I only recently discovered this great television show called "Kings."  It is a modern retelling of the biblical story of King David.  I am not familiar with that story but I find the show very entertaining and compelling.  I also just learned that the show is being canceled due to abysmal ratings.  I suspect most of you have never even heard of the show.  This biblically-themed show has received minimal advertisement and poor scheduling despite its great critical acclaim.  Could it be that the higher ups had second thoughts about airing a show with such religious undertones?

If you were to watch the show, you may scoff at this suggestion as either paranoid or the reactionary rantings of a tv show's fan, and under normal circumstances I'd agree with you.  But these are not normal circumstances.  Jeff Zucker, the head of NBC, has seriously damaged the companies under his control, taking MSNBC in a far far left direction in which hateful rants are the norm.  Other than the Office, most of NBC's primetime lineup is filler.  When a show such as Kings comes along, one can decide to fill primetime slots with multiple episodes of Law and Order (good but homogenous) and other less notable shows - or take a chance on the new show.  Given Zucker's far-left secular orientation it is hard to imagine that "Kings" biblical theme did not play a role in its poor treatment.

Compare "Kings" treatment with NBC's other terminating series, "Crusoe," which received a great deal more advertisement.  Crusoe is a dreadfully monotone show that all the running through jungles cannot salvage.  I would invite you to watch a couple episodes of "Kings", available on NBC's site, and give me your thoughts.  I don't expect everyone to share my tastes but the show is well written with great acting.  One must wonder why is was treated so shabbily.

At the Chicago Tea Party, I observed hundreds of signs, flags and banners. I walk around the perimeter of the crowd and through the middle of it. I listened to the speakers on the stage and to conversations in the crowd. I was shocked to see Susan Roesgen's characterization  of the protest on the news later in the day.  When she began "I have to say that this is not entirely representative..." I was sure she was going to say "of all the protesters here," but instead she said "of everybody in America."

I missed her rant while at the Tea Party but heard the protesters around her chanting "CNN GO HOME" and saw them blocking the camera.  The signs around her were more inflammatory than any others in the crowd.  Half a dozen police officers were summoned and a plainclothes officer stood nearby but they soon left since nothing was happening. At that point she and her cameraman decided to leave. She had a pretty sour look on her face and I caught her eye for a moment but she showed no sort of regret for her report (the substance of which I was unaware at that point).

Here she is, with one of the inflammatory signs she decided to stand in front of:


Immediately behind Ms. Roesgen, were "anonymous" protesters holding anti-Scientology signs. She might as well have pretended them to be representative of the protest.

What are these tea parties about? Some claim they are just a laundry list of complaints by a bunch of sore losers. The Chicago Tea Party that took place (in Chicago) was nothing of the sort. There was neither sign nor mention of issues like abortion, stem cells, national security, health care, immigration, gay marriage, or the other usual conservative complaints.  This was a protest about the runaway government spending and the threat it poses to the future of our nation and the impact it already has on our daily lives.

"Capitalist Pig" Jonathan Hoenig spoke to the crowd, excoriating President Bush for his excessive spending and his advocacy of the first bailout. There were half a dozen signs in the crowd similarly blaming Republicans as well as Democrats.  Hoenig explained the challenge we now face as "collectivism" versus "individualism."  According to Hoenig, it is a matter of having the government take our money to provide for us in its best judgment or leaving the money in our hands for us to spend according to our own best judgment.

Picking up on this theme of self-determination, John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute, urged the protesters to lead themselves.  He argued that government bureaucracy will gain greater control over the choices we have by controlling the corporations with its essential ownership of them.  Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Vice President of the Illinois Policy Institute, cautioned against ignoring local threats, citing the 50% proposed income tax increase in Illinois.

Some in the crowd complained about tax increases, many about spending.  One man was concerned about the fate of his small company which does much of its business online.  Another man, standing at the edge of the crowd commented that 'these people aren't supid, even if their taxes don't go up now, they will later.'

Is such a protest too esoteric? Is the threat of taxation and runaway spending so complex that the protesters cannot possibly be motivated by their own sincere convictions? Those who believe that the government should provide for us would say yes, that we are too dumb to understand what it means for someone else to spend our money.  And that is what these protests are all about.

Here is a view of the protesters:

An elementary school student is not being allowed to dance in the school talent show while wearing an Obama mask because it would be "potentially offensive" - though the principal refused to explain how. I wonder if he would be allowed to do the dance dressed as Jesus.

Barack Obama promised to improve our reputation in the world and to carry out a more sophisticated foreign policy.  Unfortunately, the administration has had some difficulty getting up to speed.  Earlier this month, there were a series of gaffs when the British Prime Minister arrived for his first official visit with President Obama.  There was also the minor, though absurd, mistake when Secretary of State Clinton gave the Russian Foreign Minister a toy red button which should have read "Reset" in Russian but instead read "Overcharged."  It was gimmicky and poorly executed.

Additionally, there was the secret letter from President Obama to the President of Russia offering to scrap our development of a missile defense shield if Russia convinced Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.  Not only is this kind of positional bargaining a naive approach to foreign affairs but also ignores the concerns of our allies like Poland and the Czech Republic who want the missile defense shield.  Now there is talk of Russia establishing bases in Cuba and Venezuela.

Watch the video below for a French view on President Obama's approach to foreign affairs.  This is a popular French political satire show done with puppets.  It often criticized President Bush as being unintelligent and portrayed his sidekick as Sylvester Stallone.  It looks like Freedom Fries might be coming back under President Obama if they keep this up.  If the French don't like our foreign policy, we must be doing something wrong.

I will be voting in the great city of Chicago tomorrow - like throwing a penny into a wishing well.  As you may know, Obama is holding his election night rally down in Grant Park.  Part of me wants to go check it out - for the historic value.  And the potential for rioting is certainly exciting.  Would you go if you had the opportunity? 

Are Republicans Losing the War?
John McCain may be their savior

Government provided health care is probably an inevitability.  Especially as the gap between rich and poor increases.  And conservative tax policies contribute to that gap.  Overall views about abortion have continued to relax and few Americans concern themselves about the "technicalities" of federalism.  The American public has always been wary of war (as we should be) but there is a growing number of people who believe that war is never justified, despite the new threats we face.  As liberal courts affect social policy in ways opposed by most Americans, most Americans eventually come to see it the court's way.  And while conservative courts may respect American social mores, they are more willing to allow the government and corporations to invade our privacy.

As stated above, Republicans contribute to this erosion of their power through conservative tax policies.  Bush has made his share of missteps, like any president, but has also followed an aggressive foreign policy inconsistent with his original isolationist rhetoric and has increased the budget while borrowing more money from China.  I am not arguing about the merits or necessity of government policies under Reagan, Bush Sr., or G.W. Bush.  I am questioning the ultimate result, however.  Every time a Republican president acts in non-conservative ways, the party loses its legitimacy to argue that they really will be conservative the next time.  And for every conservative idea that is good in theory but ignorant of social realities, Republicans lose respect.

Certain segments of the Republican Party have become blind to this growing reality.  They have a 'damn-the-torpedoes,-full-speed-ahead' belief that a hard conservative sprint will get us to some finish line.  Perhaps it's because they see the T-Rex of liberalism gnashing its teeth in the rear-view mirror that they see no other option.

John McCain fell out of favor with "conservatives" for offering a new option.  McCain clearly cares about the security of our nation.  When political pressure mounted for the government to finally deal with the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico, conservatives had but a single idea: big wall.  While that has arguably had some success with keeping illegals out, McCain pushed for a more comprehensive plan that addressed the economic and humanitarian issues surrounding persons already here.  In his view, it is possible to protect our nation while following a realistic and humanitarian policy.

John McCain has also been more vocal about environmental concerns than "conservatives" would prefer.  "Conservatives" have accepted McCain's push for a comprehensive energy plan that includes wind and solar power because he now includes: drill now.

John McCain sought compromise in order to affirm virtually all of Bush's nominees to federal courts (including Roberts and Alito) while "conservatives" only wanted to hear: nuclear option.  If that view had prevailed, a potential President Obama would be able to push through any liberal judge he could choose.  Again, McCain was looking toward the future.

John McCain has been arguing for the last 8 years that we cannot cut taxes while not also cutting spending.  "Conservatives" have had a hard time thinking beyond: cut taxes.  They fail to realize that every dollar we spend that does not come from taxes, we have to borrow from China and others.  McCain again has looked toward the future.

Some moderates have become confused as John McCain has tried to wrestle the steering wheel away from the big-wall-drill-now-nuclear-option-cut-taxes Republicans.  Moderates wonder if he is the same forward-looking pragmatist when he promises to cut taxes and drill now.  I know that he is - because he is a forward-looking pragmatist.  He can get our nation on the right track and save the Republican Party from itself, but first he has to convince the lead-footed "conservatives" to get out of the driver's seat.  Having Palin in the passenger seat is helping enormously to convince them that McCain knows what he is doing.  The same thoughtfulness that lead us to admire McCain's conservatism and vision should now give us the faith to elect him president.

In his acceptance speech, Obama declared that "John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time . . . I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change."

What Obama fails to mention is that he has voted with his party 97% of the time.  While President Bush has a low approval rating of 30%, the Democrat-controlled Congress has an even lower approval rating of about 15%.  Obama is not offering the kind of post-partisanship he initially promised, he is offering more of the same.

McCain's critics apparently have a low opinion of women.  They assume that Sarah Palin doesn't have the skill and judgment to lead our nation.  Fair-minded people are waiting to hear more from her, rather than just dismissing her as incapable.  In her first appearance, Palin appeared strong, comfortable, and disarmingly down-to-earth.

Liberals lament the fact that McCain did not choose a white male with longtime government experience.  No matter how experienced a woman McCain might have chosen, liberals would have called her a bald-faced grab for disaffected Hillary voters, as they are doing now.  They complain that Palin is nothing but a Hillary-decoy.  It is no secret that Palin is proudly conservative and notably pro-life.  She is also a brunette . . . did McCain really think he could sneak that past anyone!

Until McCain breaks out the hair dye and flattering yellow pantsuit, those kinds of comments are nothing but insulting to the intelligence of women.  It may flabbergast critics to learn that there are independent-minded women who will be attracted to a McCain-Palin ticket.  And the great thing about the presidency is that real people can be elected.  We do not need the people on TV or in the newspapers telling us what qualifies a person to be president.  If we want to do something wild and crazy like elect a governor to be vice president, we should do so.

"What is it exactly that the Vice President does every day?" asked Sarah Palin in an interview awhile back, before she was chosen by John McCain to be his VP.  She insisted that if she were VP, she would want to be active so that the position is "fruitful."  Much has been made of this quote by the media as revealing either naivety or ignorance.

"The vice presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm [urine]," said FDR's Vice President John Nance Garner.  That has been the prevailing view through most of our history.  What the VP does is largely defined by the president.  The media is aware of this fact and has taken note of it through the years.  So the real question is why the media is presuming Palin to be ignorant rather than figuring that she was advocating for a more active role as VP?

Right out of the gate, the Obama campaign criticized Sarah Palin for being a "former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.”  Commentators argue that this takes the "experience issue" off the table. They have all gotten so lost in the debate that they have forgotten what experience means.  It is not a mere abstraction - something any candidate has to have lots of - it is both a test for comparing two candidates and a means for examining a candidate's judgment in light of the challenges he (or she!) has faced.

On the first basis, nothing has changed. John McCain is still more experienced than Barack Obama -  in dealing with legislative matters and domestic and foreign concerns.

On the second basis (of illustrating judgment), John McCain has shown himself to be committed to his principles (some would say stubborn) as when he opposes drilling for oil in Alaska out of concern for the environment.  He has shown himself to be independent, willing to oppose his party on issues where he holds firm to such principles.  He has also shown himself to be willing to join with members of the opposing party in order to preserve the integrity of our government while still accomplishing his goals - as he did in order to have Justices Roberts and Alito confirmed without resorting to a "nuclear option" that would have allowed a Democrat-controlled Senate to push through far-left Supreme Court nominees in the future.  There is also, of course, the way he handled himself while a prisoner for five years in Vietnam.  In the context of judgment, that is not something to be ignored or minimalized.

Barack Obama's experience, unfortunately, does not offer any remarkable examples of good judgement.  As a person he is impressive - having worked his way up in the world, graduated from Harvard, worked to remedy concerns in Chicago neighborhoods, and elected to a state legislature and then the U.S. Senate. It's a good story but we're still all waiting for more specific and notable examples of judgement that make him competent to bring about the kind of change he promises. We have learned that he voted "present" almost 130 times while in the Illinois Senate.  This provides political cover for sensitive issues.  But it doesn't show that Obama stood out from normal politics.  When asked about his accomplishments and how he has reached across party aisles, Obama sounds like any job candidate trying his best to pad his resume.  He just wants the resume to speak for itself - for "change" to be self-proclaiming.

Unfortunately, voters are asking for more. The specificity they desire is not the usual Democratic laundry list Obama offered in his acceptance speech - we've heard it all before.  At the start of his campaign, Obama offered a break from the old politics, he spoke in generalities that suggested he would be a moderate leader who would follow common sense policies.  His record as a legislator has been the exact opposite.  There has been a bait and switch in which an agenda of post-partisanship has been replaced with liberalism.  The specificity voters want is undeliverable - they want to know specifically why Obama is the One suited to bring change.

Now that McCain has chosen Sarah Palin to be his vice president, experience is still on the table. Palin does have limited experience in government, having served on a city council, as a mayor, served as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, and now as governor of Alaska for the past two years. She doesn't have Washington, D.C. experience.  Alaska is bounded by Canada and Russia and she probably has knowledge of foreign affairs based on the sort of regular interactions that occur there, but not at the level of an seasoned D.C. expert like Joe Biden.  This only highlights Obama's comparable lack of experience, however.

We have learned some of the ways that Palin has applied her judgment - raising 5 kids while lowering taxes, fighting corruption, rejecting the spending of federal money for pork-barrel projects, and focusing on building an infrastructure to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  Her experience may be limited but it is also very promising.

The Obama campaign is tragically missing the point if they think "experience" is off the table. If Obama tries to diminish Palin's accomplishments, speaking of her as just a mother who became mayor of a small town or governor of an unimportant state, McCain need only reply, "I don't think he's sexist. I think he's cynical."

After watching Obama's forceful rejection of his Reverend Wright, I was left thinking this is now going to be more than a mere distraction for him.

In prior weeks, the public heard the clips of Wright denouncing America and found them disgusting and probably just the tip of the iceberg. Obama compared Wright to his grandmother - with maybe outdated views, maybe an inflammatory way of speaking, but who expressed otherwise valid ideas. Much of the media accepted this explanation.

In the light of day, in a public forum, Obama seems to finally recognize that which anyone not blinded by partisan support for him already recognized - Wright's worldview is offensive.  Obama demurred when asked today about "black liberation theology" preached at his church, saying he just went to pray, listen to sermons, and help the community. Obama appears to have developed a false impression in his own mind. Deluded himself to the point of risking his presidential bid.

Because of this, the question that will remain is how he went to that church for 20 years and exposed his children to such vitriol, while remaining so willfully ignorant.

Cynics will say Obama only (finally) renounced Wright because politics demanded it.  It would have been politically smarter for Obama to just let Wright to fade, however slowly.  Obama appears genuinely angry, but his speech reveals that Obama suffers from a certain naivety that as long as a good measure of hope and change are at work, the underlying negative elements may be considered mere surplusage.

In his church, the inflammatory sermons were reinterpreted by Obama in light of the church's community outreach and spiritual communion. He missed the underlying worldview being sold to the congregation.

I see the same unfortunate naivety in the substantive issues of the campaign as well.  As long as we just get out of Iraq and change the way we think about the world - to reject the flawed thinking of the Bush administration that got us into the war - then the realities on the ground in Iraq are really not that important.  As long as American soldiers are no longer dying and we can free up funds to be used for education and improving the lives of regular Americans, then the Middle East can be put into context.  We can then engage the Middle East in a hopeful way, by shifting the debate we can deter nuclear proliferation, national ambitions, and Islamic terrorism.  I do not want to put words into Obama's mouth, but this is the proposition he seems to be pushing.

It may be argued that there is a big difference between recognizing objectively harmful remarks while in church and making strategic decisions about the future of the nation. This is true.  But this willful ignorance/naivety now appears to permeate everything Obama says and does.

In light of Obama's admission of either willful ignorance or naivety, he has greatly increased my doubt of his ability to make sound judgments on the issues facing this country.

Some say Huckabee stays in the race to ensure his political future; others say he continues to run simply because he enjoys it.  I don't think any of these self-centered explanations are accurate.  The real reason for Huckabee's persistence is that he intends to keep his word to his supporters.

There seems to be a strong emotional bond between Huckabee and his supporters.  He always has a story about the people he has met in each state and his intention to maintain friendships with them.  One woman even gave Huckabee her grandmother's wedding ring because she had no money.  How can he drop out after making personal, not just political, promises?

The parable of David and Goliath and the potential for miracles are surely also in Huckabee's mind, but are not the driving force.  Huckabee will stay in the race at least until McCain has earned the 1,191 needed to secure the nomination.

Huckabee's persistence helps the Republican party by keeping the Republican nominee in the news and by giving the "true conservatives" an opportunity to grieve over the loss of Romney.  They can vote for Huckabee, not because they think he will win, but because they need to get their frustration out.  Then after McCain earns the rest of the delegates, rather than getting them by default, the "true conservatives" can feel better about supporting him.

In Romney's speech Tuesday night, he related a conversation with his wife in which she told him that nothing in the results was clear.

Speaking as if his wife wasn't even in the room, he said that she was "wrong."  Her expression said it all - she was not a happy camper.  Romney should know better than to tell a woman she is wrong, let alone in an auditorium full of people.

[Unless, of course, that woman is Hillary Clinton]