotism that she introduced in a screeching screed several years ago when lambasting the Bush administration. Apparently, Senator Clinton supports that Republicans will be vociferously exercising the freedom of speech and opposition that Obama will squish like a bug during his administration:

 

So many “conservative” pundits in the media are lamenting the fact that many conservatives, prominent talk show hosts included, have not taken a break from raising the red flags about the radical President-Elect Barack Obama. He hasn’t even taken office yet – we should let him have some time to govern before we start criticizing him, the argument goes.

First, as a brief sidebar, may I remind everyone that the term “govern” apparently doesn’t describe the Obama presidency. Obama’s spokeswoman says that Obama is “ready to really take power and rule on day one”(http://media.newsbusters.org). Yikes. Doesn’t that give you shivers? But I guess presidents govern. Messiahs rule.

If Obama would like to be given a honeymoon, perhaps he should stop playing pretend president until the inauguration. Maybe, as presidential tradition and etiquette dictate, he should leave President Bush’s Executive Orders alone until inauguration. Not only is he already warming up the shredder to recycle Bush’s orders into house-breaking crate lining for the new puppy, but he seems keen on starting with the most controversial ones, like stem-cell research funding. So much for a moderate Obama, eh?

We learned today that Obama also broke with the presidential tradition of keeping discussions with the current President confidential. Mysteriously, the topics of their conversation were leaked today, much to the annoyance of President Bush. Already Obama is breaking the rules and sullying the honor of the office by acting, frankly, unpresidential. Don’t fool yourself – it was no junior staffer mistakenly inserting foot-in-mouth – this was a deliberate attempt on Obama’s part to “sharp elbow” President Bush into ceding his authority and buckling to the unions’ bailout demands through public embarrassment. Despicable.

Finally, Obama has made it abundantly clear that he has subscribed to Marxist theories for decades. Although his legislative career is short, his philosophies are discussed openly in his autobiographies and revealed in rare interviews. The few controversial issues he voted on in the Illinois and US Senate were radically left of the American electorate. We should have no illusions about the direction Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will take this country. And although they are smugly certain that they have a mandate, the uneducated electorate handed them this power solely based on economic panic – NOT on the upcoming frightening assaults on the First and Second Amendments and a massacre on the unborn.

The media has tried to semi-successfully talk some conservatives off the ledge by blowing off all of the clear signs Obama has already given us of his intentions. We must remain bright-eyed and vigilant watchdogs. We must not allow any legislation to be coated with sugar to make it go down more easily. As Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) eloquently said on Fox News Sunday, “The purpose of the opposition is to oppose…” And oppose we shall. Starting now.

 As a former member of the evil “big Pharma” community, I have heard all sorts of marketing plans. The goal of every marketing plan is, of course, to sell your product. On the other hand, the most successful marketers know that they must balance keeping customers happy with meeting their own needs of making money. What does this have to do with the recent shellacking of the Republicans in the election? We need to take a page from successful companies, organizations, and Democrats – yes, Democrats -  and translate our conservative beliefs into HOW those beliefs will empower fellow Americans and better their lives.

What Republicans have been doing most recently is TELLING but not SELLING. They built a decades-long platform on small government and forcing government to live within its means. That platform disintegrated, in many people’s view, with the financial rescue bill spearheaded by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Additionally, over the years, President Bush and the Republican Congress continued to allow billions to be poured down the black hole of the Department of Education, Medicare Part D, the arts, and on and on. John McCain had a funny stump line which would have been funnier had he not repeated it at every blessed campaign stop: he recalled how the federal government has sponsored $3 million worth of research on the DNA of bears in Montana. No wonder Americans voters were disgusted with the Republican party.

Ironically, Democrats ALSO tell, but they SELL in increments to keep the customers coming back again and again, as well as ADDING customers as they did in this election. They have mastered the art of serving numerous opposing constituencies. Democrats feel the ends justify the means – say what you need to say to whoever needs to hear it for the purpose of hoarding more power. As a puzzling example, they seem to effortlessly balance the demands of whacko environmentalists (who don’t want any of us to drive anything) with the unions who control the auto industry (which manufactures said fossil fuel burners by the millions). Ironically, Barack Obama openly opposes gay marriage but has Hollywood gay-rights activists in his hip pocket. Obama also got a large share of the supposedly pro-life Catholic vote by speaking of a (contrived) desire to reduce the number of abortions while proclaiming that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) (http://www.FightFOCA.com). Essentially, they dangle the carrot by giving each constituency a little bit of what they want now to keep those groups coming back for more in future elections.

A local radio talk show host recalled the other day the silly charts and graphs H. Ross Perot used to educate the electorate. But Perot really had hit on something – Americans really are in the dark about how percentages, statistics, and huge numbers trickle down and affect them. Barack Obama struck a chord with his simple “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” mantra.  I would have cheered to see John McCain whip out a white board and SHOW how Barack Obama’s tax increases break out to monthly paychecks.  Even if Obama does not raise taxes on the top 5% during this downturn, he is still going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which will affect EVERY tax-paying family. If McCain would have broken out a marker and an easel to show that $2500 tax increase will mean that $200 will evaporate from each paycheck, people might have GOTTEN the conservative argument (but alas, we still would have lost, I’m afraid…). What does that $200 buy every month? A few dinners out? The electric bill? Car repairs? That’s how you bring the lofty, abstract policies and asinine sound bites down to ground level. That’s how you sell it.

As we regroup over the next two to four years, Republicans should take a page from our opponents and learn NOT how to be disingenuous or double-talking, but to explicitly spell out HOW our policies empower our “customers” in their every day lives. Then we need to DO IT.

 

We all saw pre-election man-on-the-street interviews, inquiring of Barack Obama supporters why they intended to vote for him. "He's gonna bring change..." was the standard response.

Well, what accomplishments of his do you admire?

---Crickets---

What policies of his do you support?

Hmmmm....

What experience does he have that qualifies him to be president?

Ummmm... 

This was painfully illustrated when Howard Stern (more conservative than you may think!) sent a reporter into the streets to ask such questions, but he sharply clarified the sheer ignorance of the electorate by attributing John McCain's views to Barack Obama to see if the mind-numbed robots being queried had educated themselves on the candidates' basic policy differences.

Agree with Obama's strong pro-life stance?

Absolutely!

Agree with Obama that we need to keep the troops in Iraq until the war is won?

You bet!

Oy vey.

If this were not such a serious election with such grave issues in the world, it would have been humorous but instead made me sad and terrified for my country and the disservice its electorate was doing her.

At the core of the problem is the tendency for voters, it seems to me, liberals disproportionately so, to vote with their hearts and not with their heads.  Call us conservatives cold-hearted or pragmatic - we have been called worse.  If I may be so bold as to speak for the conservatives in this country, we tend to actually knock the issues around in our gray matter to determine if a candidate meets our standards. 

For example, when Sarah Palin ignited a trembling fervor in conservatives not felt since Ronald Reagan, it was not due to Messianic-cult-of-personality-worship or because she has two X chromosomes or a fascinating lifestyle. It was because when we did our mental pro/con lists, she met our standards for a conservative politician.

She firmly adheres to her side of each issue and bears these beliefs out in her every day life (respect for God’s precious children, for example). In spite of the petty attacks by the mainstream media and lies spread by her own campaign staffers, Sarah Palin demonstrated herself to be a thinking, fierce, principled woman who articulates these beliefs in the language of the common American.

It will take a long time for me to trust the American electorate again. As for the media? Who knows? They may be in the doghouse for generations.

I am not blind to the fact that our candidate, the self-styled “straight-talker”, failed to adequately educate the American people about the state of the country and the world and how he intended to get this train back on the tracks. Nor am I blind to the fact that, conversely, their candidate exhibited extraordinary adeptness at brainwashing the electorate with bumper sticker slogans while simultaneously tiptoeing around every uncomfortable issue, lying about his record, and denying knowledge about all the numerous low-life creeps in his past.

Amazing. No wonder the voting public was confused. They were hypnotized by the “cool and calm” factor and by the ability to schmooze catty women on morning chat fests.  It was easier to just swallow the media’s information puree so we wouldn’t have to think about or research basic issues.

Like voting for infanticide.

…slamming small-town folk as bitter.

…accusing the very men and women he claimed to want to lead as Commander-in-Chief of air-raiding villages. 

…the desire to shut down free speech via the Fairness Doctrine.

…handing out “rebate” checks to people who don’t pay income tax.

At the end of President Obama’s four year term, I can only hope that his record as America’s most leftist President will speak for itself so the electorate can come out of the Obama-fog and see him clearly for what he truly represents and avoid that painful thing called…thinking.